LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CITIZENS ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY COMMISSION

Honorable Board of Supervisors
383 Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Supervisors:

On August 7, 1990, your Board requested the Economy and Efficiency Commission, in consultation with the Sheriff and the Director of Internal Services, to undertake a study of the County's security Systems, to recommend ways to better coordinate the County's security operations and to implement an integrated County-wide security system. This report responds to your request.

In summary, the Economy and Efficiency Commission's Task Force for Security Systems' findings for security within the County are:

• The 1984 Board approved recommendations of our Commission have not been fully implemented.
  
  
• There have been some notable improvements in security measures since our original report in 1984.
  
  
• The current security systems, however, are still not optimal because there is no accountable program management capability to plan, recommend, evaluate, coordinate, monitor, and report on security for the County as a whole.
  
  
• We recommend the establishment of such a security program management capability, reporting within the Chief Administrative Office as the organization location where it can be most effective. The CAO currently is operating two successful organizational models similar to what we are recommending.
  
  
• The Commission strongly believes that personal security and safety for citizens and employees who use County facilities, and for prevention of property losses, is a large and growing concern, from both humane and cost avoidance perspectives.

Therefore, the Commission urges the Board of Supervisors to both adopt, and assure the implementation of the following recommendations:

Recommendation I.

The Board of Supervisors establish and fund the office of County Security Program Management, assigned to the Chief Administrative Office. The office should be filled by Security professionals, and the lead position should have management experience in the security profession. The duties of the office would be:

1. Reporting regularly to the CAO and the Board on the status of security measures within the County, and recommending appropriate actions;
   
   
2. Developing County-wide standards for security and appropriate standards at each department and facility, with consideration for the recommendations of the County Security Advisory Council (see Recommendation II.);
   
   
3. Providing consultation on security to County departments and special districts;
   
   
4. Establishing systems for the reporting and analysis of data on security which will support monitoring and decision making;
   
   
5. Reviewing departmental proposals, and recommending budget decisions affecting security to the CAO and the Board of Supervisors;
   
   
6. Monitoring and inspecting compliance with standards and other aspects of security performance;
   
   
7. Assisting departments in developing and implementing employee training and awareness programs for security matters;
   
   
8. Reviewing plans for new and remodeled buildings, and making recommendations to provide for cost effective security measures;
   
   
9. Developing plans for cost effective methods to utilize contract security services, or suitable alternatives to outside contractor security services within the County organization, and assisting departments with their implementation.
   
   
10. Developing cost saving proposals for coordination or consolidation of departmental security operations, and for coordinated purchases of County security equipment and supplies; and working with departments for their implementation.

Recommendation II.

The Board of Supervisors direct the Chief Administrative Officer and the County Security Program Manager to perform the following tasks within twelve months of the Manager's appointment:

1. Appoint a County Security Advisory Council to assist the Security Program Manager in formulating security policy and standards, and recommending actions. The Council membership would be composed of the Security Program Manager, and a representative from each major County department which supplies security services; i.e., Sheriff, Internal Services, Health Services, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Beaches and Harbors, Museum of Art, Museum of Natural History. Security experts outside of the County organization should also be considered for membership in an advisory capacity.
   
   
2. Develop and promulgate County-wide security standards, and appropriate standards at each facility, taking into consideration the recommendations of affected County departments.
   
   
3. Develop a plan for the cost effective use of outside contractor security under the supervision of County-employed security personnel; or alternatively, using County employed personnel.
   
   
4. Develop a plan for establishing single department responsibility for security at locations where it does not currently exist.
   
   
5. Develop a simplified system for reporting and recording security incidents through the County.
   
   
6. Develop a time table elements, for completion of additional security plan elements, as outlined in the original report on Security Systems issued by the Economy and Efficiency Commission in October, 1984

Sincerely,

The Los Angeles County Economy and Efficiency Commission

Arthur J. Peever, Chairperson

Members of the Task Force on Security Systems

Louise Frankel, Chairperson of Task Force
Dr. Alfred J. Freitag
Wally Thor
Betty Trotter

On August 7, 1990, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors requested the Economy and Efficiency Commission, in consultation with the Sheriff and the Director of Internal Services, to undertake a study of the County's security systems, to recommend ways to better coordinate the County's security operations and to implement an integrated County-wide security system.

For several months prior to this request, our Commission has had a Security Systems Task Force reviewing those same security issues, and reviewing the level of implementation of the recommendations contained in the Economy and Efficiency Commission's October, 1984 report, Security Systems in Los Angeles County Government. Those recommendations were approved by the Board of Supervisors in December, 1984, and in summary were (see Enclosure #1 for the complete recommendations):

1. The Board establish and fund the position of County Security Program Manager, assigned to the Chief Administrative Office initially, with certain specific duties which would be instrumental in establishing a coordinated, effective County-wide security system.
   
   
2. In each County location, a single department be responsible for security.
   
   
3. The Board direct the CAO to submit specific initial elements of a comprehensive plan for security within nine months.

In October, 1985, the County contracted for the services of a full-time professional security consultant, initially assigned to the CAO, and now reporting in the Internal Services Department. Our Task Force has found that through his efforts, and those of certain individual departments which provide security services for themselves or for others, there have been improvements in security since 1984. Some examples are:

• Greater awareness of security needs and requirements by County employees and managers.
  
  
• Increased number of County security personnel, and improvements in their selection, training, and equipment.
  
  
• Establishment by the Board of Supervisors of a Courthouse Security Task Force which has determined security requirements for all County courthouses, and has installed security devices in courthouses with the most critical needs. The Task Force currently in the process of purchasing and installing securit1y equipment for the balance of County courthouses. The Task Force is chaired by the CAO's Public Safety Division Chief, and has high level representation from all the involved departments: Superior Court, Municipal Court, District Attorney, Sheriff, Marshal, and Internal Services.
  
  
• The Chief Administrative Officer's installation of a lead-tenant proprietorship program at each County facility has helped to define which department is responsible for providing security (as well as other building services).

But most of the originally recommended requirements for a complete County-wide security system, as approved by your Board, remain undone.

• There is no assigned management responsibility for reporting to the Board on the status of security, and advising on appropriate actions.
  
  
• There are no County-wide approved security standards which must be complied with.
  
  
• There is no assigned responsibility to monitor compliance with County security standards, and take corrective actions.
  
  
• There is no security information system for reporting and recording incidents across the County, which data can be used for analysis, decision making, budget decisions, and reporting to the Board.
  
  
• There is no required County-wide security training and awareness program for employees (such as exists for earthquake survival), which would help to ensure a safe and secure workplace and reduce losses of County and personal property.

We believe the elements of fully effective security system for the County remain undone because there is no organizational capability to accomplish them.

Our Commission is not recommending centralization of management for all County security. We believe our original recommendation for the establishment of a security program management capability can function effectively in a de-centralized organization such as exists within Los Angeles County government. But the County does need an accountable management capability to oversee the development, implementation, and monitoring of standards; to report on security status and needs; to review and comment on budget proposals; and to supply expert guidance and assistance to departments.

It is widely believed by those with whom we met that the number of security incidents, and the more violent type of incidents are on the increase, both within the County and within society in general.

Although we could find no County-wide statistics to support or to deny such beliefs - which is a flaw within the County's security systems as referred to above - there are certain indicators which point in that direction. Some examples are: The recent stabbing attacks in the Pasadena Courthouse of a defendant, and in the Criminal Courts building of a Sheriff's Deputy; the stabbing death of a County Mental Health worker by a patient in 1989; the shooting of a Van Nuys bailiff in 1988; the confiscation of numerous concealed weapons when metal detectors are installed at high risk locations such as courthouses; the increased level of demonstrations for various causes which sometimes become unruly or violent; and the increasing level of gang related violence which can and does occur at County facilities such as hospitals and parks.

We have also been advised by County Counsel's Litigation Division that although the total number of claims filed against the County for all reasons has leveled off within the past 18 months, the cost of pay outs has escalated. This would seem to indicate that any future litigation costs or pay outs for security reasons would be more costly than those at present.

The Security Systems Task Force reviewed the original recommendations of the Economy and Efficiency Commission's report of 1984, and the extensive supporting data the report contained.

Interviews were then held to determine the status of security, and the degree of implementation of the Board - approved recommendations. The interviews were held with department directors, and/or with management directly responsible for security. Departments contacted were most of those with major interests in and needs for security, including:

The Task Force also met with the Security Consultant assigned to the Internal Services Department, and the Chairman of the Courthouse Security Task Force. As per the Board's request, consultation was held with the Director of the Internal Services Department, and the Assistant Sheriff (designated as the Sheriff's representative).

(A letter from the Sheriff's Department supporting the recommendations in this report is included as Enclosure #2. letter from the Department of Parks and Recreation with security recommendations is also included as Enclosure #3.)

The information provided from the interviews was then analyzed, and consideration was given to alternative ways to approach the security needs of the County. Our conclusions were:

1. Security is too important a matter for both the citizens and employees who use County facilities to be addressed in a fragmented fashion, and
   
   
2. The original Board approved recommendations, along with some additional issues identified within the past six years, provided the best approach to substantially improve County-wide security without the need for major organizational changes.

Recommendation I.

The Board of Supervisors establish and fund the office of County Security Program Management, assigned to the Chief Administrative Office. The office should be filled by security professionals, and the lead position should have management experience in the security profession. The duties of the office would be:

1. Reporting regularly to the CAO and the Board on the status of security measures within the County, and recommending appropriate actions;
   
   
2. Developing County-wide standards for security and appropriate standards at each department and facility, with consideration for the recommendations of the County Security Advisory Council (see Recommendation II.);
   
   
3. Providing consultation on security to County departments and special districts;
   
   
4. Establishing systems for the reporting and analysis of data on security which will support monitoring and decision making;
   
   
5. Reviewing departmental proposals, and recommending budget decisions affecting security to the CAO and the Board of Supervisors;
   
   
6. Monitoring and inspecting compliance with standards and other aspects of security performance;
   
   
7. Assisting departments in developing and implementing employee training and awareness programs for security matters;
   
   
8. Reviewing plans for new and remodeled buildings, and making recommendations to provide for cost effective security measures;
   
   
9. Developing plans for cost effective methods to utilize contract security services, or suitable alternatives to outside contractor security services within the County organization, and assisting departments with their implementation.
   
   
10. Developing cost saving proposals for coordination or consolidation of departmental security operations, and for coordinated purchases of County security equipment and supplies; and working with departments for their implementation.

Our review and analysis shows that although improvements in security have been made in a number of places in the County since our Commission made its 1984 report and recommendations, and the subsequent employment of a full time professional security consultant, the organization and system for addressing security needs is not optimal for these reasons:

• Because the professional security position functions as a consultant, the use of its expertise is optional by departments within the County. Only upon request can the position review the appropriateness of departmental security measures. It has no defined responsibilities to report on the status of security, or to develop and promulgate security standards.
  

  For a function as important to the County as the security of its citizens and employees when visiting or working in County facilities, we believe much more is required. There should be a management position with responsibilities as shown above.

• The responsibility for developing and promulgating security standards is currently within the Chief Administrative Office, but the expertise for the security function exists with the Security Consultant position in the Internal Services Department, and in certain other departments which employ security professionals.
  
  

  We believe that the responsibility and the expertise for security should be together, not separated.

• As stated above, an accountable organizational capability to fully address County security needs to be established. We recommend that this security management function be assigned to the Chief Administrative Officer, which is the most appropriate organization within the County to provide the necessary direction and coordination.
  
  

  Currently, the CAO's office is successfully directing two operations which are models similar to what we propose: The Courthouse Security Task Force, and the Disaster Preparedness unit. These supply overall direction and coordination from the CAO's office to the rest of the County organization for their respective functions, with participation by the departments at interest.

  This placement also provides the County Security Program Management office close organizational proximity to the Budget and Operations and the Risk Management groups in the CAO's office, which is important for communication and coordination on security activities.

We are proposing that this office will operate within the current de-centralized County government structure. Departments will continue to be primarily responsible for funding and operating their own security systems, and maintaining approved County-wide security standards. The County Security Program Manager we are recommending will operate as a staff management position supplying security overview and direction for the County.

We are not recommending a large organization structure for the proposed County Security Program Management Office. Los Angeles County is a large, complex organization with over 75,000 employees and more than 750 major facilities. To supply an effective level of staff management overview and direction comparable to similar size organizations, an organization of two professionals (a Security Program Manager and a Security Program Specialist), and one, or a shared, administrative support position seems appropriate.

The estimated costs for such an office are in the range of $250,000 to $300,000 annually, which is a very reasonable expenditure to ensure a superior security system for the County, and to help avoid costly claims against the County for lapses in security.

Further, the Security Program Management office can be effective in helping to control security costs by recommending appropriate levels of expenditures to meet approved standards, such as the use of technology rather than manpower where appropriate.

Recommendation II.

The Board of Supervisors direct the Chief Administrative Officer and the County Security Program Manager to perform the following tasks within twelve months of the Manager's appointment:

1. Appoint a County Security Advisory Council to assist the Security Program Manager in formulating security policy and standards, and recommending actions. The Council membership would be composed of the Security Program Manager, and a representative from each m~~or County department which supplies security services; i.e., Sheriff, Internal Services, Health Services, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Beaches and Harbors, Museum of Art, Museum of Natural History. Security experts outside of the County organization should also be considered for membership in an advisory capacity.
   
   
2. Develop and promulgate County-wide security standards, and appropriate standards at each facility, taking into consideration the recommendations of affected County departments.
   
   
3. Develop a plan for the cost effective use of outside contractor security under the supervision of County-employed security personnel; or alternatively, using County employed personnel.
   
   
4. Develop a plan for establishing single department responsibility for Security at locations where it does not currently exist.
   
   
5. Develop a simplified system for reporting and recording security incidents through the County.
   
   
6. Develop a time table for completion of additional security plan elements, as outlined in the original report on Security Systems issued by the Economy and Efficiency Commission in October, 1984.

• We believe the establishment of a County Security Advisory Council is an important step in assuring departments the opportunity to participate in the development of County security policy, standards, monitoring, and related security matters. Such an organization helps to develop security policy and standards which have the benefit of the experience of a number of departments, and avoids objections from departments that policy and standards are unilaterally imposed from above. The Courthouse Security Task Force under the Chief Administrative Office's leadership has used a similar participative organization model successfully.
  
  
• As was pointed out to us by the Internal Services Department, the roles and responsibilities for security between the departments and the County Security Program Management office need to be clearly defined. We have made an attempt to define those roles and responsibilities as we currently see them for a number of security functions. These are included as Enclosure #4. We recognize that these may be modified as the County Security Program Manager and the departments discuss and negotiate them. The County Security Advisory Council would be a good vehicle for such discussions of the inter-locking roles and responsibilities.
  
  
• The Chief Administrative Office has responsibility for developing and promulgating standards for security (as well as for a number of other functions) within the County organization. As we stated above, however, the technical expertise to develop those standards does not currently exist within the CAO's office. This is partly the reason why the issuance of security standards have been delayed.

  The security standards we are referring to would include, but are not limited to: Personnel selection, background, motivation, compensation, and turnover; job content, career path and advancement opportunities; levels of security required at each facility; supervision; training; weapons; equipment; physical security; contracting; reporting and recording security related incidents.

  As we recommended in Recommendation I. above, we believe that placement of technical expertise and responsibility for issuing standards together is a necessary step.

  As recommended by the Department of Parks and Recreation, another benefit which can result from establishing County-wide standards for safety police officers is the development of a pool of qualified officers available for promotion or transfer throughout the County

• On the issue of the use of outside contractor security personnel there are widely differing views. Most agree there are substantial cost savings to be realized from their use, but some feel these savings are obtained at the expense of compromising security, especially at critical or potentially troublesome locations.
  
  

  Therefore we recommend that the County Security Program Manager develop either cost effective methods of using contract security services, or suitable alternatives using County personnel.

• Our Commission's 1984 report on County Security Systems recommended that at each County location, whether a lone facility or a number of adjacent facilities, a single department be responsible for security. This has not been done at all County locations.
  
  

  We believe then, and continue to believe now, that this is important because there needs to be unity of command in operations involving public safety or emergencies, and there are efficiencies which result from coordination of services at each site.

  Therefore we recommend that the County Security Systems Manager develop a plan for establishing single department responsibility for security at each County facility where it does not currently exist.

• Some individual departments have their own security information Systems, but there is no County-wide system, or any assigned responsibility to consolidate and report on departmental data. Therefore, there is no way for the Board to obtain an answer to questions on how well or poorly the County overall is performing on security, or to compare current data to previous periods or to comparable organizations. Such data is needed to determine performance, analyze needs, and take corrective actions.
  
  
• In the Economy and Efficiency Commission's report on Security Systems in October, 1984, other important elements of a Security System were identified, i.e.,
  
  
  • Specifications for the post conditions under which guards, whether contracted or not, should be equipped with firearms;
    
    
  • Specifications for the experience, training, and supervision required for the various kind of security assignments, whether contracted or not.

  These elements, and others as identified by the Security Systems Manager, will need to be implemented within an appropriate time frame.

• In the past, security has tended to be a low priority item for departments, as they have been hard pressed to accomplish their main missions with often inadequate financial resources. We believe there has been a growing recognition that an adequate security system is an essential cost of doing business similar to costs for personnel, utilities, and space requirements. We endorse this direction. As was pointed out to us, security is like fire insurance: It's not a good investment until you need it.

We urge the Board of Supervisors to adopt the recommendations contained in this report, and more importantly, to assure their implementation within the County organization. The advantages which will accrue to the County from a coordinated and integrated security system would be:

• Providing a safe and secure workplace for County employees and visitors.
  
  
• Reduction of potential liability for claims and pay-outs against the County for lapses in security.
  
  
• Reduction of losses of County and personal property.
  
  
• More efficient use of security personnel among departments.
  
  
• Cost savings through coordinated purchasing of equipment and supplies.
  
  
• More professional, uniform, and cost effective security services throughout the County organization.