The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department is taking issue with the L.A. County Inspector General’s July 2017 report assessing the department’s data collection systems, as well as an August 8 Los Angeles Times news story about the results.

In response to the IG’s 19-page report (see end of this article) and the Times story, “Watchdog says L.A. Sheriff’s Department collects flawed data, reports inaccurate statistics” by reporter Maya Lau, the department issued the following statement:

The Sheriff and the current administration are committed to providing accurate custody-related data.

When the Sheriff learned about the conflicting Custody data, he ordered the Audit and Accountability Bureau to conduct a review of the custody data systems.

This review revealed the multiple database systems that were developed over time within Custody that served as the jail data management system. This is the by-product of a lack of investment over long periods of time by past administrations and other funding priorities by the County due to numerous budget mandates facing the LASD.

The Sheriff, prior to the publication of the OIG’s (Office of Inspector General) report had requested a comprehensive data solution to serve the Department’s data collection mandate by identifying among other data management mandates, a jail data management system. Our goal is to identity and establish systems of record to in order to provide accurate data.

The LASD has new administrative leadership that is focusing on technology planning and investment in the Department’s technology infrastructure. The Sheriff’s new Chief Fiscal and Administrative Officer is advocating for technology upgrades in the face of many budget mandates, which was not always the case in past years.

The Administrative Services Bureau and the Data Systems Bureau are working with our Custody units to identify one system including a jail management system and a system of vetting information prior to release.

Meanwhile, not all data systems are flawed, but our goal is to be accountable to one data system for consistency and then centralizing the fact checking and dissemination process. Providing good data is extremely important and our plan moving forward is to acquire a good, integrated jail management system.

Also, it is incomplete and arguably inaccurate to report that the Department is not in control of itself or to declare that all data is inaccurate or to imply that there is a lack of oversight on these matters.

The reporter in [the Los Angeles Times’] case asked a narrow set of questions without regard to understanding the context of complex data collection systems and the challenge also of meeting budget mandates.

The Custody staff works with the Office of Inspector General, Monitors from the Department of Justice, Monitors from the Rosas Agreement and several other oversight entities related to the use of force and inmate complaints.

There have been several areas Custody Executives have been focusing on such as minimizing the unnecessary and inappropriate use of force, providing appropriate supervision and training to custody staff, and attempting to create an access to care unit to provide the appropriate level of medical and mental health care in the jails.

Here is the Inspector General’s report: