Jury Urges ‘One-Stop’ Aid to Poor in Schools : Poverty: Panel’s report expected today says centralizing services for needy children could head off abuse and health problems. The program would seek to identify those at risk.

To make services more accessible to hundreds of thousands of poor children, Los Angeles County should investigate the creation of “one-stop” social service centers at neighborhood schools countywide, the Los Angeles County Grand Jury has concluded in a far-reaching report expected to be released today.

Not only could such an approach help prevent child abuse and illness, the report indicates, but it might result in savings to taxpayers if the current welter of bureaucracies is streamlined.

If adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, the proposal could lead to the establishment of a pilot program by July, 1992, and ultimately to a pervasive reorganization of the way social services in Los Angeles County are delivered.

Under the proposal, family members could turn to local schools in poverty areas for services that might include drug and alcohol abuse counseling, emergency child care, parenting and literacy classes, immunizations, and assessment by a single case worker of all family needs.

Some of those services would be provided at schools. Others might be offered nearby or through referrals, the report says. It recommends that the Los Angeles Children’s Planning Council, a board set up by the supervisors last week, coordinate planning of a pilot program after the council convenes in September.

“I think this is a very important report,” said Robert Vogel, chairman of the Social and Human Services Committee of the 1990-91 grand jury, which prepared the report in conjunction with the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. “There are a lot of pilots going around; they’re easy to get going. Our hope is to make this mainstream.”

A critical goal of the school-based centers would be to identify children at risk to help prevent abuse and neglect. Currently, county child abuse services are activated when a report of abuse or neglect is filed.

At present, 19 county agencies offer 90 programs for children and families, the report says. Municipalities, school systems, state and federal governments and private groups offer hundreds of others, spending a total of about $4 billion, excluding schools.

Poor families have to deal with several agencies in different parts of town, and sometimes several workers within those agencies. “In other words, delivery of services is fragmented, hence, less effective than it could be if the services were delivered under one roof,” the report says. “The system, because of its Balkanization, duplication of effort, gaps and other inefficiencies, tends to further victimize the children.”

Schools are considered logical sites for such centers because they are familiar to local residents, have existing buildings, and already serve children. Currently, according to the report, one-third of the 1.3 million children in the county’s public schools receive welfare.

The report hypothesizes that such a massive reorganization could save money in the long run because preventive services could cut the need for more expensive corrective actions, and because combining services could cut back on overhead.

“Although empirical cost data is not available, many experts suggest that this prevention approach may, over time, actually result in cost savings,” the report said. “These parties suggest, for example, that foster care costs, welfare costs, prison costs and health care costs would be reduced over time under a prevention system.”

However, the report adds, it is also conceivable that making services more accessible to families could result in an increase in costs because families that are not being served now might apply.

The concept of one-stop centers is garnering increasing support from social service experts around the country. San Diego County is about to open a similar one-stop center at a school that might serve as a model here, the report says.

The report acknowledges that there are significant technical complications to such a plan, among them: the lack of space in schools, the lack of personnel familiar with different agencies and “turf” battles by existing agencies.

“It’s going to take some effort on behalf of the schools and county,” said County Supervisor Ed Edelman, who was instrumental in setting up the Children’s Planning Council. “But it seems to me this is something we ought to try, at least on a pilot project level.”