(Continued from page 3)

They indicate that Renee Powers, the head of the Bureau of Operations for DCFS, rendered the ultimate decision to suspend the apellats. Ms. Powers is the one concealed behind the curtain, as it were.
   Ms. powers is also known as Renee Windsor. Her husband, Edward Windsor, is in charge of Juvenile Court Services for DCFS and, in a policy directive, has been dubbed the "Safety Czar" by DCFS head Peter Digre. The JCS staff, known as court officers, reviews CSW rreports before they are submitted to the court to make sure they are "100%" correct and in "excellent" compliance with the department's procedures to assure a child's safety. If a court report is insufficient, the "Safety Czar" returns it to the SCSW.
   That Ms. Powers is married to the "Safety Czar" and is the chief bureaucrat responsible for suspending the appellants may be a meaningless coincidence. Our money is on a more, perhaps, sinister explanation: She covered his ass. Ms. Francisco, in fact, testified that she considered the lack of accountability for the Tyresha J. case by the court officers as a "crack in the system." She didn't include that observatiob in the OHR investigation,yet she found no lapses with DCFS policy by JCS.
   It seems there was solidarity among the cabal of upper-level managers who wanted a couple of scapegoats to appease the political gods putting heat on Mr. Digre's management of DCFS. They probably thought they had a couple of weak sisters in

 Mr. Gomez and Ms. Morrissey. DCFS insiders have told the LA Daily Journal, a legal newspaper, that the veterans' punishment had little or nothing to do with the death of Tyresha J. They told the newspaper, "[T]he pair are older workers who wre not expected to fight back."
   At bottom, the investigation was an insidious effort to lay the blamr for a child's death on the appellants. The investigation was anything but full, fair and thorough. The rot we uncovered, then, is the abuse of power that starts at the top of DCFS. *

BILIGUAL SERVICES
UNDER ATTACK
by
Alan Clayton

 

   Although the government provides services to people in a language that they understand, those services are under attack in LACounty.
   The county has for years paid employees a "bilingual bonus" when the employees use a foreign language to communicate with the public.
   That policy is now threatened by an audit report by Alan Sasaki, who told the LA Daily News, "I have a sense it is a problem in some of the larger departments." He was referring to employees receiving the bonus but not using their skills 50% of the time.

    His review is erroneously based on a rejected policy. The 50% usage standard was thrown out after it was brought to the attention of Mark Finucane, head of Health Services. He found no reasom to keep it. Finucane recently told the Daily News he supports a 5% standard to justify a bonus. The State, in fact, uses a 5% standard for creating bilingual positions. The City of LA and the LAPD use a 5% standard as well.
   On Tues, Dec. 8, Fred Perez, representing the LA Chapter of the Mexican American Correctional Assn., and I addressed the County Board of Supervisors, pointing out the flaws with the audit. Speaking in support of Supervisor Molina's motion to study the staffing issue, we expressed a need for many more certified bilingualstaff.
   Countywide, based on 1997-1998 figures, there were 10,850 employees earning about an $80 monthly bilingual bonus, costing the county, on average, $3.75 a day. In stark contrast, the A.T.T. language line, a translation service, costs $2.20 to $4.50 a minute. Clearly, using certified bilingual staff person is cost-effective.
   And the need for bilingual staff is great. LA County is home to many non-or limited-English proficient persons. Recent Census data show that a large segment of the Latino population cannot communicate effectively in English.		    Of Latinos over the age of five in LA County, 45.2 percent are not proficient in English. This figure does not reflect the true need for language assistance in the county since it does not include estimates for the need of bilingual services in non-English-speaking households. Further, the Census data may reflect an undercount of residents eligible to receive county services.
    We need more, not fewer, certified bilingual employees. For this reason, before gutting its bilingual program, the county must ensure it complies with the law.
   For example, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination and exclusion from participation in or benefits of public agencies in any program or activity carried on receiving federal financial assistance.
   The regulations that implement Title VI prohibit all health care and social service providers receiving federal assistance from conducting their programs, activities, and services in a manner which has the effect of subjecting any person or class of persons to discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.
   Additionally, California's Health and Safety code pertaining to general and acute care hospitals, interpreters and bilingual professional staff provides that "access to basic health care services is the right of every resident of that state, and that

(Continued on page 5)
Page 4
Previous Page Next Page