Juvenile Justice Transition Team - FINAL REPORT

Law and Order Transition Team Juvenile Justice

LAW AND ORDER TRANSITION TEAM:

JUVENILE JUSTICE

TEAM MEMBERS: Wansley Walters, Team Lead

David Dennis Tom Olk

Bertica Cabrera-Morris

DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNOR-ELECT RICK SCOTT

DECEMBER 21, 2010


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Juvenile Justice Transition Project Department Review Information

Budget Summary of Duties & Responsibilities Staffing Organizational Charts Physical Offices Overlapping Duties (Government) Overlapping Duties (Private Sector) Short Term Issues Long Term Issues

Proposals & Outlook for Juvenile Justice New Organizational Chart Cost Savings Opportunities Summary of Budget Summary of Legislative Priorities

Policy Issues & Recommendations 1. Implement Community Based Juvenile Justice 2. Revitalize Juvenile Assessment Centers 3. Organizational Structure Overhaul 4. Preserve Behavioral Health Overlay Services 5. Reduce the Use of Secure Detention and Address Detention Cost Sharing 6. Modernize Technology 7. Evaluate DJJ Administrative Code 8. Improve Quality Assurance 9. Revise Protective Action Response 10. Reduce or Eliminate State Operated DJJ Residential Facilities 11. Eliminate Central Communications Center 12. Improve Health Services 13. Update Contracting Process 14. Improve Before and After-School Care 15. Implement Evidence Based Practices 16. Improve Collaboration of DJJ with State and Local Workforce Development 17. Re-Think the Definition of Recidivism 18. Increase Services Available for Girls


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

19. Eliminate Redundant Data Entry for CINS/FINS 20. Combine Current Low and Moderate Risk Levels

Attachments and Supporting Information 1. Southern Poverty Law Center Presentation 2. Florida Association of Counties Presentation 3. Number of Youth Placed Out of Circuit 4. FJJA BHOS Document 5. Why SIPP Therapeutic Group Homes and BHOS Services 6. JSD Cost Analysis Report document 7. #3 PAR Request document 8. #2 Transfer to Adult 9. #6 Placement in Region by Circuit with Boundaries 10. #6 Out of Circuit-Region Placements 12 3 10 11. #7 Dispositions by Circuit 12. Detention 2011-12 Reduction Narrative 13. FY08-09 Historical Utilization 14. FY09-10 Historical Utilization 15. Secure Utilization Data 16. Getting Smart on Crime


INTRODUCTION Our team has spent the last four weeks soliciting the input of numerous stakeholders in reviewing the functions, structure, strategic direction, budget and spending of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). We further researched and consulted with national leaders on best practices and proven solutions in operating an effective and efficient juvenile justice system that is structured to evolve based on outcome driven performance. Our recommendations highlight concrete strategies that have been proven to save money and treat youth more appropriately and effectively while maintaining public safety. One such strategy is to embrace a fiscal realignment model, through which incentives encourage communities to treat young offenders through community- and evidence-based programs, and decrease their use of costly state-funded residential beds.

We have included both short and long term proposals that once implemented will transform the current juvenile justice agency into a national model. In the short term, the proposed recommendations expand models that are currently working such as Civil Citation and the Juvenile Assessment Centers (JACs), implement pilots modeled after effective and proven business models, evaluate existing administrative code to reduce bureaucracy, and develop a comprehensive solution to detention cost sharing. In the short term, the Department can also support three pilot Community Based Juvenile Justice pilot sites. These recommendations are based on creating an organizational structure that promotes coordination, communication and eliminates the silos that currently exist. It is focused on accountability and performance rather than complacency and compliance.

In the long term, the structure will evolve to a more locally driven, front end system having the capacity to address the serious offender population. The regional offices will be consolidated, allowing for more local coordination and less replication of services. We recommend evaluating whether these two agencies could be combined after evolving the current DJJ culture and focus on a more outcome driven, performance based system of care.

Although the Team has submitted a total of 21 overall recommendations, the top six overarching proposals are as follows:

To manage misdemeanor offenders with more cost effective methods that deliver better outcomes. This would be accomplished in the following manner:

• Statewide Civil Citation should be used for first time (and some second time) misdemeanant offenders. This includes assessment and specific service referral as well as community service and restitution. It not only benefits the juvenile but allows one agency to manage the process without engaging the other multiple agencies involved with an arrested juvenile. Non-compliant Civil Citation participants would move into arrest status for the original offense.

• Consistent with research and the emerging practice in other states, misdemeanor offenders should not be placed in residential programs. The exception would be respite or shelter homes with services based only on the individual circumstances of a juvenile.


• Juvenile misdemeanor offenders qualifying for detention would remain at home with a GPS bracelet, 24 hour monitoring and wrap around family services to address behavior issues with chronic misdemeanant behavior. This would be a major component of the secure detention reform noted below.

To implement three Community-Based Juvenile Justice pilot sites. Community-Based Juvenile Justice (CBJJ) will result in a better coordinated, locally controlled, continuum of care with care that emphasizes placing youth in the right program at the right time. CBJJ facilitates stronger local partnerships that allow a community ownership of the juvenile justice system. It also will develop a mechanism that shares decision making on local juvenile justice issues with the local stakeholders. The Administration can support legislation that would allow three communities (urban, suburban and rural) to pilot the Community Based Juvenile Justice model, similar to the locally based structure administered by the Department of Children and Families (DCF). To promote and encourage the development of robust Juvenile Assessment Centers(JACs) throughout the state. JACs play a vital role in the reformation of the Juvenile Justice System. They are the initial and central point of entry into the system and the most efficient method for the development of true front end prevention, intervention and diversion within the juvenile justice system. The Department should explore opportunities to shift funds from other parts of the continuum to strengthen and develop assessment centers and diversion programs. The development of full service Juvenile Assessment Centers will organize and manage the juvenile population for community stakeholders. The JACs will act as a hub in the system that allows the next levels of the system to work more efficiently as evidenced by the Centers already in place in Miami and Tallahassee.

To change the organizational structure. The department must create an organizational structure that promotes better coordination, communication and eliminates the silos that have developed within the department. The reorganization must occur at the headquarters level as well as the local and regional level by creating a circuit continuum of care with a single point of accountability. The organization of DJJ should be restructured to eliminate silos and create a management team that has complementary and not competing responsibilities. This would also allow for more flexible budgeting that reflects the reality of the population at the local/circuit level. Several management positions can be eliminated, and the number of regional offices can be reduced through a realignment of functions which will create a structure that evolves as communities evolve. To maximize the Efficiencies in Data and Technology. Position the department to use data and technology to manage the juvenile population and strategically apply resources. It is critical for local circuits to have real time data in order to identify trends and patterns that are unique to the local community. The goal for DJJ is to instill an outcome driven, performance based organization at all levels, including the provider community. Decision making based on outcomes will drive the agency. To implement reform of juvenile detention policy, practice, and operation. The Department should review the Missouri Detention model for possible replication in Florida while closing and consolidating juvenile detention facilities. Florida can aggressively move to the Juvenile Detention Alternatives to Incarceration (JDAI) as evidenced by the pilots currently funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. In addition, the Department should implement the cost effective bracelet program for detainable misdemeanor offenders with family services.


These initial recommendations are in true alignment with the same recommendations presented by the Blue Print Commission two years ago. They are solid, sound and based on best practices and proven solutions. The following report outlines the current DJJ agency, our outlook for a new DJJ agency and the policy recommendations we are requesting support.


TRANSITION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Juvenile Justice transition Team appointed by Governor Elect Scott brought over 35 years of varied expertise and experience to this project. The team began by appointing Wansley Walters as the team leader. They then decided to conduct a transparent review of the Department of Juvenile Justice. The review included interviews both in person and over the phone with key DJJ leadership, as well as, presentations from statewide stakeholders. The team also engaged in conversations with national organizations and experts focused on juvenile justice in preparation for the new administration and coordinated systems improvement. After the completion of the interviews, presentations and research, the team evaluated all of the information provided and has included what they consider the crucial recommendations and information for Governor-Elect Scott. Interviews Completed:* Frank Peterman, Secretary of the Department of Juvenile Justice Christy Daly, Interim Chief of Staff Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Rod Love, Deputy Secretary Fred Scheucknet, Director of Administration Services Vickie Harris, Bureau Chief, Budget Beth Davis, Director of Program Accountability Julia Stranger, DJJ, Office of Detention Services Rex Uberman, Assistant Secretary Jeanie Becker-Powell, OMC Manager, Office of Probation Mark Greenwald, Chief, Bureau of Research and Planning Andy Hindman, Director, Faith and Community-Based Partnerships Yvonne Woodward, Director, Office of Boards and Councils Rhyna Jefferson, Deputy Manager, Office of Prevention and Victim Services Tim Bedsen, Regional Manager Beth Davis, Director of Program Accountability Darryl Olson, Assistant Secretary of Residential Mary Eubanks, Inspector Generals Lisa Johnson, Chief Medical Director Terri Eggers, Education Director *All interviewees were employees of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. Presentations: Randy Nelson, 21st Century Research and Evaluation Tomica Smith, , Palmer Munroe Teen Center Cathy Craig-Myers, Florida Juvenile Justice Association Roy Miller, Journey to Justice David Utter, Southern Poverty Law Center Sarrah Carroll, Florida Association of Counties Donnie Read, Twin Oaks Juvenile Development


Jeff McSpaddin, Twin Oaks Juvenile Development Mark Fontaine, Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association Robert Weissert, TaxWatch Stacy Gromatski, Florida Network of Youth and Family Services Mary Marx, PACE Center for Girls National Organizations: Coalition for Juvenile Justice Child Welfare League of America Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention National Council on Crime and Delinquency Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators Annie E. Casey Foundation Campaign for Youth Justice Vera Institute of Justice Evidence Based Associations Juvenile Justice Reform Center


DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW 2010-2011 Department Annual Operating Budget:

Division General Revenue Trust Fund Total Total

Detention Centers

$29,180,522 $101,373,393 $130,553,915

Aftercare Services

$26,671,113 $1,522,805 $28,193,918

Juvenile Probation

$88,561,719 $8,348,238 $96,909,957

Non-Residential Delinquency

$18,577,862 $99,465 $18,677,327

Executive Direction

$16,551,413 $4,278,354 $20,829,767

Information Technology

$6,195,142 $0 $6,195,142

Non-Secure Residential

$128,000,158 $7,012,808 $135,012,966

Secure Residential

$66,326,938 $38,783,996 $105,110,934

Prevention $30,423,088 $29,417,903 $59,840,991 Fixed Capital Outlay $1,806,244

$0 $1,806,244

Totals $412,294,199 $190,836,962 $603,131,161


Divisions of the Department: • Detention Services • Probation and Community Corrections

o Juvenile Probation o Aftercare Services o Non-Residential Delinquency Rehabilitation

• Residential Services o Non-Secure Residential o Secure Residential

• Office of Prevention • Executive Direction

o Office of Health Services o Office of Administration o Office of General Counsel o Office of Education o Office of the Inspector General o Office of Program Accountability o Staff Development and Training o Information Technology

Total personnel: FTE’s by Functional Area:

Functional Area: FTE:

Detention Services 2,042.5 Probation and Community Corrections 1,408.5 Residential Services 976 Prevention 17

Total – Functional Area 4,444.0 Executive Direction: Office of the Secretary 4

Office of Chief of Staff 5 Office of General Counsel 42 Office of Communications 2 Office of Education 3 Office of the Inspector General 28 Office of Program Accountability 44.5 Staff Development and Training 3 Office of Health Services 4 Office of Administration 91 Information Technology 59.5

(Supplemented by 21 contracted staff)

Total – Executive Direction 286

TOTAL –DJJ 4,730.0


Total number of physical offices and locations by city:

County Bldg. Prop. # Region Facility or Office Location Annual Lease Cost

FY 09-10 Facility

Expenditures (includes

cost of insurance,

utilities, repair/maint.),

etc.) **

DET

FTE

PROB

FTE RES FTE PREV FTE Exec Dir/IT

TOTAL

DJJ FTE'SOsceola E094 02-003965 Det. C Osceola RJDC/Kissimmee JRF 2330 New Beginnings Rd, Kissimmee $139,518.01 52 52

Polk 4479BB-000107

and 06-003047 Det. C Polk RJDC 2155 Bob Phillips Rd, Bartow $267,459.88 94 1 95

Manatee 4498BB-000088

and 02-003977 Det. C Manatee RJDC 1803 W 5th St, Bradenton $95,340.76 74 74Hillsborough 4419 BB-000238 Det. C West Hillsborough RJDC 3948 W MLK Blvd, Tampa $143,988.87 84 84Pinellas 3853 BB-000277 Det. C Pinellas RJDC 5255 140th Ave, Clearwater $200,621.16 104 104Hillsborough B249 02-003910 Det. C East Hillsborough RJDC 9504 E Columbus Dr, Tampa $96,970.94 52 52Brevard 5372 BB-000276 Det. C Brevard RJDC 5225 Dewitt Ave, Cocoa $79,696.34 60 60Orange 5348 BB-000142 Det. C Orange RJDC 2800 S Bumby Ave, Orlando $215,627.14 145 145Seminole 5340 Leased Det. C Seminole RJDC 200 Bush Blvd, Sanford $57,875.01 41 41Polk 4493 BB-000115 Prob. Polk JAC/HAS 2155 Bob Phillips Rd, Bartow $2,744.50 3 3Pasco 3821 BB-000144 Det. C Pasco RJDC 28534 SR 52, San Antonio $88,094.46 58 58Hillsborough A033 Leased Det. C Regional Office 4524 Oak Fair Blvd, Tampa 300418.75 $171,469.15 24 8 1 33Leon B049 BB-000715 Det. N Leon RJDC 2303 Ronellis Dr, Tallahassee $117,881.27 59 59Duval 2717 BB-000040 Det. N Duval RJDC 1241 E 8th St, Jacksonville $202,172.57 109 109Alachua 1710 BB-000212 Det. N Alachua RJDC 3440 NE 39th Ave, Gainesville $138,169.27 69 69Okaloosa D214 02-003616 Det. N Okaloosa RJDC 4448 Straight Line Rd, Crestview $137,132.65 53 53Volusia 2767 BB-000226 Det. N Volusia RJDC 3840 Old Deland Rd, Daytona Beach $127,692.55 91 1 92

Marion 1741

BB-000360, 02-003982 and 02-

003983 Det. N Marion RJDC 3040 NW 10th St, Ocala $190,744.96 83 2 1 86Bay 0400 02-257056 Det. N Bay RJDC 450 E 11th St, Panama City $78,876.52 52 52

Escambia 0008 LeasedDet. N & Prob. N Escambia RJDC/JAC 1800 St Mary's St, Pensacola 432269.38 $314,563.08 55 12 2 69

Dade 9013 06-003253 Det. S Dade RJDC 3300 NW 27th Ave, Miami $901,571.59 211 211Palm Beach 6002 06-003295 Det. S Palm Beach RJDC 1100 45th St, West Palm Beach $172,114.74 87 87Collier E148 02-003979 Det. S Collier RJDC/JAC 3315 E Tamiami Trail, Naples $79,462.21 53 53Broward 8103 BB-000116 Det. S Broward RJDC 222 NW 22nd Ave, Ft Lauderdale $190,574.90 103 103St. Lucie 7018 01-002944 Det. S St. Lucie RJDC 1301 Bell Ave, Ft Pierce $107,836.59 75 75Lee 4913 BB-000136 Det. S SW Florida RJDC 2525 Ortiz Ave, Ft Myers $140,262.76 60 60Broward D056 Leased Det. S Detention South Regional Office 4801 S University Dr, Davie 250183.00 $276,754.16 24 24

Monroe E477 06-003990Det. S and Prob. S Monroe RJDC/Probation C16 5503 College Rd, Key West 43378.50 $17,571.30 19 7 26

Hillsborough E275 Leased HQ General Counsel 1313 Tampa St, Tampa 16406.90 $3,790.00 2 2Orange E284 Leased HQ General Counsel/QA 400 W Robinson St, Orlando 81192.68 $45,480.00 1 12 13Leon E117 Leased HQ GS/Staff Dev/Det N/Res NW/MIS 2020 Capital Circle, Tallahassee 498351.84 Included in HQ 0Leon 0620 Leased HQ HQ Staff (Knight and Alex. Bldg) 2737 Centerview Dr, Tallahassee 1703954.56 $399,766.00 52 21 36 17 211 337Leon A013 Leased HQ Mailroom 1624 Capital Circle SE, Tallahassee 57547.05 2 2Duval B210 Leased HQ QA/IG/GC 1959 Beachway Rd, Jacksonville 46500.00 $15,160.00 1 8 9Hillsborough F261 Leased HQ Quality Assurance Tampa Off 3018 US Highway 301, Tampa 34305.84 $9,475.00 1 5 6Bradford F571 Leased Prob N Starke Probation Unit 113 E Call St. Starke, FL 32091 8761.04 $1,318 2 2


FY 09-10 Facility


cost of insurance,


etc.) **

DET

FTE

PROB


TOTAL

DJJ FTE'SWakulla F570 Leased Prob N Wakulla Probation Office 17 High Dr. Crawfordville, Fl 32327 8645.00 $1,318 2 2Volusia F562 Leased Prob N Circuit 7 Probation Office 210 N. Palmetto Ave, Daytona 100176.58 $16,475 25 1 26Pinellas 3830 06-003173 Prob. C Circuit 6 Probation Office 955 26th St, St. Petersburg $7,908 12 4 16Sarasota E494 06-003230 Prob. C Sarasota Probation 3135 N Washington Blvd, Sarasota $13,016 14 2 16Pinellas 3829 06-003172 Prob. C Case Management, Bldgs A-C 955 26th St, St. Petersburg $36,245 55 55Polk 4484 Leased Prob. C Circuit 10 Probation Office 195 S Broadway Ave, Bartow 195199.16 $37,563 57 57Manatee 4468 Leased Prob. C Circuit 12 Probation Office 701 Cortez Rd, Bradenton 147721.47 $18,370 25 1 1 27Brevard F254 Leased Prob. C Circuit 18 Probation Office 3880 S Washington, Titusville 92988.00 $11,203 17 17Pinellas F130 Leased Prob. C Dade City Probation Office 14437 7th Street, Dade City 38550.31 $7,826 9 1 10Osceola F279 Leased Prob. C Kissimmee Probation Office 3501 W Vine St, Kissimmee 172824.00 $15,816 24 24

Manatee B007 Contract Prob. C Manatee Juvenile Booking Facility 1803 W 5th St, Bradenton 0Brevard F221 Leased Prob. C Melbourne Probation Office 2222-2224 Sarno Rd, Melbourne 164956.38 $13,839 21 2 23Pasco 3820 Leased Prob. C New Pt. Richey Case Mgmt 7619 Little Rd, New Port Richey 102776.24 $13,180 20 2 22Hillsborough F374 Leased Prob. C Oak Fair Probation 4510 Oak Fair Blvd, Tampa 300418.75 $21,746 33 33Orange 5413 Leased Prob. C Orlando JAC 823 W Central Ave, Orlando $8,567 13 13Pasco F327 Contract Prob. C Pasco JAC 20101 Central Blvd, Land O'Lakes 0Pinellas B130 Contract Prob. C Pinellas JAC 14500 49th St, Clearwater $5,931 9 9Hillsborough A032 Leased Prob. C Plant City Probation Office 1601 W Reynolds St, Plant City 41369.44 $7,578 11.5 12Hillsborough F250 Contract Prob. C Probation Conditional Release 8620 N Dixon Ave, Tampa $4,613 7 7

Seminole 5387 Leased Prob. C Reflections Service Ctr/Case Mgmt 532 W Lake Mary Blvd, Sanford 187912.00 $12,521 19 1 20Sarasota E266 Leased Prob. C Sarasota JAC 2020 Main St, Sarasota 0Highlands 4485 Leased Prob. C Sebring Case Mgmt 4511 Sun-N-Lakes Blvd, Sebring 59251.26 $6,590 10 10Seminole E048 Leased Prob. C Seminole JAC 181 Bush Loop, Sanford $5,931 9 9Hillsborough 4819 Leased Prob. C Tampa Case Mgmt 5109 N Nebraska, Tampa 213616.12 $36,245 55 55Hillsborough E062 Leased Prob. C Tampa JAC 8605 N Branch Ave, Tampa $1,977 3 3Sarasota E502 Leased Prob. C Venice Probation 333 Tamiami Trail, Venice 41768.00 $9,226 14 1 15

Orange B203 06-003227Prob. C & Res. C Orlando Case Mgmt 8500 Laurel Hill Rd, Orlando $48,933 57 5 6 68

Marion D017 BB-000561 Prob. N Marion JAC 948 NW 30th Ave, Ocala $10,544 16 16Baker F248 Leased Prob. N Baker County Probation Unit 19 W Macclenny Ave, Macclenny 10500.00 $1,318 2 2Holmes F332 Contract Prob. N Bonifay Probation Office 211 Iowa Ave, Bonifay $659 1 1Calhoun E562 Leased Prob. N Calhoun Probation Office 20859 Central Ave E, Blountstown 1200.54 $659 1 1Washington F328 Leased Prob. N Chipley Probation Office 1424 Jackson Ave, Chipley 7004.00 $1,977 3 3Suwannee A004 Leased Prob. N Cir 3 & Suwannee Case Mgmt 508 NW Houston St, Live Oak 38925.80 $5,272 8 8Marion E140 Leased Prob. N Cir 5 & Marion Case Mgmt 1515 E Silver Springs Blvd, Ocala 117335.43 $15,157 23 2 25Alachua E161 Leased Prob. N Cir 8 & Alachua Probation Unit 14107 MLK Hwy, Alachua 200610.86 $18,947 23 1 2 26Bay E073 Leased Prob. N Circuit 14 & Bay Case Mgmt 505 E 11th St, Panama City 100331.50 $17,711 24 3 1 28Duval F255 Leased Prob. N Circuit 4 Probation 2055 Reyko Rd, Jacksonville 247794.75 $36,163 52 1 53Citrus E526 Leased Prob. N Citrus County Probation Unit 103 N Apopka Ave, Inverness 26977.75 $4,613 7 7Clay E054 Leased Prob. N Clay County Case Management 1417-2 S. Orange Ave, Green Cove Spr 43021.30 $7,908 12 12Columbia E091 Leased Prob. N Columbia County Probation Off 690 E Duval Str, Lake City 69476.20 $5,931 9 1 10Okaloosa E235 Leased Prob. N Crestview Office Circuit 1 914 N. Ferdon Blvd, Crestview 30260.00 $2,636 4 4Walton F128 Contract Prob. N Probation Office 951 W Nelson Ave, Defuniak Springs 27125.00 $1,977 3 3


FY 09-10 Facility


cost of insurance,


etc.) **

DET

FTE

PROB


TOTAL

DJJ FTE'SOkaloosa F156 Leased Prob. N Ft. Walton Beach Probation 111D Racetrack Rd, Ft. Walton Bch 115176.96 $9,144 11 1 1 13Gadsden D208 Leased Prob. N Gadsden County Probation Off 305 W Crawford St, Quincy 34100.00 $3,954 6 6Gilchrist B140 Leased Prob. N Gilchrist County Probation Unit 204 N Main St, Trenton 27578.25 $3,295 5 5Hamilton E227 Contract Prob. N Hamilton County Probation 207 NE 1st Ave, Jasper $659 1 1Hernando E047 Leased Prob. N Hernando County Probation Unit 19219-19223 Cortez Blvd, Brooksville 37500.00 $4,613 7 7Jackson B055 Leased Prob. N Jackson Case Management 4012 Lafayette St, Marianna 24696.00 $3,295 5 5Leon B054 Contract Prob. N Leon County JAC/Intake 3333 W Pensacola St, Tallahassee 0Madison F177 Leased Prob. N Madison Probation Office 139 SW Horry Ave, Madison 21542.22 $659 1 1Santa Rosa E546 Leased Prob. N Milton Probation 6746 Caroline Street, Milton 45570.00 $7,249 11 11Lake F324 Leased Prob. N Mount Dora Probation Office 2739 W Old Highway 441, Mt. Dora 137109.60 $18,947 23 2 25Escambia F329 Leased Prob. N Pensacola Probation Office 411 N Spring St, Pensacola 149825.00 $16,393 22 1 23Leon E467 Leased Prob. N Probation Circuit 2 1230 Blountstown Hwy, Tallahassee 140675.00 $12,521 19 19Putnam E092 Leased Prob. N Putnam Case Management 400 N SR 19, Palatka Suite 42 75065.37 $7,249 11 11St. Johns 2853 Leased Prob. N St. Johns Case Mgmt 75 King Street, St. Augustine Suite 340 58553.44 $14,416 19 1 20Sumter E046 Leased Prob. N Sumter County Probation Unit 138 Bushnell Plaza, Bushnell 22425.92 $3,295 5 5Taylor D038 Leased Prob. N Taylor County Probation Office 1719 S Jefferson St, Perry 26400.00 $4,613 7 7Volusia 2780 Leased Prob. N Volusia Case Mgmt 342 E. New York Ave, Deland 73587.50 $12,521 19 19Nassau F518 Leased Prob. N Yulee Probation Office 86056 Pages Dairy Rd, Yulee 63250.00 $4,613 7 7

Duval 2719 06-003138Prob. N and Res. N Duval JAC/Res.North Office 1283 E 8th St, Jacksonville $36,676 19 12 1 32

Broward 8140 Leased Prob. S Ft. Lauderdale JAC 2600 SW 4th Ave, Ft Lauderdale $11,203 17 17Dade E927 20-008975 Prob. S Probation South Office 602 S Miami Ave, Miami $17,134 26 26Lee F338 Leased Prob. S Cape Coral Probation Office 4720 SE 15th Ave, Cape Coral 77268.64 $5,272 8 8Dade E142 Leased Prob. S Circuit 11 Case Management 18425 NW 2nd Ave, Opa Locka 192891.28 $27,678 42 42Palm Beach F442 Leased Prob. S Circuit 15 Probation Office 220 S Congress Park Dr, Delray Beach 41753.82 $6,590 10 10

Broward E565 Leased Prob. S Circuit 17 Central Service Center 2928-A N SR 7, Lauderdale Lakes 154620.00 $26,360 40 40St. Lucie E934 Leased Prob. S Circuit 19 Probation 2215 S 25th St, Ft. Pierce 90393.02 $2,636 4 4Lee 4917 Leased Prob. S Circuit 20 Probation 2295 Victoria Ave, Ft Myers 58669.70 $9,144 11 3 1 15Dade 9415 Leased Prob. S Cutler Ridge Case Mgmt 10700 Caribbean Blvd, Cutler Ridge 55601.46 $9,721 9 2 11Lee A038 Leased Prob. S Ft. Myers Case Mgmt 6296 Corporate Ct, Ft. Myers 41408.25 $5,849 6 1 7St. Lucie F176 Leased Prob. S Ft. Pierce Probation Office 604 N US Highway 1, Ft. Pierce 105982.32 $13,839 21 21Collier E500 Leased Prob. S Immokalee Case Management 1255 N. 15th St, Immokalee 13528.32 $1,977 3 3Monroe E566 Leased Prob. S Islamorada Case Mgmt 81990 Overseas Hwy, Islamorada 29652.00 $1,977 3 3Lee F345 Leased Prob. S JPO Unit 302 4380 Cleveland Ave, Ft. Myers 113866.72 $4,613 7 7Hendry E447 Leased Prob. S Labelle Case Mgmt 485 Cowboy Way, Labelle 14590.98 $2,636 4 4Palm Beach B008 Leased Prob. S Lake Park Case Mgmt 406 US 1, Lake Park 74442.00 $8,567 13 13Lee E443 Leased Prob. S Lee JAC 2107 Dr. MLK Blvd, Ft. Myers $5,931 9 9Monroe E514 Leased Prob. S Marathon Case Management 2796 Overseas Hwy, Marathon 8212.04 $659 1 1Dade 9007 Leased Prob. S Miami Case Mgmt 11430 N Kendall Dr, Miami 171244.71 $13,180 20 20Dade 9021 Leased Prob. S Miami Case Mgmt 1897 NW 20th St, Miami 48498.66 $5,272 8 2 10Collier 4932 Leased Prob. S Naples Case Mgmt 2671 Airport Rd, Naples 39583.02 $4,613 7 7Palm Beach D009 Leased Prob. S Palm Beach JAC 3400 Belvedere Rd, West Palm Beach 263759.52 $23,641 33 1 34Martin 7035 Leased Prob. S Probation Office 1111 S Federal Hwy, Stuart 52768.98 $6,590 10 10


FY 09-10 Facility


cost of insurance,


etc.) **

DET

FTE

PROB


TOTAL

DJJ FTE'SOkeechobee E056 Leased Prob. S Probation Office 107 SW 5th Ave, Okeechobee 34279.80 $2,636 4 4Palm Beach E070 Leased Prob. S Probation Office 1926 N. 10th Ave, Lake Worth 113943.31 $15,075 20 1 21Indian River F352 Leased Prob. S Probation Office 1834 Old Dixie Hwy, Vero Beach 80024.00 $5,275 8 1 9Charlotte F249 Leased Prob. S Probation Punta Gorda 121 E Marion Ave, Punta Gorda 62624.25 $5,272 8 8Broward F212 Leased Prob. S Probation South Admin Office 2301 W Sample Rd, Deerfield 476410.00 $26,360 40 40Broward 8102 Leased Prob. S Region Off/General Counsel/IG 201 W Broward Blvd, Ft Lauderdale 365281.16 $45,310 40 10 50Dade E698 Leased Prob. S Rhode Building 401 NW 2nd Ave, Miami 178414.30 $19,688 27 1 28

Desoto E41406-003988 and

06-003989 Res. C Desoto JCF 5991 SE Hwy 31, Arcadia $958,053.00 422.5 423Pinellas 3848 06-003171 Res. C Britt HWH 3001 26th Ave S, St. Petersburg $91,470.00 25 25Desoto E176 02-003514 Res. C Desoto JCF/124 Bed Facility 5871 SE Hwy 31, Arcadia see Desoto E414 see Desoto E414 0Hillsborough C009 02-003608 Res. C Falkenburg Academy 9508 E Columbus Dr, Tampa $265,109.00 88 88Polk E004 06-003176 Res. C Residential Central Regional Off 5979 S Florida Ave, Lakeland $14,191.50 10 10Desoto F312 15-003115 Res. C Desoto JCF 5871 SE Hwy 31, Arcadia see Desoto E414 see Desoto E414 1 1Hillsborough 4415 06-003207 Res. C Leslie Peters HWH 3930 W MLK Blvd, Tampa $154,299.00 26.5 27Duval 2742 BB-000302 Res. NE Duval HWH 7500 Ricker Rd, Jacksonville $85,122.00 26.5 27Jackson D001 BB-000735 Res. NW NFYDC/JJOCC 4111 South St, Marianna $900,041.00 237.5 1 239Escambia 0014 06-003152 Res. NW Pensacola Boys Base 3780 Corry Station, Pensacola $57,244.00 22 22

Jackson 3250 31-000099 Res. NW NFYDC 4111 South St, Marianna See NFYDC/JJOCC D001

See NFYDC/JJOCC D001 0

Escambia F166 Leased Res. NW Residential NW Regional Office 1419 N. Palafox St, Pensacola 44982.00 $5,921.00 8 8St. Lucie 7034 Leased Res. S Circuit 19 Residential 337 N 4th St, Ft Pierce 72619.86 $4,660.23 5 5Palm Beach B001 Leased Res. S Regional Office 1756 N Congress Ave, W Palm Bch 101294.88 $8,543.77 11 11

4730

** Note: The building related operating costs for Probation and HQ staff that are located in the field were based on an average cost per FTE. The unit cost was calculated based on the actual total cost of applicable building costs for Probation and HQ expenditures.


FY 09-10 Facility


cost of insurance,


etc.) **

DET

FTE

PROB


TOTAL

DJJ FTE'S


Department summary: Functional Areas Detention: 2,042.50 FTE Detention is the custody status for youth who are held pursuant to a court order; or, following arrest for a violation of the law. In Florida, a youth may be detained only when specific statutory criteria, outlined in section 985.215, Florida Statutes, are met. Criteria for detention include current offenses, prior history, legal status, and any aggravating or mitigating factors. Probation and Community Corrections: 1,408.50 FTE Probation and Community Corrections includes intake, diversion, probation supervision and aftercare supervision. Intake is much like a jail booking process combined with age specific screenings. All youth arrested are processed through intake services. Diversion is an alternative to the formal juvenile justice system for youth who have been charged with a minor crime. Youth are referred by court order to be supervised in the community in lieu of placement into a residential program. Youth returning to the community after being released from a residential facility are supervised by the Juvenile Probation Officers for aftercare services. Residential: 976 FTE Juvenile justice residential programs provide differing levels of programming and security to address the supervision, custody, care, and treatment needs of committed children. Sections 985.601(10) and 985.721 of the administrative code apply to children placed in programs at any residential commitment level. The restrictiveness levels of commitment are as follows: Low-Risk, moderate-risk, high-risk and maximum-risk residential. Prevention: 17 FTE The Office of Prevention and Victim Services (OPVS) has developed a comprehensive strategy designed to create a system of programs and services that work cooperatively to prevent children from entering the juvenile justice system. The OPVS has identified the following priority areas that will increase the safety of communities and the success of the children and families of Florida: (1) Reduce school related referrals and enhance school attendance; (2) Prevent and reduce violence in the home, school and community; (3) Enhance system of services to increase responsiveness to cultural differences and reduce the level of racial disparity (DMC – Disproportionate Minority Contact); (4) Enhance system of services to increase responsiveness to gender-specific competencies for girls; (5) Promote use of restorative justice practices and principles; and (6) Keep children off the streets and provide safe and nurturing programs and services. Executive Direction: Office of the Secretary: 4 FTE The Office of the Secretary is responsible for planning, coordinating and managing the delivery of all programs and services within the juvenile justice continuum. The term “juvenile justice continuum” means all children-in-need-of-services programs; detention centers and related programs and facilities; community-based residential commitment and non-residential programs; and delinquency institutions provided or funded by the department.


Office of the Chief of Staff: 5 FTE The Chief of Staff assists the Secretary in the formulation and implementation of the department’s priorities through legislation, the budgetary process, and leadership of departmental employees. The Chief of Staff is also the primary point of contact for the Executive Office of the Governor. The Chief of Staff oversees all administrative functions of the agency, which include the Office of Administration; the Office of Program Accountability; the Office of Legislative Affairs and the Office of Staff Development and Training. The Chief of Staff also serves as the liaison and primary advisor to the Secretary on internal and external policy matters. Office of General Counsel: 42 FTE The Office of General Counsel provides in-house legal services to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, advises Department staff in delinquency proceedings, and prosecutes Children in Need of Services/Families in Need of Services (CINS/FINS) cases. Practice areas include employment law (PERC hearings, DOAH hearings, Workers Compensation, wage garnishments, union negotiations, etc.); administrative law (rule development and promulgation); contracts (government procurement law, leasing, purchasing, etc.); Risk Management cases, habeas corpus petitions, and appeals in both state and federal courts. The Bureau of Contracts is the unit within the Office of General Counsel responsible for the procurement, drafting and administration of DJJ contracts and grants for services, which total approximately $260 million per annum. Office of Communications: 2 FTE The Office of Communications provides information about the Department to all inquiring members of the media and the public, and is responsible for educating the public about the mission, goals, and operations of the Department. In addition, the office disseminates information regarding the Department’s programs and initiatives; produces and issues press releases; schedules press conferences; and provides a daily news clip service.

Education: 3 FTE The Education Office serves as the point of contact for juvenile justice education-related policy, program, resource & related professional development in addition to responding to youth, family & interagency requests for information and/or technical assistance. Inspector General: 28 FTE Pursuant to Section 20.055, Florida Statutes (F.S.), each state agency is required to have an Office of Inspector General (OIG). The purpose of the OIG is to “provide a central point for coordination of and responsibility for activities that promote accountability, integrity, and efficiency in government.” In the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) the OIG achieves this mission through four operational areas, the Bureau of Investigations, the Central Communications Center, the Bureau of Internal Audit, and the Background Screening Unit. The Central Communications Center (CCC) is a 7 days per week, user-friendly call-in center, with an emphasis on assisting the Department, providers, and grant staff in the relay of information related to the care, safety, and humane treatment of all youth served by the Department, providers, or grantees. The Background Screening Unit (BSU) is mandated by Chapters 39, 435, 984, and 985, Florida Statutes to perform Level 2 pre-employment and 5-year screenings on DJJ staff, contract provider, and grant recipient applications for employment; contract provider directors, owners, and operators; and persons who want to volunteer, mentor or intern.


Office of Program Accountability: 44.5 FTE The Office of Program Accountability merges Research and Planning, Quality Assurance, Programming and Technical Assistance and the Administrative Review Unit under one office. The Office reports directly to the Chief of Staff to ensure independent oversight of juvenile justice programs. In addition this Office has oversight over the Department’s Risk Management, Policy and Procedures, Strategic Plan, Annual Report and Detention Cost Share Initiative. Staff Development and Training: 3 FTE The Office of Staff Development and Training was established expressly to “foster better staff morale and reduce mistreatment and aggressive and abusive behavior in delinquency programs; to positively impact the recidivism of children in the juvenile justice system; and to afford greater protection of the public through an improved level of services delivered by a professionally trained juvenile justice staff to children who are alleged to be or who have been found to be delinquent” [FS 985.66 (1)]. Staff Development and Training is responsible for the training and documentation of all 11,000 DJJ employees and private providers’ staff. The majority of this function is outsourced with over 20 trainers. Health Services: 4 FTE The mission of the Office of Health Services is to ensure that the Department and our stakeholders provide professional, high quality, comprehensive and timely health, mental health, substance abuse and developmental disability services to our children.

Office of Administration (includes Information Technology): 150.5 FTE The Office of Administration has six primary areas of responsibility. They are the Bureaus of Budget, Personnel, Finance and Accounting, General Services and Information Technology and the Emergency Operations function for the department. These bureaus provide budgetary, accounting, personnel, facilities services, purchasing, leases, and information technology support for all programs within the agency. This also includes all Legislative Budget activities, revenue collection, bill paying, and data processing programming and hardware support. Overlapping duties with other agencies: Investigations: The Department of Children and Families (DCF) investigates allegations of Child Abuse/Neglect as called in to the Abuse Registry. They are, by statute, the agency required to review those types of allegations. DJJ also looks at the allegations, but for different reasons. For example, DCF would look at an allegation of physical abuse. DJJ examines the level of force used to determine if it was excessive, unnecessary, and/or a violation of Administrative rule. The Administrative Review Unit (ARU) conducts Administrative Reviews on allegations called into the Central Communications Center (CCC) in a multitude of areas to include, but not limited to:

• Escapes • Allegations of employee misconduct • Allegations of Violations of policy, rule, statute or procedures • Employee arrests • Improper Release • Inadequate Supervision issues


In total, the Department of Juvenile Justice has four entities to investigate non-abuse situations including:

• Office of the Inspector General; • Office of Administrative Review; • DJJ Program Monitors; and • An additional program conducting their internal review of incidents.

These efforts are duplicative and could easily be absorbed by other state entities. The team is also recommending the elimination of the CCC as other, more effective and cost efficient protocols can be implemented.

Quality Assurance: Numerous providers are already licensed and/or accredited by additional bodies and the Department of Juvenile Justice duplicates efforts for evaluation unnecessarily. For example, the Department of Children and Families requires and monitors licenses for substance abuse treatment and the BHOS Medicaid review on behalf of Agency for Health Care Administration. DJJ continues to require their own audits in these areas and are investing resources unnecessarily. Identify private sector overlap for areas under review: Training and Staff Development: Continue to explore out outsourcing in the area of training and staff development. DJJ should identify competent contract trainers and staff developers who can deliver cutting edge training for staff. Utilize trust fund dollars currently used only for DJJ staff to develop and professionalize the provider workforce. Private Provider Facilities: As part of the review of the residential services division, evaluate the necessity of state operated residential commitment facilities across the state. DJJ operates over 600 beds statewide. As the commitment rates continue to decrease with the continued development of evidenced based community resources, the DJJ operated facilities could be closed and remaining needs could most likely be absorbed by the existing contract provider network of beds. Additionally, state operated facilities, which house youth primarily in single cells, are in disrepair due to reductions in fixed capital outlay to maintain these facilities. National Accreditation Bodies: Explore the feasibility of substituting national accreditation standards in lieu of the majority of DJJ quality assurance standards. Rather than maintaining an increasingly large DJJ Quality Assurance staff that conducts regular sites visits, the Department should rely on the reviews that are conducted by national accrediting bodies like CARF, COA, JACHO, ACA and lessen the need DJJ QA staff.


Short term issues: Manage misdemeanor offenders with more cost effective methods that deliver better outcomes. This would be accomplished in the following manner:

• Statewide Civil Citation should be used for first time (and some second time) misdemeanant offenders. This includes assessment and specific service referral as well as community service and restitution. It not only benefits the juvenile but allows one agency to manage the process without engaging the other multiple agencies involved with an arrested juvenile. Non-compliant Civil Citation participants would move into arrest status for the original offense.

• Consistent with research and the emerging practice in other states, misdemeanor offenders should not be placed in residential programs. The exception would be respite or shelter homes with services based only on the individual circumstances of a juvenile.

• Juvenile misdemeanor offenders qualifying for detention would remain at home with a GPS bracelet, 24 hour monitoring and wrap around family services to address behavior issues with chronic misdemeanant behavior. This would be a major component of the secure detention reform noted below.

To implement three Community-Based Juvenile Justice pilot sites. Community-Based Juvenile Justice (CBJJ) will result in a better coordinated, locally controlled, continuum of care with services that emphasizes placing youth in the right program at the right time. CBJJ facilitates stronger local partnerships that allow a community ownership of the juvenile justice system. It also will develop a mechanism that shares decision making on local juvenile justice issues with the local stakeholders. The Administration can support legislation that would allow three communities (urban, suburban and rural) to pilot the Community Based Juvenile Justice model, similar to the locally based structure administered by the Department of Children and Families (DCF). To promote and encourage the development of robust Juvenile Assessment Centers (JACs) throughout the state. JACs play a vital role in the reformation of the juvenile justice system. They are the initial and central point of entry into the system and the most efficient method for the development of true front end prevention, intervention and diversion within the juvenile justice system. The Department should explore opportunities to shift funds from other parts of the continuum to strengthen and develop assessment centers and diversion programs. The development of full service Juvenile Assessment Centers will organize and manage the juvenile population for community stakeholders. The JACs will act as a hub in the system that allows the next levels of the system to work more efficiently as evidenced by the Centers already in place in Miami and Tallahassee.

To revamp the department's quality assurance system. The quality assurance program must be more focused on outcome and performance measures as opposed to micro management of contract terms. The QA unit can be downsized by creating more streamlined quality performance measures and relying on national standards to effectively monitor the existing quality assurance function. To change the organizational structure. The department must create an organizational structure that promotes better coordination, communication and eliminates the silos that have developed within the department. The reorganization must occur at the headquarters level as well as the local and regional


level by creating a circuit continuum of care with a single point of accountability. The organization of DJJ should be restructured to eliminate silos and create a management team that has complementary and not competing responsibilities. This would also allow for more flexible budgeting that reflects the reality of the population at the local/circuit level. Several management positions can be eliminated, and the number of regional offices can be reduced through a realignment of functions which will create a structure that evolves as communities evolve. To develop a real solution to detention cost sharing. The Department should engage a work group of internal and external stakeholders to create a comprehensive and tangible solution to detention cost sharing that will include the proposed rewriting of the Florida statutes and administrative rules pertaining to this issue. This will result in increased detention cost savings and incentivize counties to divert youth to less costly alternatives to detention. To develop a workgroup to review and update juvenile justice administrative code. The juvenile justice Administrative Code is extremely prescriptive. This workgroup can work towards a comprehensive overhaul and update of the Code to support best practices and improved outcomes in juvenile justice. Long term issues: To explore the possibility of consolidating of DJJ and DCF. The current operational structure and approach at DJJ would overwhelm and potentially affect the progress of DCF in a negative way. For this reason, a more measured transition of the consolidation is recommended. The DJJ operation would need to transition to a more locally driven, front end system first that would also have the capacity to address the serious offender population that is also under their authority. It is recommended that the groundwork be established for a future consolidation by the reorganization of DJJ. The first objective would be to align the DJJ organizational structure in a similar manner as the current DCF structure. In doing so, a more community based juvenile justice approach can develop. It is estimated that potentially a two year transition and review would be required. To maximize the Efficiencies in Data and Technology. Position the department to use data and technology to manage the juvenile population and strategically apply resources. It is critical for local circuits to have real time data in order to identify trends and patterns that are unique to the local community. The goal for DJJ is to instill an outcome driven, performance based organization at all levels, including the provider community. Decision making based on outcomes will drive the agency. To implement reform of juvenile detention policy, practice, and operation. The Department should review the Missouri Detention model for possible replication in Florida while closing and consolidating juvenile detention facilities. Florida can aggressively move to the Juvenile Detention Alternatives to Incarceration (JDAI) as evidenced by the pilots currently funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. In addition, the Department should implement the cost effective bracelet program for detainable misdemeanor offenders with family services.


PROPOSALS AND OUTLOOK FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE New Organizational Chart and Narrative The Department must create an organizational structure that better promotes coordination, consolidates like functions and moves to eliminate the “silos” that have developed since its inception 10 years ago. The reorganization must occur at the headquarters level as well as at the local and regional level. The proposed reorganization would simplify the internal structure of the department. One major component is consolidating all operational components (detention, probation, prevention/diversion, residential services) under a single assistant secretary for operations. This would create a more coordinated and cohesive system where a single assistant secretary has authority over all operational aspects of the department and most of the department’s FTEs. Another major element is the consolidation of many or all of the administrative services functions (accounting, HR, MIS, general services, contracts, etc.) under a single point of accountability who would be the assistant secretary for support services. The newly proposed organizational chart also makes the chief of staff position less involved in administrative oversight and more involved in coordinating aspects of the office of secretary and legislative and external communication. The reorganization consolidates field operations to provide support to all programs and services ensuring that a full continuum of care was developed in each region. Additionally, the regional offices would have oversight regarding the entire juvenile justice continuum (detention, probation, residential services, prevention). At the circuit level a single circuit manager would exist to be the point of contact for all local stake holders involving all operations at the circuit level. This proposed structure provides a single point of accountability at the state and local level for juvenile justice operations. In addition, this would also allow for more flexible budgeting that reflects the reality of the population at the local/circuit level.

Secretary of DJJ

Deputy Secretary

Executive Assistant

Chief Medical Officer

Assistant Secretary for Support Services

Assistant Secretary for Programs & Quality

Assistant Secretary for Operations

General Counsel

Chief of Staff

Legislative Affairs

Communications Administrator

Nursing Services

Mental Health & Subs Abuse

Chief of Budget

Chief of Finance/Atg

Attorneys

Chief of Personnel

Director of Staff Dev/Trng

Chief of Mgt Infor Systems

Chief General Services

Chief of Contracts

Director Grant Mgt

Detention

Prevention

Probation

Residential

Education & Policy

Quality Assurance

Research and Data

Regional Director Northeast Fla

Circuit 3, 4, 7, 8

Regional Director Suncoast

Circuit 6, 12, 13, 20

Regional Director Northwest FlaCircuit 1, 2, 14

Regional Director Central Fla

Circuit 5, 9, 10, 18 19

Regional Director Southern

Circuit 11, 16

Regional Director Southeast

Circuit 15, 17

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

Proposed Org Chart Dec. 2010

Background Screening

CCC

Inspector General Audit & Investigations

Internal Audit(Consolidate with State

Inspector General Function)


Cost Saving Opportunities and Department Recommendations: The majority of the recommendations made by the Juvenile Justice Transition Team are either cost neutral or will lead to cost savings. Further, the Team is confident that reforming the juvenile justice system in Florida will lead to long term savings in the number of adults that enter the corrections system. Juvenile justice is often the gateway to adult corrections. The Team’s suggested reforms will lead to a system that diverts youth from juvenile justice and supports the whole family. The end result of this type of system transformation is reduced recidivism. Some of the cost savings opportunities detailed in the policy proposal section include:

• Reorganization of the Department of Juvenile justice. • Collapse of regional offices. • Reduction of detention centers and overhaul of the current detention cost sharing mechanism. • Piloting of Community Based Juvenile Justice. • Statewide Civil Citation implementation. • Implementation of electronic monitoring for misdemeanant youth who score for secure

detention.

Summary of Budget: The Juvenile Justice Transition Team proposes the following seven budgetary recommendations for the 2011-2012 Legislative Budget Review: Expand the Civil Citation Program Statewide. The Civil Citation Program provides an alternative to arrest for youth who have committed a misdemeanor act. Eligible youth must abide by the terms of the citation which may include working community service hours and participating in intervention services. A youth who successfully completes the program will not have an arrest record for the misdemeanor act, and those who do not complete the program will be referred for delinquency. In Miami-Dade, more than 8,000 youth have participated in the program and the majority of those served have been children of color. The program in Miami-Dade has directly decreased arrests by 21 percent. This program is supported by research findings that institutional placement increases recidivism for low-level offenders.

Collapse Regional Offices. Currently, the Department of Juvenile Justice has a regional office for each of the three program areas – Detention, Probation, and Residential – in three geographic regions of the state. This structure compartmentalizes operations and inhibits the flow of communication. Collapsing the regional offices will enable program areas to better coordinate services to youth and streamline agency operations. Provide a full service Juvenile Assessment Center in each circuit. The Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) is a cooperative effort by the department and the community to serve youth who have been referred for delinquency. A full functioning JAC provides substance abuse and mental health screening, comprehensive assessments with follow-up services, detention screening and intake, and diverts youth from detention through programs such as Civil Citation and Electronic Monitoring. The Blueprint Commission recommends that every circuit have a full-service JAC. Implement electronic monitoring for misdemeanant youth who score for secure detention. Youth who score for detention at the JAC for misdemeanant acts should be placed on home detention with an electronic bracelet until their initial court hearing at which time the court may order continued bracelet use. This program will eliminate misdemeanants in secure detention and provide a cost savings


in secure detention care. The TaxWatch Government Cost Savings Task Force reports that while Florida must continue to incarcerate youth who pose a serious risk to public safety, detention of misdemeanants should be a last resort. Enhance Information Sharing between the Department and Providers. The sharing of real-time information between DJJ, JACs, providers, and other agencies is vital to providing optimum service to youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system. Analyzing crime and referral data by geographic locations and the age and ethnicity of referred youth will enable stakeholders to target succinct populations and communities as crime trends develop and provide services to counter those trends.

Reduce Detention Center Infrastructure. The current system of funding detention care in Florida is problematic. In 2006, non-fiscally constrained counties became responsible for the cost of secure detention for youth prior to disposition while the state is responsible for the cost of care following disposition and in fiscally constrained counties.

Over the past few years, a reduction in overall juvenile crime has resulted in fewer youth in secure detention, and in 2009-10 secure detention utilization stands at 62 percent. However, the amount of funds appropriated for the trust fund used for county contributions and General Revenue have not kept pace with the funding responsibilities of the counties and the state and is not based on actual utilization. The result is that counties are required to fund daily detention care at a higher cost than the state. A statewide reduction of detention infrastructure is necessary for proper alignment of county and state detention funding.

Restructure the organization of DJJ. Reorganize the department to eliminate the silos in the current Department of Juvenile Justice. The proposed reorganization would simplify the internal structure of the department and eliminate these silos that have developed over time. One major component is consolidating all operational components (detention, probation, prevention, residential services) under a single Assistant Secretary for Operations. The re-organization would also consolidate administrative functions and increase efficiency. Summary of Legislative Priorities: The legislative priorities of the Juvenile Justice Transition Team align with the policy recommendations in the attached documents. The proposals with legislative requirements include the following:

• Community Based Juvenile Justice pilot enabling legislation. • Removal of the current legislative proviso that prohibits the Department from reorganizing. • Amend statute to allow counties to create regional facilities or contract with other counties to

provide predisposition detention services. • Amend statute to allow post-disposition detention services with reimbursement from the state. • Prohibit misdemeanors from entering secure detention facilities. • Prohibit secure detention for pick up orders, contempt of court order and violations of

probation (unless for serious and violent felony offenses). • Increase DJJ authority to place and release children from custody. • Revise the statutory language regarding school readiness to also include "school success" as a

continuum of school readiness. • Enabling legislation to reduce length of commitments and supports redirection of funds towards

front end prevention and diversion services.


POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Attached is a series of policy issues and recommendations for the Department of Juvenile Justice. The transition team’s evaluation of the department led to the development of multiple proposals that will not only lead to improved outcomes for youth involved in the juvenile justice system, but also lead to increased efficiency and cost savings. The recommendations are included in order of priority and impact.


Proposal: Transform juvenile justice services to a community based system of care. Community-Based Juvenile Justice (CBJJ) proposes transforming Florida’s juvenile justice system to a locally controlled and coordinated community system of care. The initial phase of this transformation would include implementation of CBJJ in three pilot sites across the state of Florida. The community based model includes regional coordinating agencies who are responsible for assessing community, youth and family needs, planning and coordinating services, and managing a network of service providers to address those needs. This CBJJ conceptual framework is informed by best practices and lessons learned from successful juvenile justice reform initiatives, child welfare reform projects and the improvements of wraparound programs and family centered treatment approaches. It is believed that this model, designed to treat most youth in services located and managed in their home communities, will promote greater family involvement and engagement, better system and service coordination, and achieve more significant economic and operational efficiencies than a single-payer, single-entry system. Key Elements of Proposal –

• Flexibility – Regional coordinating agencies apportion funds, coordinate case management, and share system efficiencies to build the right local continuums of care. This would include a focus on front-end services including prevention and diversion and incorporates innovative cost-effective strategies.

• Outcome based performance measures – The CBJJ system of care is focused on establishing, measuring and achieving outcomes based on national standards that demonstrate effectiveness, support resource allocation and reinforce performance based management.

• Economic and Operational Efficiencies – Through the management of the fiscal, administrative and quality improvement processes, this system of care will achieve both economic and operational efficiencies while maintaining public safety.

• Community Engagement – Regional Coordinating Agencies will partner with local courts, law enforcement, child welfare and juvenile justice stakeholders to provide community-based systems of care that facilitate cost savings while maintaining public safety and effective treatment and performance outcomes.

Fiscal Impact - Transforming the existing juvenile justice system will be cost neutral in the transition period with anticipated cost savings of minimally 5% to 15% within 3 years. Operational Impact – CBJJ will provide both economic efficiencies and successful treatment outcomes. It will further allow the Department of Juvenile Justice to focus on higher-leverage interventions and services while overseeing a network of Coordinating Agencies throughout the Florida Judicial Circuits—holding them accountable for identifying, contracting, evaluating and administering local systems of care. Legislative Requirements – Legislation is required for the three pilots to be activated. Legislative Opposition – Currently Unknown.


Pros • Capitalize on the successful business model in child welfare and behavioral health, which is

focused on improving outcomes for youth, families and the community. • Involvement and responsibility of the community to determine the services needed in their

community. • Increase public safety. • Improve outcomes by creating accountability through nationally accepted performance

measures. • Reduce costs by emphasizing front end prevention, intervention and diversion programming

which will reduce reliance on more costly residential options currently utilized to respond to youth.

Cons

• Possible inaccurate perception that this initiative may be viewed as being “soft” on juvenile crime when in fact, this initiative will actually reduce crime.

Future Research www.cbjjfl.org National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN) Justice Policy Institute (JPI) Florida DJJ BluePrint Commission Report

http://www.cbjjfl.org/�


Proposal: The Department should take a very proactive position towards promoting and encouraging the development of robust juvenile assessment centers throughout the state. A Juvenile Assessment Center is a community based centralized receiving facility whereby juveniles who have committed a criminal offense, those at risk for committing an offense, or those experiencing behavioral difficulties can come for early identification of needs and appropriate referral to services. JACs play a vital role in the reformation of the Juvenile Justice System as they are the initial and central point of entry and the most efficient method for the development of true front end prevention and intervention juvenile justice system statewide. The careful collection of data in each facility can assist local management with the allocation of funds into the most appropriate service need areas. JACs can provide overall systemic cost savings, as exemplified in Miami-Dade County. The Department should look for opportunities to shift funds from other parts of the continuum (detention and residential commitment) to strengthen and develop assessment centers and diversion programs. The Department should consider future Legislative Budget Requests that reflect this level of priority. Three Key Elements of Proposal:

• Community based centralized receiving facility for juveniles. • Gender and age appropriate identification of service needs with specifically tailored treatment

plans. • Collection and Dissemination of Data for strategic use of funds.

Fiscal Impact: Can provide cost savings to the local and state system by the coordination of juvenile justice resources. Operational Impact: Provides clear and concise methods for addressing juvenile justice within the state. Assists with the transition of the state system to that of an intervention and prevention front end model. Legislative Requirements: Developed in the late 1990s in response to increasing juvenile crime, the Florida Legislature created language in the state statute that established the concept of Juvenile Assessment Centers (JACs). These facilities represented, first and foremost, arrest-processing centers that coordinate the different agencies that interface with arrested youth. As the JACs have developed and opened in Florida, the eighteen facilities reflect the needs and resources of the individual community they operate in. Miami-Dade County’s needs dictated a large, comprehensive state-of-the-art facility designed to be the starting point for juvenile justice system reform.

Legislative Opposition: No known opposition.

Pros: A successful JAC model such as Miami-Dade County’s which has produced national and international recognition is a proven vehicle to juvenile justice reform, saving millions of taxpayer dollars while positively affecting the lives of juveniles within the State. The JAC model is a proven catalyst to change allowing for the appropriate identification and categorization of the juvenile population, organization of the services needed, and the strategic utilization of funds to provide needed services


specifically tailored to an individual’s needs. Research indicates that the earlier an intervention is attempted the better the outcome and the lower the recidivism rate. Cons: None Known. Future Research: Florida Juvenile Justice Association


Proposal: Reduce Juvenile Arrests by 40% through state-wide Civil Citation Program. The single most achievable goal in altering Florida’s most vulnerable/at-risk youth’s experience with the Juvenile Justice System is the implementation of a statewide Civil Citation Program. The Civil Citation Program decriminalizes minor misbehaviors, reduces juvenile crime and provides services for at-risk youth while keeping the juvenile justice system from incurring unnecessary costs. Based upon the successes of established Civil Citation programs in Leon County and Miami-Dade County, it is anticipated that the number of juveniles processed through the system would be reduced by 40% on a statewide basis (30,153 fewer juveniles). Given cost estimates of $5,000 versus $386, this alternative would save Florida taxpayers $139,125,942 ($150,765,000 - $11,639,058 = $139,125,942). Clearly, Civil Citation is one of the best examples of a highly effective program as well as a significant and smart return on investment. Civil Citation does not mean that the youth are excused from the mistakes or errors in judgment that were made. The need for secure detention, community supervision and specialized residential treatment services, in some cases, is understood. However, during fiscal year 2009-10, a total of 75,382 distinct youth were referred to DJJ. Of those youth, 41,457 (55%) committed misdemeanors. In fact, misdemeanors account for almost half of the referrals to DJJ and are typically the most common offenses juveniles commit. Three Key Elements of Proposal: • Outcome based performance measures: Early intervention is highly effective at treating issues

appropriately and more effectively, thereby improving outcomes. Early intervention also helps reduce the disproportionate number of minorities and females involved in the system. Providing swift and appropriate sanctions and services has the potential to keep them from entering in the DJJ system. Central data collection including 24-hour access to the Juvenile Justice Information System allows for real-time and longitudinal data tracking.

• Community Engagement: Inherent within a Civil Citation replicable model structure is the coordination of law enforcement agencies, social service agencies and the public school system to comprehensively serve the youth and their families. Law enforcement is inclined to use Civil Citation as a first resort for misbehavior thus reducing the number of juveniles processed through the DJJ system and assisting School Resource Officers with an alternative response to assist troubled students without needlessly criminalizing them through the zero tolerance policy implemented by the school system.

• Elimination of an unnecessary criminal record: Successful completion of a Civil Citation Program

can help eliminate an unnecessary criminal record that can follow youth and hinder them for their ENTIRE life.

Fiscal Impact: Establishing Civil Citation statewide, the Juvenile Justice System in Florida can focus limited resources to improve current programs that will in turn reduce juvenile crime and services required for re-offenders. Based upon the successes of established Civil Citation programs in Leon County and Miami-Dade County, it is anticipated that the number of juveniles processed through the system would be reduced by 40% on


a statewide basis (30,153 fewer juveniles). Given cost estimates of $5,000 versus $386, this alternative would save Florida taxpayers $139,125,942 ($150,765,000 - $11,639,058 = $139,125,942). Clearly, Civil Citation is one of the best examples of a highly effective program as well as a significant and smart return on investment. Operational Impact • Successful Replicable Model already in place: Two model Civil Citation programs have been in

existence for over ten years. The chart below provides evidence of their successful impact on diversion from the Juvenile Justice System and reduction in recidivism:

Achievements

FY 2007-08 through FY 2009-10

Leon County

n = 1,166

Miami-Dade County

n = 6,914

Percent of participants who successfully complete the program in 6 months.

94% 82%

Percent of participants who did not re-offend for 6 months after completing program.

88% 96%

• Shift in current practices: The statewide Civil Citation Program will require a simple but dramatic

shift in current practices from an arrest model to early intervention and diversion model by: (1) keeping youth that pose no real threats to public safety out of the juvenile justice system; (2) reducing the costs of processing youth for misdemeanors that take time and resources away from the juvenile justice system including: law enforcement, state attorneys, public defenders, probation, court personnel, etc.; and (3) freeing up limited resources to focus on more serious and violent offenders thus improving public safety. This will be accomplished by expanding Civil Citation programs statewide to divert misdemeanor offenders to integrated and coordinated systems of care that fit the needs of the youth and their families. In short, Civil Citation is an existing low-cost and proven-effective therapeutic and accountability mechanism that will save millions of dollars and increase public safety. Civil Citation was written into Florida Statutes “for the purpose of providing an efficient and innovative alternative to custody by the Department of Juvenile Justice of children who commit non-serious delinquent acts and to ensure swift and appropriate consequences.”

Legislative Requirements: None. Current Statute in place: Title XLVII Chapter 985 – Section 12 Legislative Opposition: None Known Pros:

• Reduction in Juvenile arrests by approximately 40% • Save the Florida taxpayers $139,125,942 annually. • Reduces the burden at all levels of the juvenile justice system by allowing limited resources

to be applied to violent and serious offenders • Helps to reduce the disproportionate number of minorities and females involved in the

system • Eliminates an unnecessary criminal record that can follow youth and hinder them for their

ENTIRE life.


• Extremely successful replicable model as demonstrated by Leon County, Miami-Dade County Civil Citation programs

Cons: Possible inaccurate perception that the program is “soft” on juvenile crime. Future Research: • Florida Department of Juvenile Justice – Bureau of Research and Planning • Juvenile Assessment Centers using Civil Citation Program • Associated Industries of Florida Source: Associated Industries of Florida Foundation: “Getting Smart on Juvenile Crime in Florida: Taking It to The Next Level”, November 2010.


Proposal: Reorganization of the Department of Juvenile Justice. The DJJ has experienced mission changes since its creation as a standalone agency in 1994. Despite that, and over time, the Legislature encouraged investments that have demonstrated results in safeguarding public safety, reducing crime, reducing victims and now more importantly, reducing future prison construction. The current organizational structure of the Department is not logical and it does not promote a “community based” support system. The current structure is highly centralized and stresses control at the cost of local support, is duplicative of administrative support as a total of 9 “silos” or separate program/operations offices require full administrative staffing and does not promote innovation or creativity. Now is an opportune time to streamline the agency and focus on reducing bureaucracy. Currently, the DJJ operates programming as well as provides oversight on privately operated programs. With current data supporting that privatized programs are more effective and cost efficient, it makes sense to streamline the agency by reducing the operating of state programs and refocusing the agency on providing oversight only. Key Elements of Proposal:

• Keep DJJ as a separate agency and restructure the agency to be smaller, more efficient and, whose primary function is focused on ensuring performance.

• In the past, delinquent youth did not stand a chance in an agency with two, very different

missions. The reason the DJJ was pulled out from within HRS was because resources were primarily directed to dependent and neglected children, the "deserving children." Delinquent youth, the "undeserving youth," did not benefit from children’s resources and who were served in detention centers, community-based halfway houses, or placed in one of the three, large, training schools.

Fiscal Impact: Cost savings will be significant if the DJJ is restructured to become an oversight agency. Operational Impact: The restructuring of DJJ would allow for better service delivery in a continuum as opposed to competition and poor communication between siloed functional units. It also enables more local control with support from the administrative offices in Tallahassee and increased capacity to serve youth by eliminating ‘silos’. Legislative: Statute change required to reorganize the DJJ per Chapter 985.

PROS:

• Reductions would line up with the new administration’s plan to shrink government to align with current revenue projections.

• Reducing DJJ state operations would make DJJ a smaller more efficient agency, focused solely on oversight.

• Cost savings could be redistributed within DJJ to prevention, intervention, civil citation, diversion, smaller community based residential, re-entry and transition services.


• Empowers local Circuits and regions to directly serve the state’s youth locally and not wait for instructions from administrative headquarters.

• Reduces the cost of administrative services by combining silos. • Promotes policy architects to focus on identification of best practices, evidenced based practices

and construct return on investment (ROI) models CONS: None known.


Proposal: Preserve BHOS Services for Juvenile Justice Youth and Exclude From Managed Care . Behavioral Health Overlay Services (BHOS) are overlay mental health treatment and substance abuse services delivered to children in juvenile justice programs. These services are individualized and defined by individualized treatment plans approved by the appropriate level of clinician per Medicaid rules. These overlay services are in addition to room and board, 24 hour supervision and educational and vocational services. During FY09-10, 4,200 youth received specialized BHOS services. BHOS services include in varying combinations, individual and group therapy, mental health and rehabilitation day treatment, intensive therapeutic on site services and other interventions.

Any reductions will diminish the behavioral health service delivery model specifically designed in 1998 to provide a constant therapeutic environment with an identified behavioral health treatment orientation. Cuts to DJJ’s Behavioral Health Overlay Services (BHOS) program will impact DJJ’s ability to effectively serve the population of most vulnerable youth. Key Elements of Proposal:

• With 70-80% of youth in the juvenile justice system suffering from mental illness and emotional problems, the Behavioral Health Overlay Services (BHOS) program was established in 1998. The current BHOS rate of $35.00 per day has never been increased since 1998.

• The implementation of BHOS played a significant role in allowing Florida to settle a huge class action law suit (M.E. vs. Chiles & M.E. vs. Bush). This law suit was filed in 1990 and alleged that HRS, and later both DCF and DJJ, failed to provide adequate mental health assessments and treatment in residential programs. The case was settled just before trial largely on the State’s commitment to provide BHOS.

• A recent 2010 evaluation of Florida’s Behavioral Health Overlay Services (BHOS) by the Louis de la Parte Florida, Mental Health Institute at USF found that children who did not receive BHOS services in DJJ programs were 62 times more likely to be placed in Statewide Inpatient Psychiatric Program at a cost of $406 per day. Outcomes for juvenile justice involved youth who received BHOS were considerably better compared to youth who did not receive BHOS while in DJJ programs.

Fiscal Impact: If BHOS services are maintained, Florida will benefit from cost avoidance from future higher costs. The purpose of BHOS services is to address, on an individualized basis, medically necessary mental health and substance abuse treatment to avoid a more intensive (and more expensive) level of care. The current BHOS rate is$35.00 per day; the rate for the Statewide Inpatient Psychiatric Program (SIPP) is $406 daily. Operational Impact: Reducing BHOS services will impact the state’s ability to rehabilitate juvenile justice committed youth. Youth in juvenile justice facilities who have persistent and chronic mental health conditions such as psychotic disorder, major depression or bipolar disorder, etc. and have risk factors related to suicidal gestures, self-injuring behaviors, physical aggression, violent behaviors, absconding, and sexual aggression or victimization will be impacted if reductions are made in funding or if BHOS become part of a managed care system.


Legislative:Suggested language revision for 10-03: Section 12, subsections (2) (b) [lines 653-658] – Medicaid recipients residing in residential commitment facilities operated by or through the Department of Children and Families, Substance Abuse and Mental Health or the Department of Juvenile Justice, and served by bundled rate services (Statewide Inpatient Psychiatric Program, Therapeutic Group Home, Behavioral Health Overlay Services) are exempt from mandatory managed care enrollment as required by s. 409.965.

PROS: BHOS is an effective use of Medicaid dollars. CONS: None known. Research: http://home.fmhi.usf.edu/common/file/ahca/ahca2010/220-136.pdf

http://home.fmhi.usf.edu/common/file/ahca/ahca2010/220-136.pdf-�


Proposal: Reduce the Use of Secure Detention and Address Detention Cost Share.

Secure detention is the most expensive and the least effective means to monitor youth who have been accused of crimes. By using a validated risk assessment Florida can ensure that only those youth who are a risk to public safety are detained. Funds previously dedicated to secure detention can be reinvested into community alternatives, such as the civil citation program. Alternatives to detention offer youth and communities a safer and less expensive way to supervise youth. Many communities have alternatives to detention that keep youth out of costly facilities, but due to the detention cost share counties are penalized with higher cost per day.

Research has shown that youth who are detained are more likely to be formally charged, adjudicated delinquent, committed to state correctional facilities, and drop out of high school. Many youth are detained for violations of probation, contempt of court orders, pick up orders and misdemeanors. About 40% of youth in Florida’s detention facilities do not meet criteria for detention. This is another avenue to reduce the number of youth in detention. The Department of Juvenile Justice budget entities could save millions if 1) staffing levels were reduced to reflect detention use, 2) detention population was reduced to hold only those youth who are a public safety risk, and 3) those funds were reinvested in alternatives to detention.

Key Elements of Proposal

• Address detention cost share disparities for the state and the counties, including locally operated detention facilities.

• Provide competitive incentives for counties to invest in alternatives to detention. • Expand the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) in Florida.

Measures that should be considered:

• Develop competitive grants for local communities that keep youth out of detention – funds would be used for prevention, intervention and alternatives to detention.

• Validate the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument to ensure only those youth who pose a risk to public safety are locked up in secure facilities.

• Prohibit the detention of misdemeanants, contempt of court and pick up orders. • Close unused pods of DJJ detention centers – DJJ has continued to staff the juvenile detention

centers at full capacity, despite the fact that detention use is down to 62%. • Retrain and redeploy detention staff to administer alternatives to detention and monitor youth

in the community.

• Eliminate the billing system used to charge counties for detention cost share. • Transition to smaller less expensive detention facilities. • Allow counties the option to fund the continuum of care and not secure detention. • Reduce special risk classification for detention center staff.


Background on Detention Cost Share

Florida Statute states that the funding for detention shall be a joint obligation between the state and the counties. Counties pay for predisposition detention and the state is responsible for post-disposition detention cost. The legislature determines the amount the non-fiscally constrained counties pay into the Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund and how much general revenue is dedicated to the state share and the fiscally constrained counties share. There are 30 Fiscally Constrained Counties that do not pay for detention, but receive state funds to pay for their share of detention.

2010-11 DJJ Secure Detention Budget

$128,156,270

The Secure Detention budget within DJJ operates 25 detention facilities, DJJ Headquarters Detention staff, and DJJ Regional Detention staff.

Predisposition and postdisposition youth are housed in the same pods of the facility. There is no distinction for pre and post dispositional youth. Counties and the state pay different costs for detention, even though it is the same detention care. Counties have no input on how detention is operated, despite paying nearly $100 million each year.


County’s cost of detention increases as detention utilization decreases

The Billing System

Counties are billed monthly based on estimates from the Department of Juvenile Justice and the DJJ completes a final reconciliation at the end of each fiscal year. The billing system is partially insufficient due to the inconsistencies of the DJJ’s administration of the system. For example, the law says that DJJ will reconcile at the end of each fiscal year. In 2008/09 the DJJ did five final reconciliations and shifted $1.5 million to counties. Since the billing system is based on estimates by the DJJ, the cost often change throughout the year sometimes leaving counties with millions of dollars to pay after the county budget year has closed. This billing system does not allow counties to adequately budget for the cost of detention.

Hillsborough County challenged the DJJ’s billing methods to seek relief from the constantly changing billing system. Through this process the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) has determined that counties are responsible to pay for all predisposition youth:

• not committed to the DJJ; • in contempt of court; • detained on a pick up order by the judge; • that has violated probation; • over the age of 18; • waiting to be transferred to adult court; and • also in foster care.

Fiscal Impact: Shift funds from detention centers to community based alternatives.

• These suggestions do not require an increase in revenue. • The recommendations move funds from the Shared County State Detention Trust Fund

currently used for secure detention to community based alternatives. • No increase cost to Florida’s taxpayers.

Operational Impact: Increases in efficiencies for secure detention:

• Reduce DJJ detention center staff to correspond with detention use o DJJ has continued to staff the juvenile detention centers at full capacity, despite the fact

that detention utilization statewide is 62%. o Every other area of DJJ’s budget has been reduced, including Residential, without

jeopardizing public safety. • Retrain and redeploy detention staff to administer alternatives to detention in the community. • Eliminate the billing system used to charge counties for detention cost. • Allow youth in detention facilities to appear for court dockets by video. • Allows for flexibility in allocation of resources:

o Procure competitive grants to counties for alternatives to secure detention. o Funds would come from cost savings seen in reducing detention staff and length of stay in

residential facilities. • County Operated Juvenile Detention Facilities:


o Should lower cost for counties that opt out and stay in the state system. o DJJ should be required to reduce staff as counties pull out and the detention population

decreases. o Locally run facilities allow counties to focus resources on community programming and staff

as detention use increases or decreases. o Allow youth in detention facilities to appear for court dockets by video.

• Local control – Less Directive from Tallahassee o By using alternatives to detention the local communities can select options that best fit their

community. o Instead of funding the DJJ’s secure detention facilities, counties could provide funds for

community programming. • Increased use of the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative:

o Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Broward Counties are Florida’s four pilot sites. o Increases public safety. o Decreases cost, disproportionate minority contact and unnecessary detention. o 20 years of documented success in 100 sites nationwide. o Support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Legislative Requirements

• Detention cost share – 985.686, F.S. o Statute interpreted by DJJ and implemented through agency rules. o Counties billed $100 million – regardless of detention use o Incentivize counties to keep youth in the community by providing a continuum of care,

not just secure detention. • County Operated Detention Facilities.

o Allow for counties to create regional facilities or contract with other counties to provide predisposition detention services.

o Postdisposition detention services with reimbursement from the state. • Prohibit misdemeanors from entering secure detention facilities. • Prohibit secure detention for pick up orders, contempt of court order and violations of

probation (unless for violent felony offenses). • Eliminate authority for DJJ to establish rules on detention cost share.

Legislative Opposition: None Known. Pros

• Increases efficiency; • Creates fairness in detention cost share ; • Less ‘Tallahassee’ by decreasing bureaucracy; • Encourages local collaboration and involvement; and • Provides opportunities for jobs in the community.

Cons: None Known. Future Research

• Florida Association of Counties www.fl-counties.com/Pages/Advocacy/Public_Safety/Juvenile_Detention.aspx

http://www.fl-counties.com/Pages/Advocacy/Public_Safety/Juvenile_Detention.aspx�



• Annie E. Casey Foundation – JDAI www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativeInitiative.aspx

• Department of Juvenile Justice – Detention Cost Share http://www.djj.state.fl.us/costsharing/index.html

http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativeInitiative.aspx�

http://www.djj.state.fl.us/costsharing/index.html�


Proposal: Modernize Technology at the Department of Juvenile Justice. Technology is an enabler of performance in government organizations: it provides a resource for innovation, efficiency, and sharing among partners. DJJ requires a modernization in its approach, management, and expectations of its IT program. Systems should utilize a standards-based architecture to facilitate information sharing between partners including local agencies (government and community-based) as well as other state agencies such as DCF serving many of the same youth as DJJ. Technology must be designed according to a business model, wherein the functions reflect a strategic alignment to organizational goals and priority outcomes while offering a user-centric platform that is both easy to use with single terminal access and content reflective of individual responsibilities. This forward-leaning approach must be capable of overcoming the existing silos by integrating information in a single system that is responsive to requests but includes appropriate privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties controls for assured access. The implementation plan will utilize a professional contractor to design, implement, and migrate existing data to the new operation. This approach will ensure a customer-guided and performance-based model with bounded costs and deadlines for deliverables without adding additional bureaucracy or long-term fiscal commitments. Three Key Elements of Proposal:

• Modernize then DJJ technology platform by integrating all DJJ components in a single system that enables performance through a functional user-interface, information sharing among partner agencies, and provides appropriate access controls.

• Build a technology system that is responsive to the business model of DJJ, rather than manipulating processes to accommodate available technology.

• Outsource the new system development and implementation, to ensure a customer-guided and performance-based model with bounded costs and deadlines for deliverables without growing bureaucracy.

Fiscal Impact: Requires an initial investment for the modernization of the system; however, system improvements generate operational savings in both staff time and resources. With a supported business process, wherein technology is an enabler, staff can focus on assisting youth and identifying and implementing innovative mechanisms to achieve results. Certain functions once requiring a great deal of time, effort, or staffing can be reduced through the use of technology. Controls for the initial cost will be included using contract mechanisms requiring deliverables and performance results on time and on budget. The contract will also have expiration, as necessary, to prevent the long-term dedication of resources that would be necessary if funding government staff to perform the upgrades. This model promotes savings in both the mid-term and long-term for DJJ. Operational Impact:

• Assists in the reduction of DJJ silos through the tool of technology. • Allows DJJ staff, and approved partners, to access all user-relevant information about youth

served by DJJ to provide more comprehensive services in real time. • Provides automated, user-centric access controls to protect privacy, civil rights, and civil

liberties. • Allows an audit trail of information access, sharing, and content adjustment.


• Reduces the time and manpower necessary to perform tasks, allowing for resource reallocation and recapture.

• Builds a customer-focused IT model that is responsive to departmental needs with integrating cost ceilings and result requirements

Legislative Requirements: Legislative demands for this proposal will be limited. Existing resources may need reallocation or reduction as efficiencies are realized and the current IT infrastructure is no longer necessary. Procurement guidance and appropriate legislative approvals within this process will also be required. Legislative Opposition: Reducing the size and cost of government, although an aim of Governor-Elect Scott, is often perceived negatively because it can translate into reductions in positions. In realizing efficiencies through the application of technology, DJJ will be faster, smarter, and more agile. While a reallocation of resources would be ideal to continue passing benefits to the youth of Florida, it is also important to share the benefits of efficiencies with taxpayers. Some legislators may view the changes within their respective communities as damaging to local economies that are dependent on currently embedded inefficiencies. Pros: Makes DJJ smarter, faster, and more efficient. Cons: May result in the reduction of resources, which may be viewed negatively in the context of local communities. Future Research: A great body of work exists on the impacts of technology and value-added in operational performance. Further, there are many studies of both private and public organizations that have utilized technology to modernize their operations and realize efficiencies and enhance effectiveness.


Proposal: Streamline DJJ Administrative rules and policies and procedures. Develop a workgroup to review and update juvenile justice administrative code. A comprehensive evaluation has not been done since 1994 and the Code is extremely prescriptive. This workgroup can work towards a comprehensive overhaul and update of the Code to support best practices and improve outcomes in juvenile justice. A separate workgroup can review certain policy and procedure manuals as well. Three Key Elements of Proposal:

• A workgroup of internal and external stakeholders can be convened to review DJJ administrative rules in efforts to streamline and eliminate unnecessary rules that either complicate operational efficiency or promote unnecessary administrative and financial burdens of department and providers.

• Workgroup will focus on the following administrative rules in section 985 of the administrative

code: 63G- Detention Services; 63D Probation; and 63E- Residential Services.

• A separate workgroup shall review current policy and procedure manuals. The two manuals of focus should be: 1) Detention Services; 2) Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services manual.

Fiscal Impact: Minimal financial impact other than the time required of DJJ staff members who must participate in the review sessions. Operational Impact: Streamlining the administrative rules will assist in increasing operational efficiency. Legislative Requirements: None Known. Legislative Opposition: N/A Pros: Streamlining can lessen unnecessary bureaucratic burdens and lead to cost savings for the Department and private providers. Cons: This will be a time consuming task and require the time of DJJ headquarters staff. Future Research

• http://www.djj.state.fl.us/manuals/manuals.html • https://flrules.org/gateway/department.asp?totype=&deptID=63

http://www.djj.state.fl.us/manuals/manuals.html�

https://flrules.org/gateway/department.asp?totype=&deptID=63�


Proposal: Create a More Efficient and Accountable DJJ Quality Assurance Process . The DJJ Quality Assurance process evaluates programs to determine the level of performance and the quality of the services being provided. Providers embrace the importance of this function however, as dwindling state revenues continue to set the stage for agency reductions, we believe it is time to take a fresh look at QA to determine how we can achieve the goal with less dollars and with more efficiency. To ensure that standards of quality are being met, that the agency is getting what it is “paying for “ and that the best use of taxpayer dollars is a high priority, the QA process should be changed to reduce duplication, redundancy, and to gain efficiency and more accountability. Residential providers have agreed to pay for accreditation in lieu of QA and that the cost of accreditation is about the same or less than providing peer reviewers for QA. Key Elements of Proposal:

• Satisfy requirements of DJJ QA utilizing National Accreditation Standards. • DJJ to recognize and accept accreditation by national accreditation organizations so as to

reduce paperwork, improve monitoring, and assist in required oversight. • Look at other agencies (DCF, AHCA) to see how they determine quality improvement

through use of accreditation where appropriate. • Satisfy requirements of DJJ QA utilizing local DJJ staff expertise.

• Utilize local program and contract monitors since they already use existing QA tools and checklists on a regular basis, which is duplicative of the annual QA review process.

• Program and Contract monitors are experts who can give provide “real time” assessments of quality assurance that are in tune with program milieu.

• Any federal or state regulations currently satisfied by annual QA would be managed by the agency.

• Eliminate Administrative Review Unit • Increase program review frequency. • Monitors should conduct all administrative reviews. • For maximum efficiency, combine reviews at same facility, and combine reviews

geographically


Fiscal Impact: Potential Cost savings: maximum savings -$4 million, including salaries below, travel and other expenses.

QA and Administrative Review Salaries Bureau Chief 1 $61,000 $79,300

Assistant Bureau Chief 1 $39,000 $50,700 Administrative Assistant 1 $30,000 $39,000 Administrative Secretary 4 $24,000 $124,800 Operations & Management Consultant 1 $44,000 $57,200 Program Administrator 5 $48,000 $312,000 Management Review Specialist 7 $41,000 $373,100 Government Analyst 11 $37,000 $529,100

subtotal $1,565,200

Administrative Review Manager 1 77000 $100,100 Assistant Administrative Review Manager 1 44000 $57,200 Administrative Review Specialist 12 44000 $686,400

subtotal $843,700

total $2,408,900

Operational Impact: Since QA would become a local staff responsibility, the Office of QA would be eliminated allowing the agency to redirect those resources within the agency and meet budget reductions.

Legislative: Change in current statute and existing QA rule. Opposition: The DJJ would likely not support this recommendation and statute change.

PROS:

• Reductions would line up with the new administration’s plan to shrink down government to balance current revenue projections.

• QA will become more than just a yearly “snapshot” of quality, and will become a “real time” assessment of quality, conducted by local DJJ staff, providing greater levels of oversight.

• Local QA oversight would complement the QA satisfied by National Accreditation Standards • Florida would benefit in that all programming would move towards national accreditation. • Cost savings could be redistributed within DJJ to prevention, intervention, civil citation,

diversion, smaller community based residential, re-entry and transition services.

CONS • None Known.


Proposal: Revise current policies relating to Protective Action Response ( PAR). Providers who deliver services under contract with the DJJ are required to be trained in PAR, (protective action response) which is a use of force intervention developed by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. There other crisis intervention strategies, such as Handle with Care that are safer, less restrictive and nationally recognized and that should also be permitted. State dollars are wasted in the training of non-residential staff that would not need this use of force training. We recommend that DJJ develop a menu of “DJJ approved” generally accepted verbal/physical intervention products. Each option would be reviewed to ensure it is not in conflict with prior DJJ directives about use of force techniques. Key Elements of Proposal: • Expanding menu of DJJ approved crisis intervention responses beyond the current PAR

mandatory requirement would allow DJJ to immediately eliminate DJJ PAR training staffing FTE’s and associated related costs. Providers would select from an approved menu and train at their own expense.

• Eliminating the requirement of all non-residential programs to be PAR trained would provide cost avoidance for providers and allow further reductions in DJJ training staff.

• Nationally recognized crisis intervention strategies, such as Handle with Care should also be permitted. Add language to the current statute 985.645. 6 (b) to say: “Establish training curriculums for protective action response certification of employees and instructors. The Department may authorize the use of any nationally recognized curriculum that meets the requirements of this section. The training curriculum for employee certification shall, at a minimum, require the employee to……”)

Fiscal Impact:

• Immediate cost savings as a result of reduced DJJ staffing and related costs. • Expanding the menu of options would also cause providers to train at their own expense saving

the state dollars. • Eliminating non-residential PAR training as unnecessary would allow providers to utilize funding

for other key services. Legislative: Add language to the current statute 985.645. 6 (b) to say: “Establish training curriculums for protective action response certification of employees and instructors. The Department may authorize the use of any nationally recognized curriculum that meets the requirements of this section. The training curriculum for employee certification shall, at a minimum, require the employee to……”)

Opposition: The DJJ has not been supportive of this as a cost savings or cost avoidance.

PROS:

• This recommendation will save state resources by eliminating staff positions dedicated to PAR training.

• This recommendation will shift the cost and responsibility of crisis intervention training to the provider as part of their contractual obligation.

• Other crisis intervention methods which have been used by the provider community have been validated on a national scale.

CONS: None known.


Proposal: Reduce or Eliminate State Operated DJJ Residential Facilities.

Privatized programs serving delinquent youth have been in operation since the Department of Juvenile Justice was first launched in 1994, with some organizations delivering services previously under the HRS umbrella. Private providers and their programs, serving youth throughout the juvenile justice continuum of care, have been a constant strength, delivering innovative, efficient, and effective services and at a much cheaper cost than the state. In fact, during a 2007 review of Florida’s juvenile justice system, the Department of Juvenile Justice acknowledged, “We should be using the private system because they do it better.” Three Key Elements of Proposal:

• With the agency reductions imminent, and private programs considered to be high performing, it is time to look at “real costs” and “return on investment” rather than whether the program is “state run” or privately run.”

• This is an opportune time to determine the actual return on taxpayer investment. A recent Taxwatch study in 2007documented that state operated residential programs are more costly than privately operated programs, with higher state employee benefits, subcontracts, and indirect and direct overhead.

• A recent DJJ report shows commitment rates declined 14% last year, and have dropped 28% since 2005. This trend is likely the result of successful administration of Civil Citation and front-end programs. Therefore, we believe these reductions could occur with no negative impact to public safety.

Fiscal Impact: Closing state programs would net the state almost twice the savings than closing privately operated programs. There are 600 state operated beds currently on line, so immediate cost savings would be a maximum annualized savings of $50-$60 million. DJJ recently identified 670 privately operated residential beds they would reduce in their Schedule 8-B 15% reductions.

Contracted residential programs vs. State operated residential programs Eliminating 670 privately operated beds

would save approximately $30 million. Eliminating 600 state operated beds would

save approximately $60 million. Operational Impact: Closing state programs allows the agency to redirect resources within the agency and meet budget reductions.

The majority of private programs are specialized (MH, SA, SO, GR) and are equipped to accommodate and serve the needs of all youth currently in state operated programs

Any and all affected state employees impacted by downsizing would most likely find jobs within the private sector.


Legislative:

• Requirements: Change in statute required. • Opposition: The DJJ and state employee unions would likely not support this recommendation

and statute change. PROS: • Immediate cost savings would be a maximum annualized savings of $50-$60 million. These

estimates are conservative. This calculation does not include benefits, WC, etc. First year savings, to include personnel reductions, could capture a potential additional $10 million.

• Reductions would line up with the new administration’s plan to shrink government to align with current revenue projections.

• Reducing DJJ state operations would make DJJ a smaller more efficient agency, focused solely on oversight.


CONS: none

State Program Moderate High Maximum Total Per

Diem

Britt Halfway House 28 28 $150 $1,533,000 Desoto Dual Diagnosis Correctional Facility 23 93 8 124 $300 $13,578,000 Desoto Correctional Facility Mental Health 100 30 130 $300 $14,235,000 Duval Halfway House 28 28 $150 $1,533,000 Falkenburg Academy 100 100 $150 $5,475,000 Jackson Juvenile Offender Correctional Center 32 32 $200 $2,336,000 Les Peters Halfway House 28 28 $150 $1,533,000 North Florida Youth Development Center 119 119 $200 $8,687,000

Pensacola Boys Base 28 28 $200 $2,044,000

Total 335 242 40 617

$50,954,000

State Program

Cost Savings Analysis

Moderate High Maximum Total Per

Diem

Britt Halfway House 28 28 $150 $1,533,000 Desoto Dual Diagnosis Correctional Facility 23 93 8 124 $300 $13,578,000 Desoto Correctional Facility Mental Health 100 30 130 $300 $14,235,000 Duval Halfway House 28 28 $150 $1,533,000 Falkenburg Academy 100 100 $150 $5,475,000 Jackson Juvenile Offender Correctional Center 32 32 $200 $2,336,000 Les Peters Halfway House 28 28 $150 $1,533,000


North Florida Youth Development Center 119 119 $200 $8,687,000

Pensacola Boys Base 28 28 $200 $2,044,000

Total 335 242 40 617

$50,954,000

Latest Research on Costs of State vs. Privately Operated Programs 2007 TaxWatch Report: Complete and Accurate Costing of Residential and Detention Juvenile Justice Programs Is Needed to Properly Evaluate State- and Privately Operated Facilities Summary of Research:

Flawed Accounting

DJJ does not apply the same accounting methodology to state programs as they do to privately operated programs.

Inaccurate Cost Reporting

DJJ does not allocate indirect costs to state run programs as they do with private programs.

Apples to Oranges Comparison

DJJ is not using identical cost analysis making it impossible to compare state vs. private programming costs.

PAM Score Validity

Methodology used for Program Accountability Measures (PAM) may be invalid since the indirect costs of state run programs are not considered.

Costs TaxWatch study demonstrates that DJJ's state operated programming may cost the Florida taxpayer much more than what it costs to provide identical services in the private sector.

Outcomes Results of Florida DJJ's own research shows that the outcomes from private providers are equal to, if not better than, the results of the more expensive state programming. See recent QA scores.

Utilization Despite this, and as stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, the agency has continued to fill more expensive state operated beds and reduce less expensive private beds.


Proposal: Eliminate Central Communications Center. Eliminate the CCC Call Center and utilize improved technology such as electronic reporting methods instead. Key Elements of Proposal:

• Eliminate CCC Call Center. • Report incidents via email directly to Region/Division administration. • Develop internal process for notification of high level administrators when necessary.

Fiscal Impact: Would eliminate 2 or 3 FTE’s and other related costs who are dedicated to staffing the call center. Operational Impact: Changes the focus to an improved use of technology.

Legislative: Would require elimination of Administrative Rule Chapter 63F-11 on Central Communications Center.

PROS:

• Reductions would line up with the new administration’s plan to shrink down government to balance current revenue projections.


CONS: None known.


Proposal: Improve Health Services for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. The goal of having statewide contracts for pharmacy services, comprehensive evaluation services and comprehensive medical services (detention facilities and state operated programs) would be to provide quality services in a cost-effective manner. A Statewide pharmacy service could develop a formulary specific to the Department of Juvenile justice’s youth, produce detailed utilization reports on practitioner prescribing practices and tracking of the highest cost medications. A statewide vendor for quality comprehensive evaluation services would improve standardization for the evaluations that are needed prior to a youth’s placement in a residential program. Statewide comprehensive medical services (detention facilities/ state operated programs) would improve coordination of services and the standard of care for the youth in those facilities would be consistent. Three Key Elements of Proposal: • Statewide Pharmacy Service. • Statewide Comprehensive Evaluation Services (Contracted). • Statewide Comprehensive Medical Services (Detention facilities/ State Operated Facilities).

Fiscal Impact:

• Potential cost savings. • Discount on Medications (Pharmacy Services). • Discount on services (Medical Services and Comprehensive Evaluation Services).

Operational Impact:

• Coordination of care would be simplified. • Increased amount of hours that staff members would be on site. • Ease in establishing a cooperative relationship with the Vendor.

Legislative Requirements: The legal requirements rather than legislative requirements would be that the Department develops a “Request for Proposal” from the vendor companies that supply the services. After receipt of the proposal, the vendors would bid for the contract. Legislative: None Known. Opposition: N/A Pros: Cost savings and increased health services benefits to youth in state custody. Cons: A state wide vendor could be selected because of a low bid and subsequently petition the state for more money after being awarded the contract. Future Research:

• The Department can solicit a public “request for information “ from vendors. • Research the Departments’ of Juvenile Justice in other states to obtain information regarding

using multiple statewide providers for pharmacy, comprehensive evaluations and comprehensive medical service


Proposal: Create a More Efficient and Accountable DJJ Contracting and Procurement Process. In these difficult economic times, we must work to enhance accountability, improve service delivery, and incentivize savings to the state. This means further streamlining, eliminating redundancies and inefficiencies so as to maximize limited state resources. To ensure continuous improvement in the area of contracting and procurement of juvenile justice services, discussions should take place around contracting, procurement, extensions of contracts/renewals, performance vs. compliance, and national accreditation. Three Key Elements of Proposal: • Privatizing services in the DJJ was originally conceived to encourage organizations with specific

expertise or a track record of high performance to deliver services, at a lower cost than government, with a better outcome than the state could provide.

• Current process has stifled creativity, lowered performance, and eliminated enhanced cost savings possible with privatized model.

• DJJ should be required to provide fiscal analysis of any new contract requirements, newly mandated reports/requests, to existing contracts. This would prevent services from being compromised and should allow a renegotiation of contract to accommodate any necessary changes mid contract. To ensure that state is most accountable to taxpayers, the following list below shows areas of improvement needed in the DJJ.

FUNDING/TERMS RFP LANGUAGE SCORING

Length of Contract • 5yr/5yr renewal • Performance based as DCF

Align practices with other states as well as agencies within Florida

Bonus for deemed status for specific program

Unfunded mandates Limit reports and requests for information that DJJ already has

Professional rating system

Enact penalty for frivolous bid protests

Less prescriptive Winning bidder accountable to proposal

Process to negotiate requirements/ funding

Consistent timeframes Develop mechanism to measure accountability

Consistency in per diem rates/program types

Individual RFP’s , not for multiple

Allow (or require) in person presentations

Cost of living increases when appropriate

Contract short and sweet – specific

Assign scores during public discussions

Build in startup funding Limited scope to target population

Reduce # of points in RFP

Contract extensions for good performance

Remove CORE from contracts Accreditation points, program specific

Contract mandates, changes in standards

Better defined job qualifications

Improve selection and training of “raters”

Resolution of provider payment for leap year

Remove PRIDE and RESPECT as a requirement in contracts


Fiscal Impact: Extending high performing contracts would reduce the recurring costs of RFP procurement, evaluation, and related costs. There is also a potential for reduction in current DJJ FTE’s based on workload reduction. Operational Impact: change in workload may change operations in this area.

Legislative: SB 226 has been filed (accreditation, monitoring, and contracting) • Procurement methodology, including competition versus model rates • All contracting issues, including; negotiations to adjust payments when contracts are amended;

payment for non-disputed items;, or administrative costs; cost of living increases subject to legislative appropriation; etc.

• Oversight monitoring and accountability; shifting focus to output and outcomes • Paperwork reduction

PROS: • Privatization will bring the value that is expected, including creativity, innovation,

exceptional outcomes • Florida would benefit in that all programming would move towards national accreditation. • Any cost savings could be redistributed within DJJ to prevention, intervention, civil citation,

diversion, smaller community based residential, re-entry and transition services

CONS: None Known.


Proposal: Improve Prevention Services – Before and After-School Care Crisis.

Presently, a significant amount of funding that supports Before and After-school prevention services for low income working families is being eliminated, creating a crisis with significant public safety impacts. The administration of Before and After-school programs in Florida is scattered among various executive branch agencies and funding is splintered. A dedicated state funding source for Before and After-school programs is needed to resolve the problem.

While some dollars are distributed by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice through its prevention grants and others derive through the Florida Department of Education, the majority of funds flow from the federal Child Care Development Block Grant to the state, with these funds administered by the Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI) and then redistributed to local Early Learning Coalitions (ELC). Present legislation places an emphasis on school readiness targeting 0 to 5 year olds and the ELCs have been following that priority. As a result, over the past couple of years, many ELCs have changed their policies from supporting before and after school care for children through age 12 (which federal funding permits) to lowering the ceiling on the age of eligibility. This lowering of the age of emphasis has resulted in young children ages 6 through 12 being un-enrolled from services throughout the state.

Parents, as a result, must leave these children either unsupervised or poorly supervised, or try to pay for 100% of Before and After school care, which is unaffordable for lower income working families. Leaving this age group without proper supervision increases their likelihood of delinquent and criminal activity, drug and alcohol use, victimization and school-related problems.

A significant and well-researched body of literature confirms that providing a quality continuum of services beginning at preschool and extending to later childhood reinforces the positive gains made in the early learning environment, and contributes to narrowing the achievement gap along with the other obvious public safety benefits.

Key Elements of Proposal: • Protect the public and personal safety of children while parents are at work. Dedicate a state

funding source sufficient to meet the needs for Before and After-school programs. • Designate one state agency to manage and oversee Before and After-school programs and services

and consider the Department of Juvenile Justice for this responsibility. • Create a time-limited Advisory Council of citizens, businesses, law enforcement, and advocacy

groups to make recommendations to the Governor directly on solutions regarding the funding crisis regarding Before and After-school services.

• Through gubernatorial and/or legislative action, expand the current language of the school readiness statute to include children through age 12 as part of the priority population.

• AWI shall revise its policy and directives to local Early Learning Coalitions, that while the 0-5 age

group continues to be a priority, that the 6-12 age group shall be included in funding priorities.


• Early Learning Coalitions shall be required to provide subsidies for low income children through age 12.

Fiscal Impact: No direct impact, however, in some areas of the state, a greater number of children will be eligible for subsidized child care than is presently the case as a result of lowering the age ceiling for eligibility Operational Impact: It may require additional effort to manage potential waiting lists in those areas that currently serve a lower age limit Legislative Requirements: Revising the statutory language regarding school readiness to also include "school success" as a continuum of school readiness Legislative Opposition: Early Learning Coalitions by statute focus on the 0-5 age group, and are composed of board members whose interests primarily are with this age group. Some coalitions and coalition board members may ask legislators to oppose expansion of the age group or the transfer of the responsibility for Before and After-school programs to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. Pros: • Through subsidy, provides supervision for children who otherwise would be at high risk for

engaging in pre-delinquent, delinquent and other risky behaviors • Provides a quality continuum of services that builds on the school readiness efforts as defined by

the legislature and governor • Officially recognizes that federal dollars that can be spent for the 0-12 age group will permit dollars

to be expended in all parts of the state for the entire age group, not excessively restricted to the 0-5 population

• Research shows that children receiving quality afterschool care have better and sustained academic and pro-social outcomes than children who do not receive such care

Cons: • In some areas of the state -- not all -- it would expand the number of children eligible for subsidized

childcare, thus increasing waiting lists List resources where future research can be obtained to pursue this proposal: • The Children’s Campaign 2011 Legislative Platform and Policy Handbook • Florida Afterschool Alliance • Florida Children's Cabinet


Proposal: Implement Evidence Based Practices in DJJ. The current definition used by DJJ for evidence-based programming is far too restrictive and lacks clarity. Additionally, most of the evidence-based (EB) programs are proprietary and it is very expensive to get training. Additionally, certain RFPs require specific, proprietary programs. The DJJ should drop the “research based” definition of EB and open the system to other useful models. There are examples of effective strategies for youth that are not evidence based, yet DJJ contracts encourage us to avoid non-EB programs. For example, Restorative Justice, a cornerstone of DJJ, is not evidence based. Additionally, there are a wide range of evidence based “strategies” that also have been proven to be effective at various stages of the juvenile justice continuum.

DJJ’s research based focus is challenging in that the concept of “evidence based” seems geared for “longer term” programming which presents serious barriers for “short term” programs to fully implement. Moving from the current philosophy would allow requirements for long and short term programs to be more flexible within time constraints throughout the continuum of services. Dropping the “research based” definition of evidenced based programming would open the system to other effective models and move implementation to a “real world application.” Key Elements of Proposal:

• To implement evidence based programming in the DJJ, by focusing on affordability, feasibility, sustainability and outcomes.

• Review and clarify how “best practices” are determined by DJJ; create alignment between state and federal lists.

• Involve providers in the process to create the DJJ evidence based “vision” and reduce evidence based programming costs by eliminating all requirements not required by developer.

Fiscal Impact: DJJ can eliminate staff dedicated to determining EB, and rely on research from universities, federal or other recognized entities. Providers will not bear the burden of purchasing proprietary programs. Operational Impact:

• Statute and licensing requirements for providing service: DCF 653D. • Federal guidelines vs. state guidelines: Merging the two when they are in conflict getting DJJ to

recognize those models. • Federal organizations who have adopted “evidenced based” or “what works” practices. • Requirements which are supposed to be integrated together: i.e. gender, impact of crime, &

evidenced based. • Development of the ability to capture information on youth, which shows the impact of use of

EB. • Differentiating evidenced based within the continuum and how it is used with youth in the

various stages of that continuum. Legislative: Legislative direction on how Florida requires, pays for and implements EB programming in juvenile justice programming.


PROS: Alignment with other states, more efficient use of state dollars, reduces duplication, clarifies intent and support of EB programming in the DJJ. CONS: None Known.


Proposal: Improve collaboration of DJJ with state and local workforce development agencies to better utilize state and federal resources. With an increased focus on building and bringing jobs to the state, Florida will need to have an educated, diverse and prepared workforce to meet the future demand. Improved collaboration between the DJJ, private providers, and state and local workforce development agencies will be necessary to assist in the success of that effort. Although state and local workforce boards serve at-risk youth through their funding streams, DJJ and providers who serve juvenile justice youth continue to express difficulty in developing partnerships, securing resources as well as successfully executing on grants. Key Elements of Proposal:

• Governor Scott should require by Executive order that Workforce Florida, the Agency for Workforce for Innovation and local Workforce Development Boards must work with the Department of Juvenile Justice and its provider organizations to educate and train youth for future employment with Florida’s diverse businesses. Youth offenders (and other at risk youth) must be part of the trained workforce preparing to meet the needs of Florida’s current and future employers.

• With the incoming administration’s focus on creating 700,000 new jobs in Florida, the DJJ, along with other agencies must incorporate into their mission preparing at-risk youth for jobs through education and training. The DJJ can incorporate the need to mandate education and job preparation for all youth, especially in transition and reentry.

• State and local workforce agencies should partner with the DJJ and its providers to ensure that services relating to employability skills, summer youth employment, work opportunity tax credits, federal bonding program for DJJ students entering the workforce, job placement and other trainings should be available.

Fiscal Impact: This provides cost avoidance through the education, training and employment of youth, ensuring long term success, reduced recidivism and a reduction in future taxpayer involvement. Additionally, future taxpayer dollars will not be spent, i.e., recommitment to DJJ, additional TANF(cash assistance), and commitment to DOC. Operational Impact: Expands on what the DJJ and providers have been attempting to do with limited success. Legislative: Executive Order and legislative changes to 985 to mandate, GED, industry workforce certifications and job placement for youth at risk for dropout, or with no plans for post secondary education.

PROS: Reductions would line up with the new administration’s plan to bring 700,000 jobs to the state. We will need to have a ready and educated and diverse workforce to meet the needs of Florida employers.

CONS: None known.


Proposal: Rethink Florida’s Definition of Recidivism for Juvenile Justice Florida’s definition of recidivism is overly broad. What is often communicated to individuals who make juvenile justice funding and policy decisions, represents only a fraction of the youth served in Florida’s juvenile justice system. There is much confusion over recidivism rates, and many decision makers believe the current residential rate is the entire system rate. In fact, the opposite is true. During FY2009-10, DJJ received 75,382 kids. Of those, 5,476 (7%) youth were committed. The rest, 69,906 (93%) were served in the community or were diverted from entry into the system altogether. The focus on one part of the system helps to ensure that the worst possible picture of DJJ is presented to the Florida Legislature as well as Florida taxpayers who expect accountability of their tax dollars. Last November, the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA), in an effort to bring some understanding and consensus to the issue, released, “Defining and Measuring Recidivism.” The CJCA white paper highlights the need for common definitions and measures of recidivism.

Definitions of recidivism must be specified and recidivism must be measured consistently over time. Otherwise, factors causing changes in outcomes cannot be identified with confidence. Second, a conclusion made regarding the superiority of one program over another, based on recidivism as an outcome, requires use of the same definition and measure of recidivism. Similarly, when recidivism is measured at the system level, say a state agency’s recidivism rate, the same measure of recidivism must be used for all programs and program clients in order for the aggregate rate to be valid.

Key Elements of Proposal: • Florida’s current methodology implies that Florida’s juvenile justice system is a failure, making the

system appear ineffective and inefficient in the eyes of state decision makers. This is not a true representation of the work occurring within the system.

• Florida is one of only three states in the nation that computes “success rates” (i.e., a non-recidivism rate) for individual commitment programs, implying a causal relationship between a single short-term program intervention and a long-term outcome.

• It is time to identify what is meaningful to Florida and what we should look at to measure the effectiveness of the system. It is important to understand the outcomes of the entire system, one worth investing taxpayer dollars.

Fiscal Impact: Better understanding of recidivism and where taxpayer dollars should flow would most likely result in a savings for the state. Operational Impact: Programs would be funded based on a real assessment of their value in terms of protecting public safety, reducing crime, reducing victims and reducing prison construction.

Legislative: N/A PROS: A clearer definition of what constitutes success in Florida would allow the Legislative and Executive Branch the opportunity to make fiscal decisions based on an indicator that serves the taxpayer well.


Proposal: Increase Services Available for Girls. Florida incarcerates more girls than 47 other states and although we have made gains with respect to girls in Florida (HB 1989 mandating gender specific services in DJJ), girls continue to be the fastest growing population in the juvenile justice system. Girls represent 32% of Florida’s juvenile justice population, yet funding for gender responsive services to girls is less than 10% of the DJJ budget. As a result, reductions to juvenile justice services across the continuum over the past four years have disproportionately impacted girls. Florida now has very little in terms of gender responsive services for delinquent girls. Furthermore, the growing population of girls in juvenile justice is largely due to systems that continue to stack the deck against girls. In Florida, 76% of girls are committed to DJJ due to Violations of Probation or misdemeanors as compared to 56% of boys (DJJ, 2009). Nationally, (and Florida follows this trend), girls are 170% more likely to be detained for these offenses than boys (United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2006)) and girls spend up to three times longer in detention than boys. Girls enter the juvenile justice system with disturbing histories of physical and sexual abuse (in Florida 68% of girls have this history, OPPAGA, Report #05-13) and diagnosed mental health issues (94%, Rallying Cry for Change, 2006, pg 23). Statewide, 10% of girls charged with assault and battery are entering the juvenile justice system for domestic violence in the home (DJJ, 2010), often a result of defending herself against physical and sexual abuse. In 2009-2010, over 9,000 girls were served in detention in Florida’s juvenile justice system. The characteristics of detention, including seclusion, staff insensitivity, loss of privacy, and traditional methods of restraint to preserve order and asserting authority, often results in re-traumatization and re-victimization of girls. Three Key Elements of Proposal:

• Girls committed for violations of probation, status offenses and misdemeanors do not belong in a state’s most expensive and secure settings. Reduce commitment of girls for misdemeanors and violations of probation and divert girls and resources to gender responsive community-based mental health and substance abuse services.

• Implement a statewide Civil Citation Program that does not result in an arrest record and support regional full service Juvenile Assessment Centers with gender responsive assessments to significantly reduce the detention population of girls and ensure girls receive the services they need.

• Improve the quality of care and treatment for girls in residential commitment programs, require all DJJ staff and providers to be trained to work with girls, ensure that conditions are humane and monitor all program outcomes to insure girls are safe and programs are effective.


Fiscal Impact: • 76% of girls in commitment are misdemeanants or committed for violations of probation.

Diverting just 30% of these girls (approximately 2,052) from detention or commitment to community based intervention would save an average of $225,000/day.

• Civil Citation could further reduce the population of girls in detention and commitment by 30% at an estimated immediate cost savings of $5,000/girl by avoiding arrest and reduce the costs of needed gender responsive community based services by 1/3.

• Costs to training staff and monitoring programs would be minimal and could be offset by reducing the population of girls in commitment and lengths of stay in commitment.

Operational Impact:

• Reduce referrals of girls to the Juvenile Justice System for minor crimes, decrease re-traumatization and re-victimization of girls in detention and commitment, reduce girl's delinquent attitudes and behaviors and prevent unnecessary criminal records.

• Resources would need to be redirected from detention and commitment to front end services and ensure high quality of care for girls in community based services.

• Ensure services for girls address risk and protective factors supported by research to increase or decrease the likelihood of delinquency amongst girls.

Legislative Requirements:

• Legislation that appropriately bars commitment for misdemeanants and violations of probation would prevent girls from entering the more costly juvenile justice system.

• Enabling legislation to support statewide civil citation that does not result in a criminal record.

• Enabling legislation to reduce length of commitments and supports redirection of funds towards front end prevention and diversion services.

Legislative Opposition:

• Juvenile Judges may oppose authority to commit girls.

• Law Enforcement may oppose civil citation.

• State Attorneys may oppose authority to commit girls. Pros: Nearly half (44%) of all children admitted to DJJ facilities in FY2008-09 were committed for misdemeanors and violations of probation. Few of those confined are serious offenders. Most are charged with non-violent property or drug crimes and one third are confined for status offenses (such as running away and truancy), public order violations and technical violations of probation rules (like missing curfew). Additionally, having been confined in a secure juvenile facility is highly predictive of future involvement in adult corrections (M. Wald, and T. Martinez, “Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds,” 2003).

These youth do not belong in a state’s most expensive and secure settings. Reforms, such as prevention, intervention, diversion and treatment, cost less than commitment. They are also better at holding youth accountable and reducing recidivism. By way of example, it costs DJJ $12,575 per year to provide services to a


delinquent girl at PACE Center for Girls and an average of $42,500 per year if she is confined. Further, recidivism studies indicated a 5-year 12% recidivism rate at PACE as compared to a 5-year 75% recidivism rate for commitment. The best systems working towards reform have embraced community-based alternatives to institutionalization as a way to improve the life chances of juveniles in the justice system and as a way to reduce unwarranted costs without negatively impacting public safety. Using tools such as risk assessment and sentencing guidelines, jurisdictions are able to distinguish between youth who pose risks to public safety and those who would be better and more cost effectively served in less-restrictive settings. Cons: In spite of substantial and intentional progress over the past five years, DJJ continues to incarcerate large numbers of relatively low-risk youth and Florida incarcerates more girls than 47 other states. Strong leadership and a commitment to juvenile justice is required so that we can finance reform instead of failure by redirecting criminal justice dollars towards less expensive community-based interventions. While states must continue to incarcerate youth who pose serious risks to public safety, detention and incarceration of young people should be an option of last resort. Future Research: PACE Center for Girls www.pacecenter.org 904-421-8585 ext 106 Annie E Casey Foundation, JDAI http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative.aspx Girls Study Group http://girlsstudygroup.rti.org/ Report and Recommendations of the Florida TaxWatch Government Cost Savings Task Force for Fiscal Year 2011-12, at http://www.floridataxwatch.org/

http://www.pacecenter.org/�

http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative.aspx�

http://girlsstudygroup.rti.org/�

http://www.floridataxwatch.org/�


Proposal: Eliminate the costly and redundant data entry by CINS/FINS providers as currently required by the DJJ. Eliminate the current requirement of the Florida Network to enter client data into JJIS resulting in dual data entry at the direct service level. NetMIS (the CINS/FINS data management system) was designed with the DJJ and has been collecting accurate, timely and secure data since 2000. This system has more comprehensive client information than JJIS and contains each of the data elements necessary for JJIS. This data is provided to the DJJ monthly via CD as well as upon special request. We estimate that nearly $100,000 has been spent in the last year complying with this redundant task, and we are still far from JJIS having accurate CINS/FINS information.

Three Key Elements of Proposal: • NetMIS (the management information system for CINS/FINS) was designed 10 years ago by the

Network and personnel from DJJ – it contains more data elements than required for JJIS and includes all needed JJIS information. The NetMIS data has more than fully suited the DJJ reporting needs for 10 years.

• Entering data into two systems not only requires additional staff time that could be devoted to direct service, but also increases the likelihood of data entry errors.

• Although dual entry has been occurring for 15 months, DJJ and the Florida Network have not been able to reconcile basic elements of NetMIS and JJIS, many more man hours will be needed before the data contained in both systems approaches accuracy.


Fiscal Impact: Estimated costs to date:

Time spent implementing JJIS by Florida Network (hours) 100 by FDJJ (hours) 500 Approximate cost for JJIS Implementation

by Florida Network (@ $15/hr) $1,500.00 by FDJJ (@ $45/hr) $22,500.00 Total cost $24,000.00

Time spent in entering data into JJIS Youth Served (annualized) 15,000 Time for Data Entry into JJIS (minutes) 15 Hourly cost of data entry $ 12.00

Total annual cost for data entry into JJIS $ 45,000.00

Time spent reconciling JJIS and NetMIS by Florida Network (hours) 200 by FDJJ (hours) 8 Approximate cost for reconciliation

by Florida Network $6,000.00 by FDJJ $240.00 Total cost $6,240.00

Grand total cost of dual systems (NetMIS and JJIS) $96,840.00

Operational Impact :

• It would allow the agency staff to spend less time entering data and more time providing direct services

• Eliminate the need for continued man hours to achieve reconciled data in both systems. • Reduce likelihood of human error in data entry. • Requesting individuals (DJJ leadership, EOG, Legislature could continue to have confidence in

the data presented to them) .

Legislative Requirements: None at this time. Legislative Opposition: None noted at this time. Future Research: Florida Network of Youth &Family Services Office: 2850 Pablo Avenue Tallahassee, Fl 32308 (850) 922-4324 Stacy Gromatski, President and CEO


Proposal: Combine the current low and moderate-risk levels into Nonsecure–risk residential programs. There are currently only 93 low-risk beds statewide to serve low-risk youth committed to the department. Youth who pose a low-risk to public safety have been inappropriately placed in higher risk programs in order for them to receive necessary mental health, substance abuse or medical treatment services. This proposal gives the department the flexibility to better meet the special services needs of youth committed to low and moderate risk levels. Three Key Elements of Proposal:

• Greater flexibility to meet the special services needs of youth. • Allow the department to place youth closer to home thereby facilitating more family

involvement resulting in a smooth transition home. • Higher utilization rates in existing programs and a higher level of customer service.

Fiscal Impact - The fiscal impact will be minimal. There are currently 93 low-risk beds state-wide. The utilization rate for low-risk residential programs this past year has been approximately 75 percent. Combining low and moderate-risk into one risk level will allow the department to maximize placements in programs that had been excluded from serving moderate-risk youth. Placing youth closer to home will reduce travel time to and from programs. Not only saving transportation costs, but keeping youth safer by not spending as many hours on the road using the Statewide Transportation Offender Program. Operational Impact:

• Youth will not have to be driven deeper in the DJJ continuum in order to receive specialized mental health, substance abuse or medical services.

• The expanded availability of programs will allow youth to be placed closer to home, increasing family involvement. Youth who are parents will be able to spend time and bond with their child(ren).

• Youth will be closer to their current medical providers and that can allow continuity of service for those with chronic medical conditions.

Legislative Requirements - Delete the following sections of the Florida Statutes. 985.03(45) (b) Low-risk residential.—Programs or program models at this commitment level are residential but may allow youth to have unsupervised access to the community. Residential

facilities shall have no more than 165 beds each, including campus-style programs, unless those campus-style programs include more than one level of restrictiveness, provide multilevel education and treatment programs using different treatment protocols, and have facilities that coexist separately in distinct locations on the same property. Youth assessed and classified for placement in programs at this commitment level represent a low risk to themselves and public safety but do require placement and services in residential settings. Children who have been found to have committed delinquent acts that involve firearms, delinquent acts that are sexual offenses, or delinquent acts that would be life felonies or first degree felonies if committed by an adult shall not be committed to a program at this level.


985.27(1) (a) A child who is awaiting placement in a low-risk residential program must be removed from detention within 5 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. Any child held in secure detention during the 5 days must meet detention admission criteria under this part. A child who is placed in home detention care, nonsecure detention care, or home or nonsecure detention care with electronic monitoring, while awaiting placement in a minimum-risk or low-risk program, may be held in secure detention care for 5 days, if the child violates the conditions of the home detention care, the nonsecure detention care, or the electronic monitoring agreement. For any subsequent violation, the court may impose an additional 5 days in secure detention care.

And make the following changes to:

(c) Moderate-risk residential. Non-secure risk residential or program models at this commitment level are residential but may allow youth to have supervised access to the community. Facilities are either environmentally secure, staff secure, or are hardware-secure with walls, fencing, or locking doors. Residential facilities shall have no more than 165 beds each, including campus-style programs, unless those campus-style programs include more than one level of restrictiveness, provide multilevel education and treatment programs using different treatment protocols, and have facilities that coexist separately in distinct locations on the same property. Facilities shall provide 24-hour awake supervision, custody, care, and treatment of residents. Youth assessed and classified for placement in programs at this commitment level represent a moderate risk to public safety and require close supervision. The staff at a facility at this commitment level may seclude a child who is a physical threat to himself or herself or others. Mechanical restraint may also be used when necessary.

985.03 (26) “Halfway house” means a community-based residential program for 10 or more committed delinquents at the moderate-risk non-secure risk commitment level which is operated or contracted by the department.

985.03 (55) “Temporary release” means the terms and conditions under which a child is temporarily released from a residential commitment facility or allowed home visits. If the temporary release is from a moderate-risk non-secure risk residential facility, a high-risk residential facility, or a maximum-risk residential facility, the terms and conditions of the temporary release must be approved by the child, the court, and the facility. The term includes periods during which the child is supervised pursuant to a conditional release program or a period

Page 3

during which the child is supervised by a juvenile probation officer or other nonresidential staff of the department or staff employed by an entity under contract with the department.

985.27(1)(b)A child who is awaiting placement in a moderate-risk non-secure risk residential program must be removed from detention within 5 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. Any child held in secure detention during the 5 days must meet detention admission criteria under this part. The department may seek an order from the court authorizing continued detention for a specific period of time necessary for the appropriate residential placement of the child. However, such continued detention in secure detention care may not exceed 15 days after entry of the commitment order,


excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, and except as otherwise provided in this section. A child who is placed in home detention care, non-secure detention care, or home or non-secure detention care with electronic monitoring, while awaiting placement in a moderate-risk non-secure risk program, may be held in secure detention care for 5 days, if the child violates the conditions of the home detention care, the non-secure detention care, or the electronic monitoring agreement. For any subsequent violation, the court may impose an additional 5 days in secure detention care.

985.465 (3) The child is at least 13 years of age and is currently committed for a felony offense and transferred from a moderate-risk non-secure risk or high-risk residential commitment placement.

985.47 (c) The child is at least 13 years of age and is currently committed for a felony offense and transferred from a moderate-risk non-secure risk or high-risk residential commitment placement.

Legislative Opposition - None known. Pros: This would provide more flexibility to place youth in programs based on their treatment needs, not just based on a youth’s criminal history. Blending the two populations will allow the department to provide appropriate services for the youth based on treatment needs. This proposal also allows the department to better utilize existing resources. Cons: Only low-risk commitment programs allow youth to have unsupervised access to the community. This option would not be available in the non-secure risk programs. Some attorneys use the low-risk commitment placement as leverage in plea bargaining.


ATTACHMENTS AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

September 17, 2010

Southern Poverty Law Center

Strategies to implement the Blueprint Commission recommendations, based on an analysis of FY2008-09 admissions to the Florida Dept. of Juvenile Justice

Opportunities to Strengthen Florida’s Juvenile Justice System

Redirection and progressive sanctions policies to reduce VOP commitments to DJJ have resulted in a steady decline in commitments.

* The Redirection Program is a community-based, family-centered alternative to residential juvenile justice commitment programs, and is active in 11 Circuits.

Source: DJJ 2008-09 Delinquency Profile.

DJJ commitments fell by 28%

between FY05 and FY09.

DJJ COMMITMENTS

2

http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/Delinquency_Profile/0708_Profile.html�

Reduced commitments have allowed DJJ to safely eliminate nearly 1,900 beds – a 28% reduction in residential capacity.

8,897

8,206

7,0866,587 6,402

6,5726,238 6,012

4,8624,547

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

CommitmentsBeds

DJJ COMMITMENTS V. CAPACITY

Sources: DJJ 2008-09 Delinquency Profile; 2009 capacity computed from DJJ Slot Utilization Reports dated Jan. 28, 2009, through June 24, 2009; per diems from Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Exhibit D-3A: Expenditures by Issue and Appropriation Category (10/15/2009), available athttp://www.djj.state.fl.us/opengov/documents/2009/Exhibit-D-3A.pdf. Cost-savings approximation is based on the number of non-secure/secure beds taken offline since FY04-05, multiplied by the appropriate FY2009-10 per diem for ($97.92 for non-secure, $141.62 for secure), multiplied by 365 days.

3

Capacity

reductions since

FY2004-05 saved

over $85 million

in FY2008-09

alone.


6,5726,238

6,012

4,8624,547

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

41,130

43,818

46,364

48,011

48,429

Felony Referrals

As the number of children in DJJ custody has fallen, so has serious juvenile crime.

DJJ CAPACITY V. FELONY REFERRALS,FY2005-FY2009

Beds

Serious juvenile crime has dropped

by 15% in the past three years

alone.

Sources: DJJ 2008-09 Delinquency Profile. 4


205

303

VT MS HI MD NJ CT MA NC ME NE NH WA NM MO IL GA AZ OK TN VA DE MTLA UT KY SC NV WI MI USA

CA MN AR ID NY OH WV AK KS AL PA IA IN OR TX RI Florida

CO ND WY SD

In 2006, Florida incarcerated

children at a rate 50% higher than

the national average.

CHILDREN COMMITTED TO RESIDENTIAL JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITIES, PER 100,000 YOUTHS

Source: Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, p. 201. Per 100,000 youths age 10 – upper age of jurisdiction.

These outcomes are notable, but reform was long overdue in Florida –which had one of the highest juvenile commitment rates in the country.

5

Reducing DJJ’s residential population by 600 youth would bring Florida closer to the national average.

Sources: OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Available: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qa08601.asp?qaDate=2003 & http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qa08601.asp?qaDate=2006. Released on September 12, 2008. Average Daily Population computed from Slot Utilization Reports dated Feb. 4, 2009, through Feb. 3, 2010, including current and reserved placements. Available: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Residential/Utilization-Report/index.html.

Average Daily Pop’n at DJJ(cmt rate = 244/100,000)

4,351Youth

Potential Target Population at DJJ (cmt rate = 205/100,000)

3,733 Youth15%

difference

6

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/�

In spite of substantial and intentional progress over the past five years, DJJ continues to incarcerate large numbers of relatively low-risk youth.

Key Findings

The vast majority of children (71%) admitted to DJJ facilities in FY2008-09 were committed for non-violent misbehavior.

Nearly half (44%) of all children admitted to DJJ facilities in FY2008-09 were committed for misdemeanors and violations of probation.

Of the 2,500 children admitted to DJJ facilities for misdemeanors and probation violations, more than 1,000 children had never committed a felony.

Since 2000, the average length of stay in DJJ residential facilities has increased by 30%. Those increases cost the State more than $18 million in FY2007-08.

Commitment practices vary significantly by jurisdiction, suggesting that where children live matters more than what they do.

Black children are approximately four times more likely than white children to be committed to DJJ.

7

Reducedresidential capacity,

sustainable cost-savings, and safer communities

Our analysis revealed a number of opportunities for DJJ to continue toward a safer, stronger, and more effective juvenile justice system.

Align DJJ lengths of stay with best practices

Restore average lengths of stay from FY00-01

Continue ongoing efforts by Division of Residential Services to disallow practices that contribute to excessively long stays in DJJ facilities

MAINTAINCONTROL

OVER LENGTH OF STAY

Promote detention reform and effective probation practices to protect public safetyand reduce unnecessary commitments

Support legislation to limit the circumstances under which misdemeanants may be committed to state custody

Protect and increase funding for Redirection

Create a transparent, accountable, and competitive grant program to incentivize the development of non-residential, community-based services while ensuring fiscal accountability

LIMITADMISSIONS

8

By any measure, a very large share of DJJ admissions are the result of misdemeanors and rule violations.

25%

15% 33%

21%MisdVOPOtherViol FelNon-Viol Fel

MOST RECENT ADJUDICATED OFFENSE

LEGAL BASIS FOR COMMITMENT

21%33%

23%

23%

Misd

VOP

Other

Viol Fel

Non-Viol Fel

MOST SERIOUS ADJUD. IN HISTORY

40%

42%

17%Misd

VOP

Viol Fel

Non-Viol Fel

The Legal Basis for Commitment is the charge upon which the child’s admission to DJJ is premised. Usually the same as the most recent adjudicated offense. Used by most states to describe their juvenile justice population.

The Most Recent Adjudicated Offense is sometimes less serious than the legal basis for commitment. For example, consider a child who is adjudicated on a felony and placed on probation. If that child then returns to court for a curfew violation, Florida law allows the court to reach back in time, re-adjudicate the felony, and commit the child based on that charge. The most recent adjudication is the curfew violation, but the legal basis for commitment is the felony.

The Most Serious Adjudication looks at a child’s entire DJJ history to find the most serious offense ever resulting in an adjudication or a withheld adjudication. It does not describe the basis for the instant commitment.

Source: SPLC analysis of 2008-09 DJJ Admissions Data. Percentages do not always add up to 100% due to rounding. Unless otherwise noted, the analyses in this document use the legal basis for commitment to describe the DJJ population. Legal Basis for Commitment is derived using OPPAGA’s methodology, as outlined in OPPAGA, Misdemeanant and Non-Law Violation Youth in Juvenile Justice Commitment Beds, October 2001, available at http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/0149rpt.pdf.

9

Misd, 1273,

49%

Technical

VOP, 1046,

40%

New Law

VOP, 184,

7%

Other, 117,

4%

Non-

Violent

Felony,

33%

Violent

Felony,

23%

Misd or

VOP, 44%

Viol Fel,

633, 24%Non-Viol

Fel., 1120,

37%

Misd, 1008,

39%

LEGAL BASIS FOR COMMITMENT, 2008-09 DJJ ADMISSIONS

More than 1,000 children were committed to DJJ on a technical

violation of probation.

Source: SPLC analysis of FY2008-09 DJJ admissions data.

More than 1,000 children admitted to DJJ had never

committed a felony.

More than 2,500 children were admitted to DJJ for a misdemeanor or probation violation in FY2008-09.

DETAILED COMMITTING OFFENSE,

OF MISD/VOP CMTS

MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE IN CHILD’S HISTORY, OF MISD/VOP CMTS

10

In non-secure facilities alone, this year the State will spend more than $50 million on children committed on misdemeanors and probation violations.

Of the $142,860,000 allocated for non-secure beds in DJJ’s FY2010-11 budget, approximately $50,360,000 will be spent to confine children

committed to DJJ for misdemeanors or probation violations.*

11

LOW RISK FACILITIES MODERATE RISK FACILITIES

* Sources: SPLC analysis of FY2008-09 DJJ Admissions; Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Exhibit D-3A: Expenditures by Issue and Appropriation Category (10/15/2009), available at http://www.djj.state.fl.us/opengov/documents/2009/Exhibit-D-3A.pdf; Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, FY2008-09 Comprehensive Accountability Report. Cost approximations are based on FY2007-09 lengths of stay and per diem rates from the 2010-11 budget request ($141.62 per day for secure; $97.92 per day for non-secure). SPLC cost estimates are much more conservative than other methods. Estimates based on actual expenditures by DJJ (instead of projected costs per day) yield a figure of more than $70 million spent on incarcerating misdemeanants and probation violators.

30%

2%

68%

Felonies Other Misd/VOP

COMMITTING OFFENSE

52%

2%

46%

Felonies Other Misd/VOP

11

n=578 n=4181

Florida spends as much as $40 million per year to incarcerate more than 1,100 children who have never committed a felony.

Sources: SPLC analysis of FY 2008-09 Admissions, using most serious offense in history as measure; Blueprint Commission, Getting Smart About Juvenile Justice in Florida at 8 (2008).

“There are approximately 750 youth annually committed to the Department who have no history of felony adjudications; the annual cost of serving them is approximately $27 million.”

The Blueprint Commission reported that 750 children with no felony history were committed in FY07-08, but recent DJJ admissions data show that 1,106 children with no felony history were admitted to DJJ in FY08-09 – a 47% increase.

If the cost of confining 750 youth is $27 million, the cost of confining 1,106 youth is $39.8 million.

MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE IN HISTORY, FY2008-09 ADMISSIONS

Misd. or Violation,

18%

Non-Violent Felony, 42%

Violent Felony, 40%

12

n=6076

8,6428,952 8,863

8,5388,897

8,206

7,0866,587

254261262243243244

195195

0

10,000

FY00-01 FY01-02 FY02-03 FY03-04 FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-080

400

Youth Admitted to DJJ Average Length of Stay (Days)

The average length of stay in DJJ residential facilities has increased by 30% since FY2000-01.

Sources: Admissions from DJJ Delinquency Profile. Lengths of stay from DJJ Comprehensive Accountability Reports and Outcome Evaluation Reports available at: http://www.djj. state.fl.us/Research/OE/2003/2003_outcome_evaluation.pdf at 175 (FY00-01); http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/OE/2004/2004_oe_report_entire.pdf at 223 (FY01-02); http://www. djj.state.fl.us/Research/OE/2005/2005_outcome_evaluation_report.pdf at 107 (LOS for FY02-03); http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/OE/2006/2006_Residential.pdf at 133 (FY03-04); http://www.djj.state.fl.us/OPA/2006car/residentialtables.pdf at 36 (FY04-05); http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/CAR/CAR_2007/CAR_Report_2007.pdf at 106-133 (FY05-06); http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Research/CAR/CAR_2008/2007-08_CAR_(All_Residential_Chapters).pdf at 100-127 (FY06-07); DRAFT Residential Tables-2010 (FY07-08).

DJJ COMMITMENTS V. AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY,

FY00-01 TO FY07-08

As lengths of

stay increased, the

cost of each commitment

rose, costing the state

nearly $20 million a year.

13

Increased lengths of stay not only cost the State more than $18 million in FY07-08 alone, but probably harmed public safety as well.

Sources: See, for example, Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E., and Holsinger, A. 2006. The risk principle in action: What have we leaned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, Vol 52, No. 1, 77; Myner, J., Santman, J., Cappelletty, G., and Perlumtter, B. 1998. Variables related to recidivism among juvenile offenders, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol 42, No. 1, 65-80; Katsiyannis, A. and Archwamety, T. 1997. Factors related to recidisivm among delinquet youths in a state correctional facility, Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol 6, No. 1, 43-55. SPLC analysis based on DJJ Admissions in FY07-08 and average lengths of stay (LOS) reported by DJJ for FY2007-08 and FY2000-01. See previous slide for LOS-related sources. Cost approximations were calculated using DJJ Admissions in FY07-08, DJJ-reported average LOS figures for FY00-01 or FY07-08 (as appropriate), and per diem rates from DJJ’s FY09-10 budget ($141.62 for secure and $97.92 for non-secure). For example, the “Potential Cost” of FY07-08 admissions, based on the FY00-01 LOS was calculated as follows: [671 (low risk admissions) X 134 days (average LOS for low risk facilities in FY00-01) X $97.92 (per diem for non-secure beds)] + [4,569 (moderate risk admissions) X 212 days (average LOS for moderate risk facilities in FY00-01) X $97.92 (per diem for non-secure beds)] + [1,162 (high risk admissions) X 311 days (average length of stay for high risk facilities in FY00-01) X $141.62 (per diem for secure beds)] + [72 (max. risk admissions) X 511 days (average length of stay for maximum risk facilities in FY00-01) X $141.62 (per diem for secure beds)]. Our methodology appears to be more conservative than the method underlying the Blueprint Commission’s report.

A number of studies have found thatlonger lengths of stayactually make a child

more – not less –likely to reoffend.

14

Approximate Cost(based on most recent LOS)

Potential Cost(based on FY00-01 LOS)

FISCAL IMPACT OF INCREASED LENGTH OF STAY,

DJJ ADMISSIONS IN FY07-08

$178.6 million

$160 million

“Youth who are kept in programsfor prolonged length of stays after treatment goals are achieved often begin to deteriorate and may be more likely to re-offend once release is finally achieved.”

131 143 155197 213

277 285311

341 347 363 365 371 379 391 404452

501

588

693

1153

Dade

Sem

inole

Hill

sboro

ugh

Osc

eola

Bro

war

d

Ora

nge

Pal

m B

each

Pas

co

Florid

a Avg

Polk

Sar

asot

a

St L

ucie

Bre

vard

Colli

er

Pin

ellas

Lee

Man

atee

Volu

sia

Duval

Mar

ion

Esc

ambia

COMMITMENT RATES PER 100,000 YOUTH AGED 10-17 IN POPULATION,TWENTY MOST POPULOUS COUNTIES

Commitment rates vary significantly between counties – suggesting that where a child lives matters more than what he or she has done.

15Sources: SPLC Analysis of FY2008-09 DJJ Admissions data; Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2008). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2007." Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/.

More than 1 of every100 youth in Escambia

County was committed toDJJ in FY08-09 – almost

ten times the rate in Miami-Dade.

State-wide, black children are four times more likely than white children to be committed to DJJ.

14x

4x10x

7x3x5x4x

4x5x4x4x

3x4x

5x4x2x4x

6x6x5x

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

11 13 17 9 3 18 15 10 20 6 19 4 12 5 7 14 2 8 1 16

White RateBlack Rate

Circuit

2008-09 COMMITMENT RATES FOR YOUTH AGED 10-17 IN POPULATION, BY RACE AND BY CIRCUIT

In the 16th Circuit, a black child is

14 times (14x) more likely to be Incarcerated

than a white child.

16Sources: SPLC analysis of FY2008-09 DJJ Admissions data; Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2008). "Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2007." Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/.

1 in 100

1 in 200

1 in 50

1 in 67

1 in 40

1 in 33

DJJ should pursue a combination of strategies to close facilities and redirect savings to more effective and cost-efficient non-residential sanctions.

Align DJJ lengths of stay with best practices

Restore average lengths of stay from FY00-01

Continue ongoing efforts by Division of Residential Services to disallow practices that contribute to excessively long stays in DJJ facilities

MAINTAINCONTROL

OVER LENGTH OF STAY

Promote detention reform and effective probation practices to protect public safetyand reduce unnecessary commitments

Support legislation to limit the circumstances under which misdemeanants may be committed to state custody

Protect and increase funding for Redirection

Create a transparent, accountable, and competitive grant program to incentivize the development of non-residential, community-based services while ensuring fiscal accountability

LIMITADMISSIONS

17

Reduced capacity,cost savings, and

opportunities to investin better, safer, andcheaper alternatives

to incarceration.

Opportunity #1: Modest reductions in the average length of stay would allow DJJ to safely close beds, realize substantial cost-savings, and redirect millions of dollars to initiatives like Redirection and a competitive grant program for courts.

18

Modest adjustments to length of stay would align Department policies with best practices and save millions in taxpayer dollars.

By modifying length of stay, DJJ could….. cut beds… & save millions.

Reduce length of stay (LOS) in all facilities by 1 week.120

96 non-secure24 secure

$4,671,708

Restore average LOS from FY02-03 for Moderate and High-Risk facilities.

191156 non-secure

35 secure$7,384,760

Restore average LOS from FY00-01 for Moderate and High-Risk facilities.

483385 non-secure

99 secure$18,877,647

Restore FY00-01 average in High-Risk facilities. Reduce LOS in Moderate-Risk facilities from 8 months to 6 months, bringing DJJ closer to best practices.

868769 non-secure

99 secure$32,602,114

Reduce LOS in Moderate-Risk facilities from 8 months to 6 months and in High-Risk facilities from 11 months to 8 months, bringing DJJ closer to best practices while still imposing longer sentences for high-risk youth.

1,094769 non-secure

325 secure$44,284,348

19

Source: SPLC analysis based on Florida Dept. of Juvenile Justice, Slot Utilization/Residential Programs Report (1/20/2010) and DJJ Comprehensive Accountability Reports.

Opportunity #2: DJJ’s comprehensive nature is an important strength, particularly with respect to the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) and the Department’s ability to promote effective probation practice at the local level.

2020

In JDAI sites across the country, detention reform has triggered substantial reductions in the number of youth committed to state custody.

Source: Compilation of 2008 Annual Results Reports, provided by the Annie E. Casey Foundation; Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, Data Resource Guide: Commitment to the State, FY2009. Available at http://www.djj.virginia.gov/About_Us/Administrative_Units/Research_and_Evaluation_Unit/ pdf/Commitment_to_the_State_2009.pdf

22

HARRIS

COUNTY

(HOUSTON),

TEXAS

commitments

down by

50%since JDAI

launch

in 2006NEW

JERSEY

commitments

down by

38%since JDAI

launch

in 2003

VIRGINIA

commitments

down by

35%since JDAI

launch

in 2003

DALLAS

COUNTY,

TEXAS

commitments

down by

38%since JDAI

launch

in 2006

WASHOE

COUNTY

(RENO),

NEVADA

commitments

down by

50%since JDAI

launch

in 2004

The adoption of progressive response policies has led to a significant drop in the number of technical probation violators committed to DJJ.

Source: DJJ 2008-09 Delinquency Profile.

Youth Committed for Technical Violations of Probation2,380

1,9051,700 1,705

FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09

Although probation reform helped lower

commitments and savemoney, it seems to have stalled.

“The Department of Juvenile Justice should review probation practices and the commitment management process with the goal of reducing the incidence of probation violations and allowing for conditional release or transfer of committed youth.”

- Blueprint Commission, Getting Smart About Juvenile Justice in Florida (2008)

23

71

120

190

397

658

416450

564

12

82

Circuit 17 Circuit 4 Circuit 5 Circuit 6 Circuit 1

TOTAL CMTS V. CMTS FOR NON-LAW VOPS, TOP FIVE DJJ FEEDERS (2008)

Total DJJ admissions

DJJ admissions for non-law VOPs

Drawing on the strengths of the most effective circuits, DJJ can re-start reform and promote good probation practices in other jurisdictions, which will reduce commitments even further.

34%

The circuits that send the most children to DJJ appear to include both the strongest and the most challenged juvenile probation offices. While Circuit 17 rarely sends technical violators to DJJ, Circuit 1 has the highest non-law VOP commitment rate in the state.

Although some of these disparities are due to issues of culture that can be difficult to replicate, the most effective circuits also have concrete policies that are lacking in some jurisdictions.

24Source: SPLC analysis of FY2008-09 DJJ Admissions data, using most recent adjudicated offense as measure.

3%

12%

17%

27%

%Percent of total commitments that are for non-law VOPs

Circuit Model Aspects of Progressive Response PolicyNon-Law

VOPs* as % of all Cmts

17

In deciding whether technical violation should be referred to court, JPO must ask “Has risk to public safety increased?” as a result of the violation

Requires supervisor approval to file non-law VOP Prohibits non-law VOPs from being held in secure detention

3%

2

Guiding principles that non-law violations are expected to occur, can generally be adjusted without formal court action, and are to be filed only when necessary to protect the public or when all other non-judicial alternatives have been exhausted

JPO is responsible for assisting youth in achieving compliance

11%

3


Explicit policy that “goal is always successful completion of probation and positive changes in youth”

13%

4


12%

Of the circuits with the lowest technical violation commitment rates, four have strong policies that should be replicated statewide.

Source: SPLC analysis of FY2008-09 DJJ Admissions data, using most recent adjudicated offense as measure.

25

Opportunity #3: Legislation barring the commitment of misdemeanants to state custody would reduce DJJ admissions by more than 1,000 youth – enabling the State to close enough beds to save at least $30 million in taxpayer dollars. Similar legislation has produced substantial cost-savings in Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina.

26

STATE LEGISLATION IMPACT

TEXAS

Youth adjudicated for misdemeanor offenses cannot be committed to a residential facility unless previously adjudicated for four or more prior offenses.

Commitments to the Texas Youth Commission have fallen by 36% over the past three years, allowing Texas to reduce state-owned beds by 46%.

NORTH CAROLINA

Youths adjudicated for misdemeanor offenses or violations of misdemeanor probation cannot be committed to residential facilities.

Commitments have dropped by 61% over the past ten years, bringing the average daily population down from 925 in 1998 to 469 in 2008.

VIRGINIA

Youth adjudicated for a misdemeanor cannot be committed to a residential facility unless he has previously been adjudicated for a felony or three or more Class 1 misdemeanors on different occasions.

Commitments have dropped by nearly 50% over the past ten years, bringing the average daily population down from 1,462 youth in 1999 to 882 in 2009.

Several states have adopted legislation to keep misdemeanants out of state custody.

Sources: Tex. Fam. Code § 54.04; Texas Youth Commission, TYC Population Trends, 1999-2009, available at:http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/research/growth_charts.html; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2508; North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2008 Annual Report, available at: http://www.ncdjjdp.org/ statistics/annual.html; Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-278.8; Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, Data Resource Guide, FY 2008, available at: http://www.djj.virginia.gov/ Resources/DJJ_Publications/DRGFY.aspx.

27

Misdemeanor legislation in FL would allow resources to be redirected to more effective and less expensive community-based services.

Florida may wish to approach this issue by starting out with a more conservative proposal – e.g., legislation that includes an exception for children with four or more prior adjudications.

• Because most misdemeanants committed to DJJ have limited offense histories, the exception would have only applied to 285 youth committed in FY 2008-09, and the legislation would still reduce commitments nearly 1,000 children.

YOUTH FACILITY TYPEAPPROXIMATE

COST

1,183 Non-Secure $25,668,000

90 Secure $4,421,000

28

In Florida, a statute barring the commitment of misdemeanants to state custody would have reduced admissions by 1,273 (21%) in FY 2008-09.

Source: SPLC analysis of FY2008-09 DJJ Admissions data, using legal basis for commitment as measure. Cost approximations are based on a ALOS data from Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, FY2008-09 Comprehensive Accountability Report, and the 2010-11 DJJ Budget Request ($141.62 per day for secure; $97.92 per day for non-secure). “Prior adjudications” does not include the current committing offense, or offenses where adjudication was withheld.

Opportunity #4: Continue to redirect funding from institutions to communities by –

• Protecting and expanding Redirection

• Creating a competitive grant program to incentivize the development of non-residential community-based sanctions designed to reduce DJJ commitments, and

• Hold all DJJ grantees and contractors accountable for results, including reduced commitments.

29

Residential Custody Redirection

$81 Million

$29.8 Million

In its first fiveyears of operation,

Redirectionsaved the state

$51.2 million.

The Redirection Initiative provides effective, community-based services that serve as less expensive alternatives to residential commitment.

Source: Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. Redirection Saves $51.2 Million and Continues to Reduce Recidivism; April 2010.. Report No. 10-38. Available at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1038rpt.pdf

According to reports from the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability:

Redirection youth are significantly less likely to be arrested for a felony or a violent felony than comparable youth completing residential programs.Youth completing Redirection are significantly

less likely to be adjudicated or convicted for any offense, including VOPs.When compared to similar youth released from

residential commitment, Redirection youth are significantly less likely to be sentenced to prison.

30

In addition to Redirection, DJJ should establish a competitive, transparent, and data-driven grant program to incentivize the development of non-residential, community-based alternatives to DJJ.

Because research has shown that non-residential services are the most cost-effective way to combat juvenile crime, grant funds should be used exclusively for non-residential programs.

Grant applications should be grounded in data about the risk factors and needs common to the children who will be targeted by the new program.

Renewal decisions should be made annually, based on results achieved by the program, including whether theprogram successfully reduced DJJ commitments.

To ensure fiscal accountability, grantees should be required to make regular reports to DJJ concerning the program and the children it serves.

31

“The state shall provide financial incentives for communities to develop alternative strategies for handling youth who have only committed misdemeanor offenses. In lieu of committing these youth to the department, local communities will receive the funding the state expends to serve these youth in residential commitment programs. These funds would be targeted for the develop-ment of community-based alternative services.”

Each reform would allow Florida to kick-off a self-sustaining cycle: fewer youth in custody facility closures redirect institutional funds to community-based services fewer DJJ commitments fewer youth in custody . . .

• IMPLEMENT & EXPAND

JDAI

• RESTART PROBATION

REFORM

• BAR COMMITMENT

FOR MISDEMEANORS

• EXPAND CURRENT

COMMUNITY-BASED

ALTERNATIVES AND

CREATE NEW ONES

• RESTORE LENGTH

OF STAY TO FY00-01

AVERAGES

• ALIGN LENGTH OF

STAY WITH RESEARCH

AND BEST PRACTICES

Fewer DJJ

Commitments

Fewer Kids

in Custody

Close Empty

Beds

Fewer Dollars

Needed for

Residential

More Dollars

Available for

Alternatives

32

Florida Youth InitiativeSouthern Poverty Law Center3000 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 212

Miami, Florida 33137 Tel. (786) 347-2056

[email protected] [email protected]

Contact Information

Appendices

A. Comparison of Average Length of Stay, by program level, from FY 2000-01 to FY 2007-08.

B. DJJ Commitment Rates for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09, by County.

C. DJJ Admissions in FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09, by County.

34

Average Length of Stay, by Program Level

FY 2000-01 to FY 2007-08

YEAR OVERALL LOW RISK MOD. RISK HIGH RISK MAXIMUM RISK

FY 2000-01 195 days 134 days 212 days 311 days 511 days








DJJ Commitment Rates, by County

(# of DJJ admissions in FY07-08 per 100,000 youth aged 10-17 years old)

COUNTY07-08

08-09 COUNTY

07-08

08-09 COUNTY

07-08

08-09 COUNTY

07-08

08-09 COUNTY

07-08

08-09

Alachua 933 847 Dixie 149 232 Hillsborough 235 155 Martin 396 427 Santa Rosa 701 647

Baker 262 152 Duval 477 588 Holmes 584 272 Monroe 409 353 Sarasota 384 363

Bay 504 683 Escambia 1,059 1,154 Indian River 574 613 Nassau 754 634 Seminole 215 143

Bradford 311 472 Flagler 443 346 Jackson 521 266 Okaloosa 638 607 Sumter 375 459

Brevard 512 371 Franklin 921 480 Jefferson 325 919 Okeechobee 327 452 Suwannee 791 453

Broward 201 213 Gadsden 852 867 Lafayette 150 0 Orange 217 277 Taylor 415 269

Calhoun 729 326 Gilchrist 468 60 Lake 446 316 Osceola 209 197 Union 841 256

Charlotte 230 228 Glades 584 493 Lee 301 404 Palm Beach 298 285 Volusia 499 501

Citrus 861 602 Gulf 1,074 886 Leon 658 688 Pasco 365 311 Wakulla 478 443

Clay 313 308 Hamilton 151 155 Levy 661 438 Pinellas 526 391 Walton 100 262

Collier 383 379 Hardee 309 378 Liberty 287 583 Polk 463 347 Washington 818 677

Columbia 533 582 Hendry 494 256 Madison 149 103 Putnam 633 485

Dade 126 131 Hernando 300 268 Manatee 341 453 St. Johns 207 213

Desoto 207 343 Highlands 552 378 Marion 670 692 St. Lucie 466 365

DJJ Admissions, by County

(# of admissions to DJJ facilities in FY 2007-08 and FY2008-09)

COUNTY 07- 0808-09 COUNTY

07-08

08-09 COUNTY

07-08

08-09 COUNTY

07-08

08-09 COUNTY07-08

08-09

Alachua 184 163 Dixie 2 3 Hillsborough 303 196 Martin 48 50 Santa Rosa 112 102

Baker 7 4 Duval 455 551 Holmes 11 5 Monroe 22 18 Sarasota 109 100

Bay 84 111 Escambia 320 338 Indian River 65 69 Nassau 53 44 Seminole 97 63

Bradford 8 12 Flagler 33 26 Jackson 24 12 Okaloosa 121 111 Sumter 20 25

Brevard 269 188 Franklin 8 4 Jefferson 4 11 Okeechobee 14 19 Suwannee 30 17

Broward 383 397 Gadsden 41 41 Lafayette 1 0 Orange 252 316 Taylor 8 5

Calhoun 9 4 Gilchrist 8 1 Lake 115 81 Osceola 61 58 Union 10 3

Charlotte 28 27 Glades 6 5 Lee 159 210 Palm Beach 362 336 Volusia 229 223

Citrus 98 67 Gulf 14 11 Leon 153 158 Pasco 159 136 Wakulla 14 13

Clay 65 63 Hamilton 2 2 Levy 26 17 Pinellas 434 314 Walton 5 13

Collier 105 101 Hardee 10 12 Liberty 2 4 Polk 281 208 Washington 19 16

Columbia 37 40 Hendry 24 12 Madison 3 2 Putnam 50 37

Dade 313 317 Hernando 45 40 Manatee 100 130 St. Johns 36 37

Desoto 7 11 Highlands 46 31 Marion 200 203 St. Lucie 122 95

Presentation to theGovernor-Elect Rick Scott

Juvenile Justice Transition TeamFlorida Association of Counties

December 10, 2010

FAC Policy Idea Statement

The Florida Association of Counties proposes reducing the use of costly secure detention to supervise youth before trial (preadjudication) in favor of community based alternatives. Secure detention is the most expensive and the least effective means to monitor youth who have been accused of crimes. Research has shown that youth who are detained are more likely to be formally charged, adjudicated delinquent, committed to state correctional facilities, and drop out of high school. Many youth are detained for violations of probation, contempt of court orders, pick up orders and misdemeanors - about 40% of youth in Florida’s detention facilities do not meet criteria for detention. Alternatives to detention offer youth and communities a safer and less expensive way to supervise youth.

Key Elements of Proposal Address detention cost share disparities for the state

and the counties, including locally operated detention facilities

Provide economic incentives for counties to invest in alternatives to detention

Expand the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative in Florida

Background on Detention Cost Share

“Cost sharing”, as enacted in 2004, 985.686, F.S., Shared county and state responsibility for juvenile detention.

(1) It is the policy of the state that the state and the counties have a joint obligation, as provided in this section, to contribute to the financial support of the detention care for juveniles.

(5) Predisposition detention – Counties will pay the costs of juvenile detention until the final disposition of the youth’s case.

Background on Detention Cost Share Counties pay pre-disposition detention Fiscally Constrained Counties (FCC) do not pay 30 FCC/37non-FCC

State pays for post-disposition detention

Annual reconciliation process, Counties billed monthly

Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund (legislature determines the amount non FCC pay)

Predisposition and postdisposition youth are housed in the SAME pods of the facility – No distinction for pre and post youth

Counties and the state pay different costs for detention, even though it is the same detention care

Background on Detention Cost Share County’s share increases as detention utilization decreases

Detention Utilization

2007/2008 2008/2009

Utilization (pre/post) 71.1%/28.9% 64.1%/35.9%

Per Diem Rate County/State

$237.38/$143.16 $280.70/$138.20

Broward Bed Days 31,303 31,339

Broward Cost $6,935,288 $8,796,752

2010 Broward County’s ecure detention “Cost Share” $8,966,808

2009/2010 Broward Detention Center budget $5,975,174

Fiscal Impact These suggestions do not require an increase in

revenue

Rather the recommendations move funds from the Shared County State Detention Trust Fund currently used for secure detention to community based alternatives

Possible tax savings

No increase cost to Florida’s taxpayers

Fiscal Impact

2010-11 Secure Detention Budget$128,156,270

Fiscal Impact County Operated Juvenile Detention Facilities Should lower cost for counties that opt out and stay in the

state system

However, DJJ has said they will not reduce staff if a county opts out of the state system

This will spread the $97 million among the other counties remaining in

Locally run facilities allow counties to focus resources on community programming and staff as detention use increases or decreases

Operational Impact Increased efficiencies Reduce DJJ detention center staff based on detention use

DJJ has continued to staff the juvenile detention centers at full capacity, despite the fact that detention utilization statewide is at 62%

Allow employees to operate in detention centers and the community as pretrial or probation officers

Eliminate the billing system used to charge counties for detention cost

Local control – Less Directive from Tallahassee By using alternatives to detention the local communities

can selection options that best fit their community Flexibility in allocation of resources

Operational Impact Create an expenditure and operational review team Seek efficiencies and make funding adjustments based

on detention use and community alternatives available Validate the Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) RAI used to detain youth has not been validated Allow judges to make informed decisions that will keep

the public safe and save tax dollars by reducing the use of expensive secure detention

Support recommendations from the Blueprint Commission

Restore Juvenile Assessment Centers

Operational Impact Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative Duval, Hillsborough, Broward, Palm Beach (pilot sites) Detain the right youth Based on interconnected strategies, more efficient and

more effective

Day/Evening Reporting Centers

Civil Citation

Electronic Monitoring

Operational Impact - JDAI Lowers detention populations

Reduces disproportionate minority confinement

Enhances public safety Reduction in juvenile arrests

Saves money Shifts spending from costly detention to community based supervision

and services Data driven decision making

Improves juvenile justice systems More objective screening tools Evidence based practices

Legislative Requirements

Detention cost share – 985.686, F.S. Statute interpreted by DJJ and implemented through agency

rules Counties billed $100 million – regardless of detention use Incentivize counties to keep youth in the community Provide a continuum of care – not just secure detention

County Operated Detention Facilities Allow for counties to create regional facilities or contract with

other counties to provide predisposition detention services Postdisposition detention services with reimbursement from the

state

Legislative Requirements Prohibit misdemeanors from entering secure

detention facilities

Prohibit secure detention for pick up orders, contempt of court order and violations of probation (unless for violent felony offenses)

Eliminate authority for DJJ to establish rules on detention cost share

Legislative Opposition???

Pros Increases efficiency

Creates fairness in detention cost share

Less ‘Tallahassee’ – Decreases bureaucracy

Encourages local juvenile justice stakeholders to find options that fit that communities needs

Provides opportunities for jobs in the community

Cons???

Future Research Florida Association of Countieswww.fl-counties.com/Pages/Advocacy/Public_Safety/Juvenile_Detention.aspx

Annie E. Casey Foundation – JDAIwww.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativeInitiative.aspx

Department of Juvenile Justice – Detention Cost Sharehttp://www.djj.state.fl.us/costsharing/index.html


http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativeInitiative.aspx�

http://www.djj.state.fl.us/costsharing/index.html�

Out of Circuit/Region Placement as of 12/1/10

Cicuit Total Placed In Circuit Placed Out of

Circuit Region Placed In

Region Placed Out of

Region1st 299 135 164 North 272 272nd 123 12 111 North 110 133rd 54 9 45 North 47 74th 348 40 308 North 295 535th 269 47 222 North 198 716th 224 45 179 Central 180 447th 240 55 185 North 184 568th 96 2 94 North 75 219th 258 52 206 Central 193 6510th 159 26 133 Central 132 2711th 238 43 195 South 127 11112th 149 21 128 Central 117 3213th 134 45 89 Central 105 2914th 58 13 45 North 48 1015th 163 25 138 South 90 7316th 14 0 14 South 4 1017th 233 30 203 South 120 11318th 183 12 171 Central 116 6719th 131 40 91 South 81 5020th 252 37 215 South 152 100

3625 689 2936 2646 979

% Placed In

Circuit

% Placed Out

of Circuit

% Placed In

Region

% Placed Out

of Region

Statewide

Percentage 19.01 80.99 72.99 27.01By Region Total South 1031 55.67 44.33Central 1107 76.15 23.85North 1487 82.65 17.35

Potential Reaons for Out of Region Placement

Speciality Placement Need (e.g. Mental Health, Substance Abuse, Medical)To separate codefendantsUndocumented individuals not eligible for Medicaid are placed in state operated programsFamily requests Vacancy in out of Region placement with significant wait for same type bed in home RegionFamily relocated out of Region

Florida Juvenile Justice Association 2009 BHOS Briefing Document

For more information, contact Cathy Craig-Myers, Florida Juvenile Justice Association, [email protected]

PRESERVE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OVERLAY SERVICES (BHOS)

FOR YOUTH IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

HISTORY OF SERVICES

The reality that 70-80% of youth in the juvenile justice system suffer from mental illness, emotional

problems and/or substance abuse issues led to the establishment of the Behavioral Health Overlay

Services (BHOS) program in 1998. These overlay services are in addition to other services delivered

through the Department of Juvenile Justice which include room and board, 24 hour supervision and

educational and vocational services.

BHOS services include in varying combinations, individual and group therapy, mental health and

rehabilitation day treatment, intensive therapeutic on site services and other interventions. The

purpose of BHOS services is to address, on an individualized basis, medically necessary mental

health and substance abuse treatment to avoid a more intensive level of care.

CUTS TO DJJ’S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OVERLAY SERVICES (BHOS) PROGRAM WILL IMPACT DJJ’S

ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY SERVE YOUTH.

The Florida Juvenile Justice Association strongly encourages the preservation of (BHOS) Behavioral

Health Overlay Services, a cost-effective system of care. One of the recommendations recently

under consideration by the Agency for Health Care Administration was the reduction of billing days

from seven to six for services delivered to youth in the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice

youth. Department officials concur that it does not make sense to reduce services toDJJ’s most

vulnerable youth. It is critical to deliver medically-necessary behavioral health services that are

integrated into the activities of daily living associated with structured residential care up to seven (7)

days per week.

With the passing of the stimulus bill, Florida is set to receive $4.3 billion in additional Medicaid

dollars and another $3.5 billion (over 2 years).

We advocate that services continue to be delivered seven days a week as medically necessary.

Currently, 2,260 Department of Juvenile Justice residential beds provide Behavioral Health Overlay

Services (BHOS). A random survey of DJJ residential service providers reveal that funding reductions

will compromise provider ability to deliver services that are required in DJJ contracts to treat youth

determined eligible for BHOS services. Reductions will diminish the behavioral health service delivery

model specifically designed in 1998 to provide a constant therapeutic environment with an identified

behavioral health treatment orientation, supported and implemented consistently across all

components of the program.

WHAT DJJ YOUTH WILL BE IMPACTED BY REDUCTIONS TO SERVICES?

Youth in juvenile justice facilities who have persistent and chronic mental health conditions and have

been determined eligible for Behavioral Health Overlay Services (BHOS) and who meet diagnostic

eligibility criteria having diagnoses of Psychotic Disorder, Major Depression or Bipolar Disorder, etc.,

or who have been enrolled in a Seriously Emotionally Disturbed or Emotionally Handicapped special

education program, and have risk factors related to suicidal gestures, self-injuring behaviors,

Florida Juvenile Justice Association 2009 BHOS Briefing Document

For more information, contact Cathy Craig-Myers, Florida Juvenile Justice Association, [email protected]

physical aggression, violent behaviors, absconding, and sexual aggression or victimization will be

impacted.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF REDUCING THE ABILITY OF DJJ SERVICE PROVIDERS TO BILL

DAILY FOR THESE SERVICES AS NEEDED?

Given the acute mental health needs of this population, reductions do not make ethical or moral

sense. As service providers, we cannot be expected to say, “Sorry, we know you need services today,

but just sit tight, you’ll have to wait until Monday when AHCA will pay for your (medically necessary)

service.”

Other provider concerns include:

Cutting out BHOS services one day a week does nothing to reduce required staffing or other

costs since therapist ratios are based on the number of youth being served, not the number

of days of service. We still have to maintain the same number of counselors and the same

level of direct care staff unless there are other changes.

By eliminating the opportunity to bill for services as necessary, some of these services would

likely be reduced or suspended. This would certainly create cut the need to cut clinical staff

positions, reducing services to the youth and making it difficult to extend consistent quality

services even through the six days a week.

RECOMMENDATIONS-

OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO PREVENT FUNDING REDUCTIONS.

Option 1: Do not cut the ability for providers to bill 7 days per week for needed services. NOTE: The

current BHOS rate of $35.00 per day has never been increased since 1998.

Option 2: If a reduction takes place, give providers the ability to bill fee for service programming such

as individual therapy and/or group therapy at the fee for service rate for the 7th day. Individual

therapy is $18.33 for a quarter hour (73.32 an hour) and group with 8 youth is $6.67 a quarter hour

(26.68 per youth, 8 youth total 213.44).

Option 3: if BHOS funding is reduced from 7 to 6 days in treating the DJJ youth population Medicaid

and DJJ will need to make changes allowing reduction of case loads and/or staffing ratios to remain

budget neutral.

Why SIPP, Therapeutic Group Homes, and BHOS Services are not appropriate for managed care or immediate transition

Briefing document created by Manatee Palms Youth Services response to PCB SPCSEP 10-03:

Statewide Inpatient Psychiatric Programs [SIPP]- Historically, the Florida Medicaid program funded a wide array of community-based services and acute inpatient psychiatric services provided in psychiatric units of general hospitals for persons under the age of eighteen (18). There were however significant numbers of high-risk children and adolescents who did not respond adequately to intensive community-based services and/or experienced multiple or lengthy acute psychiatric inpatient admissions. The Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA) received approval from the U. S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for a waiver to allow the purchase of services for children in Statewide Inpatient Psychiatric Programs (SIPPs). SIPPs were designed to serve those high-risk youths that require a more intensive level of service than community-based services or acute psychiatric inpatient services. Generally, these high-risk children and adolescents have very complex conditions that require more extended residential treatment in order to more adequately treat their psychiatric and psychosocial needs. These residential programs can improve outcomes for children and adolescents both by providing a course of active psychiatric treatment and by providing or facilitating access to community-based aftercare mental health services with linkages to schools, community resources and family/natural supports. Treatment in a SIPP is seen as a component in the continuum of a child’s care, with the goals of:

Stabilization of presenting problems and symptoms and adequate resolution to allow safe return of the child to the family and community;

Reduction of recidivism of admission into acute psychiatric or SIPP services by providing aftercare services and/or linkages with appropriate community services

Design of aftercare treatment plans that can be effectively implemented

For children in the state’s custody, incorporation of permanency goals into the treatment and discharge plans and active coordination with Family Safety.

Therapeutic Group Homes [TGH] – Therapeutic group care services are community-based psychiatric residential treatment services designed for children and adolescents with moderate to severe emotional disturbances. They are provided in a licensed residential group home setting serving no more than 12 children and adolescents. Treatment includes provision of psychiatric, psychological, behavioral and psychosocial services to Medicaid eligible children who meet the specified clinical criteria described in this section. Therapeutic group care is intended to provide a high degree of structure, support, supervision, and clinical intervention in a home-like setting. Therapeutic group care services are a component within Florida Medicaid’s behavioral health system of care for children. They are appropriate for children and adolescents who are ready for step-down from a more restrictive residential treatment program or for those who require more intensive community-based treatment to avoid placement in a more restrictive residential treatment setting. The services are designed to provide a therapeutic framework of daily living for children and adolescents. The child’s primary diagnosis and level of functioning are the reasons for treatment and the focus of the interventions and services provided. Generally, these services include psychiatric and therapy services, therapeutic supervision and the teaching of problem solving skills, behavior strategies, normalization activities, and other treatment modalities, as authorized in the treatment plan. Services are highly supportive, individualized, and flexible and are designed to maximize a child’s strengths and reduce behavior problems or functional deficits stemming from a mental health disorder. These services occur in a home-like setting, and include participation of family or guardian and appropriate involvement in the community and school. The young people being served spend a significant amount of time in the community, attending school, and engaging in school and community recreational or vocational activities. Behavioral Health Overlay Services [BHOS] – BHOS services are overlay mental health and substance abuse treatment services that children being served in shelters or group homes through DCF, or in commitment juvenile justice programs through DJJ, receive on an as needed basis. These services are individualized and defined by individualized mental health treatment plans approved by the appropriate level of clinician per Medicaid rules. Generally BHOS providers offer a menu of treatment and intervention services based on the child’s identified needs. In addition, those services are adjusted

Why SIPP, Therapeutic Group Homes, and BHOS Services are not appropriate for managed care or immediate transition

Briefing document created by Manatee Palms Youth Services response to PCB SPCSEP 10-03:

throughout the child’s stay as treatment plan goals are met and/or accomplished. An important part of these treatment plans is transition back into the community and targeted ongoing community based services. It is our belief that by placing these SIPP, TGH and BHOS services under a managed care system children needing the most intensive treatment for their mental health and psychiatric conditions will once again not receive the level of care they require. This could ultimately result in more serious adverse events with these children and/or repeated utilization of crisis stabilization units. In addition:

All of these levels of service require comprehensive mental health and psychiatric evaluations to validate the medical necessity of those services being provided.

All of these services are provided as “bundled rate” services, meaning a single capped rate for multiple services provided on the same day. A provider may not exceed the cap on this bundled rate.

Currently SIPP and TGH have utilization management processes in place through outside managing entities to ensure the continuing need for those ongoing services (First Health and Magellan respectively). In both of these services an additional managed care system is not needed.

Suggested language revision for 10-03: Section 12, subsections (2) (b) [lines 653-658] – Medicaid recipients residing in residential commitment facilities operated by or through the Department of Children and Families, Substance Abuse and Mental Health or the Department of Juvenile Justice, and served by bundled rate services (Statewide Inpatient Psychiatric Program, Therapeutic Group Home, Behavioral Health Overlay Services) are exempt from mandatory managed care enrollment as required by s. 409.965.

Juvenile Services Department

Cost Analysis Miami-Dade County

Office of Strategic Business Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3

Background and Methodology 6

JSD Internal Costs 7

Estimated Savings to the Juvenile Justice Community

9

Appendix I: JSD Process Map 17

Appendix II: JSD Detailed Activity Analysis 19

Appendix III: Arrest Rate Calculations 36

Prepared by Bill Busutil, Amy Horton-Tavera, John Murphey and Cara Tuzeo

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Miami-Dade County’s Office of Strategic Business Management (OSBM) was engaged by the County’s Juvenile Services Department (JSD) to conduct a cost analysis of its services. Specifically, OSBM was asked to 1) evaluate JSD’s allocation of internal resources, 2) estimate Miami-Dade County’s internal average cost per youth served and 3) estimate JSD’s net financial impact on the broader juvenile justice system in Miami-Dade County. Background JSD provides a continuum of services to all arrested juveniles in the County. JSD operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week as a processing center and provides sophisticated, highly individualized assessment, referral and case management services to eligible youth. These services are provided through a range of diversion programs designed to address the root causes of juvenile crime and keep eligible children from entering the traditional juvenile justice system. The department’s annual operating budget is approximately $12 million for Fiscal Year 2007-08, with the bulk of the budget funding its 119 full-time employees. Between October 2007 and April 2008, JSD processed a total of 5,522 arrested youth, which translates to 9,466 arrested youth processed over a one year period. Key Findings OSBM found that, overall, JSD’s internal allocation of resources appears reasonable and is in strategic alignment with its organizational mission. Direct service delivery activities comprised 74 percent of internal costs, while management and operational support accounted for 26 percent of the total. While no uniform standard for an appropriate ratio of direct service to supporting activities exists for local government, OSBM’s past experience in conducting similar studies suggests that this level of management and operational support is within an acceptable range. Of the direct service activities, Case Management and Assessment, processes closely associated with the department’s diversion programs, are the two largest direct service cost centers for JSD. This allocation of resources is strategically aligned with the department’s mission of delinquency prevention. Miami-Dade County’s average cost per youth served ranged from a low of $1,351 (youth eligible for the newly implemented Civil Citation program) to a high of $3,561 (youth ineligible for post-arrest diversion services). The average cost per youth for the civil citation program, which was implemented in 2007, is lower than the cost for other diversion programs because for these youth, JSD staff does not have to perform several internal processes that a formal arrest requires, such as booking. In order to estimate the possible financial impact of JSD on the juvenile justice community in Miami-Dade County, OSBM compared the current cost of services throughout the system with the costs that might be incurred if JSD had not been established.

4

OSBM’s best estimate is that JSD’s financial impact on the local juvenile justice community1 is a net annual savings of $20.3 million2. This best estimate is based on reasoned assumptions regarding a 41 percent drop in juvenile arrest rates between 1998 and 2007, and JSD’s probable role in this decline. Specifically, OSBM estimates that, had JSD not been created in 1998, juvenile arrests would only have declined by seven percent over this time period, rather than the actual 41 percent, resulting in higher caseloads and costs for Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), the courts, and numerous other agencies. Specific potential reasons for the reduction in arrests are detailed in the body of this report. Additionally, significant savings have resulted from a reduction in police officer time required for the juvenile arrest process since the creation of the JAC, as well as reduced staffing requirements for state probation officers, as diversion programs have replaced probation as the preferred alternative for minor offenses. The estimated $20.3 million in net financial benefits represents a blend of “hard” dollars and additional resources that have been made available for other purposes as a result of reduced caseloads and process efficiencies. These benefits are shared between County and municipal police departments, DJJ, and the local courts, State Attorney, and Public Defender, with DJJ being the largest single beneficiary of these savings. Supporting Recommendations In addition to these primary findings, a number of supporting recommendations emerged from this study:

OSBM recommends that JSD, in collaboration with OSBM budget staff, monitor the impact of the civil citation program on its overall workload over time. This may facilitate the potential transition of resources from the Civil Citation Program to JSD’s proposed new Prevention Program.

In the course of this study, OSBM observed significant discrepancies in juvenile arrest

data provided by JSD and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). Consequently, OSBM recommends that JSD work with FDLE and local police agencies to ensure consistent reporting of juvenile arrest data.

For Further Study:

A detailed statistical analysis of the reasons for the 41 percent decline in juvenile arrest rates between 1998 and 2007 was beyond the scope of this study. Variables frequently studied in relation to arrest rates include income, poverty and education levels, family structures, general demographics, number of police officers “on the street” and other criminal justice policies. Best practices in program evaluation indicate that a

1 Includes the following agencies: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, Miami-Dade Police Department and other local Law Enforcement Agencies, Clerk of Courts, Juvenile Court System, State Attorney’s Office and Public Defender’s Office. This figure is exclusive of any potential savings to the adult justice system (as juveniles enter adulthood) or to society at large. 2 2007 dollars

5

multivariate statistical analysis of juvenile arrest rates and potential contributing factors across multiple comparable jurisdictions would be the preferred method of evaluating JSD’s effectiveness over the past decade. Resources permitting, OSBM recommends that a study of this nature be undertaken, perhaps coordinated by the relevant federal or state agencies.

6

BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

Miami-Dade County Juvenile Services Department The Miami-Dade Juvenile Services Department (JSD) is a 24-hour, seven-day processing, referral and evaluation center for all juveniles arrested in Miami-Dade County. With an operating budget of approximately $12 million and 119 full-time employees, JSD serves as the single point of contact for detained children and their families. The Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC), one of the components of JSD, became fully operational in 1997 and serves as the entry point into the Juvenile Justice System for youths who have been taken into custody. This facility co-locates the functions of law enforcement and social services under one roof, providing a complete range of services at the initial stages of the youth’s involvement with the Juvenile Justice System. The JAC has processed over 130,000 bookings since its inception. Over the past ten years, Juvenile Assessment Centers have been established in most Florida Counties. Unlike most of these facilities, JSD is more than a central intake and processing agency; the department also provides comprehensive assessment, referral and case management services to eligible youth through several specialized programs. A wide range of evidence-based, comprehensive and gender/age assessment instruments are used to identify the unique needs and issues of each arrested youth, taking into account factors such as the juvenile’s age, gender, home environment, mental health and substance abuse history. Juveniles are then referred to community based organizations that provide services such as family, group and/or individual counseling, substance abuse counseling and school intervention. In April 2007, JSD partnered with local police to introduce the Civil Citation Program for first-time offenders. Rather than arrest an eligible juvenile, officers issue a citation and refer the child to JSD, where he or she receives the department’s assessment, referral and case management services. Between October 2007 and April 2008, JSD processed a total of 5,522 arrested youth, which translates to 9,466 arrested youth over a one year period.3 Of this amount, approximately 20 percent entered the Civil Citation program, while 15 percent entered one of the department’s post-arrest diversion programs. The remaining 65 percent were ineligible for diversion programs and entered the traditional court system; in many of these cases, the youth were transferred to the local Juvenile Detention Center. JSD’s individualized service delivery model is unique in Florida and recently received national recognition at the May 16, 2008 Juvenile Justice Summit convened by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Appendix I provides a detailed process map of JSD’s major business operations from the perspective of both juveniles and police officers.

3 Includes multiple crimes committed by repeat offenders. Each arrest is counted separately.

7

Project Scope and Methodology OSBM was engaged by JSD to conduct a cost analysis of its services. Specifically, OSBM was asked to 1) evaluate JSD’s allocation of internal resources, 2) estimate Miami-Dade County’s average cost per youth served and 3) estimate JSD’s net financial impact on the broader juvenile justice system in Miami-Dade County. To complete these objectives, OSBM developed a detailed activity-based cost model for the department, analyzed arrest and related data, and interviewed representatives of partner agencies including the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), the Clerk and Administrative Office of the Courts, the State Attorney, and the Public Defender.

JSD INTERNAL COSTS BY PROCESS AND PROGRAM

OSBM conducted detailed work sessions with JSD staff in order to identify the cost of each major internal process. Employees were asked to identify the major components of their jobs (including general administration) and estimate the percentage of time spent on each work activity. These estimates were then matched with employee compensation data to build an activity-based cost model for the department, summarized in the chart below. More detailed results of the analysis are contained in Appendix II. Total internal personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits, were $9.2 million annually.4 Direct service delivery activities comprised 74 percent of internal costs, while

JSD Process Cost DistributionTotal Direct Process Cost: $9,203,977

Booking $775,786

8%Records Management $644,702

7%

Prevent ion $82,473

1%

Release/ Det ain $360,706

4%

Perf . Analysis & Dat a Recording $325,834

4%

Secondary Screening $842,712

9%Training

$276,382 3%

Assessment $941,218

10%

Management & Operat ional Support

$2,413,006 26%

Int ake $513,785

6%

Case Management $2,027,373

22%

4 Figures reflect actual personnel costs as of summer 2007. Salaries and benefits of contracted security personnel were also included. JSD budgeted personnel costs for Fiscal Year 2007-08, exclusive of the security contract, were $8.3 million.

8

management and operational support accounted for 26 percent of the total. Of the direct service activities, case management comprised the largest portion at 22 percent, followed by assessment, secondary screening and booking, respectively. Two observations stand out from the results of the analysis. First, it is notable that Case Management and Assessment, which are processes closely associated with the department’s diversion programs, are the two largest direct service cost centers for JSD. This allocation of resources is strategically aligned with the department’s mission of “minimizing further delinquent activity and contributing to the development of future productive adult citizens”5 and distinguishes JSD from other Florida jurisdictions, in which juvenile assessment centers function exclusively as processing centers for arrested youth. This progressive investment strategy was lauded by local and national representatives from the juvenile justice community who participated in the recent Juvenile Justice Summit. Second, OSBM observed that Management and Operational Support account for 26 percent of JSD’s internal personnel costs. No uniform standard for an appropriate ratio of direct service to supporting activities exists for local government. However, OSBM’s past experience in conducting similar studies suggests that, for an organization with 119 full time employees, whose managers are actively involved in the day-to-day delivery of services, this level of management and operational support is within an acceptable range. OSBM then analyzed the average cost per youth to Miami-Dade County government6 in each of three major program categories: (1) youth in the civil citation program, (2) youth referred to any of the Department’s post-arrest diversion programs, and (3) youth ineligible for diversion who enter detention.7 Average costs were calculated by identifying which of the major processes previously identified in the activity analysis applied to each youth population. For example, booking is not required for youth in the civil citation program, and case management services are not provided to youth who are detained. Other operating costs such as rent and utilities were equally allocated to the three populations. The figure to the right illustrates the findings of this analysis.

5 JSD Mission Statement 6 Inclusive of JSD internal costs, DJJ detention billings to the County, and JAC supervision costs incurred by the Corrections and Rehabilitation and Police Departments. 7 Excludes juveniles who are ineligible for diversion programs but are not detained. Between October 2007 and April 2008, approximately 23 percent of juveniles processed by JSD fell into this sub-category.

$910

$441

$-

$1,378

$441

$-

$883

$441

$2,237

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

Civil Citation Other Diversion Detention

Program Type

Miami-Dade County Pre-Dispositional Cost per Juvenile by Program Type

JSD Personnel Cost Other Operating Cost Detention Billed to Miami-Dade County

$1,351

$3,561

$1,819

9

Average costs per youth to Miami-Dade County were $1,351 for those in the civil citation program, $1,819 for those referred to post-arrest diversion programs and $3,561 for those who are detained. It should be noted that the civil citation program has not resulted in any actual staffing or expense reductions to date. However, JSD has expressed its intent to explore the potential application of operational savings from the Civil Citation Program to a new Prevention Program.

ESTIMATED SAVINGS TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMUNITY

OSBM’s best estimate is that JSD has produced an annual net savings to the local juvenile justice system8 of $20.3 million. This best estimate is based on reasoned assumptions regarding the significant drop in juvenile arrest rates between 1998 and 2007, and JSD’s probable role in this decline (see “A Note on Arrest Rates,” page 10, for details). The estimated $20.3 million in net financial benefits represents a blend of “hard” dollars and additional resources that have been made available for other purposes as a result of reduced caseloads and process efficiencies. JSD commenced its operation in 1997; between 1998 and 2007, juvenile arrests in Miami-Dade County declined by 41 percent. Many factors, including the development and implementation of JSD’s innovative service delivery model, may have played a role in this drop. Since it would be impossible to conclude with certainty that JSD is fully responsible for the decline in juvenile arrests in Miami-Dade County over the past decade, OSBM framed the analysis under the following three scenarios:

Scenario Assumption

Number of Arrests

Assumed, 2007

Comments

A JSD had no impact on the 41 percent decline in juvenile arrests. If JSD did not exist, the 2007 arrest rate would remain unchanged.

9,750 Represents the null hypothesis

B

JSD had a significant impact on the 41 percent decline in juvenile arrests. If JSD did not exist, arrests would have declined by only seven percent – and, consequently, would be 57 percent higher than actual 2007 levels

15,301

OSBM’s best estimate. See insert, “A Note on Arrest Rates,” page 10, for details.

C

JSD is completely responsible for the 41 percent decline in juvenile arrests. If JSD did not exist, arrests would have increased by three percent and, consequently, would be 74 percent higher than actual 2007 levels

17,003

Adjusted solely for growth in Miami-Dade County’s under-18 population

8 Includes the following agencies: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, Miami-Dade Police Department and other local Law Enforcement Agencies, Clerk of Courts, Juvenile Court System, State Attorney’s Office and Public Defender’s Office. This figure is exclusive of any potential savings to the adult justice system (as juveniles enter adulthood) or to society at large.

1998 200716532 9750

Source: JSD

Juvenile Arrests in Miami-Dade County

10

The chart on page 11 presents the results of the analysis for each of the three scenarios. Under Scenario A (above), JSD services would be producing a net annual cost increase of $6.3 million to the juvenile justice system. Scenario B is OSBM’s best estimate. Under this scenario, JSD is producing an estimated net annual savings of $20.3 million to the juvenile justice system. Under Scenario C, JSD would be producing a net annual savings of $28.3 million to the system. Delving deeper into the best estimate, OSBM identified the respective beneficiaries of the JSD savings. Under Scenario B, OSBM estimates that JSD operations generate annual savings of $21 million for the State of Florida, including $15 million for DJJ, and annual savings of $3.2 million for County and municipal police departments within Miami-Dade County. Under this scenario, JSD operations generate a net cost increase of $3 million for the County government, with the bulk of the impact to the General Fund. Details are provided in the chart on page 12. Financial Impact by Agency A summary of the financial impact to each of the juvenile justice agencies reviewed, under OSBM’s best estimate (Scenario B) follows.

A Note on Arrest Rates

Between 1998 and 2007, total juvenile arrests in Miami-Dade County fell by 41 percent. A detailed statistical analysis of the reasons for this decline was beyond the scope of this study. Variables frequently studied in relation to arrest rates include income, poverty and education levels, family structures, general demographics, number of police officers “on the street” and other criminal justice policies. However, in order to estimate JSD’s overall financial impact on the juvenile justice community, OSBM estimated how many juveniles might have been arrested in 2007 if JSD had not been created in late 1997. OSBM’s “best estimate” assumes that JSD has had a significant impact on the declining arrest rate over the past ten years. This presumption is based on the opinions of leaders from various local and state juvenile justice providers, as well as compelling data showing a steep decline in repeat offenders since 1998.* Comparative data indicating much smaller drops in juvenile arrests in large Florida and national counties is also suggestive. ** Consequently, for the purposes of this analysis, OSBM adjusted the actual number of juvenile arrests in 1998 for three factors, calculated over the same approximate time period (1998-2007): the increase in Miami-Dade County’s juvenile population; the decrease in juvenile arrests throughout the state of Florida (excluding Miami-Dade); and the decrease in adult arrests in Miami-Dade County. Details of this analysis are included in Appendix III. The adjustment for population growth takes into account available census data regarding growth in the County’s under-18 population, while the adjustments for the change in statewide juvenile arrests and local adult arrests represent an attempt to control for the other variables discussed in the preceding paragraph. Presumably, any regional socioeconomic trends that lowered juvenile arrest rates statewide would also have affected arrest patterns locally. Similarly, any local trends that might have resulted in lower adult arrest rates in Miami-Dade County could also be expected to have impacted the County’s juvenile arrest rate. (On the other hand, it is also possible that a declining juvenile arrest rate could result in lower adult arrest rates over time as the juveniles age into adulthood.) These adjustments should not be considered scientific or statistically valid, but absent conclusive data, they represent an informed estimate. *Data provided by JSD indicates that between 1998 and 2007, the overall number of repeat offenders dropped by 78 percent. **For example, JSD reports that juvenile arrests actually increased in Orange (FL), Hillsborough (FL) Los Angeles (CA) and Harris (TX) Counties between 2001 and 2006, while juvenile arrests in Miami-Dade steadily declined over the same period.

Scenario AScenario B: OSBM Best

EstimateScenario C Comments Data Source

Assumes JSD had no impact on the decline in juvenile arrest rates

between 1998 and 2007

Assumes JSD was primarily responsible

for the decline in juvenile arrest rates between 1998 and

2007

Assumes JSD was fully responsible for the decline in juvenile

arrest rates between 1998 and 2007

Annual juvenile arrests assumed: 9,750 15,301 17,003

Cost Center:

Police - MDPD 580,500$ 958,224$ 1,074,054$ Estimated value of police officer time saved, at straight time pay.

JSD Police Cost Analysis; 2007 JSD arrest data; salary data provided by OSBM budget staff

Police - Other Local Agencies 1,377,934$ 2,274,539$ 2,549,485$ Estimated value of police officer time saved, at straight time pay.

JSD Police Cost Analysis; 2007 JSD arrest data; salary data provided by OSBM budget staff

Detention - Billed to Miami-Dade County -$ 4,982,086$ 6,509,853$ Charged per utilization day; assumes that additional days would be charged at the same daily rate DJJ 2006-07 Detention Cost Reconciliation

DJJ - Residential Supervision -$ 9,703,067$ 12,678,530$ For juveniles sentenced to residential supervision programs DJJ Probation Cost Report

DJJ - Probation Supervision 3,400,320$ 7,034,314$ 8,148,685$ Juveniles currently referred to diversion programs would be placed on probation DJJ Probation Cost Report

DJJ - Juvenile Processing 701,857$ 1,132,872$ 1,224,000$ Probation Officers would take over processing functions currently carried out at the JAC JSD & DJJ Interviews

Clerk of Courts 473,275$ 742,735$ 825,365$ Based on current value of Police Records Technicians in JSD - functions would be transferred to the COC OSBM Activity Analysis & JSD Interview

Juvenile Court System -$ 3,000,000$ 4,000,000$ Additional judges required to avoid service level reductions Interview with Administrative Office of the Courts Director

State Attorney -$ 530,725$ 766,603$ Additional attorneys required to avoid service level reductions Interview with Assistant State Attorney

Public Defender -$ 2,721,235$ 3,294,126$ Additional attorneys required to avoid service level reductions Interview with Public Defender Elect

Total Gross Savings 6,533,886$ 33,079,797$ 41,070,701$

JSD Budget 11,995,141$ 11,995,141$ 11,995,141$ Includes approx. $9 million in County General Fund dollars and $3 million in state grants Fiscal Year 2007-08 Adopted Budget

Miami-Dade Corrections & Rehabilitation Department - 2 Sergeants 212,678$ 212,678$ 212,678$

Shift commanders at the Juvenile Assessment Center - funded from C&R budget Corrections Department Salary Report

Miami-Dade County Police - 3 Lieutenants 450,000$ 450,000$ 450,000$ Shift commanders at the Juvenile Assessment Center - funded from MDPD budget Interview with OSBM Budget Coordinator

DJJ - Transportation 126,290$ 126,290$ 126,290$ Cost of transportation from JAC to Detention Center Interview with DJJ Detention Director

Total Offsetting Costs 12,784,109$ 12,784,109$ 12,784,109$

Total Annual Net Savings (6,250,223)$ 20,295,688$ 28,286,592$

Net Financial Impact of JSD to the Juvenile Justice Community

11

12

AgencyMiami-Dade

County

Municipalities within Miami-

DadeState of Florida Total

Local Police $958,224 $2,274,539 $3,232,763Detention - Billed to Miami-Dade County $4,982,086 $4,982,086DJJ - Residential Supervision $9,703,067 $9,703,067DJJ - Probation Supervision $7,034,314 $7,034,314DJJ - Juvenile Processing $1,132,872 $1,132,872Clerk of Courts $742,735 $742,735Juvenile Courts System $3,000,000 $3,000,000State Attorney $530,725 $530,725Public Defender $2,721,235 $2,721,235

Total Gross Savings $ 6,683,046 $ 2,274,539 $ 24,122,212 $ 33,079,797

JSD Budget** $9,058,000 $2,937,141 $11,995,141Department - 2 Sergeants $212,678 $212,678Miami-Dade County Police - 3 Lieutenants $450,000 $450,000DJJ Transportation $126,290 $126,290

Total Offsetting Costs $ 9,720,678 $ - $ 3,063,431 $ 12,784,109

Total Annual Net Savings ($3,037,632) $2,274,539 $21,058,781 $20,295,688

Net Financial Impact of JSD to the Juvenile Justice Community, by Jurisdiction*

*Per OSBM Best Estimate (Scenario B) - assumes that if JSD did not exist, annual juvenile arrests would increase by 57%

**Includes $9 million in County funding and $2.9 million in state grants The estimated financial impacts for Scenarios A and C differ solely according to the varying arrest rate assumptions. Local Police

By providing a centralized point of entry and efficient processing of arrested juveniles, JSD has significantly reduced the time police officers are “out of service” with an arrested juvenile. JSD estimates that prior to its establishment, police officers were spending an average of 6 hours on each juvenile arrest. Officers now spend an estimated average of only 45 minutes per arrest, including transport time to the JAC. JSD attributes this reduction to its streamlined intake and booking processes, which require only 15 minutes of the officer’s time. The value of the additional officer time to local police departments is significant. Taking into account the higher arrest rate associated with Scenario B, Miami-Dade Police Department, which generated approximately 30 percent of all juvenile arrests in 2007, gains an additional $958,000 in staffing resources. Other local law enforcement agencies benefit from an aggregate annual savings of $2.3 million.

Cost TypeHourly

RateTime Per

Arrest

# of arrests (2007)

Total Police Costs

Current Cost $38.26 0.75 2890 82,929$ Scenario B Cost $38.26 6 4535 1,041,153$

958,224$

Police - MDPD

Total Savings - Scenario B

Cost TypeHourly

RateTime Per

Arrest

# of arrests (2007)

Total Police Costs

Current Cost $38.26 0.75 6860 196,848$ Scenario B Cost $38.26 6 10766 2,471,387$

2,274,539$

Police - Local Agencies (excludes MDPD)


13

These estimates assume that police officers are paid at “straight time” and do not take into account any overtime pay that might be incurred if JSD did not exist. It was also assumed that average monthly wages for municipal police agencies are comparable to those in Miami-Dade. Detention - Billed to Miami-Dade County

The Department of Juvenile Justice bills Miami-Dade County for detention services each year. Rates are designed to recover the statewide cost of detention operations9, with each county’s bill based on the number of pre-dispositional detention utilization days provided to its youth each year. The analysis centers on the assumption that if JSD did not exist, the juvenile arrest rate would be 57 percent higher than it is today, and that juveniles would be detained in the

same proportion as they are today. The analysis also assumes that any additional detention days associated with a higher juvenile arrest rate in Miami-Dade County would be billed to the County at the same daily rate as today.10 OSBM estimates that the resulting cost increase to the County would be $5 million per year.

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)

The primary financial beneficiary of JSD services is The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Financial impacts to DJJ were broken down into four service components: Residential Supervision, Probation Supervision, Juvenile Processing, and Transportation (discussed later as an offsetting cost). Residential Supervision For the Residential Supervision component, there is a varying cost associated with the level of supervision required for each juvenile’s assessed risk level: low, moderate, high and maximum. In order to project the fiscal impact on this program under Scenario B, OSBM assumed that juveniles would be referred to the various risk levels of residential supervision in the same proportion as they are today. OSBM estimates that if JSD did not exist, residential supervision costs would increase by $9.7 million annually, based on the assumed 57 percent increase in arrests.

9 On an annual basis, DJJ calculates a “cost per detention utilization day” for the upcoming year by dividing its operating budget by the estimated number of detention utilization days to be provided that year. Counties are responsible for the cost of pre-dispositional utilization days, while the state is responsible for funding post-dispositional detention. 10 In reality, two scenarios would be possible. DJJ might be able to accommodate the additional youth using existing resources. In this case, the average cost per detention day could decrease slightly. On the other hand, the increase in detention days might require DJJ to increase resource levels, raising the average cost per detention day. The interplay between these two factors is difficult to predict.

Cost TypeTotal

Detention Costs

Current Cost $8,750,451

Scenario B Cost (current cost + 57%) $13,732,537Total Savings - Scenario B $4,982,086

Detention Savings to Miami-Dade

17,042,299$ 26,745,366$ 9,703,067$ Total Savings - Scenario B

Current Cost Residential Supervision (DJJ)

Scenario B Cost (current cost + 57%)

14

Probation Supervision Probation Supervision costs were based on projected caseloads and the current cost per youth. The analysis assumed that if JSD did not exist, children that are

currently referred to diversion programs (approximately 3,400 per year) would be placed on probation, generating a requirement for additional probation supervision. Combined with the higher assumed arrest rate, the increased caseload would produce additional annual costs of $7 million to DJJ.

Juvenile Processing Prior to JSD becoming fully operational in 1998, DJJ was responsible for processing arrested juveniles and employed 30 Probation Officers for this purpose. Using a

constant ratio of Probation Officers to arrested juveniles, and assuming that juvenile arrests would have declined by seven percent under Scenario B, OSBM estimates that DJJ would require 28 Probation Officers to handle the projected caseload. Based on the average Probation Officer’s salary and fringe, DJJ would incur increased annual costs of $1.1 million. Clerk of Courts

The analysis assumes that all of the job duties currently performed by the 10 Police Records Technicians (PRT’s) in JSD would be transferred to the Clerk of Courts (COC). Based on the current ratio of PRT’s to juvenile arrests, OSBM estimates that COC would need to hire 16 employees at an annual cost of $743,000 under Scenario B.

Juvenile Court System

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) confirmed that the Juvenile Court System would experience a similar impact if arrest rates jumped significantly in the absence of JSD. The AOC Director estimated that an increase in arrests in the range of 57%, as assumed in

Scenario B, would require three judges and a full support staff of Judicial Assistants, Bailiffs, Interpreters, Court Reporters, and Police Liaisons, at an estimated annual cost of $3 million. AOC staff indicated that these staffing resources would be reassigned from Civil and/or Family Court to Juvenile Court, resulting in service level reductions for those areas.

Additional Staff RequiredAssociated Personnel

CostJudges, Judicial Assistants & Bailiffs $ 1,800,000 Interpreters $ 180,000 Court Reporters $ 300,000 Police Liaisons $ 720,000

$ 3,000,000 3,000,000$

Juvenile Court System

Total CostTotal Savings - Scenario B

Cost Type# Youth

SupervisedCost Per

Youth Total CostCurrent Cost 2947 1,012$ 2,982,364$ Scenario B Cost 9898 1,012$ 10,016,678$

7,034,314$

Probation Supervision (DJJ)


Cost TypePRT's

Required PRT Salary

& Fringe Total PRT CostsCurrent Cost 0 47,328$ -$ Scenario B Cost 16 47,328$ 742,735$

742,735$

Clerk of Courts


Cost Type

Salary + Fringe Cost per Officer

# of Probation

Officers Total PO CostCurrent Cost $40,800 0 $0Scenario B Cost $40,800 28 1,132,872$

1,132,872$

Juvenile Processing (DJJ)


15

State Attorney

The State Attorney’s Office (SAO) estimated that it would need nine additional attorneys to handle an increased caseload in the range of 57 percent, at an annual cost of $531,000. It should be noted that SAO staff stated it would not anticipate funding for these additional positions, which would result in a service level reduction. Public Defender

The Public Defender’s Office indicated that to comply with State of Florida Defender caseload standards, it would need to add attorneys if its caseload increased significantly. OSBM estimates

an additional 18 attorneys would be needed for the 57 percent caseload increase associated with Scenario B. The added resources represent increased annual costs of $2.7 million. JSD Budget

Obviously, if JSD did not exist, its operating budget would become available for other purposes. Of its $12 million budget, approximately $9 million would revert to Miami-Dade County’s General Fund, while $2.9 million in grant funding would return to the State of Florida, offsetting the savings described above. Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department – 2 Sergeants

The Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (Corrections) provides JSD with two Sergeants who serve as shift commanders at the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC). If JSD did not exist, these staffing resources would be reassigned to Corrections. The value of these resources is approximately $213,000 annually. Miami-Dade Police Department - 3 Lieutenants

The Police Department also supports JSD operations by providing three Lieutenants who serve as shift commanders at the JAC. If JSD did not exist, these resources could be redeployed as needed, saving the Police Department approximately $450,000 each year. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) - Transportation

Currently, DJJ provides transportation services between the JAC and the detention center at an estimated annual cost of $126,000. If JSD did not exist, these resources would be available for DJJ to use for other purposes.

Additional Staff Required # Required

Attorney Salary & Fringe

Total Personnel Cost

State Attorneys 9 $58,969 $ 530,725 $ 530,725

State Attorney


Additional Staff Required # Required

Attorney Salary & Fringe

Total Personnel Cost

Public Defenders 18 149,733$ $ 2,721,235

2,721,235$

Public Defender


16

APPENDICES Appendix I: JSD Process Map 17

Appendix II: JSD Detailed Activity Analysis

19

Appendix III: Arrest Rate Calculations

36

17

Appendix I: JSD Process Map

STARTReferred Juvenile

Intake and First Screening

Secondary Screening

Booking

Assesment

Release/ Detain

Juvenile 17 and younger?

Medical and Mental Health Clearance?

Transfer to Adult System

Transfer to Health Care Facility

END

Clear and Return to JSD

Civil Citation Eligible?

Personal Items Secured /

Contraband Search

Contraband Found?

Officer returns to file additional

charges

NO

YES

NO

YES

YES

NO

All Parties agree to terms?

Release to Responsible Adult

SAO Approval?

A

Initial ID Process

YES YES

Preliminary Background Check

and PID

Complete Background

Check

DRAI Assessment

Psycho-Social Assessment and

Service Rec.

Review A-Form for accuracy and

intake eligibility

Release or Detain?

Diversion Eligible?

Transfer of custody to

Detention Center

SAO Approval?

DETAIN

RELEASE

Release to Responsible AdultNO

Release to Responsible Adult

BFile transfer to Court System

NO

Review File and Assessment

Results

NO

YES

NO

A

END

END

Case Management

Complete necessary

assessments

Specific Diversion Program Assigned

Monitor Juvenile ProgressFile Disposition

Successful Completion?

Refer case to State Attorney

YES

NO

B

END

STARTPolice Officer

Intake and First Screening

Juvenile 17 and younger?

Medical and Mental Health Clearance?

Transfer to Adult System/Process

Transfer to Health Care Facility

END

Clear and Return to JSD

Civil Citation Eligible?

Contraband Found on Juv?

File additional charges (New A-Form and SAO)

NO

YES

NO

YES

All Parties agree to terms?

YES

Enter JAC with Juvenile

Present A-Form

A-Form complete? ReviseNO

YES

YES

NO

ENDYES

Go to SAO to complete Prefile

process

END

NO

NONO

Recommend Service Provider

PAD Participant? NO

Expungement Process

A

YES

YES

YES

Appendix IJSD Process Map

$ 513,785/ yr

$ 775,786/ yr

$ 842,712/ yr

$941,218/ yr

$644,702/ yr

$2,027,373/ yr

18

19

Appendix II: JSD Detailed Activity Analysis

20

APPENDIX II: JUVENILE SERVICES DEPARTMENT (JSD) ACTIVITY ANALYSIS

OSBM conducted a comprehensive activity analysis of JSD to evaluate its allocation of internal resources. The project team conducted detailed work sessions with JSD staff in order to identify the cost of each major internal process. Employees were asked to identify the major components of their jobs (including general administration) and estimate the percentage of time spent on each work activity. These estimates were then matched with employee compensation data to build an activity-based cost model for the department. The attached spreadsheet details the activity analysis conducted for JSD. The left hand column on the spreadsheet (“Position”) lists the various classifications of employees who participated in the activity analysis work sessions. The next column (“#FTE’s”) shows the total number of employees in a given classification represented by employees who participated in the work sessions. For example, this spreadsheet indicates that four Juvenile Services Specialists involved in the Assessment Process are represented by the employees who participated in the activity analysis work sessions. Taken together, the next two columns (“Activity” and “Process”) describe the activities that comprise the major processes in the JSD operation. The next column (“% time”) lists JSD employees’ estimates of the amount of time they spend on each of the activities that comprise their jobs. For each employee, the total time spent on all of his or her work activities equals 100%. This is not readily apparent in the attached spreadsheet because the spreadsheet is sorted by process, not by individual employee. The right-hand column on the spreadsheet (“Activity Costs”) lists the personnel cost associated with each activity. This cost was calculated as follows:

• (Salary/Fringe Benefits) X (#FTE’s) X (% Time Per Activity) Activity costs are also summarized by each of the major processes in the JSD operation. Overall, OSBM found that JSD’s internal allocation of resources is in strategic alignment with its organizational mission and appears reasonable.

Position #FTE's Activity Process % Time Activity Cost

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Processing Assessment 35% 100,421$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4Translating /answering phone call/ customer service Assessment 4% 11,477$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Equipment Maintenance Assessment 2% 5,738$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4Liaison-between parents and other agencies & providers Assessment 5% 14,346$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Processing Assessment 35% 115,462$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Customer Service Assessment 5% 16,495$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4Liaison between parents and all Agencies & Providers Assessment 8% 24,742$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Assessing Assessment 20% 45,594$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Miscellaneous Assessment 5% 11,399$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4Make necessary referrals for youth & their families to diversion programs Assessment 5% 9,958$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Contact Police Assessment 10% 19,917$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Conduct Mental Health Assessment Assessment 20% 52,417$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Make recommendations to SAO/CBO Assessment 8% 19,656$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Lead worker duties Assessment 2% 5,242$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 CCC Reporting Assessment 2% 2,869$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Parent/Staff Consultation Assessment 5% 7,173$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Equipment Maintenance Assessment 10% 14,345$

Captain (Project Manager) 1 Monitoring of Juveniles Assessment 10% 3,373$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Control Room Operation Assessment 10% 58,880$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Control Room Operation Assessment 20% 117,761$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 Consultation Assessment 10% 10,429$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 Baker Act Assessment 5% 5,215$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 Crisis Intervention Assessment 5% 5,215$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 TASC Files Revision Assessment 10% 10,429$ Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2 Risk Assessment to Determine Severity Assessment 5% 10,429$ Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2 TASC Assessment/Complete Reports Assessment 40% 83,434$ Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2

Report abuse cases, complete report & fax Assessment 4% 8,343$

Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2 Baker Act Assessment 4% 8,343$ Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2 Crisis Intervention Assessment 10% 20,858$

Juvenile Services Specialist 3Conduct assessment for civil citation and JPO Assessment 25% 46,815$

Juvenile Services Specialist 3 Complete assessments (TASC) Assessment 25% 46,815$

Juvenile Services Specialist 3 Abuse/Neglect Report Assessment 5% 9,363$

Juvenile Services Specialist 3 Attend Meetings Assessment 5% 9,363$

Clinical Director 1 Clinical Activities Assessment 10% 8,903$

Appendix II: Juvenile Services Department (JSD) Activity Analysis

21



Assessment 941,218$

Police Record Tech I 5 Proofread Arrest Affidavit(s) Booking 10% 25,037$

Police Record Tech I 5 Generate JAC/Court case numbers Booking 15% 37,555$

Police Record Tech I 5 Verify subject(s) Criminal History Booking 8% 18,777$

Police Record Tech I 5 PID (Positive Identification) Booking 15% 37,555$

Police Record Tech I 5 Prepare Clerk Paperwork Booking 5% 12,518$

Police Record Tech I 5Provide Info to Police Officers/Parents/Public Booking 10% 25,037$

Police Record Tech I 5Criminal Background Check for Parent/Guardian Booking 5% 12,518$

Police Record Tech I 5Proofread Arrest Affidavit(s) from officers Booking 20% 44,582$

Police Record Tech I 5 Generate JAC numbers/case numbers Booking 20% 44,582$

Police Record Tech I 5 Verify subject(s) Criminal History Booking 10% 22,291$

Police Record Tech I 5 PID (Positive Identification) Booking 10% 22,291$

Police Record Tech I 5 Provide Info to LEO's & general Public Booking 10% 22,291$

Juvenile Services Specialist 5 Working with Law Enforcement Booking 5% 13,617$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Officer Consultation Booking 10% 14,345$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Client/Police/Staff Consultation Booking 5% 6,862$

AO3/ Acting Manager 1Oversee the following units: facilities, personnel, procurement and records Booking 40% 39,811$

AO3/ Acting Manager 1Serve as Liaison for FDLE and CJ's working group meeting Booking 20% 19,905$

Records Supervisor 1Civil Citation-Check Fingerprints cards for ID to vendors Booking 10% 7,516$

Records Supervisor 1Process name changes/DOB changes for COC Booking 10% 7,516$

Records Supervisor 1 Run Criminal History for clients Booking 10% 7,516$

Captain (Project Manager) 1 Supervise booking process Booking 10% 3,373$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Booking Booking 15% 88,320$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Finger printing Booking 5% 29,440$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Booking Booking 20% 117,761$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6Telephone calls - parents, youth, programs Booking 15% 46,907$

Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2 Baker Act Booking 4% 8,343$

Office Support Spec. II 1Sort finger print cards for all case workers Booking 5% 1,740$

Sergeant (Wackenhut)) 1 Booking Booking 3% 2,708$

Police Record Tech I 5 Prepare packages for COC Booking 10% 22,291$

Police Record Tech I 5Conduct criminal background checks for Parent/Guardian Booking 5% 11,146$

Secretary 1 Assist fingerprinting of clients Booking 3% 1,636$

Booking 775,786$

Case Manager - South Office 6 Intake with youth & parents Case Management 10% 45,095$

SUB-TOTAL

SUB-TOTAL

22



Case Manager - South Office 6 Assessments & TASC Files Case Management 26% 117,246$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Assess/Interview Clients Case Management 6% 18,763$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Civil Citation, YOP, TASC, PAO process Case Management 5% 15,636$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Client Intake/CBO assignment Case Management 3% 9,828$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Family Intake Assessment Case Management 25% 93,630$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Computer chronos/progress report Case Management 15% 56,178$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Contact families Case Management 10% 5,212$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Print off-site referrals Case Management 5% 2,606$

Police Record Tech I 5 Seal/Unseal Records Case Management 2% 5,007$

Juvenile Services Specialist 5 Review Packages, follow ups Case Management 15% 40,850$

Case Manager - South Office 6 Referrals to Agencies & Contacts Case Management 5% 22,547$

Case Manager - South Office 6 Monitor youth Case Management 15% 67,642$

Case Manager - South Office 6Contact Victims & obtaining restitution payments Case Management 1% 4,509$

Case Manager - South Office 6 Make home, field, school visits Case Management 10% 45,095$

Case Manager - South Office 6 Meet with CBOS & counselors Case Management 5% 22,547$

Case Manager - South Office 6 Work with parents in resolving problems Case Management 5% 22,547$

Case Manager - South Office 6 Make recommendations to SAO Case Management 5% 22,547$

Case Manager - South Office 6Documentation of all contacts & activities & closing Case Management 15% 67,642$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Assess/Interview Clients Case Management 7% 21,890$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Home visits-CBO visits, school visits Case Management 15% 46,907$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6Telephone calls - parents, youth, programs Case Management 15% 46,907$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Misc (Filing, fax, organizing) Case Management 10% 31,271$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Chronos - computer task Case Management 10% 31,271$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Translate/Restitution Case Management 5% 15,636$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Weekly and monthly report Case Management 5% 15,636$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Civil Citation, YOP, TASC, PAO process Case Management 5% 15,636$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Make presentations - Community Case Management 5% 15,636$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Training (DJJ, YOP, TASC, meetings) Case Management 10% 31,271$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Weekly Parent Contact Visits Case Management 30% 117,938$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Weekly Client Contact Visits Case Management 35% 137,594$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Field note updates & input Case Management 15% 58,969$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Weekly telephone Surveillance Case Management 5% 19,656$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Case closures Case Management 2% 7,863$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Case file monthly progress report update Case Management 2% 7,863$

23



Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Monthly CBO staffings Case Management 2% 7,863$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 CBO follow up Case Management 2% 7,863$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Family Intake Assessment Case Management 25% 93,630$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Field Visits Case Management 25% 93,630$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Computer chronos/progress report Case Management 15% 56,178$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Translating Case Management 2% 7,490$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Close cases Case Management 2% 7,490$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Victim contract Case Management 2% 7,490$

Social Worker II 3 Review approx. 180 files monthly Case Management 50% 123,710$

Social Worker II 3 Review and approve cases Case Management 20% 49,484$

Social Worker II 3 Attend monthly CBO Meetings Case Management 1% 2,474$

Social Worker II 3 Assign staff to difficult cases Case Management 2% 4,948$

Social Worker II 3 2 weeks review/daily-paper work Case Management 9% 22,268$

Social Services Supervisor 1 Assign Cases Case Management 20% 15,032$

Social Services Supervisor 1 Review cases in closures Case Management 15% 11,274$

Social Services Supervisor 1 Review staff cases Case Management 20% 15,032$

Social Services Supervisor 1 Close Cases Case Management 10% 7,516$

Social Services Supervisor 1 Conduct Monthly Meetings Case Management 4% 3,006$

Social Services Supervisor 1 Miscellaneous Case Management 10% 7,516$

Social Services Sup. I 1 Assign Cases Case Management 20% 13,724$

Social Services Sup. I 1 Review/close cases/SAO Recs Case Management 20% 13,724$

Social Services Sup. I 1 Young offenders prgm/data collection Case Management 10% 6,862$

Social Services Sup. I 1 Staff cases w/staff & SAO Case Management 10% 6,862$ Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2

Consultation with staff & parents/guardian Case Management 4% 8,343$

Social Worker Aide 1 Monitor Exp Case Management 5% 2,499$

Social Worker Aide 1 Home Visits Case Management 20% 9,996$

Social Worker Aide 1 School Visits Case Management 20% 9,996$

Social Worker Aide 1 Office Visits Case Management 5% 2,499$

Social Worker Aide 1 Send out jeopardy letters Case Management 4% 1,999$

Social Worker Aide 1 Email supervisor weekly case load Case Management 5% 2,499$

Social Worker Aide 1 Email supervisor monthly case load Case Management 5% 2,499$

Social Worker Aide 1 Update case files Case Management 5% 2,499$

Social Worker Aide 1 Monitor cases Case Management 30% 14,995$

Social Worker Aide 1 Monitor restitutions Case Management 1% 500$

24



Office Support Specialist II 2 Input cases Case Management 20% 15,007$

Office Support Specialist II 2 Translation Case Management 1% 750$

Office Support Spec. II 1Make completion letter for civil citation program Case Management 2% 696$

Office Support Spec. II 1 Make completion letters for PAD Case Management 10% 3,481$

Office Support Spec. II 1 Create Expungement Package for PAD Case Management 5% 1,740$

Juvenile Services Specialist 3 Liaison between TASC & JPO Case Management 10% 18,726$

Juvenile Services Specialist 3 Scheduling appointments Case Management 5% 9,363$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Assign cases to assessor Case Management 5% 2,606$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Complete all recommendations to SAO Case Management 20% 10,424$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Contact families Case Management 10% 5,212$

Clinical Director 1 Clinical Activities Case Management 10% 8,903$

Case Management 2,027,373$

Juvenile Services Specialist 5 Assess mental/emotional needs Intake 15% 40,850$

Juvenile Services Specialist 5 First Line of Contact Intake 10% 27,233$

Juvenile Services Specialist 5 Assess mental/emotional needs Intake 5% 13,617$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Assessing Intake 20% 45,594$

Secretary 1 Enter updates and maintain daily logs Intake 15% 8,511$

Captain (Project Manager) 1 Supervise of intake process Juveniles Intake 10% 3,373$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Intake Intake 15% 88,320$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Pre Entry Search Intake 5% 29,440$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Intake Intake 20% 117,761$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Assess/Interview Clients Intake 7% 21,890$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Family Intake Assessment Intake 25% 93,630$ Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2 Crisis Intervention Intake 10% 20,858$

Sergeant (Wackenhut)) 1 Intake Intake 3% 2,708$

Intake 513,785$

Police Record Tech I 5Misc. (General Clerical Duties/Assist Staff)

Management & Operational Support 5% 12,518$

Police Record Tech I 5 Correct/Verify ErrorsManagement & Operational

Support 4% 10,015$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 PayrollManagement & Operational

Support 2% 2,869$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Supervise/EvaluationsManagement & Operational

Support 22% 31,559$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Payroll and AttendanceManagement & Operational

Support 5% 6,862$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Supervising Staff/OperationsManagement & Operational

Support 10% 13,724$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Completing Staff EvaluationsManagement & Operational

Support 10% 13,724$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Attend Management MeetingsManagement & Operational

Support 15% 20,587$

SUB-TOTAL

SUB-TOTAL

25



Office Support Specialist II 2 Help client with fingerprintManagement & Operational

Support 3% 2,505$

Office Support Specialist II 2 Make files for JASManagement & Operational

Support 30% 25,046$

Office Support Specialist II 2 Operational supportManagement & Operational

Support 5% 4,174$ Administrative Office II - Procurement 1 Purchase goods & services


Administrative Office II - Procurement 1

Prepare contract (ITB,SERV, AGR,LFP,RFQ)


Administrative Office II - Procurement 1 Review contracts



Plan, organize, analyze, research info to procure goods and serv.



Plans, review, assign work to subordinates


Administrative Office II - Procurement 1 Prepare travel request & expense report


Administrative Office II - Procurement 1 Review /Audit Travel


Administrative Office II - Procurement 1 Prepare/Audit Credit Card


Administrative Office II - Procurement 1 Asst. w/special Projects (VIP)



(development) implementation policies & procedures


AO III 1 Conduct JSD Capital Inventory for GSAManagement & Operational

Support 5% 4,323$

AO III 1Coordinate Facility needs with GSA and vendors


AO III 1Coordinate all work orders/service tickets with GSA


AO III 1Coordinate work orders/service tickets with ETSD


AO III 1 Safety issuesManagement & Operational

Support 5% 4,323$

AO III 1 General AdministrationManagement & Operational

Support 15% 12,969$

AO III 1(ATC) other service needs security system


AO III 1Provide support to operations staff-/shift comm.


Clerk IV 1 Daily facility checkManagement & Operational

Support 20% 9,781$

Clerk IV 1 Inventory suppliesManagement & Operational

Support 10% 4,891$

Clerk IV 1 Maintain department vehiclesManagement & Operational

Support 10% 4,891$

Clerk IV 1 Purchase supplies for departmentManagement & Operational

Support 30% 14,672$

Clerk IV 1 Report meter readings to vendorManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,445$

Clerk IV 1 Issue supplies to employeesManagement & Operational

Support 15% 7,336$

Clerk IV 1 Pick-up parking stickersManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,445$

Clerk IV 1 Pick-up supplies for DepartmentManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,445$

AO3/ Acting Manager 1Oversee the following units: facilities, personnel, procurement and records


AO3/ Acting Manager 1 Services as DPRManagement & Operational

Support 40% 39,811$

QA Coordination 1Conduct Quality Assurance Reviews of programs: JASP, TDDS, TASC, JAC


Social Services Supervisor I 1 Attend MeetingsManagement & Operational

Support 10% 9,067$

Social Services Supervisor I 1 Administrative DutiesManagement & Operational

Support 20% 18,134$

26



Social Services Supervisor I 1 Supervise StaffManagement & Operational

Support 20% 18,134$

Social Services Supervisor I 1 Attend TrainingsManagement & Operational

Support 10% 9,067$

Records Supervisor 1 DJJ Background checksManagement & Operational

Support 10% 7,516$

Records Supervisor 1Update/reports daily, assign JAC's reset password

Management & Operational Support 1% 752$

Records Supervisor 1 CRS Administrator backupManagement & Operational

Support 10% 7,516$

Records Supervisor 1 Staff evaluations as requiredManagement & Operational

Support 2% 1,503$

Office Support Spec. II 1 Make files for intake and screeningManagement & Operational

Support 3% 1,044$

Office Support Spec. II 1Help supervisors with any task (samples: restocking supplies/transfer paper work)


Office Support Spec. II 1 SHO, SIB rec.Management & Operational

Support 3% 1,044$

Personnel Specialist II 1 Recruitment ActivitiesManagement & Operational

Support 20% 15,032$

Personnel Specialist II 1 Payroll ActivitiesManagement & Operational

Support 40% 30,063$

Personnel Specialist II 1 Benefits/Liaison w/GSAManagement & Operational

Support 5% 3,758$

Personnel Specialist II 1 Maintain T.O., ensure accuracyManagement & Operational

Support 5% 3,758$

Personnel Specialist II 1 FMLA - billing/hire/etcManagement & Operational

Support 5% 3,758$

Personnel Specialist II 1 Process EvaluationsManagement & Operational

Support 3% 1,879$

Personnel Specialist II 1 Assist DPRManagement & Operational

Support 10% 7,516$

Personnel Specialist II 1 Attend MeetingsManagement & Operational

Support 5% 3,758$

Secretary 1 Take minutes for staff meetingsManagement & Operational

Support 10% 5,674$

Secretary 1Assist Deputy Director, routing info, research, organization


Secretary 1 Notify supervisors of evaluations dueManagement & Operational

Support 10% 5,674$

Secretary 1 Type correspondenceManagement & Operational

Support 10% 5,674$

Secretary 1 Make sure TASC Files are madeManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,837$

Secretary 1Assist Clinical Director, various assignments


Captain (Project Manager) 1 Ordering of suppliesManagement & Operational

Support 5% 1,686$

Captain (Project Manager) 1 Process payroll and staffing recordsManagement & Operational

Support 5% 1,686$

Captain (Project Manager) 1 General Management and SupervisionManagement & Operational

Support 10% 3,373$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 SurveillanceManagement & Operational

Support 20% 117,761$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Presentation - CommunityManagement & Operational

Support 5% 15,636$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Trainings (DJJ, YOP, TASC, meetings)Management & Operational

Support 10% 31,271$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Computer chronos/progress reportManagement & Operational

Support 15% 56,178$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 TranslatingManagement & Operational

Support 2% 7,490$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Victim contactManagement & Operational

Support 2% 7,490$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 MiscellaneousManagement & Operational

Support 10% 37,452$

Social Worker II 3 Supervise staffManagement & Operational

Support 14% 34,639$

27



Social Worker II 3 Complete PAR/time sheetManagement & Operational

Support 1% 2,474$

Social Worker II 3 Monthly staff meeting/documentManagement & Operational

Support 1% 2,474$

Social Worker II 3 Compile Monthly Statistics of StaffManagement & Operational

Support 2% 4,948$

Social Worker II 3 Assist Supervisor w/assignmentsManagement & Operational

Support 1% 2,474$

Social Worker II 3 Attend weekly meeting w/directorManagement & Operational

Support 1% 2,474$

Social Services Supervisor 1 Conduct Monthly MeetingsManagement & Operational

Support 4% 3,006$

Social Services Supervisor 1 Audit DJJ Face SheetsManagement & Operational

Support 3% 2,255$

Social Services Supervisor 1 Employee EvaluationManagement & Operational

Support 3% 2,255$

Social Services Supervisor 1 Supervise StaffManagement & Operational

Support 10% 7,516$

Social Services Supervisor 1 MiscellaneousManagement & Operational

Support 10% 7,516$

Social Services Sup. I 1 Supervise StaffManagement & Operational

Support 5% 3,431$

Social Services Sup. I 1 Payroll Management & Operational

Support 2% 1,372$

Social Services Sup. I 1 Employee EvaluationManagement & Operational

Support 3% 2,059$

Social Services Sup. I 1 Attend MeetingsManagement & Operational

Support 10% 6,862$

Social Services Sup. I 1 Miscellaneous Management & Operational

Support 15% 10,293$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 Supervise MHAManagement & Operational

Support 20% 20,858$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 TASC Files RevisionManagement & Operational

Support 10% 10,429$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 Case StaffingManagement & Operational

Support 10% 10,429$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 Work with JSD PartnersManagement & Operational

Support 5% 5,215$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 Complete Payroll/Prepare ReportManagement & Operational

Support 5% 5,215$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 Do Evaluations & MiscellaneousManagement & Operational

Support 10% 10,429$ Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2

TASC Files Reviewed & Provide Feedback


Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2 Oversee Intern Performance


Office Support Spec. II 2 Greeting clientManagement & Operational

Support 10% 7,504$

Office Support Spec. II 2 Answer phoneManagement & Operational

Support 20% 15,007$

Office Support Spec. II 2 Answer E-mailManagement & Operational

Support 2% 1,501$

Office Support Spec. II 2 Open mailManagement & Operational

Support 2% 1,501$

Office Support Spec. II 2 General clerical dutiesManagement & Operational

Support 10% 7,504$

Office Support Spec. II 1 Create civil citations files for new casesManagement & Operational

Support 20% 6,962$

Office Support Spec. II 1 Prepare all cases to be assignedManagement & Operational

Support 10% 3,481$

Office Support Spec. II 1Provide packages for JSD Initiative Program for MDPD


Juvenile Services Specialist 3 Intern SupervisionManagement & Operational

Support 9% 16,853$

Juvenile Services Specialist 3 Attend MeetingsManagement & Operational

Support 5% 9,363$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Coordinate Civil Citation Program


28



Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Miscellaneous


Grants Manager 1 Monitor Grants Management & Operational

Support 25% 14,248$

Grants Manager 1 Prepare ReportsManagement & Operational

Support 20% 11,399$

Grants Manager 1 Prepare InvoicesManagement & Operational

Support 20% 11,399$

Grants Manager 1 Search for grants/funding opportunitiesManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,850$

Grants Manager 1 Review contract performance objectivesManagement & Operational

Support 20% 11,399$

Grants Manager 1 Other admin dutiesManagement & Operational

Support 10% 5,699$

Public Policy Analyst 1 Oversee technology relationsManagement & Operational

Support 10% 8,247$

Public Policy Analyst 1 Employee motivation programManagement & Operational

Support 10% 8,247$

Clerk IV 1 Process invoices for paymentManagement & Operational

Support 80% 39,126$

Clerk IV 1 Fiscal/budget preparationManagement & Operational

Support 10% 4,891$

Clerk IV 1 procurement activitiesManagement & Operational

Support 10% 4,891$

Exec Asst to Director 1 Ensure general dept. guidelines are metManagement & Operational

Support 20% 23,458$

Exec Asst to Director 1 Supervise director's office staffManagement & Operational

Support 15% 17,593$

Exec Asst to Director 1 Manage technology needs of dept.Management & Operational

Support 20% 23,458$

Exec Asst to Director 1 Coordinate managersManagement & Operational

Support 10% 11,729$

Exec Asst to Director 1 Disseminate public information Management & Operational

Support 20% 23,458$

Clinical Director 1 Supervising Staff/OperationsManagement & Operational

Support 50% 44,517$

Clinical Director 1 MeetingsManagement & Operational

Support 30% 26,710$

Sr.Exec Secretary 1 Assist the director w/ day to dayManagement & Operational

Support 20% 17,291$

Sr.Exec Secretary 1Maintain director's calendar, meetings, etc.


Sr.Exec Secretary 1 Supervise director's office staffManagement & Operational

Support 15% 12,969$

Sr.Exec Secretary 1 Assist dept. employeesManagement & Operational

Support 5% 4,323$

Sr.Exec Secretary 1 Manually record staff meeting minutesManagement & Operational

Support 10% 8,646$

Sr.Exec Secretary 1 Maintain dept. evaluationManagement & Operational

Support 5% 4,323$

Sr.Exec Secretary 1 Supervise secretary in director's officeManagement & Operational

Support 5% 4,323$

Accountant 1 Fiscal ManagementManagement & Operational

Support 50% 39,463$

Accountant 1 BudgetManagement & Operational

Support 20% 15,785$

Accountant 1 SupervisionManagement & Operational

Support 20% 15,785$

Accountant 1 Other Management & Operational

Support 10% 7,893$

Manager Budget + Fiscal 1 Oversee all fiscal activitiesManagement & Operational

Support 10% 10,297$

Manager Budget + Fiscal 1 Monthly fiscal reviewManagement & Operational

Support 10% 10,297$

Manager Budget + Fiscal 1 Grants reviewManagement & Operational

Support 10% 10,297$

Manager Budget + Fiscal 1 BudgetManagement & Operational

Support 60% 61,784$

29



Manager Budget + Fiscal 1 ProjectionsManagement & Operational

Support 10% 10,297$

Secretary 1 Filing Management & Operational

Support 15% 7,871$

Secretary 1 Data entryManagement & Operational

Support 60% 31,484$

Secretary 1 MiscellaneousManagement & Operational

Support 10% 5,247$

Secretary 1 Answer & Direct callsManagement & Operational

Support 25% 11,222$

Secretary 1 Filing Management & Operational

Support 15% 6,733$

Secretary 1 Type memos, letters as neededManagement & Operational

Support 15% 6,733$

Secretary 1 Prepare daily reportManagement & Operational

Support 10% 4,489$

Secretary 1 Prepare PARManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,244$

Secretary 1 Schedule meetingsManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,244$

Secretary 1 Process employee evaluationsManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,244$

Secretary 1 Prepare minutesManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,244$

Secretary 1 Order + stock office suppliesManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,244$

Secretary 1 Misc.Management & Operational

Support 10% 4,489$ AO2/Public Policy Coordinator 1 Update scorecard


AO2/Public Policy Coordinator 1 Technical liaison


Clerk IV 1 Create & edit monthly newsletterManagement & Operational

Support 40% 18,808$

Clerk IV 1 Oversee employee recognition programManagement & Operational

Support 30% 14,106$

Clerk IV 1 Update & maintain dept. websiteManagement & Operational

Support 15% 7,053$

Clerk IV 1 Update & maintain 311 informationManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,351$

Deputy Director 1 Supervise management operations staffManagement & Operational

Support 70% 96,584$

Deputy Director 1Conduct & facilitate department meetings


Deputy Director 1Develop/implement policies related to juvenile justice


Deputy Director 1Participate in community meetings w/ providers


Deputy Director 1Review internal process to identify best practices


Deputy Director 1 Plan, direct, coordinate processesManagement & Operational

Support 10% 13,798$

Sergeant (Wackenhut)) 1 Daily PaperworkManagement & Operational

Support 15% 13,539$

Sergeant (Wackenhut)) 1 Supervision of staffManagement & Operational

Support 44% 39,715$

Sergeant (Wackenhut)) 1 Staff signing inManagement & Operational

Support 5% 4,513$

Sergeant (Wackenhut)) 1 Assigning duties to staffManagement & Operational

Support 10% 9,026$

Sergeant (Wackenhut)) 1 Ordering foodManagement & Operational

Support 2% 1,805$

Sergeant (Wackenhut)) 1 Arrange transportsManagement & Operational

Support 6% 5,416$

Sergeant (Wackenhut)) 1 Preview completed foldersManagement & Operational

Support 10% 9,026$

Director 1 Manage JSDManagement & Operational

Support 100% 215,074$

30



Police Record Tech I 5 Misc (General Clerical duties/Assist StaffManagement & Operational

Support 5% 11,146$

Secretary 1 Mail distribution for entire departmentManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,727$

Secretary 1 Mail out intake/access most lettersManagement & Operational

Support 25% 13,633$

Secretary 1 Maintain personnel filesManagement & Operational

Support 40% 21,813$

Secretary 1 Maintain a report for intake/accessManagement & Operational

Support 10% 5,453$

Secretary 1 Meet and greet clientsManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,727$

Secretary 1 Make task foldersManagement & Operational

Support 3% 1,636$

Secretary 1 Type memos, letters as neededManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,727$

Secretary 1 Screen telephone callsManagement & Operational

Support 3% 1,636$

Secretary 1Miscellaneous duties (distribution) of paychecks, payroll etc.


Secretary 1Other miscellaneous and special assignments


Clerk III Records 1 MiscellaneousManagement & Operational

Support 5% 2,353$

Management & Operational Support 2,413,006$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Triage/Court Logs/Shift ReportsPerformance Analysis & Data

Reporting 15% 21,518$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Triaging cases/courts logsPerformance Analysis & Data


Office Support Spec. II 1Enter client information for SFPC (TASC)

Performance Analysis & Data Reporting 75% 26,107$

Office Support Spec. II 1 Send unified family court rec.Performance Analysis & Data

Reporting 3% 1,044$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Client Intake/CBO assignmentPerformance Analysis & Data

Reporting 3% 9,828$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Monthly DJJ progress meetingsPerformance Analysis & Data

Reporting 2% 7,863$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Ongoing updating of filesPerformance Analysis & Data


Social Services Supervisor 1 Weekly, Monthly and Quarterly ReportsPerformance Analysis & Data

Reporting 5% 3,758$

Social Services Sup. I 1Weekly/Monthly/Quarterly/Yearly Report


Social Services Sup. I 1 Young offenders prgm/data collection Performance Analysis & Data


Office Support Spec. II 2 Process restitution paymentPerformance Analysis & Data


Office Support Spec. II 2 Report (weekly, monthly, quarterly)Performance Analysis & Data


Office Support Spec. II 1Enter Data for State Attorney's offices, transmittal log


Juvenile Services Specialist 3 Prepare reportsPerformance Analysis & Data

Reporting 6% 11,236$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Provide weekly & monthly reports


Public Policy Analyst 1 Prepare ReportsPerformance Analysis & Data


Public Policy Analyst 1 Fill Data RequestsPerformance Analysis & Data

Reporting 5% 4,124$

Public Policy Analyst 1 Create PresentationsPerformance Analysis & Data


Public Policy Analyst 1 Create community information handoutsPerformance Analysis & Data

Reporting 5% 4,124$

Public Policy Analyst 1 Analyze performancePerformance Analysis & Data


SUB-TOTAL

31



Public Policy Analyst 1 Researcher relationsPerformance Analysis & Data

Reporting 5% 4,124$

Exec Asst to Director 1Manage dissemination of statistical reports


AO2/Public Policy Coordinator 1 Run reports


AO2/Public Policy Coordinator 1 Prepare presentations for director


AO2/Public Policy Coordinator 1 Provide data upon request


AO2/Public Policy Coordinator 1 Analyze data


Clerk IV 1 Assist w/ the research unitPerformance Analysis & Data


QA Coordinator 1 Prepare Quarterly ReportPerformance Analysis & Data


QA Coordinator 1 Prepare Monthly ReportPerformance Analysis & Data

Reporting 5% 3,586$

Performance Analysis & Data Reporting 325,834$

Special Projects Adm 1 External meetings Prevention 30% 24,742$

Special Projects Adm 1 School Presentations Prevention 10% 8,247$

Special Projects Adm 1 Program development-written Prevention 10% 8,247$

Special Projects Adm 1 Presentation development Prevention 5% 4,124$

Special Projects Adm 1 Program development Prevention 25% 20,618$

Special Projects Adm 1 Internal Meetings, memos, supervision Prevention 20% 16,495$

Prevention 82,473$

Juvenile Services Specialist 5 Calculating the points Release/Detain 5% 13,617$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Processing Release/Detain 10% 28,692$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4Translating /answering phone calls/ customer service Release/Detain 4% 11,477$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4Liaison-between parents and other providers * agencies Release/Detain 5% 14,346$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Processing Release/Detain 10% 32,989$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4Liaison between parents and all Agencies & Providers Release/Detain 8% 24,742$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Prepare packets for court Release/Detain 10% 19,917$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Lead worker when supervisor is out Release/Detain 5% 9,958$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Make recommendations to SAO/CBO Release/Detain 8% 19,656$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Contact Parents/Release or Detain Release/Detain 8% 19,656$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Make packets for DJJ/Court Staff Release/Detain 8% 19,656$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Review Cases Release/Detain 15% 21,518$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Shelter Placement Release/Detain 2% 2,869$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Review completed cases/files Release/Detain 20% 27,449$

Social Services Supervisor I 1 Triage Cases intake& screening Release/Detain 20% 18,134$

Captain (Project Manager) 1 Supervise release process Release/Detain 10% 3,373$

Captain (Project Manager) 1 Supervise transportation Release/Detain 10% 3,373$

Subtotal

Subtotal

32



Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Transportation Release/Detain 10% 58,880$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Release Release/Detain 10% 58,880$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Transportation Release/Detain 20% 117,761$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Release Release/Detain 20% 117,761$

Release/Detain 644,702$

Police Record Tech I 5 Quality Control (Records) Records Management 10% 25,037$

Police Record Tech I 5 Quality Control Records Management 10% 22,291$

Juvenile Services Specialist 5 Documentation Records Management 5% 13,617$

Office Support Spec. II 2 Pull files Records Management 20% 16,698$

Office Support Spec. II 2 Log files Records Management 10% 8,349$

Office Support Spec. II 2 Transfer files from warehouse Records Management 2% 1,670$

Office Support Spec. II 2 Purge files Records Management 30% 25,046$

AO3/ Acting Manager 1Oversee the following units: facilities, personnel, procurement and records Records Management 40% 39,811$

Records Supervisor 1Coordinate shredding, movement of boxes Records Management 5% 3,758$

Records Supervisor 1 Payroll for staff (5 People) Records Management 2% 1,503$

Records Supervisor 1 Login files Records Management 10% 7,516$

Records Supervisor 1 General Management Records Records Management 30% 22,547$

Office Support Spec. II 1Send client information to DJJ for prob. Officers Records Management 10% 3,481$

Office Support Spec. II 1 Store all refuse TASC files Records Management 3% 1,044$

Clerk III Records 1 Track Records Records Management 10% 4,705$

Clerk III Records 1 Filing Records Management 10% 4,705$

Clerk III Records 1 Keeping logs Records Management 20% 9,411$

Clerk III Records 1 Courier Page Records Management 3% 1,412$

Clerk III Records 1 Login files Records Management 15% 7,058$

Clerk III Records 1 Prepare TASC Files Records Management 7% 3,294$

Clerk III Records 1 Process Pad Bounce out Records Management 5% 2,353$

Juvenile Detention Officer 8 Report Writing Records Management 10% 58,880$ Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2

TASC Files Reviewed & Provide Feedback Records Management 20% 41,717$

Office Support Spec. II 1Keep all successful and unsuccessful cases in order Records Management 10% 3,481$

Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Assign cases to assessor Records Management 5% 2,606$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Track A-form from the field Records Management 5% 2,606$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Open & close cases Records Management 20% 10,424$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1

Staff cases w/supervisors, assessors case workers Records Management 5% 2,606$

Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Entry of all cases Records Management 5% 2,606$

Subtotal

33



Referral Reduction Coordinator 1 Link B/W SAO & Case Managers Records Management 5% 2,606$

Secretary 1 Separating according to referral Records Management 15% 7,871$

Records Management 360,706$

Juvenile Services Specialist 5Intervening/Counseling. Youth & Families Secondary Screening 20% 54,466$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Processing cases (Intake screening) Secondary Screening 50% 113,986$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4Meet with the youth and input their information Secondary Screening 45% 89,626$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4Call youth's parents & inform them of youth's charges & status Secondary Screening 25% 49,792$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Identify the youth (search ) Secondary Screening 5% 13,104$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Identify the youth's past criminal records Secondary Screening 8% 20,967$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Input new changes (LEO A form) Secondary Screening 20% 52,417$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Contact Parents/Release or Detain Secondary Screening 8% 19,656$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Make packets for DJJ/Court Staff Secondary Screening 8% 19,656$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Process cases as needed Secondary Screening 5% 6,862$

Juvenile Services Specialist 5 Processing , JJS, PAD, TASC, Diversion Secondary Screening 20% 54,466$

Police Record Tech I 5 Verify subject(s) Criminal History Secondary Screening 8% 18,777$

Juvenile Services Specialist 5 Checking DCF & FSFN Secondary Screening 5% 13,617$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Processing Secondary Screening 35% 100,421$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Processing Secondary Screening 35% 115,462$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Triage/Court Logs/Shift Reports Secondary Screening 15% 21,518$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Triaging cases/courts logs Secondary Screening 10% 13,724$

Office Support Spec. II 1 Send unified family court rec. Secondary Screening 3% 1,044$

Clerk III Records 1 Processing Letter for Immigration Secondary Screening 15% 7,058$

Clerk III Records 1 Background checks for immigration Secondary Screening 20% 9,411$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 Telephone calls Secondary Screening 10% 37,452$

Juvenile Services Specialist 6 SAO Rec. Package Review Secondary Screening 2% 7,490$

Office Support Spec. II 1Provide Information on cases through rite-track Secondary Screening 5% 1,740$

Secondary Screening 842,712$

Police Record Tech I 5 Train new employee(s) Training 4% 10,015$

Juvenile Services Specialist 4 Training Training 5% 11,399$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Staff Meeting (Attend /Conduct) Training 2% 2,869$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Conduct staff meetings/trainings Training 5% 6,862$

Social Services Supervisor I 2 Attend mandatory trainings Training 5% 6,862$

AO III 1Conduct Protective Action training/testing Training 15% 12,969$

AO III 1Conduct Protective Action Response - updates Training 5% 4,323$

Subtotal

Subtotal

34



AO3/ Acting Manager 1Oversees the following units facility, personnel, procurement and records Training 40% 39,811$

AO3/ Acting Manager 1 Serve as DPR Training 40% 39,811$

AO3/ Acting Manager 1Serve as Liaison for FDLE and CJ's working group meeting Training 20% 19,905$

Social Services Supervisor I 1Coordinate Trainings/Maintain Training Records Training 20% 18,134$

Personnel Specialist II 1 Schedule Training w/Career Dev. Training 5% 3,758$

Secretary 1 Maintain training files Training 15% 8,511$

Secretary 1Assist Training Spec. (SSI) various assignments Training 15% 8,511$

Captain (Project Manager) 1 Training of new employees Training 5% 1,686$

Captain (Project Manager) 1 Maintain Training Records Training 5% 1,686$

Captain (Project Manager) 1 Conduct in-house training Training 15% 5,059$

Case Manager - South Office 6 Training /Meetings Training 3% 13,528$

Social Services Supervisor II 1 Develop & Provide Training to Staff Training 20% 20,858$ Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2

Provide Training to JSD staff/Wackenhut Training 4% 8,343$

Mental Health Assessment Specialist 2 Develop Mental Health Training Training 4% 8,343$

Juvenile Services Specialist 3 Mental Health Training Development Training 5% 9,363$

Juvenile Services Specialist 3 Provide Training Training 5% 9,363$ Referral Reduction Coordinator 1

Train all Miami-Dade County Police Department Training 5% 2,606$

Sergeant (Wackenhut) 1 Train new staff Training 2% 1,805$

Training 276,382$

9,203,977$ Total Activity Cost

Subtotal

35

36

Appendix III: Arrest Rate Calculations

37

APPENDIX III: ARREST RATE CALCULATIONS JSD commenced its operation in 1997; between 1998 and 2007, juvenile arrests in Miami-Dade County declined by 41 percent. Many factors, including the development and implementation of JSD’s innovative service delivery model, may have played a role in this drop; however, a detailed statistical analysis of the reasons for this decline was beyond the scope of this study. In the absence of statistically conclusive data, OSBM framed the analysis under the following three scenarios:

Scenario Assumption Comments A JSD had no impact on the 41 percent decline

in juvenile arrests Represents the null hypothesis

B JSD had a significant impact on the 41 percent decline in juvenile arrests

OSBM’s best estimate. See insert, “A Note on Arrest Rates,” for details.

C JSD is completely responsible for the 41 percent decline in juvenile arrests

Adjusted solely for growth in Miami-Dade County’s under-18 population

Each of these three scenarios resulted in a distinct escalation rate, which was then applied to certain cost centers to estimate the financial impact if JSD did not exist. Scenario A

Scenario A assumes that JSD did not play a role in the 41 percent decline in juvenile arrests between 1998 and 2007; rather, other independent factors caused the decline. Consequently, under Scenario A:

Ø The assumption is that if JSD had not been created, juvenile arrests in Miami-Dade County would still have declined by 41 percent between 1998 and 2007.

Ø Viewed another way, in order to estimate the financial impact of this Scenario, OSBM would not have to adjust any current costs.

Scenario B

Scenario B assumes that JSD had a significant, but not total, impact on the 41 percent drop. To estimate how many juveniles might have been arrested in 2007 if JSD had not been created, the number of juvenile arrests in 1998 were adjusted for three factors, calculated over the same approximate time period: the

1998 200716532 9750

Source: JSD

Juvenile Arrests in Miami-Dade County

All Residents Under 18

2000 2,253,362 557,259 2006 2,402,208 573,151

Growth Factor 1.066 1.029Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Miami-Dade County Population

38

increase in Miami-Dade County’s juvenile population; the decrease in juvenile arrests throughout the state of Florida (excluding Miami-Dade); and the decrease in adult arrests in Miami-Dade County.

Population Growth

Juvenile population data for Miami-Dade County was available from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2000 and 20061. Over the six year period, the County’s juvenile population rose by 2.9 percent (see table on the previous page), more slowly than total population. A growth factor of 1.029 was then applied to the 1998 juvenile arrest rate, resulting in an adjusted arrest rate of 17,003. In other words, if it had been possible to “freeze” society such that nothing other than population growth had transpired between 1998 and 2007, one would expect the 2007 juvenile arrest rate to be close to this adjusted number.

Juvenile Arrests Throughout Florida

According to data provided by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, between 1998 and 2007, juvenile arrests in Florida (exclusive of Miami-Dade County) declined by less than one percent (or a factor of .998).2 For the purposes of this analysis, OSBM assumed that any regional socioeconomic trends that lowered juvenile arrest rates statewide would also have affected arrest patterns locally. Put another way, it was assumed that even if JSD had not been created in 1997, juvenile arrest rates would probably have declined very slightly anyway due to statewide trends. Applying this factor to the previously adjusted figure results in an adjusted 1998 juvenile arrest rate of 16,961.

1 Juvenile population data was not available for years prior to 2000 or after 2006. OSBM did not attempt to extrapolate population trends for the full nine year period, since it could not be concluded that changes were linear. 2 OSBM noted that FDLE juvenile arrest data for Miami-Dade County, derived from Uniform Crime Reports submitted by police agencies, differed significantly from JSD data. For example, FDLE reports that in 1998 there were 20,429 juvenile arrests in Miami-Dade County, whereas JSD reports 16,532 juvenile arrests. To date, OSBM has not yet been able to contact FDLE personnel who would be qualified to address the discrepancy. Nonetheless, FDLE is the only Florida agency identified that maintains a complete data set, inclusive of juvenile and adult arrests by County.

1998 Juvenile Arrests in Miami-Dade County, adjusted for growth in juvenile

population 2000-2006

1998 Juvenile Arrests 16,532

1998 Juvenile Arrests, adjusted for population growth

17,003

Juvenile arrests in Florida (excluding Miami-Dade)

1998 111,259 2007 110,984

Reduction Factor 0.998

Source: FDLE

1998 Juvenile Arrests in Miami-Dade County, adjusted for decline in

juvenile arrests in Florida (excluding Miami-Dade)

1998 Juvenile Arrests, adjusted for population growth

17,003

1998 Juvenile Arrests, adjusted for population growth and decline in statewide juvenile arrests

16,961

39

Adult Arrests in Miami-Dade County

FDLE reports that between 1998 and 2007, adult arrests in Miami-Dade County declined by approximately 10 percent (or a factor of .90). For this analysis, we again assumed that any local trends that lowered arrest rates in Miami-Dade would also have led to fewer juvenile arrests.3

It should be noted that the relationship between adult and juvenile arrest rates is less than clear; in fact, it is possible that JSD efforts have impacted adult arrests. For example, it is conceivable that a declining juvenile arrest rate could result in lower adult arrest rates over time as these juveniles enter adulthood. Additionally, the JSD Director has posited two theories: Ø Until 1998, organized crime operatives used juveniles to commit crimes like

burglary, car theft, drug sales and distribution, etc. After JSD merged several databases and became more effective at identifying the individuals who had committed these crimes, this type of organized crime activity dissipated significantly.

Ø The JSD intake process has significantly reduced the time that police officers spend

“off the street” following an arrest. The resulting increased police presence may have served as a deterrent to adult criminal activity, contributing to the reduction in arrests. (A representative from MDPD concurred with this assumption by the JSD Director.)

However, OSBM has no reliable data that would enable these possible impacts to be quantified. Consequently, a conservative approach was taken and the full reduction factor was applied to the previously adjusted figure, resulting in an adjusted 1998 juvenile arrest rate of 15,301. Taking all of these adjustments into account, under Scenario B:

Ø The assumption is that if JSD had not been created, juvenile arrests in Miami-Dade County would have declined by only seven percent between 1998 and 2007 ([15,301 – 16,532] / 16,532), rather than the actual 41 percent.

3 Conservatively, OSBM also assumed that these local trends were distinct and independent from any factors influencing juvenile arrest rates in the rest of the state.

Adult Arrests in Miami-Dade County (FDLE Data)

1998 136,294

2007 122,953 Reduction

Factor 0.90

1998 Juvenile Arrests in Miami-Dade County, adjusted for decline in adult arrests in

Miami-Dade

2000 Juvenile Arrests, adjusted for population growth and decline in statewide juvenile arrests

16,961

2000 Juvenile Arrests, adjusted for population growth, decline in statewide juvenile arrests and decline in County adult arrests

15,301

40

Ø Viewed another way, in order to estimate the financial impact of this Scenario, certain current costs would have to be adjusted upward by 57 percent ([15,301 – 9,750]/9,750), or a factor of 1.57.

Scenario C

Scenario C assumes that JSD was fully responsible for the 41 percent drop; in other words, no other factors contributed. Under this scenario, the number of juvenile arrests in 1998 was adjusted solely for the growth in Miami-Dade’s juvenile population between 2000 and 2006, resulting in an adjusted figure of 17,003 (as previously detailed under Scenario B). Therefore, under scenario C:

Ø The assumption is that if JSD had not been created, juvenile arrests in Miami-Dade County would have increased by 3 percent between 1998 and 2007 ([17,003 – 16,532] / 16,532).

Ø Viewed another way, in order to estimate the financial impact of this Scenario, certain current costs would have to be adjusted upwards by 74% ([17,003 – 9,750] / 9,750), or a factor of 1.74.

1 | P a g e P r o t e c t i v e A c t i o n R e s p o n s e B r i e f i n g S h e e t

11-29-10

Briefing Report Protective Action Response (PAR)

Contact: Michael McCaffrey

Director, Staff Development and Training

Issue: Governor-Elect Scott’s transition team requested an analysis of the overall cost for Protective Action Response (PAR) and the effectiveness of the program.

Methodology/Justification: The information from this briefing sheet was compiled from fiscal year 09-10 training costs and the fiscal year 09-10 worker’s compensation claims for the Department of Juvenile Justice.

Response: 1. What is the cost to the state and to providers?

PAR certification requires 40 hours of training for Residential and Detention staff or 32 hours for Probation or other non-residential staff. All staff must then complete 8 hours of annual in-service training. PAR instructors must complete the general instructor certification course (64 hours) and the PAR Train-the-Trainer course (80 hours).

The average cost per student for Instructor Techniques is just over $400.00, and the average cost for PAR Train-the-Trainer is just under $500.00. In 2008, providers were given the option to conduct PAR Train-the-Trainer classes at their own location to save them tuition and travel costs.

The average cost for the initial 40/32 hour certification varies greatly because all facilities/programs conduct them on site and, depending on turnover, may do as little as 1 or 2 courses per year. Note: one method of calculating per student cost for a 40-hour course is to take the instructor’s weekly salary and divide it by the number of students in that course.

2. How many FTE’s focus on this? What is that cost?

None. PAR training is a very minor role for our program area staff. Most, if not all of them have full-time duties as direct care staff. Even the contracted instructors within Staff Development and Training spend less than 10% of their time conducting PAR training.

3. Who in the state requires training?

PAR training is required by statute (985.645, F.S.) for all direct care staff. 4. How many training events are held per year? What is the cost?

PAR Train-the-Trainer: 6-8 trainings throughout the state (see cost per student above).

Certification and in-service training as mentioned above are conducted at the facilities/programs and the cost varies greatly (see note above in question 1 bullet 3).

5. How does PAR compare to other nationally recognized standards? Are there other systems that are more effective and cost less?

mailto:[email protected]

2 | P a g e P r o t e c t i v e A c t i o n R e s p o n s e B r i e f i n g S h e e t

11-29-10

There are no nationally recognized standards for verbal and physical intervention programs; however, in speaking with other states’ juvenile justice training staff, PAR compares favorably with other similar programs. In fact, the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice recently implemented PAR after they attended training and heard the success of our program.

6. Has DJJ done a cost benefit analysis to determine that PAR is the best/most cost efficient program?

No. However other programs were examined in 1999 and 2004 and it was determined that most had components (dangerous techniques, pain compliance, intermediate weapon, etc…) and/or costs that were not suitable for a statewide system. We have also seen a significant reduction in the number of and costs associated with worker’s compensation claims due to youth and staff related incidents; especially compared with claims prior to 2006 when PAR became mandated by statute.

1 | P a g e T r a n s f e r s t o A d u l t C o u r t B r i e f i n g S h e e t

12-1-10

Briefing Report Transfers to Adult Court by Circuit

Contact: Mark A. Greenwald, M.J.P.M

Bureau Chief, DJJ Research and Planning

Issue: Governor Elect Scott’s transition team requested an analysis of transfers to adult court including an assessment of the specific delinquency charges associated with those cases.

Methodology: All of the information from this briefing sheet was derived from the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) and analyzed by researchers in Department’s Bureau of Research and Planning. For the purposes of this analysis, researchers chose the most serious charge associated within the delinquency referral to determine the type of offense that resulted in a transfer to the adult court. All transfers to adult court occur through the Circuit Court and the overwhelming majority (97%) are filed via the “Direct File” process outlined in chapter 985.557, Florida Statutes. Less common options for transfer to adult include direct indictment, involuntary court waiver and voluntary youth waiver to adult court.

Results (see tables on opposing pages): TABLE 1 – Youth Transferred to Adult Court by Offense Type (2000-01 through 2009-10)

Burglary and Robbery are the two most common reasons a youth is transferred to adult court in Florida.

o During FY 2009-10, burglary and robbery referrals accounted for 51% of the youth transferred to adult court.

Felony offenses accounted for 95% of the youth transferred to adult court.

o Youth transferred for a less serious offense tend to have a substantial history of prior offending.

TABLE 2 – Youth Transferred to Adult Court by Age and Gender (2000-01 through 2009-10)

The majority of youth are 17 years old at the time of their transfer to adult court (58%).

Youth transferred to adult court are predominately male (93%).

TABLE 3 – Youth Transferred to Adult Court by Judicial Circuit (2000-01 through 2009-10)

The 13th Judicial District (Hillsborough) reported the largest number of youth transferred to adult court during FY 2009-10.

The 6th (Pasco/Pinellas) and 11th (Miami-Dade) Judicial Circuits reported the next highest numbers of youth transferred to adult court.



12-1-10

Offense Category 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

FELONIES 2,944 2,840 2,509 2,312 2,326 2,731 3,278 3,463 3,118 2,611

MISDEMEANORS 244 157 160 138 135 133 136 175 126 123

OTHER OFFENSES 63 47 31 39 43 20 23 28 24 18

TOTAL 3,251 3,044 2,700 2,489 2,504 2,884 3,437 3,666 3,268 2,752

MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER 70 61 52 60 58 74 104 102 84 80

ATTEMPTED MURER/MANSLAUGHTER 42 25 27 25 20 48 52 46 45 34

SEXUAL BATTERY 97 88 90 88 82 83 69 87 64 77

OTHER FELONY SEX OFFENSE 54 52 46 40 37 42 51 42 45 44

ARMED ROBBERY 370 362 348 318 280 418 577 607 542 406

OTHER ROBBERY 243 244 181 156 165 208 260 298 285 208

ARSON 17 23 12 6 16 13 25 8 15 16

BURGLARY 618 677 673 590 630 616 746 857 929 803

AUTO THEFT 189 179 124 117 101 124 108 111 77 82

GRAND LARCENY 91 83 78 67 62 76 111 122 92 81

RECEIVE STOLEN PROPERTY 19 11 11 12 5 6 8 33 25 19

CONCEALED FIREARM 25 21 26 32 29 60 89 90 85 78

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 431 435 303 330 344 365 414 397 359 316

FORGERY 20 11 24 11 13 14 10 26 18 9

FELONY DRUG OFFENSE 424 357 326 291 325 383 386 356 262 184

FELONY MARIJUANA 69 60 77 67 56 53 67 67 57 50

ESCAPE 26 20 6 5 9 13 10 16 4 3

RESISTING ARREST W/VIOLENCE 19 21 14 7 13 15 13 13 14 7

SHOOT/THROW DEADLY MISSILE 29 17 18 18 20 20 48 28 18 14

FELONY TRAFFIC 23 23 18 22 15 15 15 26 7 5

OTHER FELONY 68 70 55 50 46 85 115 131 91 95

ASSAULT/BATTERY 67 43 38 29 39 35 36 48 27 36

PROSTITUTION 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

MISDEMEANOR SEX OFFENSE 6 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0

PETTY THEFT 24 23 20 21 16 15 19 21 23 21

SHOPLIFTING 5 5 2 1 0 4 1 2 2 3

RECEIVE STOLEN PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CONCEALED WEAPON 3 1 3 0 1 3 4 8 1 0

DISORDERLY CONDUCT 11 6 11 8 7 5 3 6 3 2

VANDALISM 10 10 8 7 8 4 5 4 5 1

TRESPASSING 14 3 10 7 7 6 10 12 4 5

LOITERING 4 3 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2

MISDEMEANOR MARIJUANA 44 29 25 23 23 26 26 32 27 24

DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 4 5 6 4 2 0 3 3 6 0

OTHER MISDEMEANOR DRUG OFFENSES 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0

POSSESS ALCOHOL 9 6 5 5 4 6 3 3 4 5

OTHER ALCOHOL 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

VIOLATION OF GAME LAWS 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 1

RESIST ARREST 25 14 17 19 15 8 10 17 8 9

OTHER MISDEMEANOR 14 8 13 9 12 16 13 14 13 12

CONTEMPT 1 1 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0

VIOLATION OF LOCAL ORDINANCE 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0

OTHER TRAFFIC OFFENSES 6 7 2 6 5 1 0 2 2 2

INTERSTATE COMPACT 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

NONLAW VIOLATION OF PROBATION 29 26 15 19 30 10 17 12 11 8

NONLAW VIOLATION OF FURLOUGH 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CASE REOPENED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PROSECUTION PREVIOUSLY OPEN 6 6 7 8 4 6 5 12 11 8

TRANSFER FROM OTHER COUNTY 11 6 5 4 1 0 1 0 0 0

TABLE 1 - Youth Transferred to Adult Court by Offense Type

(2000-01 through 2009-10)1

MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES

FELONY OFFENSES

1 Source: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS).

"OTHER" OFFENSES


12-1-10

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Age

AGE 0-9 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AGE 10 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AGE 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AGE 12 6 8 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 0

AGE 13 12 29 6 6 15 3 8 8 4 6

AGE 14 230 237 159 170 162 59 77 84 65 45

AGE 15 842 570 476 450 451 201 251 248 253 198

AGE 16 2,741 2,594 2,133 1,824 1,953 779 907 955 833 715

AGE 17 5,281 5,122 4,723 4,431 4,342 1,672 2,006 2,150 1,916 1,571

AGE 18+ 623 548 571 550 556 170 188 220 197 217

Gender

FEMALE 881 668 598 598 572 208 230 287 237 199

MALE 8,857 8,443 7,476 6,833 6,910 2,676 3,207 3,379 3,031 2,553

TOTAL 9,738 9,111 8,074 7,431 7,482 2,884 3,437 3,666 3,268 2,752

TABLE 2 - Youth Transferred to Adult Court by Age and Gender

(2000-01 through 2009-10)1


Judicial Circuit 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

1st Judicial Circuit 122 105 115 112 120 118 164 215 161 150

2nd Judicial Circuit 87 102 68 61 56 70 61 43 53 27

3rd Judicial Circuit 49 36 57 41 35 24 31 23 33 45

4th Judicial Circuit 108 111 95 78 74 75 82 84 143 202

















Out of State 15 21 26 36 30 26 28 18 17 15

Total 3,251 3,044 2,700 2,489 2,504 2,884 3,437 3,666 3,268 2,752

TABLE 3 - Youth Transferred to Adult Court by Judicial Circuit

(2000-01 through 2009-10)1


T20

T3

T5

T14T2

T1

T10

T8

T7

T19

T9

T15

T4

T11

T12

T17

T13T6

T18

T16

Polk

Dade

Collier

MarionLevy

Lake

Lee

Bay

Osceola

Palm Beach

Volusia

Taylor

Hendry

Walton

Duval

Clay

Dixie

Gulf

Leon

Broward

Glades

Orange

Liberty

Pasco

Alachua

Jackson

Highlands

Putnam

Brevard

Monroe

Baker

Citrus

Okaloosa

Martin

Nassau

Santa Rosa

Madison

Hardee

Columbia

Hillsborough

Manatee

Sumter

Wakulla

De Soto

Charlotte

Flagler

Calhoun

St. Johns

Okeechobee

Franklin

Jefferson

Suwannee

Holmes

St. Lucie

Sarasota

Lafayette

HamiltonGadsdenWashington

Hernando

Union

Indian River

Seminole

Escambia

Gilchrist

Pinellas

Bradford

% of Youth Placedin Home Region

0 - 29%30 - 63%64 - 80%81 - 85%86 - 91%Circuit Boundaries *

DJJ BUREAU OF RESEARCH & PLANNING DECEMBER 2010

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICEPLACEMENT OF COMMITTED YOUTH

WITHIN HOME REGION BY JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

NORTHREGION

CENTRALREGION

SOUTHREGION

Judicial Cicuit

Total Placed

Placed In Region

Placed Out of Region

% Placed in Region

1st Circuit 299 272 27 91%2nd Circuit 123 110 13 89%3rd Circuit 54 47 7 87%4th Circuit 348 295 53 85%5th Circuit 269 198 71 74%6th Circuit 224 180 44 80%7th Circuit 240 184 56 77%8th Circuit 96 75 21 78%9th Circuit 258 193 65 75%10th Circuit 159 132 27 83%11th Circuit 238 127 111 53%12th Circuit 149 117 32 79%13th Circuit 134 105 29 78%14th Circuit 58 48 10 83%15th Circuit 163 90 73 55%16th Circuit 14 4 10 29%17th Circuit 233 120 113 52%18th Circuit 183 116 67 63%19th Circuit 131 81 50 62%20th Circuit 252 152 100 60%Statewide 3,625 2,646 979 73%

* Judicial Circuits are identified by numbers surrounded by ellipses.

Out of Circuit/Region Placement as of 12/1/10

Cicuit Total Placed In Circuit Placed Out of

Circuit Region Placed In

Region Placed Out of

Region1st 299 135 164 North 272 272nd 123 12 111 North 110 133rd 54 9 45 North 47 74th 348 40 308 North 295 535th 269 47 222 North 198 716th 224 45 179 Central 180 447th 240 55 185 North 184 568th 96 2 94 North 75 219th 258 52 206 Central 193 6510th 159 26 133 Central 132 2711th 238 43 195 South 127 11112th 149 21 128 Central 117 3213th 134 45 89 Central 105 2914th 58 13 45 North 48 1015th 163 25 138 South 90 7316th 14 0 14 South 4 1017th 233 30 203 South 120 11318th 183 12 171 Central 116 6719th 131 40 91 South 81 5020th 252 37 215 South 152 100

3625 689 2936 2646 979

% Placed In

Circuit

% Placed Out

of Circuit

% Placed In

Region

% Placed Out

of Region

Statewide

Percentage 19.01 80.99 72.99 27.01By Region Total South 1031 55.67 44.33Central 1107 76.15 23.85North 1487 82.65 17.35

Potential Reaons for Out of Region Placement

Speciality Placement Need (e.g. Mental Health, Substance Abuse, Medical)To separate codefendantsUndocumented individuals not eligible for Medicaid are placed in state operated programsFamily requests Vacancy in out of Region placement with significant wait for same type bed in home RegionFamily relocated out of Region

1 | P a g e Y o u t h D i s p o s i t i o n s b y J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t

12-1-10

Briefing Report Youth Dispositions by Judicial Circuit

Contact: Mark A. Greenwald, M.J.P.M Bureau Chief, DJJ Research and Planning Issue: Governor Elect Scott’s transition team requested an analysis of “Youth” dispositions by Judicial Circuit Methodology: All of the information from this briefing sheet was derived from the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) and analyzed by researchers in Department’s Bureau of Research and Planning. For the purposes of this analysis, researchers chose the most serious disposition for youth who had more than one court level disposition during the fiscal year. Please keep in mind, the number of dispositions in a given year will not match the total number of youth received by the Department. Some youth may have cases extended into another fiscal period. Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 1,146 1,105 1,346 1,539 1,238 1,333 1,261 1,234 1,424 1,272 Probation 2,086 1,833 1,659 1,738 1,667 1,519 1,479 1,336 1,282 1,193 Commitment 659 673 756 701 623 598 568 564 594 486 Transfer to Adult 122 105 115 112 120 118 164 215 161 150

sposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 523 620 809 828 660 694 679 769 844 625 Probation 941 781 834 941 914 850 660 571 614 552 Commitment 301 227 260 231 252 233 264 207 206 209 Transfer to Adult 87 102 68 61 56 70 61 43 53 27

sposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 313 373 362 342 384 250 308 264 254 195 Probation 351 275 314 310 329 353 353 334 316 251 Commitment 85 92 93 95 91 93 73 87 77 79 Transfer to Adult 49 36 57 41 35 24 31 23 33 45

sposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 3,618 3,758 3,270 3,694 3,661 3,236 3,165 3,762 3,045 2,023 Probation 1,817 1,727 1,647 1,433 1,114 1,172 1,130 1,337 1,565 1,435 Commitment 801 793 840 801 894 764 650 596 680 601 Transfer to Adult 108 111 95 78 74 75 82 84 143 202

1st Circuit "Youth" Dispositions by Fiscal Year

2nd Circuit "Youth" Dispositions by Fiscal Year

3rd Circuit "Youth" Dispositions by Fiscal Year

4th Circuit "Youth" Dispositions by Fiscal Year

Di

Di

Di



Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 1,502 1,638 2,033 2,018 1,688 1,682 1,561 1,695 1,674 1,642 Probation 1,642 1,604 1,448 1,650 1,767 1,669 1,658 1,400 1,253 977 Commitment 657 745 766 674 606 585 547 447 433 335 Transfer to Adult 146 99 104 82 57 77 114 128 122 122

Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 743 850 1,155 1,297 1,310 2,041 1,646 1,772 1,720 979 Probation 2,544 2,365 2,168 2,051 2,086 2,005 2,494 2,404 1,997 1,863 Commitment 665 744 831 756 854 720 575 574 464 348 Transfer to Adult 340 300 272 243 356 411 462 464 304 282

Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 1,993 2,178 2,438 2,329 1,983 2,273 1,903 1,715 1,715 1,748 Probation 1,954 1,562 1,733 1,767 1,652 1,549 1,297 1,321 1,219 1,173 Commitment 499 374 403 377 346 398 343 343 323 312 Transfer to Adult 113 99 76 73 71 97 93 108 107 94

Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 938 727 829 840 742 855 814 714 705 576 Probation 707 709 665 679 754 609 669 685 603 495 Commitment 115 140 169 202 196 201 211 228 209 151 Transfer to Adult 65 50 50 47 52 50 80 62 49


Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 2,358 2,743 2,612 2,476 2,351 2,527 2,059 2,245 2,294 2,079 Probation 1,676 1,535 1,506 1,474 1,429 1,403 1,356 1,358 1,280 1,400 Commitment 431 533 516 587 520 403 355 348 261 233 Transfer to Adult 84 87 78 99 75 111 125 169 154


Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 1,091 1,201 1,335 1,315 1,305 1,350 1,284 1,423 1,361 1,278 Probation 915 805 931 883 824 886 848 837 712 627 Commitment 355 354 378 365 365 329 244 212 250 258 Transfer to Adult 68 61 58 45 33 41 80 94 88









55

133

75

12-1-10

3 | P a g e Y o u t h D i s p o s i t i o n s b y J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 1,457 1,728 1,951 1,611 1,625 3,555 3,655 3,637 3,686 2,999 Probation 1,884 1,781 1,686 1,735 1,906 1,786 1,546 1,425 1,584 1,441 Commitment 455 426 495 512 535 403 374 327 226 212 Transfer to Adult 317 331 308 379 449 447 420 483 455 304

Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 439 538 504 516 443 425 388 334 272 212 Probation 499 583 619 538 387 423 402 440 497 371 Commitment 262 244 268 273 217 186 183 174 167 110 Transfer to Adult 84 58 72 52 40 63 56 53 41

Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 859 868 715 800 802 2,596 2,617 2,392 2,381 1,987 Probation 2,019 1,586 1,469 1,551 1,469 1,531 1,465 1,570 1,338 1,244 Commitment 550 550 491 500 533 492 412 364 339 264 Transfer to Adult 305 365 346 310 272 358 408 493 408 257

Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 155 147 221 180 156 123 152 217 236 158 Probation 107 90 77 78 84 70 74 51 48 51 Commitment 24 14 17 15 23 27 31 11 14 15 Transfer to Adult 21 6 11 4 9 4 7 2 7 8


Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 1,569 1,835 2,055 2,174 1,408 1,108 1,451 1,909 1,812 1,559 Probation 1,647 1,643 1,244 1,312 1,313 1,293 1,230 1,478 1,013 925 Commitment 340 298 280 378 402 288 295 321 245 226 Transfer to Adult 77 91 83 50 45 75 112 157 126

Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 937 769 1,090 849 614 1,016 1,043 1,201 1,104 1,022 Probation 1,055 962 751 1,005 917 985 1,119 1,206 1,186 959 Commitment 388 337 337 451 466 384 309 269 243 182 Transfer to Adult 87 78 52 96 53 90 122 135 110

Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 463 468 556 748 587 2,189 2,213 2,486 2,512 2,030 Probation 1,561 1,721 1,795 1,430 1,454 1,416 1,447 1,357 1,311 1,122 Commitment 601 512 520 561 618 544 433 345 392 396 Transfer to Adult 59 49 66 76 65 76 87 82 81









57

108

110

74

12-1-10


Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10Diversion 339 945 504 435 419 482 387 520 356 458Probation 314 381 388 399 329 630 621 442 372 262Commitment 55 57 59 57 37 149 97 59 58 24Transfer to Adult 15 21 26 36 30 26 28 18 17 15

Disposition Category 2000‐01 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 Diversion 27,408 29,747 31,139 31,765 29,365 34,875 35,078 38,057 37,538 32,507 Probation 33,763 31,937 30,522 29,481 28,574 26,898 25,884 25,230 23,910 21,666 Commitment 8,834 8,787 9,044 8,871 8,992 8,205 7,079 6,570 6,365 5,476 Transfer to Adult 3,251 3,044 2,700 2,489 2,504 2,884 3,437 3,666 3,268 2,752

Out of State "Youth" Dispositions by Fiscal Year

Statewide "Youth" Dispositions by Fiscal Year

12-1-10

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE

Proposed Reduction to Detention Centers Costs for 2011-12

The below summarizes the proposed budget reductions to Detention Services for 2011-

2012. The budget reductions total $11,871,186 from Shared Co. /State Juv Det Trust

Fund and $2,509,401 in General Revenue totaling $14,380,587 and 287 FTE. If these

budget reductions were implemented, the counties would have a significant cost

reduction of almost $12 million. This would result in the cost per day for the counties’

share of detention costs being reduced from $284.25 to $254.37, a 10.5% reduction in the

current per diem. [An option would be to take the entire reduction of $14,380,587 from

the Shared County Trust Fund and not reduce Gen. Rev. This would address the counties’

funding issue even further.]

The proposed closure of East Hillsborough Detention does not pose any risk to the

youth population in Hillsborough County. Currently, Hillsborough County is the

only county in the state with two detention centers. Eliminating East Hillsborough

(50 beds) and detaining all youth meeting detention criteria at West Hillsborough (93

beds) would result in West Hillsborough’s utilization rate increasing from 51% to

84%. This slight increase demonstrates that youth can be safely detained at West

Hillsborough without creating an overcrowding situation or a negative impact on the

community.

The closure of Osceola Detention Center (50 beds) would result in youth that meet

detention criteria being detained at Orange Detention Center (151 beds). Osceola

Detention is an underutilized center and has historically operated below design

capacity, often at 50%. In FY 2009/2010, the facility had an average daily

population of 21 juveniles, a 41.02% utilization rate. If Osceola youth had been

detained at Orange Detention in FY 2009/2010 the annual utilization rate would have

been 82.52% for Orange Detention. Prior to the opening of Osceola Detention in

2000, youth were served in Orange County. The distance between the two centers is

18 miles and does not present a hardship or difficulty with transporting youth back

and forth between counties. One additional recommendation in the budget reduction

exercise is to reduce Orange detention by 29 beds making them a 122-bed facility. If

Osceola youth were detained in Orange with its modified bed capacity of 122 beds

the utilization rate would have been 98.28%

The reduction of 29 beds at Orange Detention Center (currently 151 beds) allows the

department to decrease the staffing by 20 FTE’s with minimal impact to the care and

custody of the staff and youth assigned to Orange Detention. In FY 2009/2010, the

average daily population was 86 realizing a utilization rate of 57%. The physical

plant is unique to the other state operated detention centers, similar to Miami-Dade,

where part of the facility can be closed not interfering with the operation of the part

remaining open. Additionally, the bed reduction would not hinder the closing of

Osceola Detention and the Orange Detention could still accommodate the youth from

Osceola without Orange Detention becoming overcrowded.

The reduction of 80 beds at Miami-Dade Detention (currently 226 beds) would lower

the bed capacity to 146 and would have resulted in the utilization rate being 81.09%

instead of 53% with 226 beds in FY 2009/2010. The recent reduction in youth being

detained and the trend in Dade county would indicate this selection as being prudent

at this time and would not have any adverse affects on the youth or community it

serves.

Cautiously, we are proposing the closure of Marion Detention Center (88 beds).

Although the facility has operated at 52% utilization rate with an ADP of 46 youth,

closing this center and moving the youth to other detention centers will result in an

increased utilization at those centers. Marion Detention Center currently serves four

other counties that do not have a center. Youth from Lake County would be sent to

the Volusia Detention Center. It is projected this would increase the ADP at Volusia

to 77 and increase the utilization rate to 86%. Youth from Citrus, Hernando and

Sumter counties currently being served at Marion would be sent the Pasco Detention

Center increasing its utilization rate to 76%. Closing the center would result in a

significant increase in the demand for transport services. It is projected that each

youth would have to be transported back to their home county for three court

appearances. Each time a youth is transported, there is potential for injury to the

youth or staff and reduced community safety. The added transportation would also

place a demand on staff resources. It should also be noted that Marion County

Juvenile Court currently hold all daily Detention Hearings for Lake, Citrus,

Hernando, and Sumter counties as a courtesy. The closing of Marion Detention

would place the burden back on those counties. This burden could cause the court to

revise court dockets, reschedule and force the Judges into an on-call rotation to cover

the inconsistent day and times of Detention Hearings.

In summary, we are proposing the elimination of 3 detention centers and 109

additional beds in two of the largest detention centers. The reduction of these beds

account for a total 297 beds and 278 staff. Because of the proposed 17% reduction in

beds and staff, we are recommending a corresponding reduction of nine (9) regional/

HQ positions. Currently these are managers and analysts overseeing the

administrative and operational functions of the detention centers in the region.

Eliminating the number of direct care staff and detention centers would require fewer

mangers to provide this oversight. Moreover, it would reduce the workload of the

day-to-day operations, including fiscal, personnel, general services, etc;

The budget shortfalls have required the Department to analyze diverse ways to continue

to do business. We have explored alternative cost savings ideas in an effort to address

proposed budget reductions, trying to minimize the effect on services to the youth and

communities. Additional beds were built in the 1990’s to accommodate the influx of

juvenile crime, which resulted in overcrowding of existing juvenile detention centers. A

decade later, present day populations have declined and the current trends are bringing

lower numbers of youth to be detained in the state operated juvenile detention centers.

With this said the beds built in the 1990s are currently no longer needed and can be

eliminated to reduce costs. The proposed budget reductions are a result of careful

deliberation on staying steadfast with the mission of the Department and keeping the

mindset of what is best for the children, families, and communities in the state of Florida.

The Department is confident that the proposed budget reductions will have the least

amount of negative impact on the safety and well being of the children and families it

serves as well as provide a significant reduction in cost to the counties..

This report only includes programs that are currently under contract, all programs that have been closed are not reflected

Program Name Capacity Current

Plmts

Reserved Plmts

Vacant

Number

Waiting

% of Use

S T E P 2 4,745 1,360 985 2,400 991 49.42 %

4,745 1,360 985 2,400 991 49.42%

S T E P 1 7,300 3,701 1,859 1,740 2,199 76.16 %

Nassau J R F Low Risk 1,253 1,174 67 12 369 99.04 %

Eckerd Challenge Low Risk 6,737 6,503 198 36 1,024 99.47 %

Peace River Youth Academy 9,095 7,714 551 830 1,155 90.87 %

Brevard Group Treatment Home 10,950 9,423 305 1,222 393 88.84 %

Okeechobee Y D C Transition 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 %

35,335 28,515 2,980 3,840 5,140 89.13%

40,080 29,875 3,965 6,240 6,131 84.43%

Residential Alternative For The Mentally Challenged / Twin

Oaks

14,776 13,677 393 706 2,352 95.22 %

Adolescent Residential Campus Low Function 8,030 7,759 172 99 1,092 98.77 %

22,806 21,436 565 805 3,444 96.47%

Milton Girls Juvenile Residential Faclity 21,900 19,836 646 1,418 1,124 93.53 %

Lake Academy 1,900 1,889 11 0 174 100.00 %

Desoto Dual Diag Mod Risk Female 8,395 8,389 49 0 1,916 100.51 %

32,195 30,114 706 1,418 3,214 95.73%

Jo Ann Bridges Academy 10,950 10,838 119 0 1,469 100.06 %

Eckerd Camp E Nini Hassee ( F ) 14,600 14,349 205 46 643 99.68 %

Lake Academy Intensive Medical Treatment 544 417 11 116 11 78.68 %

Lake Academy Intensive Medical Treatment 2 16 5 2 9 2 43.75 %

Lake Academy 684 692 2 0 157 101.46 %

Lake Academy 2 76 38 0 38 17 50.00 %

Women In Need Of Greater Strength 7,300 6,332 331 637 918 91.27 %

Dove Academy 18,250 17,620 474 156 1,303 99.15 %

Price Halfway House For Girls 644 683 10 0 92 107.61 %

53,064 50,974 1,154 1,002 4,612 98.24%Type Totals:

Female Substance Abuse Moderate Risk

Circuit 6

Circuit 6

Circuit 6

Circuit 11

Circuit 14

Circuit 20

Type Totals:

Female Moderate Risk Moderate Risk

Circuit 3

Circuit 5

Circuit 6

Type Totals:

Female Mental Health Moderate Risk

Circuit 1

Circuit 6

Circuit 12

Type Totals:

Level Totals:

Developmentally Disabled Moderate Risk

Circuit 3

Circuit 9

Circuit 4

Circuit 4

Circuit 5

Circuit 12

Circuit 18

Circuit 19

Female Low Risk Low Risk Residential

Circuit 4

Type Totals:

Male Low Risk Low Risk Residential


Slot Utilization History Report

FY 08-09

Circuit

DJJ/RESCP 16 08/2008 Page 1 of 4 Printed: 12/08/2010 10:17 AM

Eckerd Camp E Nini Hasse Sub Abuse 3,650 3,666 17 0 322 100.90 %

New Beginnings Youth Academy 1,128 1,118 4 6 163 99.47 %

Frances Walker Halfway House 10,770 10,619 168 0 1,752 100.16 %

Francis Walker Halfway House 180 180 0 0 24 100.00 %

15,728 15,583 189 6 2,261 100.28%

Juvenile Unit For Specialized Treatment / Twin Oaks 11,680 11,366 226 88 582 99.25 %

Mandala Adolescent Treatment Center 4,008 3,996 51 0 455 100.97 %

Gulf Academy 3,060 3,039 20 1 308 99.97 %

Gulf Academy 2 90 43 3 44 8 51.11 %

Hastings Specialized M H Treatment 14,235 13,653 429 153 794 98.93 %

Hastings Intensive M H Treatment 9,125 7,854 522 749 683 91.79 %

Dade Juvenile Residential Facility 20,440 20,301 161 0 2,415 100.11 %

Desoto Juvenile Residential Facility ( M) 35,040 34,384 445 211 1,424 99.40 %

97,678 94,636 1,857 1,246 6,669 98.79%

Pensacola Boys Base 10,192 9,901 248 43 761 99.58 %

Eckerd Camp E Ma Chamee 7,448 7,171 149 128 294 98.28 %

Okaloosa Youth Academy 35,946 35,274 511 161 1,110 99.55 %

Gulf Coast Youth Academy 37,386 35,586 887 913 1,253 97.56 %

Bristol Youth Academy 17,520 16,868 304 348 906 98.01 %

Bristol Academy - Specialized Unit 4,380 4,226 93 61 402 98.61 %

Panther Success Center 17,520 16,481 794 245 1,221 98.60 %

Greenville Academy 14-18 20,320 19,109 810 401 1,399 98.03 %

Twin Oaks Vocational Academy 14-18 8,880 8,698 162 20 381 99.77 %

Greenville Academy I I 5,080 4,973 91 16 503 99.69 %

Twin Oaks Academy I I 2,220 2,105 73 42 270 98.11 %

Duval Halfway House 10,220 8,373 589 1,258 692 87.69 %

Impact House 4,525 4,421 92 12 620 99.73 %

Nassau Juvenile Residential Facility 7,507 6,515 338 654 371 91.29 %

Eckerd Challenge 15,163 13,604 539 1,020 628 93.27 %

Britt Halfway House 10,220 10,088 133 0 469 100.01 %


Hastings Moderate Risk 36,865 35,713 666 486 1,373 98.68 %

Oaks Juvenile Residential Facility 7,300 6,436 232 632 258 91.34 %

Volusia Halfway House 8,760 8,434 227 99 592 98.87 %

Adolescent Residential Campus H W H 29,200 27,821 750 629 1,347 97.85 %

Avon Park Youth Academy 60,225 57,433 1,401 1,391 1,593 97.69 %

Polk Halfway House 1,632 1,630 6 0 250 100.25 %

Polk Halfway House 2 48 24 0 24 0 50.00 %

Youth Environmental Services 12,045 12,160 47 0 520 101.34 %

Falkenburg Academy 36,500 35,067 1,241 192 3,505 99.47 %

Circuit 10

Circuit 10

Circuit 10

Circuit 13

Circuit 13

Circuit 6

Circuit 6

Circuit 7

Circuit 7

Circuit 7

Circuit 9

Circuit 3

Circuit 3

Circuit 4

Circuit 4

Circuit 4

Circuit 5

Circuit 1

Circuit 2

Circuit 2

Circuit 3

Circuit 3

Circuit 3

Type Totals:

Male Moderate Risk Moderate Risk

Circuit 1

Circuit 1

Circuit 1

Circuit 6

Circuit 6

Circuit 7

Circuit 7

Circuit 11

Circuit 12

Circuit 18

Type Totals:

Male Mental Health Moderate Risk

Circuit 2

Circuit 6

Circuit 5

Circuit 10

Circuit 18


West Florida Wilderness Institute 14,600 14,039 344 217 775 98.51 %

Thompson Academy 31,390 29,266 1,139 985 1,594 96.86 %

Space Coast Marine Institute 12,421 12,642 94 0 771 102.54 %

Okeechobee Intensive H W H 0 0 0 0 5 0.00 %

Crossroads Wilderness 12,775 11,029 522 1,224 543 90.42 %

Big Cypress Youth Environment Services 12,775 12,138 303 334 346 97.39 %

Florida Environmental Institute 9,125 8,639 169 317 200 96.53 %

504,940 480,492 13,077 11,853 25,263 97.75%

Ft. Walton Adolescent Substance Abuse Program 14,600 14,431 195 0 2,838 100.18 %

Eckerd Camp E Ma Chamee Sub Abuse 7,152 7,046 102 4 642 99.94 %

Impact House 4,600 4,547 56 0 613 100.07 %

Miami Halfway House 8,760 8,566 159 35 1,317 99.60 %

Les Peters Halfway House 10,220 10,166 81 0 1,520 100.26 %

Riverside Academy 11,220 11,191 59 0 1,256 100.27 %

Riverside Academy 2 330 161 7 162 35 50.91 %

Thompson Academy Choices 18,250 17,841 342 67 2,418 99.63 %

75,132 73,949 1,001 268 10,639 99.76%

Columbus Juvenile Residential Facility 3,400 3,375 24 1 194 99.97 %

Columbus Juvenile Residential Facility 2 100 50 0 50 3 50.00 %

3,500 3,425 24 51 197 98.54%

805,043 770,609 18,573 16,649 56,299 98.03%

Monticello New Life 10,950 10,919 46 0 2,875 100.14 %

Desoto Female High Risk 8,760 8,750 50 0 1,632 100.46 %

19,710 19,669 96 0 4,507 100.28%

Desoto Dual Diag Correctional Facility High Risk ( F ) 4,790 4,782 3 5 854 99.90 %

Desoto Dual Diag Correctional Facility High Risk ( F) 3,268 3,220 24 24 178 99.27 %

Martin Girls Academy 2,040 1,845 130 65 137 96.81 %

Martin Girls Academy 2 30 25 4 1 4 96.67 %

10,128 9,872 161 95 1,173 99.06%

Walton Youth Development Center 3,640 3,502 78 60 200 98.35 %

Tiger Serious Habitual Offender Program 8,760 8,655 60 45 1,432 99.49 %

Cypress Creek High Risk 13,282 13,254 26 2 1,973 99.98 %

St. Johns Juvenile Correctional Facility 4,765 4,451 300 14 432 99.71 %

Orange Youth Academy 17,520 17,471 76 0 2,244 100.15 %

Hillsborough Intensive Residential Treatment 1,700 1,419 18 263 18 84.53 %

Hillsborough Intensive Residential Treatment 2 50 19 0 31 0 38.00 %

Palm Beach Juvenile Correctional 17,738 17,645 126 0 2,443 100.19 %

Circuit 13

Circuit 13

Circuit 15

High Risk Residential

Circuit 1

Circuit 4

Circuit 5

Circuit 7

Circuit 9

Circuit 12

Circuit 12

Circuit 19

Circuit 19

Type Totals:

Male High Risk

Female High Risk High Risk Residential

Circuit 2

Circuit 12

Type Totals:

Female Mental Health High Risk Residential

Sex Offender Beds Moderate Risk

Circuit 13

Circuit 13

Type Totals:

Level Totals:

Circuit 11

Circuit 13

Circuit 13

Circuit 13

Circuit 17

Type Totals:

Type Totals:

Male Substance Abuse Moderate Risk

Circuit 1

Circuit 1

Circuit 4

Circuit 17

Circuit 18

Circuit 19

Circuit 20

Circuit 20

Circuit 20

Circuit 14


Palm Beach Juvenile Correctional Facility 16,842 16,593 250 0 2,481 100.01 %

Okeechobee Youth Development Center 0 0 4 0 10 0.00 %

84,297 83,009 938 415 11,233 99.58%

Desoto Juvenile Correctional Facility 10,950 10,530 213 207 673 98.11 %

Desoto Dual Diag Correctional Facility High Risk ( M ) 26,645 26,352 209 84 1,868 99.68 %

37,595 36,882 422 291 2,541 99.23%

Palmetto Youth 28 28 0 0 1 100.00 %

28 28 0 0 1 100.00%

Palmetto Youth Academy 17,520 17,505 111 0 4,464 100.55 %

Palm Beach J C F Substance Abuse 4,556 4,401 126 29 758 99.36 %

22,076 21,906 237 29 5,222 100.30%

Okeechobee Sex Offender Facility 23,360 21,617 208 1,535 224 93.43 %

23,360 21,617 208 1,535 224 93.43%

197,194 192,983 2,062 2,365 24,901 98.91%

Desoto Max Risk Females 221 221 0 0 0 100.00 %

Desoto Maximum Risk Females 1,576 1,568 8 0 434 100.00 %

1,797 1,789 8 0 434 100.00%

Cypress Creek Max Risk 21,758 21,697 111 0 1,292 100.23 %

Okeechobee J O C C Max Risk 11,680 11,655 50 0 1,115 100.21 %

33,438 33,352 161 0 2,407 100.22%

35,235 35,141 169 0 2,841 100.21%

1,077,552 1,028,608 24,769 25,254 90,172 97.76%

note: totals are reflective of 365 days operational capacity (does not reflect programs that were closed during the FY)

Circuit 5

Circuit 19

Type Totals:

Level Totals:

Grand Totals:

Female Maximum Risk Maximum Risk

Circuit 12

Circuit 12

Type Totals:

Male Maximum Risk Maximum Risk

Type Totals:

Sex Offender Beds High Risk Residential

Circuit 19

Type Totals:

Level Totals:

Circuit 12

Type Totals:

Male Substance Abuse High Risk Residential

Circuit 12

Circuit 15

Male Mental Health High Risk Residential

Circuit 12

Circuit 12

Type Totals:

Male Moderate Risk High Risk Residential

Circuit 15

Circuit 19

Type Totals:


This report only includes programs that are currently under contract, all programs that have been closed are not reflected

Program Name Capacity Current

Plmts

Reserved Plmts

Vacant

Number

Waiting

% of Use

S T E P 2 4,419 909 603 2,907 614 34.22 %

Pasco Girls Academy - Low 917 867 48 2 265 99.78 %

WINGS Low/Mod 254 226 21 7 91 97.24 %

Okeechobee Girls Academy - Low 1,446 1,301 74 71 298 95.09 %

7,036 3,303 746 2,987 1,268 57.55 %

Broward Girls Academy Low 312 273 12 27 60 91.35 %

312 273 12 27 60 91.35 %

Eckerd Camp E Nini Hassee Sub Abuse Low 0 0 0 0 2 0.00 %

0 0 0 0 2 0.00 %

Santa Rosa Youth Academy Low 3,336 3,153 89 94 248 97.18 %

Santa Rosa Youth Academy Low/Mod Risk 4,876 4,242 215 419 299 91.41 %

Eckerd Camp E Ma Chamee Low Risk 48 22 17 9 19 81.25 %

Panther Success Low 1,852 1,763 85 4 181 99.78 %

S T E P 1 7,159 2,904 1,413 2,842 1,803 60.30 %

Nassau J R F Low Risk 2,919 2,871 66 0 449 100.62 %

Nassau J R F Low/Mod Risk 4,669 4,188 267 214 430 95.42 %

Eckerd Challenge Low Risk 2,820 2,801 26 0 338 100.25 %

Eckerd Challenge Low/Mod Risk 5,255 4,684 187 384 245 92.69 %

Peace River Youth Academy 10,890 9,742 440 708 860 93.50 %

Brevard Group Treatment Home 10,890 10,671 133 86 549 99.21 %

Okeechobee Y D C Low/High Risk Transition 2,344 1,303 0 1,041 2 55.59 %

Okeechobee Y D C Transition 2,448 1,400 0 1,048 7 57.19 %

59,506 49,744 2,938 6,849 5,430 88.53 %

66,854 53,320 3,696 9,863 6,760 85.28%

Residential Alternative For The Mentally Challenged / Twin

Oaks

17,899 17,243 514 142 1,276 99.21 %

Adolescent Residential Campus Low Function 7,986 7,913 51 22 833 99.72 %

25,885 25,156 565 164 2,109 99.37 %

Female Mental Health Moderate Risk

Level Totals:

Developmentally Disabled Moderate Risk

Circuit 3

Circuit 9

Type Totals:

Circuit 5

Circuit 12

Circuit 18

Circuit 19

Circuit 19

Type Totals:

Circuit 1

Circuit 3

Circuit 4

Circuit 4

Circuit 4

Circuit 5

Circuit 5

Type Totals:

Male Low Risk Low Risk Residential

Circuit 1

Circuit 1

Type Totals:

Female Mental Health Low Risk Residential

Circuit 17

Type Totals:

Female Substance Abuse Low Risk Residential

Female Low Risk Low Risk Residential

Circuit 4

Circuit 6

Circuit 11

Circuit 19


Slot Utilization History Report

FY 09-10

Circuit


Milton Girls Juvenile Residential Faclity 21,780 21,362 397 21 1,924 99.90 %

Lake Academy 14,594 14,533 120 0 2,313 100.40 %

Pasco Girls Academy 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 %

Desoto Dual Diag Mod Risk Female 8,984 8,988 37 0 1,861 100.46 %

Dove Intensive MH 2,041 1,637 176 228 238 88.83 %

Broward Girls Academy 4,210 4,092 81 37 259 99.12 %

51,609 50,612 811 286 6,595 99.64 %

Jo Ann Bridges Academy 10,890 10,839 83 0 1,571 100.29 %

Eckerd Camp E Nini Hassee ( F ) 13,200 12,562 371 267 912 97.98 %

Lake Academy Intensive Medical Treatment 2,102 1,584 24 494 27 76.50 %

Pasco Girls Academy 1,798 1,713 78 7 144 99.61 %

Women In Need Of Greater Strength 7,006 6,313 464 229 815 96.73 %

Dove Academy 18,150 17,478 532 140 1,310 99.23 %

Okeechobee Girls Academy 990 816 59 115 90 88.38 %

Price Halfway House For Girls 10,164 10,071 62 31 898 99.70 %

64,300 61,376 1,673 1,283 5,767 98.05 %

Eckerd Camp E Nini Hasse Sub Abuse 4,098 4,030 61 7 331 99.83 %

Eckerd Camp E Nini Hassee Sub Abuse 192 187 6 0 8 100.52 %

Alachua Academy 4,739 4,198 241 300 371 93.67 %

New Beginnings Youth Academy 9,416 9,331 131 0 1,089 100.49 %

Frances Walker Halfway House 10,890 10,761 160 0 1,544 100.28 %

29,335 28,507 599 307 3,343 99.22 %

Okaloosa Borderline Dev Dis 2,804 2,323 266 215 330 92.33 %

Okaloosa Low Functioning - Gulf Coast 0 0 0 0 24 0.00 %

Juvenile Unit For Specialized Treatment / Twin Oaks 11,616 11,129 241 246 528 97.88 %



Gulf Academy 10,661 10,637 91 0 1,047 100.63 %

Hastings Specialized M H Treatment 14,157 13,767 230 160 787 98.87 %

Hastings Intensive M H Treatment 9,075 8,277 314 484 466 94.67 %

Orlando Intensive Youth Academy 4,608 4,554 24 30 110 99.35 %

Dade Juvenile Residential Facility 20,328 20,189 191 0 1,197 100.26 %

Desoto Juvenile Residential Facility ( M) 34,848 34,512 332 4 1,729 99.99 %

119,173 116,322 1,831 1,197 7,143 99.14 %

Pensacola Boys Base 10,164 9,681 214 269 354 97.35 %

Eckerd Camp E Ma Chamee 7,212 6,667 244 301 300 95.83 %

Okaloosa Youth Academy 15,790 14,397 415 978 490 93.81 %

Gulf Coast Youth Academy 37,752 32,756 503 4,493 676 88.10 %

Male Moderate Risk Moderate Risk

Circuit 1

Circuit 1

Circuit 1

Circuit 1

Circuit 7

Circuit 7

Circuit 9

Circuit 11

Circuit 12

Type Totals:

Circuit 1

Circuit 1

Circuit 2

Circuit 2

Circuit 6

Circuit 6

Circuit 8

Circuit 10

Circuit 18

Type Totals:

Male Mental Health Moderate Risk

Circuit 20

Type Totals:

Female Substance Abuse Moderate Risk

Circuit 5

Circuit 5

Circuit 5

Circuit 6

Circuit 6

Circuit 11

Circuit 14

Circuit 19

Circuit 14

Circuit 17

Type Totals:

Female Moderate Risk Moderate Risk

Circuit 3

Circuit 1

Circuit 6

Circuit 6

Circuit 12


Santa Rosa Youth Academy Moderate 380 329 31 20 45 94.74 %

Bristol Youth Academy 17,424 16,190 357 877 625 94.97 %


Panther Success Center 15,574 13,975 229 1,370 508 91.20 %

Twin Oaks Vocational Academy 14-18 29,040 27,826 528 686 971 97.64 %

Twin Oaks Academy I I 7,260 6,874 55 331 552 95.44 %

Duval Halfway House 10,164 9,136 453 575 599 94.34 %

Nassau Juvenile Residential Facility 897 846 20 31 49 96.54 %

Nassau Juvenile Residential Facility / Moderate 227 194 6 27 6 88.11 %

Eckerd Challenge 12,191 10,512 162 1,517 292 87.56 %

Britt Halfway House 10,164 10,149 27 0 550 100.12 %

Gulf Academy Intensive Medical Treatment 1,072 1,052 31 0 178 101.03 %

Hastings Moderate Risk 36,663 32,081 802 3,780 1,013 89.69 %

Oaks Juvenile Residential Facility 7,260 6,540 158 562 263 92.26 %

Volusia Halfway House 8,640 8,281 90 269 178 96.89 %

Adolescent Residential Campus H W H 29,040 26,534 816 1,690 901 94.18 %

Avon Park Youth Academy 59,895 54,592 1,166 4,137 1,377 93.09 %

Polk Halfway House 8,712 8,416 102 194 368 97.77 %

Youth Environmental Services 11,979 11,778 174 27 518 99.77 %

Falkenburg Academy 36,300 34,457 1,363 480 2,607 98.68 %

West Florida Wilderness Institute 14,520 12,993 319 1,208 495 91.68 %

Thompson Academy 31,218 29,768 663 787 998 97.48 %

Space Coast Marine Institute 11,979 11,862 165 0 357 100.40 %

Okeechobee Intensive H W H 10,890 10,774 74 42 277 99.61 %

Crossroads Wilderness 12,705 10,763 417 1,525 488 88.00 %

Big Cypress Youth Environment Services 12,705 11,491 327 887 337 93.02 %

Florida Environmental Institute 9,075 8,260 224 591 256 93.49 %

478,884 441,153 10,148 27,654 16,885 94.24 %

Ft. Walton Adolescent Substance Abuse Program 14,520 14,265 253 2 1,188 99.99 %

Eckerd Camp E Ma Chamee Sub Abuse 8,580 8,379 189 12 614 99.86 %

Impact House 9,075 8,994 98 0 661 100.19 %

Eckerd Challenge Substance Abuse 1,454 1,192 193 69 197 95.25 %

St. Johns Youth Academy 12,172 11,009 643 520 1,040 95.73 %

Miami Halfway House 8,712 8,545 148 19 671 99.78 %

Les Peters Halfway House 10,164 10,164 36 0 994 100.35 %

Riverside Academy 59,895 59,304 566 25 2,815 99.96 %

Thompson Academy Choices 23,499 22,573 559 367 1,381 98.44 %

Pompano Substance Abuse Treatment Center 2,270 1,981 172 117 193 94.85 %

150,341 146,406 2,857 1,131 9,754 99.28 %

Crestview Sex Offender Program 17,540 15,947 436 1,157 497 93.40 %

Moderate Risk

Circuit 1

Circuit 13

Circuit 13

Circuit 17

Circuit 17

Type Totals:

Sex Offender Beds

Circuit 1

Circuit 1

Circuit 4

Circuit 5

Circuit 7

Circuit 11

Circuit 20

Circuit 20

Circuit 20

Type Totals:

Male Substance Abuse Moderate Risk

Circuit 13

Circuit 13

Circuit 14

Circuit 17

Circuit 18

Circuit 19

Circuit 7

Circuit 7

Circuit 7

Circuit 9

Circuit 10

Circuit 10

Circuit 4

Circuit 4

Circuit 4

Circuit 5

Circuit 6

Circuit 6

Circuit 1

Circuit 2

Circuit 2

Circuit 3

Circuit 3

Circuit 3


Okaloosa Sex Offender Gulf Coast 8,900 5,018 100 3,782 104 57.51 %

Daytona Sex Offender Program Mod Risk 128 80 0 48 0 62.50 %

Three Springs Moderate Risk 2 16 0 0 16 0 0.00 %

Union Juvenile Residential Facility 2 216 192 0 24 0 88.89 %

Columbus Juvenile Residential Facility 18,150 17,887 200 63 951 99.65 %

44,950 39,124 736 5,090 1,552 88.68 %

964,477 908,656 19,220 37,112 53,148 96.21%

North FLorida YDC Developmentally Disabled 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 %

0 0 0 0 0 0.00 %

Monticello New Life 10,890 10,690 127 73 1,069 99.33 %

Desoto Female High Risk 8,402 8,286 67 49 663 99.42 %

19,292 18,976 194 122 1,732 99.37 %

Desoto Dual Diag Correctional Facility High Risk ( F) 6,195 6,095 47 53 211 99.14 %

Martin Girls Academy 10,890 10,323 276 291 486 97.33 %

17,085 16,418 323 344 697 97.99 %

Walton Youth Development Center 14,520 13,820 211 489 385 96.63 %

Okaloosa YDC Gulf Coast 7,550 7,055 253 242 257 96.79 %

Tiger Serious Habitual Offender Program 8,712 8,541 67 104 196 98.81 %

Cypress Creek High Risk 15,276 15,069 197 10 606 99.93 %

St. Johns Juvenile Correctional Facility 17,424 13,238 576 3,610 620 79.28 %

Orange Youth Academy 17,424 17,017 225 182 590 98.96 %

Hillsborough Intensive Residential Treatment 9,075 7,857 80 1,138 87 87.46 %

North Florida Youth Development Center 0 0 1 0 2 0.00 %

Palm Beach Juvenile Correctional Facility 33,033 31,918 307 808 659 97.55 %

Okeechobee Youth Development Center 47,117 40,362 572 6,183 838 86.88 %

170,131 154,877 2,489 12,766 4,240 92.50 %

Cypress Creek High Risk 51 51 0 0 0 100.00 %

51 51 0 0 0 100.00 %

Desoto Juvenile Correctional Facility 10,890 10,303 192 395 374 96.37 %

Desoto Dual Diag Correctional Facility High Risk ( M ) 26,498 25,727 257 514 768 98.06 %

37,388 36,030 449 909 1,142 97.57 %

Palmetto Youth Academy 17,424 17,385 64 0 1,143 100.14 %

Palm Beach J C F Substance Abuse 9,801 9,725 81 0 984 100.05 %

27,225 27,110 145 0 2,127 100.11 %Type Totals:

Sex Offender Beds High Risk Residential

Circuit 12

Type Totals:

Male Substance Abuse High Risk Residential

Circuit 12

Circuit 15

High Risk Residential

Circuit 5

Type Totals:

Male Mental Health High Risk Residential

Circuit 12

Circuit 13

Circuit 14

Circuit 15

Circuit 19

Type Totals:

Male Maximum Risk

Circuit 1

Circuit 1

Circuit 4

Circuit 5

Circuit 7

Circuit 9

Female Mental Health High Risk Residential

Circuit 12

Circuit 19

Type Totals:

Male High Risk High Risk Residential

Type Totals:

Female High Risk High Risk Residential

Circuit 2

Circuit 12

Type Totals:

Circuit 13

Type Totals:

Level Totals:

Developmentally Disabled High Risk Residential

Circuit 14

Circuit 1

Circuit 7

Circuit 7

Circuit 8


Daytona Sex Offender Program High Risk 264 256 8 0 8 100.00 %

Three Springs Sex Offender Program 2 33 0 0 33 0 0.00 %

Kissimmee Juvenile Correctional Facility Sex Offender Program

2

450 338 11 101 11 77.56 %

Okeechobee Sex Offender Facility 22,113 18,103 243 3,767 252 82.96 %

22,860 18,697 262 3,901 271 82.94 %

294,032 272,159 3,862 18,042 10,209 93.87%

Desoto Max Risk Females 3,282 3,262 16 4 216 99.88 %

3,282 3,262 16 4 216 99.88 %

Cypress Creek Max Risk 19,523 19,474 59 0 581 100.05 %

North Florida YDC Maximum Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 %

Okeechobee J O C C Max Risk 11,600 11,277 103 220 489 98.10 %

31,123 30,751 162 220 1,070 99.33 %

Okeechobee Max Risk SO 1,134 923 25 186 25 83.60 %

1,134 923 25 186 25 83.60 %

35,539 34,936 203 410 1,311 98.87%

1,360,902 1,269,071 26,981 65,427 71,428 95.23%

note: totals are reflective of 365 days operational capacity (does not reflect programs that were closed during the FY)

Grand Totals:

Type Totals:

Sex Offender Beds Maximum Risk

Circuit 19

Type Totals:

Level Totals:

Type Totals:

Male Maximum Risk Maximum Risk

Circuit 5

Circuit 14

Circuit 19

Circuit 19

Type Totals:

Level Totals:

Female Maximum Risk Maximum Risk

Circuit 12

Circuit 7

Circuit 7

Circuit 9


FY CapacityOverall

UtilizationAdmissions

1986-87 1,346 106% 33,056

1987-88 1,416 110% 34,868

1988-89 1,402 110% 32,287

1989-90 1,405 116% 33,395

1990-91 1,420 97% 28,237

1991-92 1,405 91% 29,299

1992-93 1,306 98% 30,400

1993-94 1,376 108% 35,499

1994-95 1,445 124% 43,182

1995-96 1,465 138% 47,935

1996-97 1,580 138% 51,844

1997-98 1,692 126% 55,418

1998-99 1,712 117% 54,155

1999-00 1,822 130% 59,662

2000-01 1,952 117% 54,651

2001-02 2,042 104% 51,728

2002-03 2,042 96% 52,181

2003-04 2,042 92% 53,812

2004-05 2,057 93% 55,637

2005-06 2,057 95% 55,170

2006-07 2,057 89% 54,369

2007-08 2,057 80% 51,071

2008-09 2,057 73% 46,960

2009-10 2,007 62% 41,606

Secure Detention Utilization Data

Associated Industries of Florida

Getting Smart on Juvenile Crime in Florida:

Taking It to The Next Level

Reducing Juvenile Arrests by 40%

Barney T. Bishop III Chairman

Wansley Walters, Director

Miami-Dade County Juvenile Services Department

Tom Olk, Chief Executive Officer DISC Village, Inc.

November 2010

- 1 -

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Associated Industries of Florida Foundation (AIF) and the Florida Juvenile Justice Association (FJJA) have a renewed focus to prevent youth from entering the juvenile justice system. The goal is to reach the most vulnerable/at-risk children in Florida through effective prevention, early intervention and diversion services at the community level. Yet, the need for secure detention, community supervision and specialized residential treatment services, in some cases, is understood. During fiscal year 2009-10, a total of 75,382 distinct youth were referred to DJJ.1 Of those youth, 41,457 (55%) committed misdemeanors.2 In fact, misdemeanors account for almost half of the referrals to DJJ and are typically the most common offenses juveniles commit. Getting smart on juvenile crime will require a simple but dramatic shift in current practices from an arrest model to early intervention and diversion by: (1) keeping youth that pose no real threats to public safety out of the juvenile justice system; (2) reducing the costs of processing youth for misdemeanors that take time and resources away from the juvenile justice system including: law enforcement, state attorneys, public defenders, probation, court personnel, etc.; and (3) freeing up limited resources to focus on more serious and violent offenders thus improving public safety. This will be accomplished by expanding Civil Citation programs statewide to divert misdemeanor offenders to integrated and coordinated systems of care that fit the needs of the youth and their families. In short, Civil Citation is an existing low-cost and proven-effective therapeutic and accountability mechanism that will save millions of dollars and increase public safety. Civil Citation was written into Florida Statutes “for the purpose of providing an efficient and innovative alternative to custody by the Department of Juvenile Justice of children who commit non-serious delinquent acts and to ensure swift and appropriate consequences.”3

By establishing Civil Citation statewide, the Juvenile Justice System in Florida can focus limited resources to improve current programs that will in turn reduce juvenile crime and services required for re-offenders. Based upon the successes of established Civil Citation programs in Leon County and Miami-Dade County, it is anticipated that the number of juveniles processed through the system would be reduced by 40%4 on a statewide basis (30,153 fewer juveniles). Given cost estimates of $5,0005 versus $3866, this alternative would save Florida taxpayers $139,125,942 ($150,765,000 - $11,639,058= $139,125,942)7. Clearly, Civil Citation is one of the best examples of a highly effective program as well as a significant and smart return on investment.

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

$150,765,000

$11,639,058

Processing Youth Through Criminal Justice System vs. Diversion to Civil Citation for 40% of Youth

Cost of Processing A Youth Through System - $5,000

Cost of A Civil Citation - $386

- 2 -

The Next Level The priority of the Associated Industries of Florida and the Florida Juvenile Justice Association is to expand the Civil Citation program into a statewide alternative route for first-time juvenile offenders. Development of such programs will require the cooperation of the legislature, the juvenile justice system, law enforcement, schools, businesses and community organizations across the state. By working with the community as a whole, efforts will be made to decriminalize minor misbehaviors, reduce juvenile crime and provide services for at-risk youth while keeping the juvenile justice system from incurring unnecessary costs. Youth are eligible for Civil Citation if they have committed a misdemeanor or violated a county or municipal ordinance and have no prior arrests or juvenile sanctions. In these cases, law enforcement officers have the discretion of either issuing civil citations or making arrests. When civil citations are issued, the youth and their parents/legal guardians are given seven days to contact the program and must agree to participate and abide by the rules of supervision as well as complete a thorough assessment. Civil Citation does not mean that the youth are excused from the mistakes or errors in judgment that were made. Case Managers and/or law enforcement can designate the number of community service hours to be completed and additional sanctions or services are assigned based upon the offenses committed and the assessment. These sanctions typically include the youth taking responsibility for their mistakes and admitting wrongdoing via essays or letters of apology, engaging in restorative justice (including restitution) to victims, and participating in specific interventions that address their individualized needs. All are held accountable and the families are involved in the services so that needs are more adequately met. Successful achievement of the program is determined by completion of the assigned community service hours and any additional sanctions and services within the required time frames. Further success is determined by the recidivism of the youth that have participated in the Civil Citation program. The chart below provides evidence of the successes of two model Civil Citation programs that have been in existence for over ten years.

Achievements FY 2007-08 through FY 2009-10

Leon County8

n = 1,166

Miami-Dade County9 n = 6,914

Percent of participants who successfully complete the program in 6 months. 94% 82%

Percent of participants who did not re-offend for 6 months after completing program. 88% 96%

As seen above, it is generally rare in Civil Citation programs for a youth to fail to comply and not successfully complete their assigned sanctions/services. However, those who do fail are arrested and taken for processing. The State Attorney’s Office then evaluates the need to pursue further legal action in order to address the original citation.

- 3 -

A Quality Program Use of the Civil Citation program is a method that can help reduce the number of juveniles processed through the system and lead to cost savings across the state of Florida. The development of zero-tolerance in schools has led to needlessly criminalizing youth and creating a “school-to-prison pipeline”.10 As such, utilizing Civil Citation would keep youth out of the juvenile delinquency system and from incurring juvenile records while providing a full assessment to address risks and needs so that appropriate treatments and/or referrals to community-based programs can be made. Young offenders are given a second chance to correct a lapse in judgment without incurring a damaging record. Certain core elements are essential components of a successful Civil Citation program. These elements are:

• Central data collection including 24-hour access to the Juvenile Justice Information System to determine eligibility and outcomes,

• Participation of and coordination with law enforcement, • Comprehensive assessment, • Case management services, • Integrated and coordinated systems of care and diversion options that fit the needs of

the youth and their families, and • A steering committee consisting of key players, such as service providers, the state

attorney, the public defender, judges and the school system, that will provide oversight, integrity, accountability and dissemination of program data and outcomes.

The incorporation of all these elements is crucial not only for the program to run effectively, but to provide highly effective and thorough services to the youth and their families. A thorough assessment is critical to providing direction for addressing the true issues that created the situations/offenses of the youth. For example, the current assessment used in Leon County and Miami-Dade County addresses seven domains that are essential to determining areas to direct the treatment process: (1) Family/Social Supports, (2) Self Concept, (3) Peers/Activities, (4) Educational/Vocational, (5) Substance Use, (6) Psychological/Psychiatric History and (7) Physical Health History. This comprehensive screening and assessment focuses on identifying reasons for the problem behavior and the needs of the youth and their families, while maintaining a high degree of responsibility and accountability for youths’ actions. The Civil Citation program would not work without the support of law enforcement. School Resource Officers, especially, are inclined to look toward Civil Citation as a first resort to misbehavior. However, the community as a whole must be involved, and that means having the backing of local police departments and the sheriff. These entities must have working relationships with the juvenile assessment centers to determine if prior charges exist for the youth, as listed in the Juvenile Justice Information System. A Program with Benefits A recent report by the Eckerd Family Foundation established that Civil Citation has “substantial benefits for all stakeholders in the juvenile justice system.” The Foundation considers Civil Citation to be a holistic approach “that holds youth offenders responsible for their actions while

- 4 -

implementing community service, including screening for mental health and substance abuse, and requiring the participation of families. It reduces the burden on juvenile courts and leaves them better able to apply their already-stretched resources to violent and serious offenders, while reducing their expenses. It gives young offenders a second chance to make good.”11 The Civil Citation program reforms the current protocol on how law enforcement and the community address first-time misdemeanor offenders. More specifically:

• Civil Citation programs allow law enforcement to remain on the streets to be available for more serious and/or violent crimes, rather than transporting first-time misdemeanor offenders to an intake unit or juvenile assessment center.

• Civil Citation programs reduce the burden at all levels of the juvenile justice system by allowing limited resources to be applied to violent and serious offenders. Processing youth through the juvenile system for minor offenses takes time and resources away from law enforcement, the state attorney’s office and probation officers that could be spent on more serious offenses.

• Civil Citation helps reduce the disproportionate number of minorities and females involved with the juvenile justice system. In Leon County, 54% of program participants are minorities and 47% are females.12 In Miami-Dade County, 95% of program participants are minorities and 35% are females.13 Providing swift and appropriate sanctions and services has the potential to keep them from entering the juvenile justice system which already has a disproportionate representation of these populations.

• Early intervention is highly effective at treating issues appropriately and more effectively, thereby reducing the cost to the system and improving outcomes.

• Civil Citation addresses the zero-tolerance policies in schools by providing more appropriate and productive alternative responses, rather than suspension or arrest. It further enhances the Florida Legislature’s 2009 refinement of the state’s zero-tolerance law by offering an option for schools that allows for a graduated approach to the consequences of misbehaviors.14

• Civil Citation eliminates an unnecessary criminal record that can follow youth and hinder them for their ENTIRE life.

• In Miami-Dade County, 37 Police Departments signed individually to support and utilize Civil Citation for all first time misdemeanors (three charges are reviewed and considered on case by case basis). This allows the program to be a systemic improvement and generate even more cost savings.

Despite the option of Civil Citation programs, they are not widely implemented across Florida. However, those communities that have put Civil Citation programs into practice have experienced remarkable successes and significant savings. The bar graph shown in the Executive Summary provides an example of the potential savings to be garnered from diverting just 40% of the youth into Civil Citation programs as an alternative to involvement in the system.

- 5 -

Summary If the Florida Legislature, Associated Industries of Florida and the Florida Juvenile Justice Association are committed to providing a continuum of services that have a balanced and fair approach to juvenile justice in Florida, applying the successes of existing Civil Citation programs, such as those in Leon and Miami-Dade Counties, on a statewide level has the potential to reduce Florida’s juvenile crime rate, lead to improved recidivism rates, save money and increase public safety. Implementation of Civil Citation statewide will better serve the justice system, Florida communities, the youth and their families.

Resources Cited

1- Florida Department of Juvenile Justice – 2010 Electronic Delinquency Profile 2- Department of Juvenile Justice – Bureau of Research and Planning 3- Florida Statute – Title XLVII – Chapter 985 – Section 12 4- Information gathered from: DISC Village, Inc. – Juvenile Assessment Center Quarterly Data Report – Fiscal Year End Report – FY 2008-2009 and Miami-Dade County Juvenile Services Department – Juvenile Justice Model – Presentation at Juvenile Justice Summit – May 16, 2008 5- Originally cited in 1996-97 as $4,500 by Dr. Donald Meichenbaum of the Melissa Institute. Based upon consensus of various criminal justice and community professionals, the amount has been increased to $5,000. 6- Average cost associated with Civil Citation is $374 in Leon County (DISC Village, Inc. Controller – based on FY 2008-09 numbers) and $398 in Miami-Dade County (Miami-Dade Juvenile Services Department Cost Analysis – Miami-Dade County – Office of Strategic Business Management). This calculates an average of $386. 7- Average cost of processing through justice system of 40% of the youth = 30,153 x $5,000 = $150,765,000 Average cost of Civil Citation of 40% of the youth = 30,153x $386= $11,639,058 Difference in expenses = $150,765,000 - $11,639,058= $150,765,000 for a savings of 92.28%. 8- DISC Village, Inc. – Civil Citation Quarterly Report – Fourth Quarter – FY 2007-2008; DISC Village, Inc. – Civil Citation Quarterly Report – Fourth Quarter – FY 2008-2009; DISC Village, Inc. – Civil Citation Quarterly Report – Fourth Quarter – FY 2009-2010. 9- Miami-Dade County Juvenile Services Department – Senior Public Policy Analyst 10- Advancement Project – “Test, Punish, and Push Out: How ‘Zero Tolerance’ and High-Stakes Testing Funnel Youth Into the School-to-Prison Pipeline” – January 2010 – www.advancementproject.org/sites/default/files/publications/01-EducationReport-2009v8-HiRes.pdf 11- Eckerd Family Foundation – “Appropriate Punishment: Civil Citations for Juvenile Misbehavior” – www.eckerdfamilyfoundation.org/docs/Civil_Citations.pdf 12- DISC Village, Inc. Juvenile Assessment Center Quarterly Data Report – Fiscal Year End Report – FY 2008-2009 13- Miami-Dade County Juvenile Services Department – Juvenile Justice Model – Presentation at Juvenile Justice Summit – May 16, 2008 14- Advancement Project – “Test, Punish, and Push Out: How ‘Zero Tolerance’ and High-Stakes Testing Funnel Youth Into the School-to-Prison Pipeline” – January 2010 – www.advancementproject.org/sites/default/files/publications/01-EducationReport-2009v8-HiRes.pdf

http://www.advancementproject.org/sites/default/files/publications/01-EducationReport-2009v8-HiRes.pdf�

http://www.eckerdfamilyfoundation.org/docs/Civil_Citations.pdf�

http://www.advancementproject.org/sites/default/files/publications/01-EducationReport-2009v8-HiRes.pdf�

Juvenile Justice Transition Team - FINAL REPORT

Documents

Transcript of Juvenile Justice Transition Team - FINAL REPORT