2025–2026: from findings to follow-through

Recognizes the model’s value and cites a departmental report, but makes further station expansion subject to analysis and the annual budget process. No funded expansion or completion date is promised.

Describes 12 participating stations, Spanish-language access, reported Palmdale activity and savings, and intended expansion as resources permit. Further analysis is described as the next six months and beyond, not a firm deadline or commitment to every station.

Calls the recommendation currently being implemented through a contractor supplementing existing background checks. This addresses additional capacity, but does not explain full outsourcing or reassignment of the current staff requested by the jury.

Rejects independent COC counsel as proposed, citing County Charter Article VI, Section 21, separate representation and ethical walls. Further alternatives require analysis; no independent legal office is promised.

Disputes the counsel-conflict premise using Charter authority and the COC’s advisory role, and calls for restructuring analysis. The response does not separately resolve paid-only counsel or the proposed OIG and Sybil Brand reporting relationships.

Explicitly refuses the proposed bargaining restriction and 60-day limit, explaining effects bargaining and citing court reasoning. This is engagement with both requested changes, not an editorial legal ruling.

Claims implementation through internal structural changes and named oversight/community partnerships, while describing continued stakeholder engagement. Neither cultural change nor resulting outcomes are independently verified.

Calls for master-planning analysis and describes a possible Community Care Center whose location remains undetermined. Courthouse proximity is acknowledged, but all three requested nearby institutions and a resolution schedule are not specifically addressed.

Discusses recruitment, spending accounts, budgets, labor negotiations and additional analysis, but argues against full daycare at no cost although the jury proposed paid daycare. The proposed paid-service model remains incompletely answered.

Says bonuses were considered and incentives implemented where possible, citing cost, uncertain effectiveness and morale concerns. Additional cost-benefit analysis is required; no signing bonus or implementation date is adopted.

Claims equipment replacement is already reflected in budget priorities and cites recent bus investments, while continuing assessment of transport and helicopter needs in the next six months and beyond. Future assessment is not completed procurement or a fixed deadline.

DCFS agrees and claims ongoing implementation of positive public communications, citing newsletter profiles, celebrity participation and work with The Imprint and Los Angeles Times. Stronger Times engagement and a reforms landing page remain ongoing work, not independently verified outcomes.

For the shared litigation-risk objective, DCFS partially disagrees but claims implementation through Court Officers relaying time-sensitive court information. It conditions effective risk management on every partner fulfilling communication and assessment duties; examples focus on court orders rather than all diagnoses and treatments.

For the shared litigation-risk objective, County partially disagrees and claims existing implementation while calling for further analysis within the next six months and beyond. DCFS cites the referral portal and DCFS 179 release form; DMH supports uniform information but stresses authorization and HIPAA. Both departments describe confidentiality barriers, not a completed unrestricted uniform exchange.

For the shared litigation-risk objective, DCFS and DMH agree and claim ongoing documentation implementation. DCFS plans to share AB 218 litigation lessons and documentation tips; DMH cites its provider manual revised July 2, 2026 and clinical-documentation training. These are respondent claims, not findings of legal compliance.

For the shared objective of checking allegations and settlement claims, DCFS partially disagrees and calls for analysis in the next six months and beyond. A DA credibility checklist is conditional on case-specific comprehensive analysis establishing usefulness; missing historical AB 218 records are cited as a limitation. No unconditional checklist promise or fraud determination.

For the shared claim-validity objective, County agrees but defers checklist sharing to further analysis in the next six months and beyond by County/DCFS legal teams and DA, citing sensitivity and confidentiality. Response does not claim a checklist exists or has been shared.

To address clinician shortages and travel, DMH agrees and claims implemented telehealth through VSee since the pandemic and field staff equipment. It explains remote-service capability, without separately detailing arrangements for treatment in field offices or modality-specific effectiveness.

To address clinician shortages, DMH agrees and lists current classification-dependent incentives. Additional monetary incentives require labor negotiation; DMH promises continued exploration through collective bargaining. County pre-tax commuter benefits are distinguished from transportation subsidies, which DMH says it does not offer.

To address shortages and burnout, DMH agrees and claims FY 2026-27 service-exhibit revisions intended to reduce and realign caseloads, with future monitoring for service or staff gaps. Response does not identify a numeric maximum caseload or establish achieved reductions.

For the shared therapy-training objective, DMH partially disagrees: Infant Massage uses a specialist vendor without a train-the-trainer model; PCIT is an approved evidence-based practice with internal train-the-trainer training. DMH describes contractor alternatives and future collaboration, not adoption of clinician-led training for every named modality.

For the shared therapy-training objective, DMH agrees but claims only partial implementation through specialized CBO training. Continuing-education eligibility varies; specialized opportunities depend on program needs, standards and resources. DMH describes annual workforce training-needs assessment, not completed universal training.

For the shared therapy-training objective, DMH partially disagrees and describes existing training, CalAIM rates covering provider training, and contractor delivery and client support funds. Response does not explain whether clinicians can access training at their convenience or promise future on-demand access.

For the shared therapy-training objective, DMH agrees and claims current monitoring of several non-traditional services and continued provider collaboration. It does not describe effectiveness measures, decisions about standard clinician training, or how evidence supports funding requests.

To recruit families for teenagers and children with special needs, DCFS agrees and claims ongoing support through assigned RFS workers, respite and groups, relative support services, needs-based rates, specialized TSH/ISFC placements and FURS crisis response. Listed supports are agency implementation claims, not verified availability for every family.

For the same recruitment objective, DCFS agrees and describes outreach, mandatory RFA orientation and pre-approval training informing applicants about teenagers, special needs, incentives and supports. Its examples concern DCFS recruitment and RFA, without separately documenting FFA applicant practices.

For the same recruitment objective, DCFS agrees and claims existing preference collection through RFA01 and Resource Family Home Preferences forms, including age and medical or mental health needs. Further online application improvements remain exploratory; forms alone do not establish completed online enhancement.

DCFS agrees and claims ongoing resource-family training on youth care decisions, listing harm reduction, visitation safety, exploitation, mental health and reproductive health. It identifies community peer-support groups rather than claiming a newly created local group.

DCFS agrees and describes civic and faith-based recruitment partnerships, including the April 29, 2026 Breaking Bread Together event. It promises exploration of Rotary/Kiwanis outreach, especially for teenagers, siblings and special needs, not completed engagement with every named organization.

For the shared cultural-understanding objective, County partially disagrees. DCFS claims existing RHAS/FPC/FKCE resource-parent training, including on-demand courses and Black hair care. DMH describes its own cultural training, rejects necessity of short modules, and plans UCLA collaboration. Response does not establish identical practical online modules for families, social workers and clinicians.

For the shared cultural-understanding objective, County agrees. DCFS cites required resource-parent pre-approval training and additional referrals when requested or deficiencies arise. DMH cites annual DHCS Cultural Competence Plan requirements and continued compliance. Response does not separately specify a child-culture knowledge trigger for all social workers.

For the shared supervisory-support objective, DCFS partially disagrees and claims partial implementation. Management Directive 09-11 requires two accompanied visits annually per CSW; managers' participation can be directed regionally and one office reportedly has quarterly leadership visits. Response does not claim uniform mandatory visits for all managers.

For the shared supervisory-support objective, DMH agrees and claims supervisors already must take cases, commonly complex cases, assist field staff and address crises. This directly engages renewed clinical exposure; implementation remains an agency assertion.

For the shared supervisory-support objective, DCFS claims limited 360-degree reviews among some senior managers and requires analysis before expansion, favoring anonymity. DMH disagrees, citing meet-and-confer obligations, and only says it may explore optional non-evaluative feedback. These are distinct department positions, not joint implementation or an adopted expansion.

For the shared supervisory-support objective, DMH claims implemented open-door meetings on staff request. DCFS claims varied, nonstandardized partial practices and future evaluation, explaining confidentiality exceptions for reporting/action and managerial capacity constraints. Quarterly sampled meetings are an alternative suggestion, not an adopted schedule.

For the shared coordination objective, County agrees and claims partial implementation using mobile devices, 2-1-1 and CareConnect. It expressly says additional enhancements are needed for the comprehensive real-time field application; response does not promise a finished application or deployment date.

For the shared coordination objective, DCFS agrees and claims partial implementation through referral improvements and DMH collaboration, while acknowledging manual workflows. Automated notices remain possible enhancements; DCFS promises evaluation and prioritization during and after CWS-CARES transition, not completed automation or new MOUs.

County agrees and claims ongoing implementation through DCFS plain language, expanded first-reference acronyms, glossary, journalism toolkit and ADA-accessible materials. Response does not demonstrate hover/click acronym explanations or describe DMH practices; those are engagement gaps, not evidence of nonresponse elsewhere.

County agrees and reports implementation, citing the September 30, 2025 five-vote Board motion supporting NAME accreditation, staffing, and efficient processes. This is the respondent's implementation claim, not verification of staffing sufficiency.

County agrees and reports implementation, identifying FY 2024–2025 and 2025–2026 public budget hearing presentations as acknowledging expanded-facility considerations.

County agrees and describes the feasibility study as being implemented: FY 2025–2026 funding procured, vendors selected with CEO, and first visit/inspection expected in mid-summer 2026. No completed study is established.

County agrees and labels support staffing implemented, describing increased forensic technicians and their assistance to pathologists. The newly acquired pathologist assistant is still expected to begin that summer; the label does not establish that start occurred.

County agrees and reports implementation through staffing increases over the past two fiscal years, including investigators and a forensic pathologist assistant position, linked to premature and undetermined death investigations and pathologist shortages.

County agrees and describes camera installation as being implemented, with funding acquired and work ongoing for the property bin, cage area, and vault doors. Installation completion is not claimed.

County agrees and reports implementation for County operations, citing the McChrystal After-Action Report, Emergency Services Ordinance Chapter 2.68 adopted March 30, 2020, and Unified Coordination Group systems for informing officials before, during, and after emergencies.

County agrees for County operations and describes existing social-media presence and public-preparedness communications. It does not address seeking funds for the recommended social-media consultant or commit to hiring one.

County agrees and describes implementation for County operations through 44 positions and increased budget approved for FY 2026–2027, with 39 more positions and related budget increases planned across FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029. Planned additions are not completed staffing or proof of mission effectiveness.

County agrees and labels funding efforts being implemented for County operations, explaining how additional LA28 host-committee funding would support games and non-games preparedness and response. It does not specify applications, awards, or concrete redoubled efforts across the recommended funding sources.

County agrees and reports ongoing funding and planning for a new EOC and upgrades to the current EOC, initially intended as alternate EOC and training center. These are developing County plans, not completed alternate-center readiness.

County agrees to future implementation in part: the County Operational Area should issue emergency protective notifications, alerts, and warnings during multi-jurisdictional emergencies, consistent with SEMS concepts. Local jurisdictions would retain authority for other disaster information and communications; this is not a promise to consolidate all public communications.

County partially disagrees and calls implementation underway through an existing ad hoc technology committee, citing policy work and regular reports. It explains COC independence but does not adopt the requested permanent committee.

LASD expressly declines implementation, defends two-year ALPR retention with investigative examples, policies, statutes, and a court case, and promises continued assessment. No shorter retention period or completed value study is promised.

County partially disagrees and claims implementation via annual multilingual and other COC meetings, describing LASD public-input mechanisms and COC independence. These examples engage frequency and public input but do not establish frequent technology Town Halls or commit COC to them.

LASD supports youth inclusion, cites Board authority over COC appointments, and describes youth recruitment and reporting for station CACs. It does not supply a Board/COC plan for recruiting high-school-age non-voting oversight members; CAC participation is distinct.

DHS and LASD expressly refuse a new permanent director/coordinator, describing existing CHS staffing and shared leadership as sufficient for continuity. Staffing counts and effectiveness are agency claims.

DHS and LASD claim implementation through biannual staffing analyses submitted under USDOJ Settlement Provision 47 since 2016, including staff, vacancies, contractors, and staff-to-client ratios, with reports to continue. No new hiring or projected expansion staffing is specifically promised.

DHS and LASD claim implementation through existing written CHS curricula, six-month MHA training, and LASD staff guidelines dating to 2020; they promise ongoing review, not a verified newly completed manual.

DHS and LASD describe prior certification attempts, the May 2024 solicitation, contractor difficulties, and the authorized-location proctored-exam obstacle. They call for further analysis and continued provider work, not completed school accreditation or a certification delivery deadline.

DHS and LASD disagree that more pods are currently needed, citing existing capacity, a small waitlist, and a 16-candidate conversion threshold. They promise monitoring and consideration of expansion if enough qualified patients emerge, not unconditional growth.

DHS and LASD claim specialized training is implemented, describe courses and CHS training opportunities, and explain 12-month staggered rotation and policies prohibiting permanent line assignments. They do not promise a permanent voluntary FIP assignment or establish an MHA-equivalent class for every transferring deputy.

DHS and LASD claim implementation of TTCF-model MHA training at CRDF in April 2026, using TTCF materials, with GOGI added in January 2025. These are completed-work claims, not independently verified outcomes.

DHS and LASD explicitly refuse a modified PDC FIP program, citing different acuity and housing, transfers of HOH patients, existing MOH features, peer assistance, and clinical oversight. Continuing to seek transferable features is not adoption of the recommended program.

DHS and LASD explicitly decline donation-drive coordination for now, citing existing funding, NGO resources, and donations as sufficient. They promise a formal funding request only if a future shortfall occurs; no fixed request or drive is promised.

Explicit agreement only; no additional account of station duties, outcomes, or supporting record.

Explicit agreement only; response-time and staffing benefits are not elaborated or documented.

Agrees within LASD operations and expressly declines to speak for the California Highway Patrol.

Partially disagrees, citing County Charter Article VI, Section 21 and separate attorneys and ethical walls; does not specifically resolve the alleged investigative delays.

Partially disagrees while acknowledging possible benefits from consolidation; calls for alternatives and legal constraints without clearly identifying which proposed organizational relationships it rejects.

Acknowledges effects on testimony timing but disputes the characterization of bargaining; explains decision-versus-effects bargaining through Government Code Sections 3504 and 3505.

Acknowledges external influence but points to internal leadership and the Office of Constitutional Policing as additional sources of change.

Agrees the jail-replacement issue remains unresolved; links to ongoing closure work without establishing a replacement location or completion.

Acknowledges no direct daycare and cites access to a dependent-care spending account; does not show that the recruitment or training barrier is removed.

Explicit agreement only; no comparative recruitment record or benefit analysis is supplied.

Acknowledges funding and prior missed-court problems; reports 26 operational new buses and fewer than 20 missed dates per week in mid-2026, while helicopter needs remain under analysis.

County agrees with finding on public impressions and media coverage, without elaboration.

County agrees with finding and commendation concerning foster-care improvements, without elaboration.

County agrees with litigation and settlement finding, without supporting analysis of costs or allegations of fraudulent claims.

County agrees with finding on insurance premiums, potential FFA closures and placement disruption, without elaboration.

County agrees with finding on community organizations and DCFS partnerships, without elaboration.

County agrees with finding on placement challenges for teenagers and children with special needs, without elaboration.

County partially disagrees, describing DMH merit-based recruitment, cultural-needs documentation and training. Response does not resolve demographic disproportions or comprehensively address DCFS workers and resource families.

County agrees with finding on child fatalities and improvement goals, without elaboration.

County agrees with finding on youths' knowledge of rights and possible unintended consequences, without elaboration.

County agrees with finding distinguishing FFA and DCFS hiring and retention, without elaboration.

County partially disagrees: DCFS cites required supervisory field visits and some leadership visits, while DMH describes supervisors' prior field experience and current complex-case work. DCFS accepts benefits of continued exposure; these claims do not independently disprove reported staff experiences.

DMH partially disagrees with higher-caseload and complexity characterization, citing contracting capacity and FY 2026-27 movement toward parity. Response does not supply comparative caseload data or directly explain burnout and location preferences.

DMH disagrees, explaining specialty mental health obligations, yoga's asserted exclusion from approved services and clinician scope, and contractor provision or funding of adjunct non-traditional services. Response does not establish knowledge or uptake across modalities.

County agrees with finding on information-exchange delays, without elaboration.

County partially disagrees based on efforts to reduce acronym confusion; DCFS expressly agrees with finding while citing plain-language practices, glossary and journalism toolkit. DMH-specific practices are not described.

County agrees with the finding on workarounds, toxicology efficiencies, and accreditation, without elaboration.

County partially disagrees, citing added forensic technicians and a pathologist assistant expected to start that summer. It does not resolve the finding's aged-facility, processing-delay, or staff-stress propositions.

County agrees with the finding on space limitations, replacement or renovation needs, and the approved feasibility study, without elaboration.

County disputes that necessary repairs delay the feasibility study, stating repairs and study proceed on parallel tracks.

County agrees security measures improved and cites funding acquired for cameras covering bin, cage, and vault areas, with work ongoing. It does not clearly explain which remaining security concern it disputes.

County agrees that digital case management decreases the likelihood of missing property, without elaboration.

County agrees there is no public report accounting for personal property logged and disposed, without elaboration.

County partially disagrees within County operations, citing 44 positions approved for FY 2026–2027 and 39 additional positions planned across FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029, with budget increases. It does not directly address elected officials' understanding or its alleged effect on resources.

County agrees about public understanding and emergency-resource awareness, expressly for County operations only.

County partially disagrees within County operations, citing an approved FY 2026–2027 addition of 44 positions and increased budget, plus plans for 39 more positions and related budget increases over FYs 2027–2028 and 2028–2029.

County disagrees for County operations, predicting federal Olympic-preparation funds distributed through the State and access to one-time safety/security funding, with Sheriff and Fire coordination roles.

County disagrees for County operations, stating Public Works' EOC can serve during an emergency. A new EOC location is being evaluated; using the current EOC as alternate is conditional on developing a new one.

County agrees with the finding about split evacuation-order responsibilities and uncoordinated response during the 2025 fires, expressly for County operations only.

County agrees only for County operations; it does not substantiate readiness of the two city ports.

County agrees only for County operations, without describing risk assessment, training, technology investment, or other improvements.

County expressly declines a substantive position because both Port Authorities are city entities outside County operations.

County agrees with the finding about RR/CC cybersecurity efforts, without elaboration.

County agrees with the finding about monitoring and correcting AI disinformation, without elaboration.

County agrees with the finding about public observation of ballot processing, without elaboration.

County agrees with the finding about participation and certification goals, without elaboration or a new promise.

County partially disagrees, citing an existing COC technology ad hoc committee and LASD's institutional separation; it does not address review and reporting at every meeting.

County agrees that LASD's ALPR system has kept data for two years, without elaboration.

County agrees with the finding about the Board-directed annual multilingual ALPR forum, without elaboration.

County expressly gives no substantive response to the LAPD technology-donation finding because it concerns City of Los Angeles operations.

County expressly gives no substantive response to the LAPD interagency-camera-access finding because it concerns City of Los Angeles operations.

County expressly gives no substantive response to the Long Beach police-technology-oversight finding because it concerns City of Long Beach operations.

County expressly gives no substantive response to the Long Beach Digital Rights Platform finding because it concerns City of Long Beach operations.

County expressly gives no substantive response to the Pasadena surveillance Work Plan finding because it concerns City of Pasadena operations.

County expressly gives no substantive response to the Beverly Hills civilian-oversight finding because it concerns City of Beverly Hills operations.

County expressly gives no substantive response to the South Gate civilian-oversight finding because it concerns City of South Gate operations.

County expressly gives no substantive response to the LA Metro oversight finding because Metro is an independent transportation authority, not a County department.

County partially disagrees, questioning the age group and stating young people can participate if they meet commitments, without addressing actual representation.

County disputes weakened leadership, describing shared LASD/CHS/MHA management and recruitment and training of replacements; it identifies CHS as part of DHS, not DMH.

County disputes insufficient staffing at TTCF and CRDF, citing the federal settlement monitor, staffing adequacy, a typical 20 percent vacancy rate, and a 20 percent retention bonus while acknowledging recruitment challenges.

County disputes missing documentation, describing written MHA curricula and LASD guidelines developed in 2020, subsequent revisions, and continuing review.

County partially disagrees by citing completion certificates and other incentives, but does not address the absence of recognized school accreditation or its disincentive for some participants.

County acknowledges scarce HOH space but disputes a present expansion constraint, citing sufficient existing pods, small waitlists, screening, and at least 16 candidates needed for another pod.

County partially disagrees, explaining mandatory rotations and specialized training, without directly resolving the jury's claim that some deputies do not understand or support FIP.

County accepts program differences but disputes inferior CRDF services, citing April 2026 adoption of TTCF training, January 2025 GOGI instruction, and planned Peer Certification curriculum.