Response synthesis and audit

Adopted County response: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department: Changing Culture and Increasing Transparency

County accepts several findings, describes staffing and transport changes, disputes oversight and bargaining proposals, and makes expansion subject to analysis and resources. Daycare and outsourcing answers incompletely match the proposals. Implementation labels and outcomes remain agency claims. Download opens the same unchanged 70-page consolidated County packet used by all eight collections.

Official response PDF Official report PDF

Response by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response) · 2026-09-01

Addressed

Partially addressed

Not addressed

Unclear

County's stated disposition

These categories reflect the County's response to each recommendation, separate from this audit's assessment.

Implemented

Will be implemented

Requires further analysis

Will not be implemented

Unclear

How to read this audit

Editorial engagement review only. Finding scores measure stated position, disagreement explanation, coverage, reasoning and traceability—not whether the respondent agrees with the jury or its claims are true. Recommendation disposition records the claimed state, including partial or alternative implementation explained in the audit, not verified completion. The packet was adopted September 1, 2026, item 27; its enclosure is dated August 11. Proceedings physical PDF page 22 records five ayes. No filing/receipt date or legal-timeliness judgment is inferred. Missing separate submissions do not establish nonresponse.

Commitments

Actions stated in the response

These are commitments extracted from the County's response. They describe what the response says will happen; they do not verify that implementation occurred.

Extracted commitments

Definite or bounded timing

Conditional timing

No timeframe

R1.1 · Conditional timing

County will revisit additional captain funding requests in its annual budget process; expansion remains subject to analysis, funding and competing priorities.

Annual budget process, subject to available funding

R1.2 · Conditional timing

LASD intends to add Virtual Deputy service at additional stations as resources permit, with further expansion requests considered in the annual budget process. No all-stations completion date is promised.

As resources permit; further analysis in the next six months and beyond

R1.3 · No timeframe stated

LASD is working to finalize a contractor arrangement to supplement existing background checks and clear its backlog; this is not a promise to outsource all checks or reassign current staff.

No target date stated

R1.7 · No timeframe stated

LASD describes continued stakeholder engagement and institutional improvement efforts, not independently established cultural outcomes.

No target date stated

R1.8 · No timeframe stated

County describes further facility-master-planning analysis with partners and consideration of courthouse proximity; the possible Community Care Center location remains undetermined.

Analysis in the next six months and beyond, not a facility completion deadline

R1.9 · No timeframe stated

County calls for further analysis of recruit childcare proposals and incentives; it does not commit to paid or free daycare provision.

Analysis in the next six months and beyond, not a childcare rollout deadline

R1.10 · No timeframe stated

LASD calls for additional cost-benefit analysis of recruitment incentives, without adopting a signing bonus.

No target date stated

R1.11 · No timeframe stated

County will continue assessing LASD transportation needs, including further analysis of helicopter purchases; no procurement completion date is specified.

Assessment in the next six months and beyond

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 22 of 22 items

finding · F1.1

F1.1: The two-Captain system initially implemented at three Sheriff stations shows promise for improving station culture and community relations, due to the splitting of managerial duties of Station leadership into more manageable spans of control.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

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

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) 83; County response physical PDF page(s) 5. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

4/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

0/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 0/2
Reason specificity: 0/2
Support traceability: 0/2

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.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 83 Response page 5

Discuss finding and response

finding · F1.2

F1.2: The Virtual Deputy Program, currently in use, has shown to be an advantage in response time over in-person response to calls.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

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

Audit analysis

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

4/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

0/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 0/2
Reason specificity: 0/2
Support traceability: 0/2

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.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 83 Response page 5

Discuss finding and response

finding · F1.3

F1.3: The LASD conducts background checks internally for job applicants.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

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

Audit analysis

The response explicitly agrees and identifies its County-only scope. Its jurisdiction explanation is general and supplies no checkable record for the comparative processing claim. Report physical PDF page(s) 83; County response physical PDF page(s) 6. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

7/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

3/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 2/2
Reason specificity: 1/2
Support traceability: 0/2

The response explicitly agrees and identifies its County-only scope. Its jurisdiction explanation is general and supplies no checkable record for the comparative processing claim.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 83 Response page 6

Discuss finding and response

finding · F1.4

F1.4: County Counsel simultaneously represents the Board of Supervisors, LASD, and the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

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

Audit analysis

The conflict concern and proposed safeguards identify the disputed scope and reasons. Charter authority is traceable, but alleged effects on investigation timing receive incomplete coverage. Report physical PDF page(s) 84; County response physical PDF page(s) 6. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 1/2
Reason specificity: 2/2
Support traceability: 2/2

The conflict concern and proposed safeguards identify the disputed scope and reasons. Charter authority is traceable, but alleged effects on investigation timing receive incomplete coverage.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 84 Response page 6

Discuss finding and response

finding · F1.5

F1.5: The Civilian Oversight Commission and the Office of Inspector General are aligned in strategy, yet they overlap in function and reporting.

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

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

Audit analysis

Partial disagreement is explicit, but the disputed portion is incompletely delineated. Operational overlap and legal duties are discussed generally without an identified statute, study, or organizational record. Report physical PDF page(s) 84; County response physical PDF page(s) 6. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 1/2

3/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 1/2
Reason specificity: 1/2
Support traceability: 1/2

Scoring confidence: medium

Report page 84 Response page 6

Discuss finding and response

finding · F1.6

F1.6: “Meet and Confer” negotiations between the LASD and its unions, who cannot strike, are used to balance the influence of management.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

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

Audit analysis

Both accepted and disputed propositions are expressly separated. Specific bargaining reasons and named statutory provisions support the explanation without establishing its legal correctness. Report physical PDF page(s) 84; County response physical PDF page(s) 6–7. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 2/2
Reason specificity: 2/2
Support traceability: 2/2

Both accepted and disputed propositions are expressly separated. Specific bargaining reasons and named statutory provisions support the explanation without establishing its legal correctness.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 84 Response page 6

Discuss finding and response

finding · F1.7

F1.7: Recent positive change at LASD appears to have been primarily the result of external pressure, e.g., settlements, oversight, publicity, as opposed to internal evolution in organizational culture, which tends to change in concert with changes in personnel and leadership.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

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

Audit analysis

The response distinguishes external and internal drivers and identifies a concrete organizational change. This is checkable institutional support, not independent proof of cultural outcomes. Report physical PDF page(s) 84; County response physical PDF page(s) 7. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 2/2
Reason specificity: 2/2
Support traceability: 2/2

The response distinguishes external and internal drivers and identifies a concrete organizational change. This is checkable institutional support, not independent proof of cultural outcomes.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 84 Response page 7

Discuss finding and response

finding · F1.8

F1.8: The replacement of Men’s Central Jail, despite universal recognition as a necessary measure, remains unresolved after many years of being in a state of political limbo - to the frustration of all.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

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

Audit analysis

Agreement is explicit. A named JCIT webpage is traceable, while the explanation of the unresolved replacement itself remains limited. Report physical PDF page(s) 85; County response physical PDF page(s) 7. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

8/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

4/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 1/2
Reason specificity: 1/2
Support traceability: 2/2

Agreement is explicit. A named JCIT webpage is traceable, while the explanation of the unresolved replacement itself remains limited.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 85 Response page 7

Discuss finding and response

finding · F1.9

F1.9: The absence of daycare services provided at the STARS Academy for Deputy Sheriff Trainees with children is an additional barrier to competitive recruitment and the successful completion of the training.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

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

Audit analysis

Partial disagreement and its reason are discernible. The benefit assertion is specific but uncited and does not fully engage the claimed recruitment and completion effects. Report physical PDF page(s) 85; County response physical PDF page(s) 8. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

7/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

3/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 1/2
Reason specificity: 1/2
Support traceability: 1/2

Partial disagreement and its reason are discernible. The benefit assertion is specific but uncited and does not fully engage the claimed recruitment and completion effects.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 85 Response page 8

Discuss finding and response

finding · F1.10

F1.10: LASD’s hiring campaigns have emphasized the diversity of job assignments not available in smaller or more singularly focused agencies, yet many smaller competitors are nimble in offering signing bonuses and other benefits in this competitive environment

Audit: Addressed

Response says

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

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) 85; County response physical PDF page(s) 8. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

4/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

0/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 0/2
Reason specificity: 0/2
Support traceability: 0/2

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.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 85 Response page 8

Discuss finding and response

finding · F1.11

F1.11: LASD is challenged to fund purchases of vehicles, helicopters, and inmate transport buses.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

The response identifies the disputed current extent and gives concrete dated operating assertions. Court transport is addressed, but helicopter liability and other downstream effects receive incomplete coverage. Reported outcomes remain agency claims. Report physical PDF page(s) 85; County response physical PDF page(s) 8. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position: 2/2
Applicable disagreement elements: 2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage: 1/2
Reason specificity: 2/2
Support traceability: 2/2

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 85 Response page 8

Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R1.1

R1.1: Expand the two-Captain structure to additional Sheriff Stations.

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 86; County response physical PDF page(s) 8–9. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

County will revisit additional captain funding requests in its annual budget process; expansion remains subject to analysis, funding and competing priorities.

Responsible party: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing: Annual budget process, subject to available funding · Conditional timing

Report page 86 Response page 8

recommendation · R1.2

R1.2: Expand the Virtual Deputy program to the remaining LASD stations in the County

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 86; County response physical PDF page(s) 9–10. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

LASD intends to add Virtual Deputy service at additional stations as resources permit, with further expansion requests considered in the annual budget process. No all-stations completion date is promised.

Responsible party: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing: As resources permit; further analysis in the next six months and beyond · Conditional timing

Report page 86 Response page 9

recommendation · R1.3

R1.3: LASD should outsource the background process and find other internal opportunities for the staff members currently assigned to this process.

County: Will be implementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 86; County response physical PDF page(s) 10. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

LASD is working to finalize a contractor arrangement to supplement existing background checks and clear its backlog; this is not a promise to outsource all checks or reassign current staff.

Responsible party: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing: No timeframe stated

Report page 86 Response page 10

recommendation · R1.4

R1.4: The Civilian Oversight Commission should have its own independent legal staff.

County: Will not be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 86; County response physical PDF page(s) 10–11. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Report page 86 Response page 10

recommendation · R1.5

R1.5: Restructure the COC to allow stronger independence and reduce the overlap in reporting structures: • County Counsel is conflicted in equally representing the BOS, LASD and the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 87–88; County response physical PDF page(s) 11–12. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Report page 87 Response page 11

recommendation · R1.6

R1.6: We recommend that “Meet and Confer” issues with the unions are limited to labor issues and not State law (e.g., AB 847, access to law enforcement personnel records).

County: Will not be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 88; County response physical PDF page(s) 12–13. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Report page 88 Response page 12

recommendation · R1.7

R1.7: The Department needs to be more proactive regarding internal versus external institutional change, in part, by being open to new approaches and listening to new voices.

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 89; County response physical PDF page(s) 13. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

LASD describes continued stakeholder engagement and institutional improvement efforts, not independently established cultural outcomes.

Responsible party: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing: No timeframe stated

Report page 89 Response page 13

recommendation · R1.8

R1.8: We recommend that the new jail location be in close proximity to the Inmate Reception Center, the downtown courthouse and the Los Angeles General Medical Center.

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 89; County response physical PDF page(s) 14. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

County describes further facility-master-planning analysis with partners and consideration of courthouse proximity; the possible Community Care Center location remains undetermined.

Responsible party: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing: Analysis in the next six months and beyond, not a facility completion deadline · No timeframe stated

Report page 89 Response page 14

recommendation · R1.9

R1.9: LASD should offer paid daycare services for candidates attending the LASD STARS Academy, which is currently arranged between candidates with babysitting challenges.

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 89; County response physical PDF page(s) 14–15. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

County calls for further analysis of recruit childcare proposals and incentives; it does not commit to paid or free daycare provision.

Responsible party: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing: Analysis in the next six months and beyond, not a childcare rollout deadline · No timeframe stated

Report page 89 Response page 14

recommendation · R1.10

R1.10: LASD should consider offering signing bonuses, as it also monitors other benefits offered by competing law enforcement agencies.

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 89; County response physical PDF page(s) 15. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

LASD calls for additional cost-benefit analysis of recruitment incentives, without adopting a signing bonus.

Responsible party: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing: No timeframe stated

Report page 89 Response page 15

recommendation · R1.11

R1.11: The aging condition of equipment (helicopters, vehicles, and inmate transport buses) directly impacts the quality of legal services or medical treatment offered to inmates in custody.

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

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.

Audit analysis

Editorial engagement review of the answer, not confirmation of implementation. 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. Report physical PDF page(s) 89; County response physical PDF page(s) 15–16. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Extracted commitments

County will continue assessing LASD transportation needs, including further analysis of helicopter purchases; no procurement completion date is specified.

Responsible party: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response)
Timing: Assessment in the next six months and beyond · No timeframe stated

Report page 89 Response page 15

Adopted County response: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department: Changing Culture and Increasing Transparency

Actions stated in the response

County will revisit additional captain funding requests in its annual budget process; expansion remains subject to analysis, funding and competing priorities.

LASD intends to add Virtual Deputy service at additional stations as resources permit, with further expansion requests considered in the annual budget process. No all-stations completion date is promised.

LASD is working to finalize a contractor arrangement to supplement existing background checks and clear its backlog; this is not a promise to outsource all checks or reassign current staff.

LASD describes continued stakeholder engagement and institutional improvement efforts, not independently established cultural outcomes.

County describes further facility-master-planning analysis with partners and consideration of courthouse proximity; the possible Community Care Center location remains undetermined.

County calls for further analysis of recruit childcare proposals and incentives; it does not commit to paid or free daycare provision.

LASD calls for additional cost-benefit analysis of recruitment incentives, without adopting a signing bonus.

County will continue assessing LASD transportation needs, including further analysis of helicopter purchases; no procurement completion date is specified.

Findings and recommendations

F1.1: The two-Captain system initially implemented at three Sheriff stations shows promise for improving station culture and community relations, due to the splitting of managerial duties of Station leadership into more manageable spans of control.

F1.2: The Virtual Deputy Program, currently in use, has shown to be an advantage in response time over in-person response to calls.

F1.3: The LASD conducts background checks internally for job applicants.

F1.4: County Counsel simultaneously represents the Board of Supervisors, LASD, and the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.

F1.5: The Civilian Oversight Commission and the Office of Inspector General are aligned in strategy, yet they overlap in function and reporting.

F1.6: “Meet and Confer” negotiations between the LASD and its unions, who cannot strike, are used to balance the influence of management.

F1.7: Recent positive change at LASD appears to have been primarily the result of external pressure, e.g., settlements, oversight, publicity, as opposed to internal evolution in organizational culture, which tends to change in concert with changes in personnel and leadership.

F1.8: The replacement of Men’s Central Jail, despite universal recognition as a necessary measure, remains unresolved after many years of being in a state of political limbo - to the frustration of all.

F1.9: The absence of daycare services provided at the STARS Academy for Deputy Sheriff Trainees with children is an additional barrier to competitive recruitment and the successful completion of the training.

F1.10: LASD’s hiring campaigns have emphasized the diversity of job assignments not available in smaller or more singularly focused agencies, yet many smaller competitors are nimble in offering signing bonuses and other benefits in this competitive environment

F1.11: LASD is challenged to fund purchases of vehicles, helicopters, and inmate transport buses.

R1.1: Expand the two-Captain structure to additional Sheriff Stations.

R1.2: Expand the Virtual Deputy program to the remaining LASD stations in the County

R1.3: LASD should outsource the background process and find other internal opportunities for the staff members currently assigned to this process.

R1.4: The Civilian Oversight Commission should have its own independent legal staff.

R1.5: Restructure the COC to allow stronger independence and reduce the overlap in reporting structures: • County Counsel is conflicted in equally representing the BOS, LASD and the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission.

R1.6: We recommend that “Meet and Confer” issues with the unions are limited to labor issues and not State law (e.g., AB 847, access to law enforcement personnel records).

R1.7: The Department needs to be more proactive regarding internal versus external institutional change, in part, by being open to new approaches and listening to new voices.

R1.8: We recommend that the new jail location be in close proximity to the Inmate Reception Center, the downtown courthouse and the Los Angeles General Medical Center.

R1.9: LASD should offer paid daycare services for candidates attending the LASD STARS Academy, which is currently arranged between candidates with babysitting challenges.

R1.10: LASD should consider offering signing bonuses, as it also monitors other benefits offered by competing law enforcement agencies.

R1.11: The aging condition of equipment (helicopters, vehicles, and inmate transport buses) directly impacts the quality of legal services or medical treatment offered to inmates in custody.

Mental Health Problems in Los Angeles County Jails

Los Angeles County Foster Care