IN MEMORY OF

Johnnie Raines

Los Angeles County

Civil Grand Jury

2001- 2002

Judge Stephen E. O’Neil

Supervising Judge

“ Let their memory and promise shine within us.”

Deborah Cooper

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Memorial to Judge Stephen E. O’Neil and Mr. Johnnie Raines ………………………… i

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………. ii

Foreperson’s Statement …………………………………………………………………. iv

Introduction to the Civil Grand Jury …………………………………………………………. viii

Oath of Office …………………………………………………………………. xi

Civil Grand Jury Photograph …………………………………………………………. xii

Civil Grand Jury Roster …………………………………………………………………. xiii

Vision Statement …………………………………………………………………. xiv

Officers and Advisors ………………………………………………………………… xv

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Audit Committee …………………………………………………………………… 1

Citizen Complaints Committee …………………………………………………………… 3

Attachments …………………………………………………………………… 5

Edit Committee ………………………………………………………………

Grand Jury and Final Report Awareness …………………………………………… 13

Recommendations …………………………………………………………… 16

Education Committee ………………………………………………………

Los Angeles Unified School District: Use of California State Lottery

Revenues and Expenditures …………………………………………………………... 17

Recommendations …………………………………………………………… 25

Government Operations Committee ………………………………………

Voting Machines …………………………………………………………… 29

Recommendations …………………………………………………………… 35

Commissions …………………………………………………………… 36

Recommendations …………………………………………………………… 37

ii

Health & Human Services Committee ………………………………………

Stroke Centers …………………………………………………………… 48

Recommendations …………………………………………………………… 50

Abandonment of Newborns …………………………………………………………… 51

Recommendations …………………………………………………………… 53

Patient Advocates …………………………………………………………… 54

Recommendations …………………………………………………………… 56

Retail Food Inspections …………………………………………………………… 57

Recommendations …………………………………………………………… 60

Attachments ……………………………………………………….. 61- 64

Jails Committee ………………………………………………

Detention Facilities …………………………………………………………… 65

Juvenile Detention Facilities …………………………………………………… 66

Recommendations …………………………………………………………… 76

Adult Detention Facilities …………………………………………………… 78

Recommendations …………………………………………………………… 85

Attachments …………………………………………………………… 88

Inmate Welfare Fund …………………………………………………………. 116

Recommendations ………………………………………………………….. 119

Biscailuz Recovery Center Domestic Violence Intervention

And Recovery Program ………………………………………………………….. 120

Section 1. Program Curriculum and Operations ………………………………. 124

Recommendations ………………………………………………………….. 135

Section 2. Profile of Program Participants ………………………………….. 137

Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 145

Section 3. Program Costs …………………………………………………….. 146

Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 149

Section 4. Program Results ………………………………………………….. 151

Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 162

Attachments ………………………………………………………………….. 163

iii

Public Safety Committee ………………………………………………………….

Application of Law Enforcement ………………………………………………….. 191

Recommendations ………………………………………………………….. 196

Research & Follow- Up Committee ………………………………………………….. 197

Social Services Committee ………………………………………………

MacLaren Children’s Center ………………………………………………

Introduction ………………………………………………………….. 205

Executive Summary ………………………………………………….. 206

Section 1. Introduction ………………………………………………….. 215

Section 2. Population Profile ………………………………………………….. 220

Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 237

Section 3. Criminal Background Checks at MacLaren ……………………….. 239

Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 246

Section 4. Investigating Allegations of Abuse by Staff ………………….. 248

Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 252

Section 5. Recruitment, Hiring and Item Control ………………………….. 254

Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 257

Section 6. Cost/ Staffing Analysis ………………………………………….. 259

Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 275

Department of Children and Family Services ( DCFS)

Introduction ………………………………………………………….. 277

Section 1. Assessing the Quality of Child Abuse

And Neglect Investigations ………………………………….. 293

Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 303

Section 2. Documentation of Reasonable Efforts ………………………….. 305

Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 312

Section 3. Use of Assessment Tools and Procedures ………………………... 313

Recommendations …………………………………………………. 322

Section 4. Use of CWS/ CMS System by Social Workers …………….……… 324

Recommendations …………………………………………………. 328

iv

Department of Children and Family Services ( DCFS)

Committee Investigation ………………………………………………………….. 329

Recommendations ………………………………………………………….. 330

Speakers and Events Committee ………………………………………………………….. 331

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations ………………………………………………

Index of all Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 334

Responses to Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 356

v

INTRODUCTION

Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury

FUNCTIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY

The California Penal Code allows the superior court to impanel two grand juries, one to return

indictments and another to perform the civil functions of accusation and local government

oversight. The Civil Grand Jury performs the civil functions.

The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury is a volunteer body of 23 citizens residing within the

county of Los Angeles who are charged and sworn to respond to citizen complaints and to

conduct inquiries into matters of civil concern within the boundaries of Los Angeles County and

its incorporated cities.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY

The grand jury’s responsibilities and powers are expressed in Chapter 4 of the California Penal

Code ( PC), Sections 3060( ff) of the California Government Code ( GC) and Section 17006 of the

California Welfare and Institutions Code ( W& I)). There are four responsibilities specifically

required of the grand jury and a wide scope of permitted ones. These required responsibilities all

begin with “ the grand jury shall . . .”

“ . . . investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of the officers,

departments, or functions of the county including those operations, accounts and records

of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state

law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers

of the districts. The investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year.

. . . inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county.

. . . inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every

description within the county.

. . . submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and

recommendations that pertain to county government matters.”

AREAS OF ACTION

The Civil Grand Jury’s function, therefore, is the civil investigation of government; it is a

“ citizen watchdog” panel with an agenda of its own choosing. The jury has a dual role: it is a

viii

deliberative body drawing conclusions from evidence, and a fact finding body, not requiring

other agencies to collect information for it.

CONDUCT

The Civil Grand Jury functions lawfully only as a body. No individual grand juror, acting alone,

has any power or authority. Meetings of the Civil Grand Jury are not open to the public. Law

requires all matters discussed before the Civil Grand Jury, and votes taken, to be kept private and

confidential. The end result of inquiries into civil matters are released to the public via a final

report which is approved, prior to release, by the presiding judge or his designee, the supervising

judge of the superior court.

The Civil Grand Jury represents the interest of the public, not individuals, not any organizations

nor any groups with which jurors may have been associated. It is the duty of the grand jurors to

think at all times in terms of public, not personal interest.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Members of the Civil Grand Jury are sworn to secrecy. All grand jury proceedings are secret.

This secrecy guards the public interest and protects the confidentiality of sources. The minutes

and records of grand jury meetings cannot be subpoenaed or inspected by anyone. Matters

before the grand jury should never be discussed outside the grand jury. The Grand Juror’s

promise or oath of secrecy is binding for life ( in perpetuity). By law, it is a misdemeanor to

violate the secrecy of the grand jury room. Successful performance of grand jury duties depends

upon the secrecy of all proceedings.

REQUIREMENTS TO BECOME A GRAND JUROR

Civil Grand Juror candidates must meet all of the following qualifications:

be a citizen of the United States,

be at least 18 years of age,

be a resident of the State of California and Los Angeles County for at least one year

immediately prior to selection,

possess ordinary intelligence, sound judgment, and good character,

must not be serving as a trial juror in any California court,

cannot have been discharged as a grand juror in any California court within one year of

the beginning date of service ( July 1),

ix

cannot have been convicted of malfeasance in office, any felony or other high crime, and

cannot be serving as an elected public official.

JUROR SELECTION PROCESS

In counties over 4 million ( such as Los Angeles County) the law states that there shall be 23

members of the Civil Grand Jury with 4 alternates. These 23 members are selected by an

application, interview and random draw process to serve for a term of one year that begins July 1

and ends June 30.

To be considered, applicants must apply by early November. Those names are placed into a

selection pool along with appointees made directly by judges. Each judge in the County may

recommend two people to the pool of candidates. A panel of judges then interviews candidates,

and by March the pool is reduced to qualifying candidates advanced to the next selection

process. From this list of qualifying candidates, there is a random draw of 40 plus 10 alternates.

A background check is made of the 40 nominees and 10 alternates. In early June, a second

random draw of 23 plus 4 alternates is made from the pool of 40. On July 1, the 23 plus 4 are

sworn in for service as members and alternates of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury.

TIME INVOLVEMENT

The Civil Grand Jury convenes Monday through Friday and each jury determines a work

schedule to meet the requirements of more than 200 work days. Plenary meetings are convened

in chambers. Investigations and site visits are conducted on location. The per diem rate is

$ 25.00, and mileage is reimbursed ( currently 31 cents per mile) for travel to and from the Grand

Jury Offices and for all grand jury business.

Anyone interested in serving on the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury and who meets the

requirements should request further information from:

Los Angeles County Grand Jury Services

320 West Temple Street, 15th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90012

213 - 974 - 5814

http:// grandjury. co. la. ca. us

“ I don’t know what your destiny will be, but one thing I know: the only ones among you who will be really

happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve.”

Albert Schweitzer

x

OATH OF OFFICE

( Penal Code § 911)

“ I do solemnly swear ( affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the

United States and of the State of California, and all laws made pursuant to

and in conformity therewith, will diligently inquire into, and true

presentment make, of all public offenses against the people of this state,

committed or triable within this county, of which the grand jury shall have

or can obtain legal evidence. Further, I will not disclose any evidence

brought before the grand jury, nor anything which I or any other grand juror

may say, nor the manner in which I or any other grand juror may have voted

on any matter before the grand jury. I will keep the charge that will be given

to me by the court.”

Administered by

Judge Stephen E. O’Neil

July 2, 2001

xi

LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY 2001- 2002

Front Row ( left to right) – Sam Hollander, Claire Stone, Marjorie H. Rhodes, Shirley ( Taz) Robinson, Rick Mehling, John L. Lewis,

Michelle M. Wilson, Margarett Tucker, Tammi Sharp, Shirley A. Jordan, Arthur Aratow.

Back Row ( left to right) - Gunter G. Altman, Candelario Arriola, Carole Hatcher, David Cohen, Larry Higgins, James B. Avery, Sr.,

Richard H. Smith, Jaime Pulido, Yvonne M. White.

xii

Los Angeles County

Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002

Full Term

Gunter G. Altman

Arthur Aratow

Candelario Arriola

James B. Avery, Sr.

David Cohen

Carole Hatcher

Shirley A. Jordan

John L. Lewis

Rick Mehling

Marjorie H. Rhodes

Shirley ( Taz) Robinson

Richard H. Smith

Floyd R. Stauffer

Margarett Tucker

Yvonne M. White

Michelle M. Wilson

Partial Term

Chalon Coran

Lawrence Higgins

Sam Hollander

Toni Maurer

Jaime Pulido

Johnnie Raines

Tammi Sharp

John A. Simmons

Claire Stone

“ Do not, for one repulse, forego the purpose that you resolved to effect.”

Antonio, in Shakespeare’s The Tempest

xiii

Los Angeles County

Civil Grand Jury

2001- 2002

VISION STATEMENT

WE, the 2001- 2002 Civil Grand Jury, for the County of Los Angeles,

Having been duly sworn to uphold the oath of duty, do further pledge:

• To maintain an environment of the highest integrity;

• To promote the general improvement of all communities;

• To practice a careful consideration when listening and speaking to

others; and,

• To act as a unified body when the majority rules.

SO SAY WE ALL

xiv

AUDIT COMMITTEE

BACKGROUND

Under the California Penal Code § 925, 925A, 9331, and 933.5, the Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury

2001- 2002 was empowered to investigate the fiscal and operational performance activities of Los

Angeles County government and other local public entities. It also had authority to engage

outside consultants/ auditors in order to assist in its investigations. Remuneration for the outside

services is provided through funds allotted to the Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury in the form of an

annual budget granted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

OBJECTIVES

The Audit Committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury was one of four mandated

committees under the California Penal Code. To that effect, the Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 had

the task of identifying outside consultants/ auditors qualified to perform audits or studies selected

by the different grand jury committees. Upon selection of a consultant/ audit firm, the committee

followed- up on progress of the audits being conducted and secured proper interim reports to that

effect, in order to keep the grand jury appraised of the status of the commissioned audits/ studies.

The Audit Committee also ascertained that vendor drafts of final reports were supplied to the

grand jury in a timely manner and that the members of the concerned committees were present at

the exit interview conducted by the auditors, prior to issuance of their final audit/ study report.

METHODOLOGY

The Audit Committee established an initial crop of 18 firms selected from the county’s auditor

list of “ approved suppliers” that might meet the grand jury criteria. An invitation to participate

was extended to those firms, and a request for an expression of interest in assisting the grand jury

in its potential audits or studies was issued. References for past work performed for previous

grand juries or public entities was mandatory.

Of the 18 firms contacted, nine responded. The committee reviewed the nine proposals and

references and then selected three that showed extensive experience in the field. After further

study, the committee concluded that one firm was too small and would have difficulties handling

more than one assignment. The two remaining firms were equal in experience but vastly

different in pricing. The committee selected the lower priced vendor. A volume discount was

negotiated by awarding all audits to the one firm. This allowed the committee to stay within its

audit budget. Following the above process, the Audit Committee presented the selected firm

credentials to the 2001- 2002 Civil Grand Jury for approval.

1

By unanimous vote the firm was approved and the following audit- studies were contracted.

• Department of Children and Family Services – Child Removal Practices

• MacLaren Children’s Center – Management Audit

• Sheriff’s Department Biscailuz Recovery Center – Domestic Violence Intervention

Program

• Los Angeles Unified School District – Analysis of California State Lottery Revenues and

Expenditures

FINDINGS

It was found that the earlier a topic of audit/ study was determined by the entire grand jury, the

more time the Audit Committee had to secure the services of a contractor to commence the

necessary work. Thereafter, the Audit Committee gave top priority to managing the delivery of

the audit/ study results in order to coordinate work product in the performance time allocated by

each requesting committee. It is essential that all of this took place in accordance with the Edit

Committee timetable for publishing of the final report.

The Audit Committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 reviewed the

periodic progress reports presented by the auditors. The involved committees took notice of a

number of problems encountered by the auditor in obtaining the necessary information and

documentation vital to the performance of their audit assignment.

One of the problems was the delay caused by the staff or personnel of the different agencies that

took endless time either to procure documentation, answer auditor’s questions or set up meetings

for exit interviews. From the beginning, the Audit Committee ran into a timing problem. The

different committees neglected to select their audit projects early enough to allow for any delays

that could occur in the course of the performance of an audit. For example, the 30- day delay in

obtaining a court order to pursue the study contracted for the Department of Children and Family

Services, or the procedure to be followed to draw up, review and have all concerned parties sign

the contract with the audit firm.

The delays affected not only the work of the committees that commissioned the audit, but the

Edit Committee whose work was of the utmost importance, and faced more than any other

committee, a performance and printing deadline critical for the entire grand jury.

Above all, the Audit Committee must be comprised of members whose skills include oversight

and project management of concurrent projects with delivery dates which are paramount to the

completion of the final report of the entire grand jury.

The Audit Committee

2

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

BACKGROUND

It is the right of all Los Angeles County citizens to bring to the attention of the Los Angeles

County Civil Grand Jury those matters about which they have concern. The Los Angeles County

Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 received more than 62 complaints or requests for investigation.

These communications were from the general population as well as from the incarcerated

population.

Before the 2000- 2001 term there was one Los Angeles County Grand Jury. In 2000 the Los

Angeles County Grand Jury was bifurcated ( legally divided) into a Civil Grand Jury and a

Criminal Grand Jury. The Citizen Complaints Committee is one of four mandated committees of

the Civil Grand Jury. The other three mandated committees are Audit, Edit and Jails.

Before the bifurcation of the Grand Jury, complaints were first received by the legal advisor to

review. An acknowledgment was sent to the complainant at that time by the advisor.

Complaints were then passed to the jury foreperson with the recommendation of the advisor.

After the bifurcation of the Grand Jury, citizen complaints were no longer received by the

advisor. They were received directly by the Civil Grand Jury or by the Grand Jury Staff.

Complaints must be in writing, either in a letter or on a Citizen Complaint form. This form was

studied and revised by the 2001- 2002 Civil Grand Jury, and is available from the Civil Grand

Jury or from the Grand Jury Staff. Included with this report, as Attachment ( A) is a copy of the

Citizen Complaint form. The response letter from the Civil Grand Jury to the complainant was

also revised to clarify further to the complainant what other information might be needed, or to

explain the reasons for possible rejection of the complaint. A copy of the revised response letter

is included with this report as Attachment ( B). A complete listing of citizen complaints received

by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 is included as Attachment ( C).

OBJECTIVES

The Civil Grand Jury Citizen Complaints Committee was formed to review each citizen’s

complaint received for evaluation and possible investigation. If appropriate, the committee then

referred it to a jury committee for further investigation and resolution. If the citizen complaint

was not appropriate for the Civil Grand Jury, the complaint could be forwarded to another county

agency having jurisdiction, or no action was taken.

3

METHODOLOGY

Upon receipt of a complaint, the committee chairperson directed the jury staff to send an

acknowledgement to the complainant. There was no other communication from the Civil Grand

Jury to the complainant unless additional information was desired. Further action on the

complaint was dependant on a vote by the entire Civil Grand Jury.

The Citizen Complaints Committee Chairperson logged in each complaint, reviewed the file, and

circulated it among members of the committee for their review. The complaint was discussed in

committee and appropriate action was determined. If legal advice was deemed necessary, the

committee chairperson asked the grand jury foreperson to request assistance from the county

counsel. Before final disposition, the file with the committee’s recommended action was

presented to the Civil Grand Jury. The complaint might then be referred to another committee.

If found to be of a criminal nature, the complaint would be forwarded to the District Attorney’s

Office with concurrence of counsel. If there was no appropriate action to be taken by the Civil

Grand Jury, a file was closed.

Pursuant to the governing limitations of statutes, there was limited communication between the

Civil Grand Jury and the complainant. An acknowledgement letter sent to the complainant

recognized only the receipt of the complaint. Communication to the complainant was limited.

The communication could not indicate the resolution of the complaint, whether it was

determined to be founded or unfounded, or how it was acted upon, except if these matters were

discussed in a final report.

FINDINGS

There were complaints received that were not under the jurisdiction of the Civil Grand Jury, and

some were otherwise inappropriate for investigation. Some complaints were from citizens of

other countries, states and counties. Six complaints were from outside Los Angeles County and

two were under federal jurisdiction. Some were vague and made no actual complaint. In many

instances, there were insufficient facts to support the complaint. Other complaints concerned

cases that were pending in the courts and could not be reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury.

Due to the limited ability to communicate directly, the complainant might have the impression

that the complaint was receiving attention through investigation, when in fact that was not the

case. The limited response from the Civil Grand Jury gave false hope to the complainant for a

successful resolution. This limited ability to communicate directly with the complainant was the

source of much frustration for the Civil Grand Jury.

A revision of the acknowledgment letter to the complainant was instituted. If the complaint was

not appropriate for Civil Grand Jury investigation, the acknowledgement letter so stated, and

indicated that no further action would be taken on the matter.

The Citizen Complaints Committee

4

ATTACHMENT ( A)

Citizen Complaint Form

Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury See Complaint Form Guidelines

The Superior Court opposite side for complete instructions

Criminal Courts Building All forms must be signed

210 West Temple Street

11th Floor, room 11- 506

Los Angeles, CA 90012

1. Who: Your Name:________________________________________________________

Address:______________________________________________________________________

City__________________________________________ State,__________ Zip Code:_________

Telephone:(________)_____________________________ Extension: ____________________

2. What: Subject of Complaint. Briefly state the nature of complaint and the action of what

Los Angeles County department, section, agency, or official( s) that you believe was illegal or

improper. Use additional sheets if necessary.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

3. When: Date( s) of incident __________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

4. Where: Names and addresses of other departments, agencies or officials involved in this

complaint. Include dates and types of contact, i. e. phone, letter, personal. Use additional sheets

if necessary.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

5. Why/ How Attach pertinent documents and correspondence with dates.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

6. Signed ________________________________________ Date:

__________________________________

Please see reverse side for additional instructions 10/ 04/ 01

5

Complaint Guidelines

Communications from the public can provide valuable information to the Civil Grand

Jury. Receipt of all complaints will be acknowledged. If the Civil Grand Jury determines

that a matter is within the legally permissible scope of its investigative powers and

would warrant further inquiry, additional information may be requested. If a matter does

not fall within the Civil Grand Jury’s investigative authority, or the jury determines not to

further investigate a complaint, no action will be taken and there will be no further

contact from the Civil Grand Jury.

The findings of any investigation conducted by the Civil Grand Jury can be

communicated only in a formal final report, which is normally published at the

conclusion of the Grand Jury’s term of impanelment ( June 30th).

The Civil Grand Jury has no jurisdiction or authority to investigate federal agencies,

state agencies, or the courts. Only causes of action occurring within the County of Los

Angeles are eligible for review. The jurisdiction of the Civil Grand Jury includes the

following:

• Consideration of evidence of misconduct against public officials within Los

Angeles County.

• The inquiry into the condition and management of the jails within the county.

• Investigation and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers,

departments or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and

records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created

pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex

officio capacity as officers of the districts.

• Investigation of the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers

agency located in the county.

Revised 10/ 04/ 01

6

ATTACHMENT B

SAMPLE LETTER TO COMPLAINANT

Date

Name

Address

Dear

Your letter to the Civil Grand Jury, dated has been received and is being

reviewed.

The fact that members of the Grand Jury are reviewing this matter does Not mean that the

Grand Jury is conducting an investigation into your complaint. Rather, a review is being done to

assist the Grand Jury in deciding what further action, if any, to take. By law, the Grand Jury is

precluded from communicating the result of its investigation except in one of its public report.

All communications are considered, but may not result in any action or report by the

Grand Jury.

Please note that the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury has no jurisdiction or authority

to investigate Federal agencies, State agencies or the courts. Only causes of action occurring

within the County Government of Los Angeles are eligible for review.

Please review the checked items in the list below for additional comments concerning

your specific complaint

____ Request for more specific facts

Your complaint contained insufficient facts for the Grand Jury to

consider. If you wish the grand Jury to further review your

letter, we will need more specific information.

____ Request for additional information

In order to further consider your complaint, the Grand Jury requests

the following additional information:

____ No jurisdiction ( State or Federal)

The Grand Jury does not have jurisdiction over the subject

matter of your complaint.

____ Referral to another agency

The Grand Jury does not have jurisdiction over the subject

matter of your complaint. You may wish to contact

_____________________________________________________

7

____ Suggestion for legal counsel

The matter you describe in your letter dated _________, appears

to be an issue which may require you to obtain legal advice

which the Grand Jury is not empowered to provide.

____ Matter is before the Courts

The matter referred to is pending before court. If you believe that

The court has incorrectly resolved the matter, you may consider

appealing it to a higher court.

Sincerely,

Civil Grand Jury Staff

8

ATTACHMENT ( C)

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

The following is a listing of Complaints received by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury

2001- 2002.

01/ 69 Alleged discrimination on Federal Property

01/ 71 Alleged abuse by Los Angeles Health Department personnel

01/ 72 Ongoing feud with Workers Compensation Division

06- 17- 01/ 01 Bond Issue in Los Angeles Community College District

07- 30- 01/ 02 Alleged abuse, waste and fraud within L. A. Unified School District

( LAUSD)

07- 30- 01/ 03 Complaint against Orange County by Orange County Citizen

08- 13- 00/ 04 Complaint against the State of California

08- 15- 01/ 05 Alleged discrimination against and abuse of disable person

08- 15- 0/ 106 Complaint by an inmate of a State Prison against prison personnel

08- 15- 01/ 07 Complainant resides in the Netherlands

08- 23- 01/ 08 Alleged abuse by Department of Children and Family Services

08- 29- 01/ 09 Request for cleanup of Port of Los Angeles

08- 29- 01/ 10 Alleged excessive use of force by Los Angeles Police Department

08- 30- 01/ 11 Request for investigation into death of friend

08- 30- 01/ 02 Prison inmate alleges misconduct by prison personnel

08- 30- 01/ 13 Alleged conspiracy against son by authorities

08- 30- 01/ 14 Discrimination within Torrance Police Department

08- 30- 01- 1/ 5 Inmate alleges misconduct by District Attorney

08- 30- 01- 1/ 6 Alleged abuse by prison personnel

9

09- 06- 01/ 17 Alleged police brutality

09- 06- 01/ 18 Alleged unresponsiveness of Sheriff’s Department

09- 06- 01/ 19 Alleged discrimination by LAUSD

09- 06- 01/ 20 Alleged mistreatment by staff at state mental institution

09- 06- 01/ 21 Alleged discrimination because of “ perceived” ethnicity

09- 19- 01/ 22 Alleged conspiracy between Board of Supervisors and Assessor’s Office

09- 19- 01/ 23 Alleged police brutality

09- 24- 01/ 24 Alleged murder plot

09- 24- 01/ 25 Complaint About Fire Department Personnel Practices

10- 11- 01/ 26 Alleged corruption District Attorney’s Office

10- 16- 01/ 27 Complaint against Metropolitan Transit Authority

10- 16- 01/ 28 Alleged unfair disbarment

10- 16- 01/ 29 Concern expressed over future water needs in Los Angeles County

10- 23- 01/ 30 Investigation requested into eminent domain issue

10- 23- 01/ 31 Alleged corruption in City of South Gate

10- 23- 01/ 32 Alleged abuse fiscal mismanagement in Department of Animal Care

Control

10- 26- 01/ 33 Proclamation of innocence by inmate in state prison

10- 26- 01/ 34 Alleged corrupt courts in Lancaster

11- 08- 01/ 35 Alleged assault with a deadly weapon by city employees

11- 13- 01/ 36 Inmate complaint about court appointed attorney

11- 13- 01/ 37 Alleged embezzlement by prison warden

11- 15- 01/ 38 Alleged physical assault on property of a privately owned company

10

11- 15- 01/ 39 Alleged mental abuse by social worker at juvenile camp

11- 27- 01/ 40 Request investigation into Department of Child and Family Services

11- 27- 01/ 41 Alleged abuse at state prison

11- 28- 01/ 42 Alleged denial of Relocation Funds by Alameda Corridor Transportation

Authority

12- 20- 01/ 43 Alleged discrimination by City of Los Angeles against city employee

01- 11- 01/ 44 Alleged complaint against California Franchise Tax Board

01- 11- 01/ 45 Proclamation of inmate innocence and desire to withdraw guilty plea

01- 22- 01/ 46 Alleged inappropriate ruling by Probate Court

01- 24- 01/ 47 Complaint Against Drug Enforcement Agency ( DEA) alleged actions

01- 25- 01/ 48 Complaint about LACUSC Medical Center contractor overpayment

07- 07- 02/ 49 Alleged corruption of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and

Deputy District Attorney

02- 20- 02/ 50 Alleged fraudulent tax assessment by Los Angeles County Tax Assessor

02- 20-- 2/ 51 Alleged misconduct by Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney

02- 20- 02/ 52 Alleged lack of prosecution of rapist

02- 20- 02/ 53 Alleged illegal rent increase

02- 21- 02/ 54 Alleged state office imprisonment misconduct

03- 01- 02/ 55 Alleged state prison abuse of authority and poor legal representation

03- 27- 02/ 56 Alleged conspiracy by state and court officials

03- 29- 02/ 57 Alleged falsification of inspection reports by Los Angeles County Fire

Department

04- 03- 02/ 58 Alleged criminal misconduct of court judge

04- 09- 02/ 59 Alleged excess work hours in state prison by inmate

04- 23- 02/ 60 Alleged unfair selective enforcement of city codes

11

04- 23- 02/ 61 Alleged collusion between Downey Police Department and District

Attorney’s Office

04- 24- 02/ 62 Alleged racial discrimination at state prison

12

EDIT COMMITTEE

Grand Jury Awareness and Final Report

BACKGROUND

Penal Code § 933( a) requires the grand jury to “. . . submit to the presiding judge of the superior

court a final report of its findings and recommendations. . . . Final reports on any appropriate

subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term

of service of a grand jury . . .”

The Edit Committee was responsible for the production of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand

Jury 2001- 2002 final report consisting of the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the

various studies and investigations conducted by the committees of the Civil Grand Jury. Each

committee report draft was reviewed by the Edit Committee for readability and copy editing.

After a review process was applied to the various reports they were assembled, compiled and

edited into one final report.

The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 was internally divided into eleven

committees:

Audit

Citizen Complaints

Edit

Education

Government Operations

Health & Human Services

Jails

Public Safety

Research & Follow- Up

Social Services

Speakers & Events

Four of the committees, Audit, Citizen Complaints, Edit and Jails are standing committees with

specific and mandated objectives to address. Other committees change from one Civil Grand

Jury to the next, depending upon the work each jury chooses to undertake.

Each committee was responsible for determining its topics of concern, conducting studies,

gathering pertinent data and/ or supervising the investigations within its field of interest. The

entire Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury must approve any investigations. In some instances,

a committee was aided in its investigation by the employment of an outside professional auditing

firm.

13

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 Edit Committee was to

produce and publish any final reports of the Civil Grand Jury.

METHODOLOGY

Upon completion of investigations, the written reports of the committees were submitted to the

Edit Committee for editing and publication. This process included review by the Civil Grand

Jury Foreperson and the entire Civil Grand Jury. The County Counsel reviewed the final report

for liability and consistency with statutory authority. The presiding judge reviewed the final

report for compliance with the law. After review by all parties, the final report was printed and

published.

The Edit Committee was responsible for selecting a vendor printer, selecting layout, format,

stylization, presentation, delivery and project management. The production of the final report

was a joint- venture partnership between the various committees, the Edit Committee and the

printer. Production was accomplished within a limited amount of time.

Before publishing the final report, the Civil Grand Jury provided the affected agencies a copy of

the portion of the report relating to that agency, two working days prior to public release. The

affected agency was prohibited by Penal Code § 933.05( f) from disclosing “ any of the report

prior to the public release of the final report.” The ban was in affect to prevent press leaks

during the two- day period when the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury cannot publicly

comment on the contents of the report.

Distribution was made to the Presiding Judge of the Civil Grand Jury, the Los Angeles County

Board of Supervisors, Superior Court Judges, the District Attorney, the Public Defender, the

Probation Department, the Sheriff, various county departments, Chiefs of Police in cities

throughout the county, news media, public libraries, public interest groups, and other interested

citizens. Approximately 1700 copies of the final report were distributed. The final report should

also be available on the Internet at http:// grandjury. co. la. ca. us. It is hoped that this wide

distribution will help to educate and encourage more citizens to apply for grand jury service.

The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury final reports are an excellent tool for informing the

public of its work covering all inquiries and findings, and recommendations and commendations.

Continuing efforts need to be made to distribute the final report to as many public interest

groups, organizations, and other public venues as possible. This will help to educate and inform

the citizens of Los Angeles County about the duties of the Civil Grand Jury. Other volunteers

may also be encouraged to make application to serve on the Civil Grand Jury.

14

FINDINGS

All reports issued by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury are final reports. Once issued,

they must not be changed. The law does not permit minority reports, and a report cannot contain

minority opinions. The Civil Grand Jury speaks with one voice, through the report of its findings

and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar

year of its term. A final report is the only document through which the grand jury may

communicate to the public.

It has been an honor to serve the citizens of Los Angeles County, and to be a partner in the work

and production of this final report.

The Edit Committee

15

Edit Committee

GRAND JURY AWARENESS AND FINAL REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Edit Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors continue and expand its

“ Grand Jury Awareness” campaign in an effort to help recruit volunteers for service on

the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury.

2. The Edit Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors make available to the

citizens of each of their districts, through their field offices, application forms for service

on the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury.

3. The Edit Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors work with the Superior

Court and its Jury Services staff to continue the distribution of the Los Angeles County

Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 final report, and each subsequent Civil Grand Jury final

report, to the webmaster of the internet grand jury site, to post for public review via the

internet.

4. The Edit Committee recommends the Board of Supervisors work with the Superior Court

and its Jury Services staff to provide copies of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury

2001- 2002 final report, and each subsequent Civil Grand Jury final report to all Los

Angeles County Superior Court juror assembly rooms to help educate the public and

recruit other interested volunteers.

5. The Edit Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors work with the Superior

Court to continue and improve its educational outreach program, utilizing as many forms

of media broadcasting as possible, in an attempt to recruit Civil Grand Jurors from the

rich and diverse racial/ ethnic population that encompasses the County of Los Angeles.

16

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

LOTTERY MONEY FUNDS

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES AUDIT

BACKGROUND

The Education Committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 contracted

with an independent auditor to review the Los Angeles Unified School District ( LAUSD) with

regard to its expenditure of restricted state lottery monies.

On November 6, 1984, 58% of California voters approved Proposition 37 entitled “ The

California State Lottery Act” ( CSLA). The act provides that at least 34% of the Lottery

Revenues must go to public education. This supplemental funding provides additional resources

to meet their locally determined needs.

OBJECTIVE

The Lottery’s mandate in the California State Lottery Act ( SCLA) is to provide supplemental

funding to California Public Education on all levels from kindergarten through the universities of

California, plus several specialized schools. According to the Lottery Act, lottery contributions

can be used only for instructional purposes and it bans use for the acquisition of property, the

construction of facilities, or the funding of research. Approximately 80- 90% of the California

lottery funds are to be used to attract and retain teachers.

The Education Committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 determined to

review revenues and expenditures of the LAUSD. The following report represents the findings

and recommendations based on information gathered from this limited scope management audit.

17

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The California State Lottery Act of 1984 was enacted to supplement the total amount of money

allocated for public education in California. Government Code Section 8880.4 provides for the

allocation of Lottery revenues and requires that at least 34 percent of the total annual revenues of

the State Lottery be allocated to the benefit of public education. Government Code Section

8880.5 restricts the use of these funds exclusively for the education of pupils and students and

prohibits the expenditure of funds for the acquisition of real property, construction of facilities,

financing or research, or any other non- instructional purpose. Since its enactment, the Los

Angeles Unified School District ( LAUSD) has received approximately $ 1.3 billion to

supplement existing educational funding sources available to the District.

In March 2000, Proposition 20 known as the “ Cardenas Textbook Act of 2000” was approved by

the voters. This proposition amended Section 8880.4 of the Government Code effective July 1,

1998 by placing further restrictions on the use of lottery monies and allocating future increases

in lottery proceeds as follows. Beginning in fiscal year 1998- 99 and each fiscal year thereafter,

50 percent of any growth in lottery funds allocated for educational purposes over the 1997- 98

base fiscal year shall be allocated to school districts for the purchase of instructional materials on

the basis of an equal amount per unit of average daily attendance. Government Code Section

8880.5 ( l) requires as a condition of receiving such monies, each district and county

superintendent of schools shall establish a separate account for the receipt and expenditure of the

monies and such account shall be identified as a lottery education account.

In order to determine if the Los Angeles Unified School District ( LAUSD) has complied with the

expenditure and accounting restrictions placed on State Lottery educational funds, the Grand

Jury authorized a limited scope management audit. The audit focused on State Lottery receipts

and expenditures for FY 1998- 99, FY 1999- 00, and FY 2000- 01. In addition, the audit

compared actual receipts and reported expenditures to determine the unexpended balance of

restricted lottery monies as of June 30, 2001.

METHODOLOGY

The audit of LAUSD compliance with State Government Code restrictions on the expenditure of

and accounting for State lottery monies included the following audit procedures.

• An entrance conference was held with LAUSD officials on January 16, 2002 to explain

the purpose, objective, scope and procedures of the management audit process.

• Interviews were conducted with the District Controller, Budget Officer, Chief

Accountant and other District staff responsible for the accounting and budgeting of

State lottery monies.

18

• District financial, accounting, and budget reports, as well as audited financial

statements for the last three fiscal years were obtained and analyzed. To determine the

correct fund balance as of June 30, 2001, reports to the State Department of Education

for FY 1985- 86 through FY 2000- 01 were obtained and analyzed.

• A special electronic data processing report was prepared by District staff listing each

detailed transaction charged against restricted lottery monies available for instructional

materials only. This report identified $ 18.4 million of expenditures reported to the

State of California Department of Education for FY 2000- 01. This report was analyzed

to determine if the purpose of the detailed transactions complied with the restricted uses

permitted by State law. In addition, a systematic random sample of 100 transactions

was selected to determine if the reported classification of expenditures on the electronic

report was consistent with the purpose shown on the actual invoices and other

documentation.

FINDINGS

Analysis of Lottery Revenues

The LAUSD received a total of $ 1,303,052,279 in lottery monies since the enactment of the

1984 California State Lottery Act. This amount includes $ 1,284,584,904 of public education

monies and $ 18,467,375 of instructional materials monies. The LAUSD deposits lottery

revenues in its General Fund. No separate accounting for expenditures is done for the lottery

public education monies since these revenues are commingled with all other General Fund

revenues. However, lottery monies that are restricted for instructional materials purchases only

are accounted for separately through the use of an accounting system program code designated

as “ Program 4153 Lottery Instructional Materials.” These lottery revenues are shown below by

fiscal year.

Table 1

LAUSD California State Lottery Revenue

by Fiscal Year

Public Instructional

Education Materials

Fiscal Year Revenue Revenue

1985- 86 $ 73,274,879

1986- 87 60,644,902

1987- 88 83,412,011

1988- 89 118,950,974

1989- 90 96,859,361

1990- 91 78,402,821

1991- 92 55,158,009

1992- 93 60,584,287

1993- 94 65,752,018

19

1994- 95 79,406,706

1995- 96 84,375,503

1996- 97 75,482,331

1997- 98 84,218,994

1998- 99 88,987,003

1999- 00 89,397,948 $ 4,503,504

2000- 01 89,677,157 13,963,871

Total $ 1,284,584,904 $ 18,467,375

Analysis of Lottery Expenditures

Based on an analysis of J- 200L annual reports filed with the State Department of Education, the

LAUSD had a reported fund balance of unexpended public education lottery monies amounting

to $ 66,514 as of June 30, 2001. The unexpended fund balance of instructional materials lottery

monies amounted to $ 67,173 as of June 30, 2001. These reported balances are shown in the

following table.

Table 2

LAUSD California State Lottery Expenditures

by Fiscal Year

Public June 30 Instructional June 30

Education Unexpended Materials Unexpended

Fiscal Year Expenditures Balance Expenditures Balance

1985- 86 $ 0 $ 73,274,879

1986- 87 116,007,995 17,911,786

1987- 88 61,524,635 39,799,162

1988- 89 139,060,103 19,690,033

1989- 90 115,878,925 670,469

1990- 91 79,073,290 0

1991- 92 55,158,009 0

1992- 93 57,184,287 3,400,000

1993- 94 69,152,018 0

1994- 95 69,459,359 9,947,347

1995- 96 79,413,533 14,909,317

1996- 97 80,968,041 9,423,607

1997- 98 80,873,106 12,769,495

1998- 99 101,756,497 1

1999- 00 89,397,948 1 0 4,503,504

2000- 01 89,745,441 66,514 18,400,562 67,173

Total $ 1,284,585,203 $ 18,400,562

LAUSD accounting records also show that the expenditure of lottery monies restricted for

instructional materials based on average daily attendance in each of the 11 local districts ranged

from a low of $ 23.63 to $ 28.22 per student as shown in Table 3. It should be noted that these

20

expenditures reflect approximately one and one- half years of funding of instructional materials

monies for the 11 local districts and only one year of funding for the financially independent

charter schools. Exhibit 1 describes the geographic location of each local district and reports

enrollment by grade level for FY 2000- 01.

Table 3

Analysis of FY 2000- 01 Lottery Expenditures for Instructional Materials

By Local District

Instructional Average Average

Local Materials Daily Expenditure

District Expenditures Attendance Per Student

C $ 1,901,204 67,381 $ 28.22

J 1,743,671 64,309 27.11

A 1,893,495 70,691 26.79

K 1,785,561 66,888 26.69

D 1,472,891 57,238 25.73

G 1,515,022 59,205 25.59

H 1,717,491 69,351 24.77

I 1,309,221 53,509 24.47

F 1,486,370 61,514 24.16

B 1,872,683 77,614 24.13

E 1,611,567 68,196 23.63

Charter Schools 67,984 4,676 14.54

Although Table 3 shows that the average amount of lottery instructional materials funds

expended per student varied by as much as 19 percent between local districts, more importantly,

LAUSD accounting records show that the District significantly increased total expenditures for

instructional materials during the most recent three fiscal years. In FY 1999- 00, total

expenditures for instructional materials increased by $ 41 million from $ 68.1 million to $ 109.1

million over the prior fiscal year. In FY 2000- 01, total expenditures for instructional materials

again increased by $ 58.7 million from $ 109.1 million to $ 167.8 million over FY1999- 00. For

the three- year period, total expenditures for instructional materials increased by 146 percent.

Expenditures per student by the fiscally independent charter schools of lottery monies restricted

for instructional materials amounted to only $ 14.54 per student. This rate of expenditure is not

comparable to the rates shown in Table 3 for the 11 local districts, since it is based on only one

year of funding versus approximately one and one- half years of funding for the 11 local district

schools.

However, analysis of J- 200L annual reports filed with the State Department of Education, also

determined that certain expenditures made from public education monies and from instructional

materials monies did not comply with the restrictive uses of such monies as required by

Government Code Section 8880.4. Exhibit 2 is a copy of the FY 2000- 01 annual report to the

21

State, which clearly identifies prohibited expenditures for capital outlay purposes. These

prohibited expenditures are shown as italicized figures in Table 4.

Table 4

Detail of LAUSD California State Lottery Expenditures

as a result of Object Code

Personnel Services & Other

Fiscal Year Mat & Sup Other Oper Capital Outgo

1985- 86 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0

1986- 87 92,538,705 853,929 960,604 12,030,000

1987- 88 57,461,349 500151 0 0

1988- 89 135,021,073 795,595 0 0

1989- 90 112,817,258 809,666 0 0

1990- 91 78,863,672 62,633 0 0

1991- 92 54,959,975 187,736 0 0

1992- 93 57,150,462 33,825 0 0

1993- 94 69,112,501 38,167 0 0

1994- 95 69,389,072 68,498 0 0

1995- 96 79,317,326 79,576 0 0

1996- 97 80,822,520 130,828 0 0

1997- 98 80,787,750 50,859 0 0

1998- 99 101,659,801 88,032 0 0

1999- 00 89,382,043 6,044 0 0

2000- 01 85,851,448* 2,383,980 1,510,013 0

Total $ 1,284,585,203 $ 6,089,519 $ 2,470,617 $ 12,030,000

* $ 10,437,729 of this amount was expended for various supplies and services from the restricted

instructional materials monies.

Table 4 identifies expenditures in FY 1986- 87 and FY 2000- 01 that were not permitted from the

two restricted lottery funding sources. Unallowable expenditures from lottery public education

monies during FY 1986- 87 and FY 2000- 01 totaled $ 27,321,832. Unallowable expenditures of

restricted lottery instructional materials monies accounted for $ 14,331,228 of the $ 18,400,375

expended in FY 2000- 01, the first fiscal year in which these new restricted lottery monies were

available for expenditure. It should be noted that charter schools accounted for $ 67,984 of the

$ 18,400,375 expended from restricted lottery instructional materials. However, because charter

schools are responsible for and conduct all of their own accounting functions, including

accounting for restricted lottery monies, the LAUSD does not monitor or audit lottery

expenditures reported by the charter schools to the LAUSD for inclusion in its annual report to

22

the State. As a result, LAUSD has no way of determining if the charter schools, which obtain

lottery monies through the sponsorship of LAUSD, are expending such funds in compliance with

State law. Accordingly, LAUSD should develop procedures to obtain adequate supporting

documentation from charter schools to verify the appropriateness of charter school restricted

expenditures as a sponsor responsibility.

In order to improve the budgetary presentation and to ensure future compliance regarding the

expenditure of restricted lottery monies, several budget and accounting procedural changes are

recommended to simplify and clarify the day- to- day processes pertaining to these funds.

Proposed Revision of Procedures for the Budgeting and Accounting for

Restricted Lottery Monies

The LAUSD budget process does not currently include any specific procedures relative to the

budgeting of restricted lottery monies, either at the local district level or on a District- wide basis.

Although governed by State law requiring a specific budget hearing and board resolution, limited

as to the permissible uses of such funds and encumbered by special accounting and reporting

requirements, LAUSD has not developed any written procedures to ensure compliance with

these mandates. Clearly, such procedures would be useful to facilitate the consistent and

thorough budget process intended by the Legislature to ensure adequate budgeting of monies for

textbooks and instructional materials.

The current LAUSD budget process also does not separately account for the restricted lottery

monies. Both the public education funds and the instructional materials funds are included as

General Fund revenues and are not separately identified by object of expense or local district

within the LAUSD annual budget. Although the accounting system includes separate program

categories for each of these restricted revenue sources, any object of expense such as salaries,

benefits, equipment, capital improvements and others can be charged to any program category.

As a result, actual accounting practices have not consistently followed the intended restrictions

envisioned by the assigned program categories for lottery monies.

To minimize the possibility of coding inappropriate charges to these restricted funding sources in

the future, separate funds should be established for each of the restricted lottery revenues and

monies expended in prior years for non- compliant purposes should be deposited in these funds

from the General Fund unreserved and undesignated fund balance. In addition, the annual

LAUSD budget should appropriately reflect the use of these restricted funds in the local district

budgets for purposes consistent with the permitted uses. The clear designation of restricted

instructional materials funds in the budget would be consistent with the requirement of

Education Code Section 60119, which requires each district receiving such monies to conduct a

public hearing as to the adequacy of funding for textbooks and other instructional materials and

for the local board of education to adopt a resolution certifying such adequacy.

23

Proposed Amendment of Education Code Section 8880.4

Given the compliance issues experienced by LAUSD in properly executing and accounting for

expenditures of restricted lottery monies, and considering the clear intent of the Legislature to

mandate a set of requirements designed to ensure supplemental funding for instructional

materials pursuant to the to “ Cardenas Textbook Act of 2000,” additional amendments to

Education Code Section 8880.4 would be appropriate. Because Education Code Section 8880.4

currently does not require the establishment of a separate fund to account for revenues and

expenditures of restricted lottery monies and does not include a maintenance of effort

requirement to ensure enhanced levels of on- going funding for instructional materials, such

provisions are needed to carry- out the legislative intent of the Cardenas Textbook Act of 2000.

Therefore, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should seek to have the Legislature

amend Government Code Section 8880.4 to require local educational agencies to establish

special funds for the receipt and expenditure of lottery educational and instructional material

monies to ensure the use of such funds in accordance with the intent of State law. Further, a

maintenance of effort requirement based on FY 1997- 98 expenditure levels per ADA ( average

daily attendance) should be established and annually adjusted in accordance with annual changes

in the consumer price index, to ensure local educational agencies do not supplant existing

funding sources with lottery funding intended for instructional materials only.

24

Education Committee

LAUSD EXPENDITURE OF RESTRICTED STATE LOTTERY MONIES

RECOMMENDATIONS/ SOLUTIONS

The Education Committee recommends that the LAUSD:

6. Establish separate funds for the receipt and expenditure of Lottery Monies in order to

ensure that such funds are expended in accordance with the restricted purposes

specified by State law.

7. Develop written procedures to specify appropriate budgeting, expenditure, and public

hearing processes as described in Government Code Section 8880.4 and Education

Code Section 60119.

8. Transfer approximately $ 14.3 million of General Fund monies to the Lottery

Instructional Materials Special Fund to account for prior year expenditures not in

compliance with Government Code Section 8880.4 restrictions.

9. Transfer approximately $ 13.0 million of General Fund monies to the Lottery

Educational Special Fund to account for prior year expenditures not in compliance

with Government Code Section 8880.4 restrictions.

10. Establish procedures to monitor the expenditure of lottery monies allocated to charter

schools to ensure that such expenditures are in accordance with the restrictions of

State law.

The Education Committee recommends that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

should urge the State Legislature to:

11. Amend Government Code Section 8880.4 to require local educational agencies to

establish special funds for the receipt and expenditure of lottery educational and

instructional material monies to ensure the use of such funds in accordance with the

intent of State law. Further, a maintenance of effort requirement based on FY 1997- 98

expenditure levels per ADA ( average daily attendance) should be established and

annually adjusted in accordance with annual changes in the consumer price index, to

ensure local educational agencies do not supplant existing funding sources.

25

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

Electronic Voting Machines

BACKGROUND

Many areas in the United States conduct their voting activities by using a punch- card ballot

system. In the County of Los Angeles, the voting apparatus has consisted of a flat metallic box-like

structure with a narrow slit along one end into which a cardboard voting slip is inserted. The

card is printed with a rectangular area on one side filled with squares, in vertical and horizontal

rows. In the center of each square is a small rectangular area delineated by an incompletely

perforated border. Attached to the metal box is a small punch with a narrow end. In voting, the

voter applies this punch to the area surrounded by the semi- perforation. This portion of the card

( called a “ chad”) is punched free when a vote is recorded and falls into a shallow container on

the bottom of the voting apparatus leaving a small hole in the voting card.

A voting booklet is attached to the voting device directly over the pocket into which the voting

card is slipped. This booklet contains the names of candidates and the options on propositions

and proposed legal changes. Each page of the booklet contains a vertical list of the candidates

for a specific office, or the options for a specific proposition. Aligned to the right of each list is a

vertical row of holes in the booklet’s page. A person votes by using the attached punch to make

a hole in the voting card through the hole in the booklet’s page adjacent to the name of the

candidate of the voter’s choice. The vertical holes in the pages of the booklet cover a specific

vertical row of squares on the voting card. Turning the page in the booklet presents a new list of

candidates for a different office, and a new row of vertical holes. The vertical rows of holes in

the pages of the booklet move across the voting card beneath to present a new area of the card

for each change of page in the booklet. That is, for each different office or proposition being

voted on, a different vertical row of squares on the voting card will be punched. At the end of

voting one has a card with several vertical rows of squares with and without holes punched in

them.

The size of the booklet depends on the number of offices and propositions being voted on and

will vary from district to district. The characteristics of a voting area, its ethnic and national

background and the language characteristics of its people, determine the number of languages in

which the booklet must be printed. In 1984 the California electorate, by a large majority, passed

Proposition 38, mandating the elimination of multilingual ballots. It was the general public’s

opinion, in California, that United States born citizens of voting age should be expected to be

competent in the English language, and that naturalized citizens, in becoming naturalized, would

be required to demonstrate a reasonable competence in the English language. In voting matters,

however, Federal regulations take precedence. If there are 10,000 or more of a particular

language group within a district, instruction booklets must be made available in that particular

29

language. In Los Angeles County in the last election, pre- election instruction booklets were

necessary in seven different languages. The booklet attached to the voting machine was only in

English.

When finished voting, a person withdraws the voting card from the voting device and places it in

a large ballot box, which also holds the ballots from other voters in that polling place. At the end

of the day’s voting these cards are collected from the polling areas and transferred to a central

location. Here they are fed into a tabulator where the numerical vote is determined by a scanner,

which reads the various holes that have been punched in each card.

Under this system, to vote, all a person must be able to do is: ( 1) to read the booklet regarding

candidates and office, or the propositions by name and number, ( 2) to turn the pages and ( 3) to

make a hole in the voting card with the attached punch.

In the last Presidential election many counties in the State of Florida also used a punch- card form

of equipment for voting. After the votes were collected, but while the votes were being counted,

several complaints surfaced. The Florida system used what was called a “ butterfly” ballot. The

line of holes to be punched was not along a single line of choices. Rather, it was between two

vertical lists of candidates, with some misalignment between the candidates’ names and the holes

to be punched in the pages. It was claimed that there was some confusion as to which hole

should be punched for which candidate. This led to complaints that some voters had misread the

ballot and mistakenly voted for the wrong candidate. It was certainly a complaint that could not

be verified, nor corrected, if verified, after the ballots had been gathered together and run

through the counting scanner.

Then there was the “ chad” problem. As more people vote, there is a build- up in the number of

paper chads in the collection box. If this chamber is not periodically emptied, the build- up of the

paper chads will impair the action of the punch. The chad may not be punched completely free,

leaving a “ hanging chad” of varying degrees of separation from the card. As the chamber

eventually fills, it may become impossible for the punch to free the chad at all, leaving only a

“ dimple” in the voting card. If the punch does not leave an adequate hole for the scanner to

identify, the counting machine will not register a vote. In Florida, the counting machines did not

register a vote for some candidates on some of the ballots. Critics claimed that the “ no vote”

ballots were incorrectly registered. It was claimed that by not counting these ballots, voting

authorities had deprived people of their right to vote. The authorities attempted to solve the

problem of missing votes by a hand count of the ballots rejected by the scanner as “ not voting.”

Obviously, the original voter of such a particular ballot could not be identified. The officials

doing the hand count tried to decide if hanging chads and dimples were really uncounted

attempts to vote. There was much debate and effort expended in this hand counting of the

machine- discarded ballots, especially in trying to determine if a ” dimpled” ballot really

represented an unsuccessful attempt by the voter to vote. People doing the counting frequently

30

disagreed on the interpretation of the same ballot. In many cases there was controversy over

whether or not a particular ballot was “ dimpled.”

Consequently, the punch- card system, itself, was criticized.

The problems in Florida were not present in California. In California there was no butterfly

ballot. In the voting booklet there was a single page for each office, one list of candidates per

row of punch holes, one list per page, and no margin for misunderstanding. The names of the

candidates were aligned with the row of holes to be punched. The collection boxes were

regularly emptied. Hence, no chads, hanging or otherwise, interfered with “ punching a hole.”

There was no confusion of “ dimples” as an uncounted but intended vote, as punching regularly

produced a hole, which was counted by the scanning machine. Voting and counting appeared to

be straightforward. Mail in ballots are of the punch- card variety, using a single card with the

various squares in which holes are to be punched. Such cards are counted in the same manner as

the cards collected from the voting booths.

Because of the national furor, the Secretary of the State of California, in 2001, decertified the

punch- card voting equipment, indicating that the equipment was to be replaced as soon as

possible. In February 2002, the Federal government was more specific and ruled that the

equipment must be replaced in time for the 2004 elections.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the Government Operations Committee was to evaluate the proposed electronic

voting machines and to compare them with the recently used voting devices.

METHODOLOGY

The Committee visited the offices of the Registrar of Voters to examine models of the proposed

electronic voting machines. Voting officials were available to discuss their plans. Management

and engineering personnel presented the equipment and discussed designs of the current first

generation model and proposals concerning future designs to the fourth generation models

currently on the drawing boards. Use of the current model was explained, and the Committee

participated in a hands- on practice of voting using the demonstration model. Details of the

possible variations in its structure, the flexibility in its operation, the possibilities of its

31

malfunctioning, and the chance of its being sabotaged, were studied. Pertinent comparisons

between the old and the new systems were made.

FINDINGS

The first generation electronic model voting machine was both large and heavy. It resembled,

somewhat, a small microwave oven with the voting surface on the top appearing like the front of

a desktop computer. The “ voting booklet” was programmed into the machine as software.

Visible directions were projected on the face of the machine through the programming system.

The print of the projected instructions was sufficiently large to make reading easy. The voter

“ turned pages” by touching the proper area of the surface. One voted by touching the area

indicated for the particular candidate. This touch registered on the face of the machine and also

on an internal counter. Correcting a voting error was performed by touching a “ change” or

“ error” button. The voter could review previous “ pages” and correct votes in a simple way.

When finished and satisfied, the voter so indicated by the proper touch. It was then that the

internal counting was recorded. The machine accumulated the voting done on it, so that the

count on each machine was completed when the voting day was done. At the close of voting it

was possible for each machine’s count to be transmitted by wire to a central area and combined

electronically with the counts from the machines of many other areas. Under most circumstances

the speed of counting was a great improvement over prior voting systems. Very little

“ manpower” was needed in counting. The equipment software could be programmed and

reprogrammed to satisfy the variations in candidates and election questions from one district to

another and from one election to another. Language variations could be handled in a similar

fashion, by an operator’s appropriately programming the software.

It appeared possible that absentee electronic voting might be managed through personal

computers and/ or through the Internet.

On the other hand, voting by simple mail- in ballots was not amenable to this system. Mail- in

voting would require another system, such as the prior used punch- card ballot.

The difference in the cost of the necessary software and its periodic reprogramming, from the

cost of printing and distributing multiple voting card forms, was not determined; but the

Committee estimated that the difference was not a significant factor in the evaluation of the two

systems. The varieties of the pre- election instruction booklet would be the same for the two

systems. The operation of the electronic machine once programmed, versus the handling and

collecting of voting cards during voting, would probably be a plus for the new equipment.

32

Voting for a write- in candidate on the electronic machine was as easy as voting for a write- in

candidate on the punch- card.

The size and weight of the latest model electronic machine were marked disadvantages

compared to similar features of the machine. Polling places have been staffed, in large part, by

elderly retired people. Moving the available electronic machines around, before and after voting

hours, could be a difficult task for such people. While the projection for future models of the

electronic device suggests a thin, lightweight laptop computer- sized instrument, this

development has not yet materialized.

The equipment was used in selected locations in elections in 2000 and 2001. The public reaction

was positive and voter confusion appeared minimal. Programming election and candidate

variations and allowing write- in choices were easily implemented by the equipment software. A

large mass of voting cards, their storage and counting were not necessary. Computerized

counting took place during voting.

The Registrar of Voters was considering increasing the size of the current local voting areas.

There would be fewer but more centrally positioned voting centers in common gathering places

such as shopping malls. It was conjectured that such voting areas with fewer electronic machines

could accommodate larger numbers of voters in shorter times, thus reducing equipment and

manpower costs. Not too much consideration, here, however, has been given to the fact that

such fewer stations would increase the average distance for a voter to travel to vote, and would

provide greater travel problems for the elderly and those without personal means of

transportation. Preferred parking for voters and politically provided transportation were

considered as ways to improve this situation.

The cost of the electronic voting machine, then about $ 5,000 each, was expected to decrease to

about $ 1,000 as its design and engineering improved. With about 5000 voting areas in the Los

Angeles County and an average of 4 devices per polling station, the County would need about

20,000 of the new machines, at a cost of at least $ 20,000,000. These electronic devices would be

expected to have shorter functional lives and higher repair costs than the current equipment.

Proposition 41 on the March 2002, ballot requested voter approval for the State of California to

spend money on these machines. The amount requested included $ 67,000,000, the estimated cost

for the purchase and upkeep of the electronic voting machines needed in just Los Angeles

County. ( Addendum: On March 5, 2002, California voters passed Proposition 41, the Voting

Modernization Act of 2002, by a vote of 2,229,531 to 2,103,265, authorizing a bond issue of

$ 200,000,000.00, to purchase and maintain new voting machines. The cost of the punch- card

machines has long since been amortized. The repair and servicing requirements for the punch-card

equipment are minimal.

33

The Government Operations Committee of the 2001- 2002 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury

questioned if enough consideration had been given, by the designers of the electronic voting

machine, to the system’s integrity and security during the voting process and during storage.

There is a potential for sabotage and malicious interference in our society that the Committee felt

should be recognized. Care should be taken to minimize this danger. Electrical problems such as

a local power outage, a surge or a disruption of any kind could affect any electronic equipment

then in use. Prolonged outages could delay voting. Transmission line problems could delay the

transfer of data to centralized areas. An individual in, or near, the voting area, with a small

container holding specialized electronic equipment, might be able to affect the operation of the

voting machines during their use.

The function of the machines might also be disturbed before voting started, while the machines

were in storage. The voting results themselves appeared vulnerable. They could be corrupted

through the electronic processes involved in voting, disrupting the “ ballot” presentation process,

through the storage and counting mechanisms or during the transmission of the voting data to

central areas. Such data loss would be as permanent as the loss of bundles of “ punched cards.”

Absentee ballots voted electronically would be still more difficult to protect. It is probable that

the more anti- social individuals in our society would consider the technology of such machines

as a tempting challenge, to see if the instrument could be functionally upset, if the system could

be made inoperable. Using an Electromagnetic Pulse Device, ( EMP), such people could cause a

near instantaneous and totally disruptive effect on the operations of the voting machines,

particularly on the tapes, the disks, adjacent circuits and other storage systems, if these elements

were not properly shielded and protected. The United States House of Representatives’

American Services Committee report, HASC 106.31, October, 1999, titled EMP Threats to U. S.

Military and Civil Infrastructure describes such threats. In cases of electronic absentee voting,

such interference by malicious people would be even more difficult to prevent.

It was while this study was being finalized, February 2002, that the Federal Government

mandated the elimination of the punch- card system. This Committee feels the mandate may

have been a bit premature. Except for the Florida problem, the punch- card system has been used

successfully for many years. It seems possible, if not probable, that in Florida, the difficulty with

the system was an inappropriate application of the system, rather than the system itself. While

the electronic voting machine offers much promise, it is currently bulky and heavy and still far

too expensive. It’s susceptibility to interference and sabotage needs further testing. While

improved machines are being developed, they should continue to be tested regarding their

acceptance by the public, their accuracy, their cost and their safety from interference. If

advanced models test satisfactorily and continue to compare equal to or better than the punch-card

system, then the latter system could be eliminated.

Everyone concerned should always remember the age- old adage, “ If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

Especially, don’t, if it’s going to cost a lot of money that isn’t available!

34

35

Government Operations Committee

ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES

RECOMMENDATIONS

12. The Government Operations Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should urge the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters to evaluate more extensively

the electronic voting machine, during voting, especially as to its acceptability by the

voting public, the ease with which it is moved and handled, its vulnerability to

functional disruption accidentally or through intentional sabotage, and the accuracy

with which it seems to operate.

13. The Government Operations Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should urge the United States Congressmen representing districts in the County of

Los Angeles to urge the Federal Government to rescind the mandate preventing the

use of punch- card voting techniques, until such time as a suitably constructed and

adequately protected electronic voting machine has been satisfactorily tested.

14. The Government Operations Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should request from the Federal Government sufficient financing to cover the

additional cost that the County of Los Angeles will incur if forced to adopt a new

voting machine system before protection for the system has been provided, especially

if the new machine involved must be adopted before the machine itself has been

completely tested and proven.

15. The Government Operations Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should direct the County Registrar of Voters not to enlarge the area of voting districts

without improving accommodations at and transportation to the new polling places.

36

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITEE

Los Angeles County Commissions

BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury is charged with the oversight responsibility for Los

Angeles County government and of the governing bodies of the cities and special districts

located within Los Angeles County.

Los Angeles County has a number of commissions comprised of individuals ( commissioners)

officially appointed by the Board of Supervisors to perform specific duties with quasi- judicial

quasi- legislative powers.

Much information has been obtained by the Commissions. Ready access to this information

would be of great value and assistance to various committees of the civil Grand Jury. A list of

the Commissions and how they could be reached would provide such an access.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the Government Operations Committee of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand

Jury 2001- 2002 was to compile a list of the functioning commissions of Los Angeles County,

including their current mailing addresses and telephone numbers. This list would be made

available for the use of all future Civil Grand Juries of Los Angeles County.

FINDINGS

Updates to the list are provided periodically to the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury and are

filed in a binder listing the Commissions and Committees. Portions of the information from the

list provided to the Civil Grand Jury were not always available to the Civil Grand Jurors, either

because the information for some reason was never provided, or because it had been removed

and not returned.

The information available from the various commissions can be extremely valuable to the

various committees of the Civil Grand Jury. Currently there is no definitive area for the Los

Angeles County Civil Grand Jury to keep a library of important reference material.

36

Government Operations Committee

LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMISSIONS REPORT -

RECOMMENDATIONS

16. The Government Operations Committee recommends that the Los Angeles County

Civil Grand Jury should maintain the established library of important Civil Grand

Jury reference documents and reports.

17. The Government Operations Committee recommends that subsequent Los Angeles

County Civil Grand Juries should place in the permanent library file the list of Los

Angeles County Commissions compiled by the Government Operations Committee

of the 2001- 2002 Civil Grand Jury.

18. The Government Operations Committee recommends that subsequent Los Angeles

County Civil Grand Juries should review this list of Los Angeles County

Commissions annually and update it as necessary.

37

LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMISSIONS

Alphabetical Listing

Aging Los Angeles County Commission on Aging

Agriculture Agricultural Commissioner, Department of Weights and Measures

Alcoholism Commission on Alcoholism

Arts Los Angeles County Arts Commission

Aviation Aviation Commission, Department of Public Works

Beach Los Angeles County Beach Commission

Business License Business License Commission

Cerritos Regional County Park

Cerritos Regional County Park Authority Commission

Children and Families Commission for Children and Families

Children and Families- First- Proposition 10

Los Angeles County Children and Families First- Proposition 10

Commission

Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency

Los Angeles County Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency

Commission

Civil Service Civil Service Commission

Community Development Community Development Commission Board of Commissioners

Disabilities Los Angeles County Commission on Disabilities

Emergency Medical Services Emergency Medical Services Commission

Emergency Preparedness Emergency Preparedness Commission for the County and Cities of

Los Angeles

Employee Relations Employee Relations Commission

Fish and Game Fish and Game Commission

Health Facility Los Angeles County Health Facilities Authority Commission

Highway Safety Los Angeles Highway Safety Commission

Historical Landmarks Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records

Commission

HIV Health Services Commission on HIV Health Services

Hospital and Health Care Delivery

Hospitals and Health Care Delivery Commission

Housing Authority Housing Authority Board of Commissioners

Human Relations Commission on Human Relations

Information Systems Information Systems Commission

Institutional Inspections Sybil Brand Commission for Institutional Inspections

Insurance Los Angeles County Commission on Insurance

Judicial Procedures Commission on Judicial Procedures

Library Library Commission

Local Agency Formation Local Agency Formation Commission

Local Government Service Los Angeles County Commission on Local Government Services

38

Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center

Los Angeles County Convention and Exhibition Center Authority

Commission

Los Angeles County Downey Regional Public Recreational Area

Los Angeles County Downey Regional Public Recreation Area

Commission

Los Angeles County Martin Luther King Jr. General Hospital

Los Angeles County Martin Luther King Jr. General Hospital

Authority Commission

Memorial Coliseum Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission

Mental Health Los Angeles County Mental Health Commission

Milk Los Angeles County Milk Commission

Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs

Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Commission

Native American Indian Los Angeles City/ County Native American Indian Commission

Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Commission

Probation Probation Commission

Public Health Public Health Commission

Public Social Services Commission for Public Social Services

Quality and Productivity Quality and Productivity Commission

Real Estate Management Real Estate Management Commission

Regional Planning Regional Planning Commission

Small Business Los Angeles County Small Business Commission

Solid Waste Authority Los Angeles Solid Waste Authority Commission

Sybil Brand Institutional Inspection

Sybil Brand Commission for Institutional Inspection

Veterans Advisory Los Angeles County Veterans Advisory Commission

Women Commission for Women

39

LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMISSIONS

Contact Information

Agricultural Commission

Department of Weights and Measures

12300 Lower Azusa Road

Arcadia, 91006

626- 575- 5471

626- 575- 5453

Aviation Commission

Department of Public Works

Aviation Division

900 South Fremont Avenue

Alhambra, 91803- 1331

626- 458- 7389

Business License Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 379

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 7691

Cerritos Regional County Park Authority Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 383

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1403

Civil Service Commission

222 North Grand Avenue, Room 522

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 2411

Commission for Children and Families

500 West Temple Street, Room B- 22

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1558

Commission for Public Social Services

12860 Crossroads Parkway South

City of Industry, 91746

562- 908- 8669

Commission for Women

500 West Temple Street, Room 383

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1403

40

Commission on Alcoholism

1000 South Fremont Avenue

Alhambra, 91803- 4737

626- 298- 4106

Commission on HIV Health Services

600 South Commonwealth Avenue, 6th Floor

Los Angeles, 90005

213- 351- 8127

Commission on Human Relations

320 West Temple Street, Room 1184

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 7601

Commission on Judicial Proceedings

500 West Temple Street, Room 383

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1403

Community Development Commission

Board of Commissioners

2 Coral Circle

Monterey Park, 91755- 7425

213- 890- 7001

Consumer Affairs Advisory Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room B- 96

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 9750

Emergency Medical Services Commission

5555 Ferguson Drive, Suite 220

Commerce, 90022

323- 890- 7545

Emergency Preparedness Commission for the County and Cities of Los Angeles

1275 North Eastern Avenue

Los Angeles, 90063

323- 980- 2266

Employee Relations Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 374

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 2417

41

Fish and Game Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 383

Los Angeles, 90012

213 974- 1403

Hospitals and Health Care Delivery Commission

313 North Figueroa Street, Room 903

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 240- 7731

Housing Authority Board of Commissioners

2 Coral Circle

Monterey Park, 91755- 7425

213- 890- 7001

Information Systems Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 383

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1431

Library Commission

7400 East Imperial Highway, Room 201

Downey, 90241

562- 940- 8400

Local Agency Formation Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 383

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1448

Los Angeles City- County Native American Indian Commission

3175 West 6th Street

Los Angeles, 90020

213- 351- 5308

Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center Authority Commission

1201 South Figueroa Street

Los Angeles, 90015

213- 741- 1151

Los Angeles County Arts Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 374

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1343

42

Los Angeles County Beach Commission

13837 Fiji Way

Marina del Rey, 90292

310- 305- 9546

Los Angeles County Children and Families First-- Proposition 10 Commission

333 South Beaudry, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, 90017

213- 482- 5902

Los Angeles County Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 163

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1491

Los Angeles County Commission on Aging

3333 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400

Los Angeles, 90010

213- 738- 2947

Los Angeles County Commission on Disabilities

500 West Temple Street, Room 383

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1403

Los Angeles County Commission on Insurance

500 West Temple Street Room 383

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1403

Los Angeles County Commission on Local Government Services

500 West Temple Street, Room 383

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1403

Los Angeles County Health Facilities Authority Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 383

Los Angles, 90012

213- 974- 1403

Los Angeles County Highway Safety Commission

900 South Fremont Avenue

Alhambra, 91803- 1331

626- 458- 5822

43

Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks and Records Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 383

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1431

Los Angeles County Housing Commission

2 Coral Circle

Monterey Park, 91755

323- 850- 7405

Los Angeles County Mental Health Commission

550 South Vermont Avenue, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, 90020

213- 738- 4772

Los Angeles County Milk Commission

2525 Corporate Place, Room 150

Monterey Park, 91754

323- 881- 4006

Los Angeles County Small Business Commission

707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 27

Los Angeles, 90017

213- 430- 5340

Los Angeles County Veteran’s Advisory Commission

1816 South Figueroa Street, Suite 100

Los Angeles, 90015

213- 744- 4827

Los Angeles County Downey Regional Public Recreation Area Commission

Post Office Box 7016

Downey, 90241- 7016

562- 904- 7280

Los Angeles County Martin Luther King, Jr., General Hospital Authority Commission

500 West Temple Street, Room 313

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1403

Los Angeles Memorial Museum Commission

3911 South Figueroa Street

Los Angeles, 90037

213- 765- 6711

44

Los Angeles Solid Waste Authority Commission

900 South Fremont Avenue

Alhambra, 91803

626- 458- 4014

Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Commission

1000 South Fremont Avenue

Building A- 9 East, 3rd Fl.

Alhambra, 91803- 4737

626- 299- 4105

Parks and Recreation Commission

433 South Vermont Avenue

Los Angeles, 90020

213- 738- 2954

Probation Commission

9150 East Imperial Highway

Downey, 90242

562- 940- 3694

Public Health Commission

241 South Figueroa Street, Room 109

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 240- 8377

Quality and Productivity Commission

Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration

500 West Temple Street, Room 565

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1361

Real Estate Management Commission

222 South Hill Street, 3rd Floor

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 4300

Regional Planning Commission

320 West Temple Street, Room 1390

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 6409

Small Craft Harbor Commission

13837 Fiji Way

Marina del Rey, 90292

310- 305- 9522

45

Sybil Brand Commission for Industrial Inspection

500 West Temple Street, Room 372

Los Angeles, 90012

213- 974- 1465

46

LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMITTEES

Audit

City Selection

Clean Fuel Program

Community Advisory

Countywide Criminal Justice Coordinator

Horizon’s Plan

Independent Citizen’s Oversight

Labor Management Advisory on Productivity Enhancement

Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management

Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management

Los Angeles County Street Naming

Policy Steering for South Bay Commuter Bus Service

Proposition E Special Tax

Risk Management Advisory

Savings Plan

Southern California Board of Trustees

Sunshine Canyon Landfill

Supervisory District Boundary Review

Technical Review

Traffic Reduction and Free Flow Inter are not

Treasury Oversight

47

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE

Stroke Centers

BACKGROUND

As our population ages, the incidence of stroke increases. Disability and death due to stroke also

increase and become a larger problem in health care. Various groups of the medical community

have proposed that some hospitals set up stroke centers that would have specific stroke treatment

protocols. They would have equipment and personnel immediately available to diagnose and

treat stroke patients rapidly in a manner that would insure less deaths and less disability.

Successful treatment of stroke has an important time sensitive component. If proper diagnosis is

not made and proper treatment is not instituted within a specific time frame, patients’ outcomes

suffer. Hospitals having proper personnel and equipment, as well as approved medications

immediately available ( the stroke center concept) would increase the likelihood of a better

outcome for the patient.

Stroke centers were discussed in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association

( JAMA, June 21, 2000— Vol. 283 No. 23). The article established criteria for the institution and

operation of stroke centers. Primary stroke centers would provide emergency care and stabilize

acute stroke patients. Comprehensive stroke centers would provide more specialized care for the

most complex problems.

Various specialists investigated stroke treatment, and their conclusion was that having

specialized stroke centers would definitely improve the care of stroke patients. Interestingly,

many hospitals surveyed felt they had staff and equipment to become primary stroke centers, but

few actually fulfilled the criteria established in the JAMA article.

For example, tissue- type plasminogen activator ( tPA) is considered the best treatment for a

specific type of stroke. Nevertheless, it was found in a survey that only 1.8% of patients in Ohio

and 2- 3% in the nation with that type of stroke were treated with this medication.

OBJECTIVE

The Health and Human Services Committee objective was to promote the establishment of

stroke centers in Los Angeles County.

48

METHODOLOGY

Various experts in the management and care of stroke victims were contacted, and materials

related to stroke centers were reviewed. Specific geographical ( catchment) areas and the politics

of these areas were investigated.

FINDINGS

UCLA has published a study assessing physician attitudes and hospital resources in Southern

California. Although some hospital personnel as well as physicians thought they were able to

care for stroke victims in an acceptable manner, very few met the recommended criteria for

stroke care.

In many studies, mortality and morbidity decreased when stroke center criteria were followed.

Trauma centers provide personnel and equipment that could be used in fulfilling stroke center

criteria. The economic loss suffered by trauma centers could be partially offset by their adding

stroke center services.

Establishment of stroke catchment areas is difficult because hospitals jealously guard their

patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals having stroke centers as part of the medical landscape of Southern California would

probably save lives and prevent and lessen disabilities following strokes. The County through its

hospitals would probably save money by decreasing the length of patient’s hospital stays and the

disabilities resulting from their strokes. Establishment of these centers is a daunting task. Work

on this problem has been going on for some time.

49

Health & Human Services Committee

STROKE CENTERS

RECOMMENDATIONS

19. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Department of

Health Services should establish criteria for stroke centers that are compatible with

American Medical Association guidelines.

20. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Department of

Health Services should add stroke centers to current trauma centers to address

financing and to prevent duplication of personnel.

21. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Department of

Health Services should help settle catchment area controversies.

50

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE

Abandonment of Newborns

BACKGROUND

Loss of life of babies abandoned in inappropriate places is a terrible tragedy. Mothers ( and

sometimes fathers) have babies or have custody of babies that they either do not want, or for

whom they are unable to care. They make decisions under great emotional stress that may be

poorly thought out resulting in bad choices that may lead to harm to the baby and harm to the

parent( s).

The great distress of these parents has come to the attention of the California Legislature. In

order to help prevent such tragedies in the future, the legislature has passed SB 1368 ( California

Penal Code 271.5).

California Penal Code 271.5

( a) No parent or other person having lawful custody of a minor child 72

hours old or younger may be prosecuted for a violation of Section 270,

270.5, 271, or 271a if he or she voluntarily surrenders physical custody of

the child to any employee, designated pursuant to this section, on duty at a

public or private hospital emergency room or any additional location

designated by the county board of supervisors by resolution. Each such

hospital or other designated entity shall designate the classes of employees

required to take custody of these children.

( b) This section shall be repealed on January 1, 2006, unless a later

enacted statute extends or deletes that date.

This law allows abandonment of a baby without legal penalty if, within the first 72 hours

following birth of the baby it’s physical custody is voluntarily surrendered to any employee on

duty in any public or private hospital emergency room. This law became effective January 1,

2001. Although the County Board of Supervisors may designate other places ( e. g. fire, police or

sheriff stations) to receive babies being abandoned, to date such places have not yet been so

designated.

OBJECTIVE

The Health and Human Services Committee’s objective was to decrease the loss of life of

abandoned newborn

51

METHODOLOGY

A number of hospitals were queried by mail or by telephone regarding their knowledge and

policy about this new legislation. ( California Penal Code 271.5)

FINDINGS

Recently it was reported that the police were looking for the individual who had abandoned a

baby in a hospital. On the surface, it appeared that this problem was in contradiction to the

stated purpose of the law. Further investigation revealed that there was a complication and that

the spirit as well as the letter of the law was being followed.

The Committee was encouraged that every hospital contacted had knowledge of the law and had

a protocol in place to deal with abandoned babies. However, none of the institutions had had any

practical experience with abandoned babies.

None of the Health and Human Services Committee members of the Los Angeles County Civil

Grand Jury 2001- 2002 had first hand knowledge of this law. It was discovered that the allocated

funds for publicizing this law had not been released.

52

Health & Human Services Committee

ABANDONMENT OF NEWBORNS

RECOMMENDATIONS

22. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should encourage the passage of the enabling legislation to release the allocated funds

to publicize the provisions of SB 1368 ( California Penal Code 271.5).

23. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should solicit as many public service announcements as possible from the local

media, especially those venues that cater to younger people, to inform the public of

this new law.

24. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should encourage hospitals, libraries, police and fire stations and sheriff facilities to

display signs explaining the law.

25. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should encourage the boards of education in Los Angeles County to include

information about the basics of SB 1368 in health curricula.

26. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should designate a specific day or week to publicize the abandoned baby problem.

27. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should designate other appropriate facilities to accept unwanted newborn.

53

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE

Patient Advocates

BACKGROUND

Due to the stress of illness, many communications between doctor and patient and hospital staff

and patient are lost or misinterpreted. Family members also may have difficulty understanding

or interpreting what is said or written due to the stress of illness of a loved one.

Helping patients who alone may be incapable of making decisions, helping families decide on

courses of action, discussing and interpreting forms and insurance mandates, and generally

making the hospital stay more comfortable are some of the benefits of patient advocate and

ombudsman programs.

The use of patient advocates or ombudsman programs in hospitals would be helpful in giving

their patient population a chance to resolve any conflicts that may arise secondary to a hospital

stay.

A conflict of interest could occur if the advocate were an employee of the hospital. If patient

advocates were all volunteers, the economics of the situation might change to the point that

smaller hospitals would be more likely to start a program in their institutions.

OBJECTIVE

The Health and Human Services Committee investigated to what extent hospitals embraced the

concept of ombudsman services or patient advocacy.

METHODOLOGY

Hospitals were randomly selected and were contacted by letter or telephone. Usually the

respondent was someone in hospital administration or nursing administration. Some were

reluctant to discuss any hospital policy over the telephone, while others were immediately

forthcoming with information and details.

FINDINGS

Only 25% of the hospitals questioned had programs for patient advocacy. Some were considered

patient advocates, some were called ombudsman, and some were under the umbrella title

“ member services.”

54

In general, the larger hospitals had these programs and the smaller facilities did not. Some

patient advocates were employed by the hospitals in the administrative office or by nursing

administration. Volunteers staffed other patient advocate positions. There seemed to be no set

pattern in this area of health care.

In the reality of today’s hospital economics, some institutions feel that the cost is justified by the

increased goodwill and conflict resolution potential that these programs offer. The remainder

cannot justify the costs by the benefits received.

55

Health & Human Services Committee

PATIENT ADVOCATES

RECOMMENDATIONS

28. Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors

should initiate a study of hospitals with a county contract that have advocacy

programs and those that do not. They should compare patient and financial outcomes

to determine the value of an advocacy program to the patient and to the hospital.

29. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Department of

Health Services should direct their hospitals to start a program of patient advocacy

training for volunteers. Conflicts of interest with the hospital would be less likely to

arise than if a patient advocate were an employee of the hospital.

30. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Department of

Health Services should direct their hospitals to disseminate information on the patient

advocacy programs in their hospitals upon patient admission, with emphasis on just

what services are available to patients and their families. This information should

stress the independent nature of the program as a means of good public and patient

relations.

56

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE

Retail Food Inspection

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that 9,000 Americans die each year from food related illness. Millions more

become ill from contaminated or improperly handled food. Los Angeles County administers a

retail food inspection program under the Environmental Health Division of the Department of

Health Services. The goal of this program is to lessen or eliminate such occurrences here.

In the last few years, many restaurants in Los Angeles County have been issued plaques bearing

a rating symbol based on the results of an inspection of their premises. This plaque must be

posted in an area that is clearly visible to patrons and the public. This posting was based on an

ordinance (# 97- 0071) adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on January 16,

1998.

Some cities in the county do not require posting of grades, although the restaurants in these cities

are inspected with the same regularity as those in the conforming cities. ( Not all city councils

have adopted the County Ordinance.) The usual frequency of inspection is three times yearly.

Additionally, public notification signs must be clearly posted. These signs state: “ All public

health questions/ concerns regarding this food establishment should be directed to the local

Environmental Health Office.” The address and phone number is provided.

Each establishment must have a trained Certified Food Handler whose job is to maintain the

standards and practices outlined by the Environmental Health Division of the Department of

Health Services, and to teach the other employees about these standards and practices and how to

conform to them.

Continuing education for food handlers is offered in many languages for ongoing educational

support.

The rating system grades ( A, B, C, or a numerical score if it is below 70, the low point for a C)

are based on an extensive and thorough inspection of the facility. Deductions from 100 are

based on the findings, with specific deductions for specific infractions. Some infractions are

considered so dangerous that businesses with those infractions are closed immediately and

remain closed until the dangerous infraction is remedied and the premises reinspected.

An inspection may be repeated at the owner’s request and expense sooner than the next

scheduled inspection ( for example, if a grade has been lowered and the owner wants to show the

defect has been corrected).

57

When an inspection has been completed, the inspector goes over the comprehensive form with

the responsible party. The inspection form used is specific and detailed. Each violation has a

prescribed point deduction and each deduction is fully explained. The problem is also explained.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the Health and Human Services Committee was to evaluate the food inspection

system for restaurants.

METHODOLOGY

The Environmental Health Division of the Department of Health Services presented a retail food

service inspection orientation to the Health and Human Services Committee. On subsequent

days, members of the committee accompanied inspectors on their inspections. The inspections

were unannounced, the only exception being a reinspection at the request of an owner. As

observers, the committee members were in the kitchens and storerooms and freezers and

refrigerators right along with the inspectors. These inspections were conducted during normal

business hours.

FINDINGS

The inspectors that were observed were dedicated and hard working. The inspection of

restaurants was a much more physically demanding job than anticipated by the observers.

Looking underneath and behind cabinets, refrigerators, ice dispensers, soda dispensers and any

other structure found in a restaurant was not an easy job. Looking at the inside of the front face

of an ice dispenser required a back- twisting, neck- twisting move. These acrobatic moves and

awkward positions assumed in the course of an inspection must take a toll on the examiners.

Much information was gleaned from these maneuvers— that is, how would one ever know that

mold was growing inside the front face of the ice dispenser if one didn’t look?

The inspectors wanted to see conditions before anyone had any inkling that they were going to

be inspected. In some inspections, the inspector and observers hurried through the parking lot

going directly into the restaurant and immediately into the kitchen. Some owners or operators

might recognize the inspectors and try to modify or hide some unacceptable practices if alerted

to the impending inspection.

The inspections were purposefully geared to be non- confrontational. The gentle, but firm

demeanor of the inspectors took just the right tone so that the experience for the operator was an

educational one rather than a punitive one - even though the restaurant may have gone down in

rating. This aspect of the inspection was particularly impressive to the observers.

58

There was a skillfully detailed form that the inspector filled out during and immediately

following the inspection. It specified what regulations or rules were broken, the deductions for

each of the infractions, and the method and means to fix the problem. Completing the form took

quite some time, sometimes as long as the inspection when there were many violations. Then the

inspector went over the form in detail with the responsible party to point out, discuss, and

suggest modification for each problem. This also was very time consuming, but very educational

for the responsible party - as it was for the observers.

One of the reference manuals used is the “ Retail Food Inspection Guide” published by the

County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services. This manual [ H- 3046 ( 5/ 00)] contains a

copy of the Food Inspection Report. Each part of the inspection has a number that is keyed to an

explanation in the latter half of the manual. It also has a summary of the laws and regulations for

the violations listed in the inspector’s report. ( See attached Food Inspection Report Form.)

Another manual published by the County Department of Health Services is titled “ Food

Handler’s Guide For Retail Food Establishments.” It is meant to be instructional for food

handlers and has a great deal of information regarding the maintenance of good practices in the

retail food industry. It is written in very simple language with many illustrations.

The basic tools of an inspector are an instant read food thermometer, a flashlight, and a metal

case that holds forms and is used as a writing surface during an inspection. These tools are

sometimes awkward to manipulate in the close quarters of a kitchen. Inspections would be easier

and faster if the access to this equipment were simple and efficient.

Getting “ down and dirty” appeared to be a regular routine for the inspectors. It was not unusual

for them to get down on their knees to look under anything they had to inspect that was close to

the floor. Additionally, because many of the kitchens were small, it was not uncommon for the

inspectors to stain their clothes from work surfaces. The inspectors were professionally dressed.

Their cleaning bills must have been excessive if the inspectors that were observed were the

norm.

In general, large national restaurant chains have stringent guidelines they expect their franchisees

to uphold. Therefore, franchisees have serious problems with their parent company if they get

less than an “ A” rating.

In the polyglot area that is Los Angeles, many languages are spoken and many ideas regarding

food preparation are brought to this county from other countries. The proprietors and workers in

ethnic restaurants may have traditions and practices that do not necessarily follow the guidelines

that are required for safe food handling. In Los Angeles County, sometimes the difference in

proper versus improper food handling techniques is very subtle. Explaining the changes

required to conform may be difficult if one does not have the nuances of other cultures and

languages.

A copy of the prior inspection report must be kept at each establishment. It must conform to the

posted grade or scorecard. This report must be available to the public if requested.

59

Health & Human Services Committee

RETAIL FOOD INSPECTION

RECOMMENDATIONS

31. Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Instructors in the

Environmental Health Division of the Department of Health Services should include

inspector training regarding body mechanics to prevent their having back and joint

problems.

32. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Environmental

Health Division of the Department of Health Services should design and provide a

tool belt to hold the equipment that all inspectors must carry.

33. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that the Environmental

Health Division of the Department of Health Services should consider a professional

work garment that would preserve the inspectors’ clothes and that could either be

used in conjunction with a tool belt or have pockets and loops that would obviate the

need for a tool belt. The negative impact of this recommendation is that if the

garment were distinctive enough, the restaurant personnel would recognize the

inspector and that would give them some warning if surprise were to be a factor.

34. The Health & Human Services Committee recommends that if the personnel in the

restaurant are not fluent in English, or if language subtleties could present problems,

the Department of Health Services should try to match the inspectors who could

speak the language with the language spoken at the restaurant.

60

JAILS COMMITTEE

Detention Facilities

BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles County jail system is the largest in the United States. The daily inmate

population in the County exceeds 23,000 men and women. In addition, over 4,000 juveniles are

detained daily in camps, juvenile halls and youth detention facilities. By contract with the

Immigration and Naturalization Service ( INS), the Sheriff also houses in excess of 800 INS

prisoners awaiting disposition of their cases. These facilities could potentially hold over 1100

detainees and authorities have indicated possible expansion in the near future.

The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Jails Committee 2001- 2002, is mandated by the

California Penal Code § 919( a) and ( b) to inspect county and municipal police department jails

and lockups, court holding cells, juvenile camps, juvenile detention centers, and other penal

institutions. These inspections include, but are not limited to, housing conditions, availability of

telephones, medical needs, food service with dietary considerations, number of staff and their

training background, policy and procedures manuals, local fire inspection reports, use of safety –

sobering – and detoxification cells, availability of rules and disciplinary penalty manuals,

availability of personal care items, and conditions of the restrooms and showers.

The grand jury may inquire into the case of any person imprisoned in the jails of the county on a

criminal charge but not yet indicted. The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and

management of the public prisons within the County.

Other agencies conduct in- depth inspections of these facilities on an annual or semi- annual basis.

Those agencies include, local and state health departments, local fire departments, the Board of

Corrections, and the Department of Justice. The agencies report their findings directly to the

authorities in charge of said facility, while the Civil Grand Jury conducts “ snapshot” inspections

for reporting directly to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Many of the categories listed above have minimum standards. The standards are interpreted by

the California Board of Corrections and are applied to adult and juvenile detention facilities as

set forth in Titles 15 and 24 of the California Penal Code.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 was to carry out the mandate as set forth in the

California Penal Code Titles 15 and 24. The committee’s goal was to inspect each adult and

juvenile detention facility operated in Los Angeles County by local agencies, make

recommendations for improvement, and recognize excellence.

65

METHODOLOGY

A list of detention facilities was obtained from previous grand jury reports. The Jails Committee

revised and updated the list and inspection areas were assigned. The county was divided into

four districts. Each district was assigned one team of two committee members each. A fifth

team performed selected inspections drawn from all districts.

The detention facilities inspection process for the Civil Grand Jury 2001- 2002 Jails Committee

was discussed at committee meetings and implemented after a consensus was obtained.

A field inspection form ( see Attachment A) was devised to collect common data from each of the

facilities. The data fields found on the inspection form were derived from the minimum

standards enumerated in Titles 15 and 24. The data were then compiled in spreadsheet format

for quick reference.

The final report includes spreadsheets with detailed information regarding data gathered during

inspections. Each facility was then rated on the data gathered, anecdotal information, and

personal observations. A scale ranging from excellent, above average, average, to substandard

was used. In some cases, when a facility was assessed to be substandard, a second team

conducted follow- up inspections. Suggestions and recommendations were made to the facility

managers and where a problem was pervasive, the responsible department head was contacted

and exit interviews conducted.

An overall view, in narrative form of excellent and problematic facilities would be noted in the

final report. The Jails Committee felt using this comparative procedure would best raise the

attention level of all concerned, including the 2002– 2003 Civil Grand Jury. Past grand juries’

final reports were compared with current observations, to determine progress made toward long-term

corrective goals.

This section of the report includes information about juvenile camps, juvenile halls, juvenile

facilities for the mentally challenged, probation areas for youth recovery upon release,

Immigration and Naturalization Service facilities, adult detention facilities including both

holding cells and jails, and adult specialty facilities.

FINDINGS

JUVINILE DETENTION FACILITIES

Probation Department

The Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Department exists for the purpose of assisting the

youth in the at risk population. Programs are offered to aid young people before and after they

become involved in the justice system.

Many dedicated Probation Department employees were found willing and able to assist juveniles

with a myriad of justice system related problems. They were found in the schools, camps, and

other detention facilities.

66

Early intervention and prevention are preferable over detention and are the keystones to the

Probation Department’s mandate. They are intended to avert chronic delinquency, substance

abuse and gang violence.

A small sampling of pre- detention programs are as follows:

Supervision – Probation Department supervisors are assigned to identify potential

or real justice system offenders and to assist in keeping the individuals on a lawful

path.

School Based Supervision – Selected middle and senior high schools have

probation officers stationed on campus.

School Based Deputies – Deputies are assigned to campuses where there is a high

concentration of gang activities. These deputies are meant to produce a high

profile law enforcement presence as a deterrent to anti- social behavior.

Gang Units – Deputies work with youth i