Adopted County response: Mental Health Problems in Los Angeles County Jails

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Whole disagreement and reasons clearly address management, MHA departures, continuity, and alleged weakness. Specific replacement and shared-management assertions lack an identified supporting record; absence of observed weakness remains County's claim. Report physical PDF page(s) 466; County response physical PDF page(s) 60. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Partial disagreement identifies adequacy as disputed and explains it for both facilities while acknowledging challenges. Named United States v. County settlement monitoring supplies a checkable basis; comparative staffing and percentage claims are not independently verified. Report physical PDF page(s) 466; County response physical PDF page(s) 60–61. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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

Audit analysis

Whole disagreement explains how written procedures and training address operational consistency. Dated 2020 curriculum and described custody guidelines are identifiable bases, not proof of uniform practice. Report physical PDF page(s) 466; County response physical PDF page(s) 61. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Explicit partial disagreement gives a relevant but incomplete incentive rationale. Meals, visits, phone access, and out-of-cell time are specific unsupported assertions; they do not establish accreditation or resolve its motivational effect. Report physical PDF page(s) 466; County response physical PDF page(s) 61–62. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Partial disagreement clearly separates scarce HOH housing from current capacity adequacy and explains the distinction concretely. Named United States v. County court requirements provide a checkable basis for claimed past expansion; waitlist and capacity assertions remain unverified and future expansion conditional. Report physical PDF page(s) 466; County response physical PDF page(s) 62. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Position explicit and rotation/training rationale concrete, but policies and courses do not fully explain disagreement with observed disinterest or nonsupport. CDM 3-01/020.05, Rosas Provision 18.1, and named training provide checkable support for the mechanisms described, not staff attitudes. Report physical PDF page(s) 467; County response physical PDF page(s) 62–63. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Explicit partial disagreement identifies accepted differences and disputed effectiveness, with concrete dated training changes as rationale and checkable bases. Training changes do not independently demonstrate equal outcomes; future curriculum is not completed accreditation. Report physical PDF page(s) 467; County response physical PDF page(s) 63. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

County disputes the implication of inadequate services at PDC, explaining that FIP serves HOH/P3 patients who are transferred to TTCF, whereas PDC lacks that housing and patient population.

Audit analysis

Whole disagreement gives a finding-specific clinical and physical-plant explanation for the absence of FIP and alleged service deficit. Acuity and transfer-practice assertions are specific, but no policy or clinical record is identified. Report physical PDF page(s) 467; County response physical PDF page(s) 63–64. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

County agrees with the finding about FIP supply needs, without elaboration.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support. Report physical PDF page(s) 467; County response physical PDF page(s) 64. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 468; County response physical PDF page(s) 64. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 468; County response physical PDF page(s) 65. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 468; County response physical PDF page(s) 65. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 468; County response physical PDF page(s) 65–66. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 469; County response physical PDF page(s) 66. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 469; County response physical PDF page(s) 67. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 469; County response physical PDF page(s) 67. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 469; County response physical PDF page(s) 67–68. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 469; County response physical PDF page(s) 68–69. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.