BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

Transcription

1 8A2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY PLACEMENT: DEPARTMENTAL PRESET: TITLE: HEAR A BRIEF UPDATE REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE COST SHARING AGENDA ITEM DATES: MEETING DATE: 7/29/2014 COMPLETED DATE: 7/17/2014 COUNTY ATTORNEY: 7/7/2014 ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: 7/14/2014 REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT: PREPARED BY: Name: Department of Administration Name: Procedures: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Department of Administration Kate Parmelee Intergovernmental & Grants Coordinator Since 2004, Martin County and Florida s non-fiscally constrained counties have been in a cost-share relationship with the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to fund secure detention (Sec F.S.). Martin County recently joined the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) in a Petition for Rule Challenge to the Department of Juvenile Justice s proposed new rules which will dictate the method and amount counties will pay for detention care. Staff will provide an update on the proposed rules and fiscal impact as well as provide additional background on juvenile justice in Martin County, in order to receive policy direction. APPROVAL: ADM LEG 8061a901 1 of 34

2 CA BACKGROUND/RELATED STRATEGIC GOAL: Since 2004, Martin County and Florida s non-fiscally constrained counties have been in a cost-share relationship with the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to fund secure detention. (Section , Florida Statutues). Despite this cost-sharing relationship, counties have no input on how secure detention costs are administered. Thus, counties role in juvenile detention at this time is strictly financial. Juveniles in secure detention are housed at the St. Lucie Regional Detention Center in Fort Pierce. This cost-sharing relationship is illustrated in Exhibit A. In the beginning, the breakdown was relatively simple: counties paid for secure detention days prior to a juvenile s final court disposition and the state paid for days after their case was resolved. However in 2008, despite no change in statute and contrary to the plain language of the law, DJJ significantly changed the way it billed counties for secure detention. To protect the interests of their taxpayers, several counties filed administrative actions against DJJ contesting the validity of DJJ s rules and its interpretation of the statute. In June 2013, the First District Court of Appeal in DJJ v. Okaloosa, et al. (Case No. 1D ) agreed with the counties and affirmed a Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Final Order in Okaloosa, et al. v. DJJ (Case No RX) that held DJJ s interpretation of the law was arbitrary and erroneous, and that DJJ had, for years, improperly shifted financial responsibility for detention days to the counties. While counties were paying approximately 75% of secure detention under DJJ s invalid rules, DJJ interpreted the court s ruling to reflect a revised cost share of approximately only 32% for counties. In revising prior years reconciliations to comply with the court s ruling, DJJ s own data indicates that counties over-paid by at least $200 million from FY08-09 through FY It is estimated that Martin County overpaid by $879,477. During the 2014 Legislative Session, Martin County joined FAC s efforts to pass beneficial legislation to fix the fundamentally flawed cost-share system and to end the cycle of litigation. Although HB5305 and SB 1532 put forth a solution, the legislation failed to pass. Therefore DJJ began a process of promulgating new rules that will dictate the method and ultimately the amount counties will pay for detention care. The Proposed Rule Hearing was held on June 6, Based on the draft proposed rules, it appears that DJJ is receding from its original interpretation of the court s ruling and plans to begin billing counties for about 57% of the costs of detention. FAC and Martin County have contended the Proposed Rules do not comply with Section , Florida Statutes, the decision issued in the Rule Challenge, or the Department's prior interpretation of the same. As a result, Martin County joined FAC and other counties in filing a Petition for Rule Challenge, which has been provided in the backup for this item as Exhibit B. The 25 counties challenging the rule are Alachua, Bay, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Escambia, Flagler, Hernando, Hillsborough, Lake, Lee, Leon, Manatee, Martin, Nassau, Okaloosa, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Santa Rosa, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Sarasota, Volusia and Walton. The dispute affects 38 of Florida's 67 counties. The remaining 29 counties are considered "fiscally constrained" and are not part of the cost-sharing formula. 8061a901 2 of 34

3 The Petition for Rule Challenge case has been held in abeyance with a status report due from the parties no later than September 5, The basis of the abeyance is that DJJ plans to re-write or change the proposed rules. Martin County has also joined other counties in a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, challenging DJJ s calculation of counties share as out of compliance with Florida Statutes. ISSUES: Billing and Reconciliation Fiscal Impact An analysis of the estimated impact of the DJJ Rulemaking Process for Martin County for illustration purposes has been included in the item as Exhibit C. If DJJ's FY14-15 estimates are accurate, the current proposed rule will require an increase in expenditures of approximately $81, or a % increase in pre-disposition costs when compared to the original court interpretation as applied in FY DJJ sent Martin County a bill on June 23, 2014 for the estimated costs of detention for July 2014 in the amount of $20, With DJJ s proposed rules, which are being challenged, the County is charged with 57% responsibility. It is important to note while DJJ has historically repaid the difference between the estimated cost and the actual costs, this will no longer be happening. At issue is what portion of the July 2014 bill, and future bills pending the outcome of the appeal, the County should pay to the State, knowing that it will likely never see any repayment. As an alternative to payment of the billed amount, three options are proposed for consideration: 1. The County pays 32% of the bill. The bill was for $20,388.88, which is 57% of the total bill of $35, With DJJ s proposed rules the County is charged with 57% responsibility. What the County should be paying under Okaloosa is 32%, which would be $11,446.38, with the remainder deposited into escrow. 2. The County pays based on our own actual cost figures, which allocates all violation of probation cases to the State, regardless of the reason for the violation, as those would be considered post-disposition. The numbers are as follows: Number of Pre-Disposition Days: In FY 2011/2012: 1,122 pre-disposition days, In FY 2012/2013: 522 pre-disposition days, In FY 2013/2014: 499 pre-disposition days. This accounts for a total of 2,143 days for those 3 years and an average of pre-disposition days per year. Actual Cost per Pre-Disposition Day: In FY 2011/2012: $360.95, In FY 2012/2013: $253.32, In FY 2013/2014: $ a901 3 of 34

4 Based on this information, an average cost per pre-disposition day is $ Therefore, a more real actual cost per month would be ($ x $313.47) / 12 = $18, That amount could be paid and the remainder of the $20, deposited in escrow. 3. The numbers from FY 2011/12, 12/13 and 13/14 show that each year there is a reduction in arrests and detention. It is also a possibility that the number of pre-disposition days will continue to decrease in the future based on the outcome of this agenda item and an increased use of local options. With this in mind, using the number of pre-disposition beds from 2013/2014 would be an even more accurate actual cost. If we were to use the number of pre-disposition days associated with FY 2013/2014 of 499, and DJJ s estimated cost per pre-disposition day for 2014/2015 of $328.94, the calculation would be as follows: (499 x $328.94) / 12 = $13, That amount could be paid and the remainder of the $20, deposited in escrow. For informational purposes, DJJ estimates our 2014/2015 pre-disposition days at 744, which is very high considering utilization from the past two years. Juvenile Justice in Martin County While the County s role has traditionally been financial, Staff advises it may be helpful to explore how the juvenile detention system works in Martin County in order to decrease pre-disposition days and therefore decrease overall costs. County Staff does not wish to dictate punishment or sentencing to Judges, but rather wishes to provide more local options for the Judges to choose from when looking at a child who scores secure detention or a child who is non-compliant with drug court. In addition, increased use of the civil citation program could reduce Martin County s cost over the long run. Judges are left with several options when a youth violates the law. One, releasing the child to their family outright. In this situation there cannot be conditions put on the release. Two, releasing the child to the family on Home Detention for 21 days. In this situation, conditions can be placed on the Home Detention. Three, securely detaining the child for up to 21 days, and when appropriate, up to 30 days. For the most part, in order to be securely detained, a child must score the requisite points. However, even when a child does score for secure detention, a Judge can release the child if he so chooses and feels it is appropriate for the child. In this situation, a Judge can order, as part of Home Detention, that the child complete certain tasks within that 21 day time period. Some counties have been experimenting with alternatives to secure detention by giving Judges various options. County Staff wishes to explore local available alternatives that would both rehabilitate and deter future conduct. It is proven that recidivism is reduced when children receive some alternative to secure detention. Detaining non-violent youth leads to unnecessary costs and damages the adolescent s chances of exiting the criminal justice system, especially since most youth age out of crime. It has been recommended that secure detention should only be reserved for violent and dangerous offenders. Thus, the Florida Association of Counties has advocated Florida should focus efforts to detain the right youth, like habitual violent offenders, and focus on less expensive community alternatives for the remainder of the youth who would qualify for detention. During the 2011 session, the Legislature gave the Department and local communities an additional resource, civil citation. Civil Citation is for first time misdemeanor offenders and its intent is to prevent these children from having a criminal record, as well as contact with the system. While the children who qualify for civil citation typically will not qualify for secure detention, it is important to utilize civil citation 8061a901 4 of 34

5 in order to keep these children out of the system. Statistics show that contact with the system creates a high probability of future contact with the system. Future contact with the system will inevitably lead to a high possibility of secure detention. Martin County has its own civil citation program, which provides an alternative to detention and could help reduce recidivism. According to data from the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Martin County Sherriff s Office is currently only able to reach a small percentage of juveniles who potentially qualify for Civil Citation. These children who qualify for the civil citation program only have access to this program if the arresting officer choosing to utilize the civil citation process rather than arresting. County Staff has provided training to road patrol deputies and has encouraged utilization of the program. In addition, it may be helpful for the BOCC to explore alternatives to secure detention in relation to drug court cases. For example, from July 2012 through June 2013, Martin County was billed for 937 days at the St Lucie Regional Detention Center. Of those 937 days, 288 or 31% were days utilized as sanction days for individuals in Juvenile Drug Court who were non-compliant with program requirements. While the County was billed for 937 days, only 522 of those days were pre-disposition days. All drug court sanction days would be considered pre-disposition days. With that in mind, the number of drug court days accounts for over 50% of the pre-disposition days. From a clinical perspective, after the initial negative impact of being placed in the detention setting, additional placements lose effect in creating a positive change in behavior. Alternatives to additional placements need to be considered. One option would be to reinvest funds used for detention for sanctions individually tailored for the juvenile s specific needs. Since youth who experience detention are more likely to end up in county jails and prisons as adults, local alternatives to secure detention for Martin County youth can help improve delivery of justice to youthful offenders, improve public safety and save tax dollars. Staff requests direction on options the BOCC is interested in exploring and authority to engage with applicable partners, such as the Circuit 19 Juvenile Justice Advisory Board, which provides advice and direction to the Department in the development and implementation of juvenile justice programs and to work collaboratively with the Department in seeking program improvements and policy changes to address the emerging and changing needs of Florida's youth who are at risk of delinquency. RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECOMMENDATION 1. Move to pay the July amount of $20, as billed by DJJ. 2. Move to further identify and encourage utilization of alternatives to juvenile secure detention and contact applicable partners to bring programs back for consideration by the BOCC. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Move to pay Option 1 ($11,446.38) and deposit the remaining into escrow. 2. Move to pay Option 2 ($18,659.30) and deposit the remaining into escrow. 3. Move to pay Option 3 ($13,678.42) and deposit the remaining into escrow. 4. Move to not authorize the review of alternatives to juvenile secure detention programs at this time. 8061a901 5 of 34

6 FISCAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION DJJ sent Martin County a bill on June 23, 2014, for the estimated costs of detention for July 2014 in the amount of $20, The BOCC can pay the full amount or choose to pay one of three alternatives provided by Staff. Funding Source County Funds Non-County Funds Authorization General Fund: Full payment $20, Subtotal TBD Project Total $20, ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS Funding Source County Funds Non-County Funds Authorization Option 1 $11, Option 2 $18, Option 3 $13, Subtotal TBD Project Total TBD DOCUMENT(S) REQUIRING ACTION: Budget Transfer / Amendment Chair Letter Contract / Agreement Grant / Application Notice Ordinance Resolution X Other: July DJJ Invoice ROUTING: X ADM _ BLD _ CDD _ COM _ ENG _ FRD _ GMD _ GSD _ ITS _ LIB _ MCA _ MPO _ PRD _ USD X CA _ ACA X LEG 8061a901 6 of 34

7 7 of 34

8 Filed June 16, :31 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 8 of 34

9 9 of 34

10 10 of 34

11 11 of 34

12 12 of 34

13 13 of 34

14 14 of 34

15 15 of 34

16 16 of 34

17 17 of 34

18 18 of 34

19 19 of 34

20 20 of 34

21 21 of 34

22 Martin County County Analysis of Estimated Impact of DJJ Rulemaking Process (for illustration purposes only - all data provided by DJJ ) A. Historical Data (FY , FY , FY ) B. FY Estimates C. FY Estimates Past Cost Sharing Relationship Original Interpretation DJJ Rule Making Process 75% Counties / 25% State 32% Counties / 68% State 53% Counties / 47% State 3-Year Average Pre-Disposition Days 2, FY Estimated Pre-Disposition Days FY Estimated Pre-Disposition Days Year Average Pre-Disposition Costs 776, FY Estimated Pre-Disposition Cost 162, FY Estimated Pre-Disposition Cost 244, D. Analysis C. vs. B. C. vs. A. FY vs. FY FY vs. Historical 3-Year Average Pre-Disposition Days Pre-Disposition Days FY Estimated Pre-Disposition Days Year Average Pre-Disposition Days 2,040 FY Estimated Pre-Disposition Days 744 FY Estimated Pre-Disposition Days 744 # +/- Pre-Disposition Days (FY vs. FY 13-14) 245 # +/- Pre-Disposition Days (FY vs. 3-Yr. Avg.) (1,296) % +/- Pre-Disposition Days (FY vs. FY 13-14) 49.06% % +/- Pre-Disposition Days (FY vs. 3-Yr. Avg.) (63.54%) Pre-Disposition Costs Pre-Disposition Costs FY Estimated Pre-Disposition Costs $162, Year Average Pre-Disposition Costs $776, FY Estimated Pre-Disposition Costs $244, FY Estimated Pre-Disposition Costs $244, $ +/- Pre-Disposition Costs (FY vs. FY 13-14) $81, $ +/- Pre-Disposition Costs (FY vs. 3-Yr. Avg.) ($532,002.05) % +/- Pre-Disposition Costs (FY vs. FY 13-14) 50.34% % +/- Pre-Disposition Costs (FY vs. 3-Yr. Avg.) (68.50%) E. Conclusion If DJJ's FY14-15 estimates are accurate, the current proposed rule will require an increase in expenditures when compared to the original court interpretation as applied in FY The current proposed rule estimate represents a lower amount when compared to historical Fiscal Years prior to FY Notes 1. All data provided by DJJ 2. The historical period referenced includes FY 11 thru FY 13 Prepared by the Florida Association of Counties 6/27/ of 34

23 BCC MEETING DATE: July 29, 2014 AGENDA ITEM: 8A2 TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM Honorable Members of the Board DATE: July 21, 2014 of County Commissioners Taryn Kryzda County Administrator Kate Parmelee, Intergovernmental & Grants Coordinator Department of Juvenile Justice Cost Share Update On July 17, Martin County was notified that the Department of Juvenile Justice released revised rules for the county cost share billing system and set a new rule hearing date. Included in this supplemental memo for reference by the Martin County Board of County Commissioners is the notice of rule hearing, agenda and revised rule text. The hearing has been set for August 5, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. at DJJ s Headquarters in Tallahassee. The revised rules change the process for estimating costs and add a definition for actual costs. The definitions for final court disposition, predisposition, and postdisposition remain unchanged. Reviewed by County Attorney s Office Page 1 of 1 adm2014m408 SUPPLEMENTAL.docx23 of 34

24 Notice of Meeting/Workshop Hearing DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE Detention Services RULE NO.: RULE TITLE: 63G-1.011: Definitions 63G-1.013: Calculating Estimated Funding 63G-1.016: Monthly Reporting 63G-1.017: Monthly/Annual Reconciliation and Dispute Resolution The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice announces a hearing to which all persons are invited. DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, August 5, 2014, 10:00 a.m. 12:00 noon PLACE: DJJ Headquarters, 2020 Capital Circle S.E., Training Center, Suite 1318, Alexander Building, Tallahassee, Florida. For information about participation by telephone contact John Milla at (850) GENERAL SUBJECT MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Amendments to rule provisions governing the sharing of detention costs, in compliance with section , F.S. Evidence and argument will be heard on revisions that were made following the June 6 hearing. These new revisions will adjust the method for estimating costs, and provide a definition of "actual costs". A copy of the agenda may be obtained by contacting: John Milla, 2737 Centerview Drive, Ste. 3200, Tallahassee, FL For more information, you may contact: John Milla, 2737 Centerview Drive, Ste. 3200, Tallahassee, FL , john.milla@djj.state.fl.us. 24 of 34

25 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE Second Proposed Rule Hearing 63G-1 (Detention Cost Sharing) August 5, 2014 I. Introduction (10:00 a.m.) * II. III. IV. Discussion of Actual Costs (10:15 a.m.) Calculating Estimates (11:00 a.m.) Other Revisions (11:45 a.m.) V. Conclusion (12:00 p.m.) * Other than the starting time, all times are estimated, and will vary to accommodate public participation and the submission of evidence and argument, if any. 25 of 34

26 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE Revised Hearing Text August 5, G Definitions. (1) Funding of detention services means the funding required to provide detention services as determined by the General Appropriations Act Implementing Bill and/or General Bills. (2) Final Court Disposition means the decision announced by the court at the disposition hearing determining the most appropriate services for a youth. Final court disposition includes commitment, probation, and dismissal of charges. Commitment means the final court disposition of a juvenile delinquency charge through an order placing a youth in the custody of the department for placement in a residential or non-residential program. Commitment to the department is in lieu of a disposition of probation. (3) Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund means the state trust fund used to capture budget and costs associated with the counties share of detention funding. (4) Fiscally constrained county means a county which is not required to pay the full costs of its resident juveniles detention services. (5) Juvenile Probation Officer (JPO) means the primary case manager for the purpose of managing, coordinating, and monitoring the services provided and sanctions snactions required for youth on probation, post-commitment probation or conditional release supervision. (6) Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) means the department s electronic information system used to gather and store information on youth having contact with the department. [Changes from Published Rule Text (June 6) appear in red.] 26 of 34

27 (7) County of Residence means the county where, at the time of referral, a child resides, as determined by a department intake officer pursuant to Rule 63G-1.012, F.A.C., and entered in the Juvenile Justice Information System, except for those youth described in subsection 63G (2), F.A.C., below. (8) Pre-commitment means those days a youth is detained in a detention center prior to being commited to the department. (8)(9) Reconciliation period means the first through the last day of a month during which reconcilation by the county and the department for the previous month s utilization takes place. (9)(10) Secure detention means a physically state owned and operated physically restricting facility used for the temporary care of children, pending adjudication, disposition, or placement. (10)(11) Service day means any day or portion of a day spent by a youth in secure detention. (11)(12) Utilization means a summary of service days. (12) Estimated per diem means the per diem calculated for billing purposes prior to the upcoming state fiscal year utilizing an estimate of the total service days and the total appropriationestimated actual costs for the detention centersbudget entity, for the current fiscal year. The resulting per diem is then used to estimate the cost to a county under the methodology in Rule 63G-1.013, F.A.C. (13) Actual per diem means the per diem calculated utilizing actual service days and the actual expenditures for the cost of detentioncosts of the completed fiscal year for the purpose of reconciliation. [Changes from Published Rule Text (June 6) appear in red.] 27 of 34

28 (14) Predisposition means the period of time a youth is in detention care prior to entry of a final court disposition by the court. The counties are responsible for all predisposition days including all service days for youth that are, at the time of the detention: (a) In detention for contempt of court if the youth is not committed to the department or on department supervised probation. (b) In detention while on department supervised probation when the youth is charged with a new violation of law occurring after the date the youth was placed on probation. (15) Postdisposition means the period of time a youth is in detention care after entry of a final court disposition. The State is responsible for all postdisposition days including all service days for youth that are, at the time of the detention: (a) Committed to the department, including youth on conditional release. (b) On department supervised probation, unless the youth is charged with new law violations occurring after the date the youth was placed on probation. (c) Without charges, as all charges against the youth have been dismissed or the youth has been found not guilty. (16) Actual Costs means the total detention expenditures as reported by the department after the certified forward period has ended. These costs include expenditutres in all fund types and appropriations categories, Salaries & Benefits, Other Personal Services, Expenses, OCO, Food Products, Legislative Initiatives, Fiscally Constrained Counties, Contracted Services, G/A - Contracted Services, Risk Management Insurance, Lease or Lease-Purchase of Equipment, Human Resources Outsourcing, and FCO - Maintenance & Repair. [Changes from Published Rule Text (June 6) appear in red.] 28 of 34

29 Rulemaking Authority , (11) (10) FS. Law Implemented FS. History New , Amended. 63G Calculating Estimated Funding. (1) Estimates for each county s individual portion of detention funding will be calculated as follows: (a) The department shall estimate the number of service days for the upcoming fiscal year based upon prior use of secure detention and generally accepted statistical methods. Utilizing previous fiscal year data, the department shall estimate: All youth served in secure detention during the most recently reconciled previous fiscal year as reflected in the JJIS will be identified; the actual costs, using the current year expenditures projected through the end of the fiscal year, adjusted for any new legislative appropriations; 2. the number of predisposition service days for each county; and 23. the total number of service days for secure detention, including both predisposition and postdisposition service days. (b) The estimated actual costs total budget for detention, as authorized in the General Appropriations Act, shall be divided by the total number of service days estimate, which will produce an estimated per diem. The total number of pre-commitment service days in secure detention is computed by including all days up to but not including the date of commitment to the department. (c) The department shall multiply the estimated per diem by the expected number of predisposition service days for each county to calculate each county s estimated share of the [Changes from Published Rule Text (June 6) appear in red.] 29 of 34

30 detention costs total budget. (2) The total number of pre-commitment service days for each county from the most recently reconciled previous fiscal year utilization data will be divided by the total pre-commitment service days for all counties for that same time period to arrive at each county s percentage of the total. (3) Each county s percentage will be multiplied by the total estimated annual appropriation in the shared county/state juvenile detention trust fund for the upcoming fiscal year to determine each county s share of the total budget. (2)(4) The estimated share of the total budget will be billed to the counties in monthly installments. (3)(5) Invoices are to be mailed at the beginning of the month prior to the service period, so that an invoice for the August service period will be mailed in July. Rulemaking Authority , (11) (10) FS. Law Implemented (3) FS. History New , Amended. 63G Monthly Reporting. (1) Each month, the department shall generate a web based on-line utilization report that provides each county s actual usage for the previous service month. The report is to be used by the counties to validate utilization. (2) The report shall contain the following information: (a) Youth s name; (b) Youth s address at the time of the referral; [Changes from Published Rule Text (June 6) appear in red.] 30 of 34

31 (c) Sex; (d) Date of birth; (e) Name of parent or guardian, if available; (f) Phone contact, if available; (g) Charge category; (h) Admission date; (i) Final court Commitment disposition date, if available; and (j)(g) Number of detention days. (3) The report will be available electronically on the first day of each month for the previous month s utilization. (4) The limited release of juvenile identifying information contained in each county s monthly report is confidential. The release will not include treatment or charging information, is limited to the county official(s) designated to receive the report, and is not to be used for any purpose other than that of verifying the provision of detention services. Rulemaking Authority , (11) (10) FS. Law Implemented (3), (7) FS. History New , Amended. 63G Monthly/Annual Reconciliation and Dispute Resolution. (1) On the first day of each month, the department shall make available to each county a utilization report described in Rule 63G-1.016, F.A.C. (2) The county shall have from the first to the fourteenth day of the month to review the online utilization information reported for the previous month. If the county takes issue with any of [Changes from Published Rule Text (June 6) appear in red.] 31 of 34

32 the utilization data, it shall mark the record for dispute on-line and provide a reason for the dispute. Disputes involving a detained youth s county of residence or disposition must include one or more of the following indicia of specificity: (a) Address invalid not in county; (b) Address invalid street number not valid; (c) Address invalid not residence of youth; (d) Address invalid see text (must enter text); (e) Detention stay invalid see text (must enter text);. (f) Service day is a postdisposition day see text (must enter text). (3) The department will make every effort to review all disputes for the previous month between the fifteenth and twenty-fourth tweny-fourth day of each month for the reconciliation period. The department s response, provided on-line, constitutes notice of final action. All pending disputes will be resolved by the department no later than 60 days after the end of the reconciliation period. (4) In October of each year, the department will perform an annual reconciliation of utilization and costs for the prior fiscal year to calculate the difference between the estimated costs and the actual costs of each county for its share of detention care. The department shall provide: Based on a county s actual utilization, a recalculation of that county s share of the shared county/state juvenile detention trust fund expenditures will be performed. (a) The actual acutal cost to operate detention care based on actual expenditures, detailing expenditures by appropriation category and by detention center. (b) The number of predisposition service days for each county. [Changes from Published Rule Text (June 6) appear in red.] 32 of 34

33 (c) The total number of all service days for secure detention, including both predisposition and postdisposition service days. (5) In November of each year, the department will provide each county an annual reconcilation statement for the previous fiscal year. The calculation shall be performed as follows: The statement shall reflect the difference between the amount paid by the county based on the estimated utilization and the actual utilization reconciled in subsection (4) above. (a) The actual costs total expenditures shall be divided by the total number of service days, which will produce an actual per diem. (b) The actual per diem will be applied to each county s actual predisposition service days to calculate each county s actual costs. (c) The reconciliation shall reflect the difference between the estimated costs paid by the county during the fiscal year and the county s actual costs. The statement shall reflect the difference between the amount paid by the county based on the estimated utilization and the actual utilization reconciled in subsection (4) above. (6) If the total amount paid by a county falls short of the amount owed based on actual utilization, the county will be invoiced for that additional amount. The amount due will be applied to the county s account. An invoice will accompany the reconciliation statement, and shall be payable on or before March 1. If the amount paid by a county exceeds the amount owed based on actual utilization, the county will receive a credit. The credit will be applied to the county s account and be included on the invoice sent in November. (7) For the purpose of determining the actual utilization and actual per diem, the department is responsible for paying for the cost of detention for all service days for youth that reside out of [Changes from Published Rule Text (June 6) appear in red.] 33 of 34

34 state or whose address cannot be determined. Rulemaking Authority , (11) (10) FS. Law Implemented (5), (7) FS. History New , Amended. [Changes from Published Rule Text (June 6) appear in red.] 34 of 34