TABLE OF CONTENTS. Executive Summary...3. Data Sources and Methods Philosophy of Effective Programming Educational Services...

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "TABLE OF CONTENTS. Executive Summary...3. Data Sources and Methods Philosophy of Effective Programming Educational Services..."

Transcription

1

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...3 Data Sources and Methods...17 Philosophy of Effective Programming...29 Educational Services...35 Prevention Programs...45 Delinquency Intake...63 Detention Services...69 Probation and Community Intervention...77 Residential and Correctional Facilities...97 Low-Risk Residential Programs Moderate-Risk Residential Programs High-Risk Residential Programs Maximum-risk Residential Programs Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Table of Contents Comprehensive Accountability Report 1

4 Table of Contents Comprehensive Accountability Report

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This year marks the second annual publication of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice s (DJJ) Comprehensive Accountability Report, a synthesis of the Quality Assurance (QA), Outcome Evaluation, and Program Accountability Measures (PAM) reports, as well as the Residential Program Report Cards. The Comprehensive Accountability Report is presented in two volumes: Volume I, Quality Assurance, Outcome Evaluation and Program Accountability Measures and Volume II, Residential Program Report Cards. This compilation provides legislators, policy makers, and stakeholders with a comprehensive evaluation of the continuum of juvenile justice services throughout Florida. The Comprehensive Accountability Report contains information for each program area within the Department of Juvenile Justice including a profile of youth served, Quality Assurance performance, Outcome Evaluation outputs and recidivism outcomes, Program Accountability Measures (PAM) and other program area-related statistics. Given the need for one-year recidivism follow-up, FY results are provided for each program area with the exception of the detention and intake numbers, for which recidivism analyses do not apply and therefore the numbers presented for these sections represent FY data. The following discussion provides a summary of the findings from the second Comprehensive Accountability Report. Profile of Youth In the prevention, probation and residential commitment chapters of this report, a profile of the FY youth served is provided. In the intake chapter a profile of youth received through intake in FY is presented. In the detention chapter a profile of youth admitted to secure and home detention in FY is provided. The following tables present the gender and race profiles of youth from each of these chapters. GENDER/RACE Male Female Prevention White Black Other White Black Other Unk Florida Network Shelters 24% 19% 4% 28% 20% 5% 1% Hurricane Island Outward Bound 60% 12% 0% 20% 8% 0% 0% Florida Network Non-Residential 30% 18% 4% 25% 17% 4% 3% PACE Center for Girls 0% 0% 0% 57% 42% 1% <1% Partnership/Invest in Children 29% 24% <1% 24% 22% 1% 0% Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention 31% 23% 1% 24% 21% 1% 0% Juvenile Accountability Block Grants 34% 29% 1% 20% 16% <1% 0% Special Member Projects 36% 15% 2% 30% 16% 1% <1% GENDER/RACE Male Female Intake and Detention White Black Other White Black Other Delinquency Intake 30% 27% 12% 15% 12% 4% Secure Detention 27% 37% 14% 9% 10% 3% Home Detention 27% 38% 15% 7% 10% 3% Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report 3

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GENDER/RACE Male Female Diversion and Probation White Black Other White Black Other Diversion Services 40% 22% 1% 23% 14% 0% Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services 41% 30% 1% 18% 10% 0% Probation Services 44% 32% 0% 12% 11% 0% Minimum-Risk and Day Treatment Programs 36% 41% 0% 11% 12% 0% Redirection Programs 37% 35% 1% 13% 14% 0% Post Commitment Services - Provider Operated 38% 48% 0% 7% 8% 0% Post Commitment Services - State Operated 44% 39% 1% 9% 8% 0% GENDER/RACE Male Female Residential White Black Other White Black Other Low-Risk Residential Programs 30% 47% 1% 9% 12% 0% Moderate-Risk Residential Programs 40% 43% 0% 9% 7% 0% High-Risk Residential Programs 40% 52% 0% 4% 3% 0% Maximum-Risk Residential Programs 38% 59% 0% 1% 2% 0% Age profiles for youth handled through prevention, intake, detention, diversion, probation, and residential programs are provided in the following tables. AGE Prevention Unk Florida Network Shelters 0% 3% 37% 60% <1% 0% Hurricane Island Outward Bound <1% 0% 51% 48% 0% 0% Florida Network Non-Residential 2% 12% 44% 42% <1% 0% PACE Center for Girls 1% 2% 39% 57% 1% <1% Partnership/Invest in Children 7% 25% 41% 25% 1% 1% Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention 5% 27% 41% 23% 1% 3% Juvenile Accountability Block Grants 2% 10% 33% 46% 3% 6% Special Member Projects 3% 6% 22% 66% 4% <1% AGE Intake and Detention Delinquency Intake <1% 3% 25% 69% 3% Secure Detention 0% 1% 21% 70% 8% Home Detention 0% 3% 25% 69% 3% Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGE Diversion and Probation Diversion Services 0% 5% 38% 56% 1% Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services 0% 11% 45% 43% 1% Probation Services 0% 1% 24% 65% 10% Minimum-Risk and Day Treatment Programs 0% 0% 27% 70% 2% Redirection Programs 0% 2% 33% 64% 2% Post Commitment Services - Provider Operated 0% 0% 12% 71% 17% Post Commitment Services - State Operated 0% 0% 12% 68% 20% AGE Residential Low-Risk Residential Programs 0% 1% 33% 62% 4% Moderate-Risk Residential Programs 0% 0% 22% 71% 7% High-Risk Residential Programs 0% 0% 14% 70% 15% Maximum-Risk Residential Programs 0% 0% 4% 64% 32% Program Evaluation The Department uses three primary sources to evaluate programs and program components: quality assurance, outcome evaluation, and program accountability measures (residential commitment only). The following information summarizes the information from these three sources. Quality Assurance The Florida Legislature authorizes, in Section , Florida Statutes, that the Department of Juvenile Justice evaluate each program operated by the Department or a provider under contract with the Department and establish minimum thresholds of performance for each program component. During 2007, Quality Assurance Peer Review Teams evaluated 206 programs to determine the level of performance and the quality of the services being provided to youth. This process ensures that all providers and programs are meeting at least minimum standards of care for youth in their custody. A review of a residential program or detention center takes five days. The review includes a thorough examination of documents (e.g., mental health treatment plans, performance plans, and medication administration records), interviews with staff, youth, parents and others, and on-site observations. The team, through a consensus rating session before the exit conference, determines the rating for each requirement. The table below provides a summary of performance ratings by program type for all juvenile justice programs reviewed in Eighteen percent of all juvenile justice programs were rated in the Commendable and Exceptional Performance range. Half of the programs were rated Acceptable Performance, while 29% of the programs were rated in the Minimal Performance range and 3% of the programs failed to meet minimum standards. The table that follows provides a summary of QA performance scores by program type for Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report 5

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2007 Quality Assurance Performance by Program Type PROGRAM TYPE FAILED TO MEET STANDARDS MINIMAL PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE COMMENDABLE PERFORMANCE EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE (0-59%) (60-69%) (70-79%) (80-89%) (90-100%) NUMBER REVIEWED STATEWIDE Meets Standards Exceeds Standards Prevention CINS/FINS Programs Probation & Community Intervention Day Treatment Programs IDDS JASP Detention Detention Centers Residential Low-Risk Residential Moderate-Risk Residential High-Risk Residential Maximum-Risk Residential TOTAL PERCENTAGES 3% 29% 50% 17% 1% 100% The graph below depicts the distribution of delinquency program QA ratings statewide over the past three years. Percent of Programs by QA Performance Categories and Year 57% 50% 39% 39% 29% 29% % 13% 6% Exceptional Performance 5% 9% 1% Commendable Performance Acceptable Performance Minimum Performance 3% 2% 0% Failed to Meet Standards Programs that meet at least minimum levels of performance overall but fail to meet the minimum levels of performance of any particular standard are placed on Conditional Status. Conditional Status triggers corrective action plans, intensive monitoring, and technical assistance until performance on the standard is improved. Twenty-six percent of the 206 programs reviewed in 2007 were placed on Conditional Status. Of those, 15% were prevention programs, 20% were community correction programs, 56% were residential programs, and 9% were detention facilities. The table that follows provides a listing of programs placed on conditional status during Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report

9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Programs Placed on Conditional Status in 2007 Name Provider Program Type Boley Young Adult Program Boley Centers for Behavioral Health Care, Inc. Day Treatment Brevard Group Treatment Home Center for Drug Free Living, Inc. Low Risk Male Broward Intensive Halfway House State Operated Residential - South Region High Risk Male Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center State Operated Detention - South Region Detention-Secure Camp E-Kel-Etu Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. Moderate Risk Male Collier Regional Juvenile Detention Center State Operated Detention - South Region Detention-Secure Community Based Youth Intervention Center for Family and Child Enrichment CINS/FINS Crosswinds Boys Day Treatment Crosswinds Youth Services, Inc. CINS/FINS Crosswinds Shelter Crosswinds Youth Services, Inc. CINS/FINS Dade Group Treatment Home Miami River of Life Low Risk Male Dove Academy Twin Oaks Juvenile Development, Inc. Moderate Risk Female Duval Halfway House State Operated Residential - North Region Moderate Risk Male Eckerd Academy Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. Low Risk Male Eckerd Challenge Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. Moderate Risk Male Eckerd Intensive Halfway House Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. Moderate Risk Male Eckerd Leadership Program Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. Day Treatment Eckerd Youth Development Center Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. High Risk Male FL Keys Childrens Shelter-Tavernier FL Keys' Children's Shelter CINS/FINS Florida Environmental Institute Associated Marine Institute Moderate Risk Male Florida Ocean Science Institute Associated Marine Institute Day Treatment Greenville Academy Twin Oaks Juvenile Development, Inc. Moderate Risk Male Gulf Coast Marine Institute - North Associated Marine Institute Day Treatment Hillsborough Regional Juvenile Detention Center - East State Operated Detention - Central Region Detention-Secure Jacksonville Marine Institute Associated Marine Institute Day Treatment Lutheran Services Florida Broward Lutheran Services Florida, Inc. CINS/FINS Oaks Juvenile Residential Facility Stewart-Marchman Center, Inc. Moderate Risk Male Okaloosa Halfway House Youth Services International, Inc. Moderate Risk Male Okaloosa Intensive Halfway House Youth Services International, Inc. High Risk Male Orlando Marine Institute Associated Marine Institute Day Treatment Palm Beach Juvenile Correctional Facility Youth Services International, Inc. High Risk Male Pinellas Marine Institute Associated Marine Institute Day Treatment Pinellas Regional Juvenile Detention Center State Operated Detention - Central Region Detention-Secure Pines Juvenile Residential Facility Stewart Marchman Center Moderate Risk Female Price Halfway House State Operated Residential - Central Region Moderate Risk Male Rainwater Center for Girls Crosswinds Youth Services, Inc. Day Treatment Safe Harbor Runaway Center Children's Home Society of Florida, Inc. CINS/FINS San Antonio Boys Village San Antonio Boys Village, Inc. Moderate Risk Male South Pines Academy Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida Moderate Risk Male Space Coast Marine Institute Associated Marine Institute Moderate Risk Male Sunnyside Village Park Place Behavioral HealthCare CINS/FINS Tampa Marine Institute Associated Marine Institute Day Treatment Union Juvenile Residential Facility Three Springs, Inc. Moderate Risk Male Vision Quest - Bluewater Vision Quest Moderate Risk Female Vision Quest - Warrington Vision Quest Low Risk Female White Foundation Family Homes Henry & Rilla White Foundation, Inc. Low Risk Male/Female Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report 7

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The programs listed in the following table are those placed on Conditional Status at the time of review in 2007, however, after taking corrective action, the program was removed from Conditional Status. Programs Removed From Conditional Status Following Corrective Action in 2007 Name Provider Program Type Bowling Green Juvenile Residential Facility Global Youth Services Moderate Risk Male Bowling Green New Beginnings Substance Abuse Program Global Youth Services Substance Abuse Female Britt Halfway House State Operated Residential - Central Region Moderate Risk Male CDS Interface Northwest - Lake City CDS Family & Behavioral Health Services, Inc. CINS/FINS Emerald Coast Marine Institute Associated Marine Institute Day Treatment Impact Halfway House Gateway Community Services, Inc. Moderate Risk Male Kissimmee Juvenile Correctional Facility Sex Offender Program Three Springs, Inc. Sex Offender High Risk Male Seminole Regional Juvenile Detention Center State Operated Detention - Central Region Detention-Secure Tallahassee Marine Institute Associated Marine Institute Day Treatment When a program fails their initial quality assurance review (scores below 60% overall), a corrective action plan is required to be submitted to the program area Regional Director's Office for review and approval. Once approved, staff from the program area (residential, detention, probation, etc.) may work with the program staff on the implementation of the corrective action plan and monitor the program to ensure the plan is having the desired effect. The Bureau of Quality Assurance schedules a second unannounced review within six months of publishing the initial report. According to Section (5)(f) Florida Statutes, if the program again fails to meet at least minimum thresholds of performance, the provider is subject to losing the contract for the program. As depicted in the table below, a total of seven programs failed to meet minimum Quality Assurance standards in Three programs that failed to meet minimum standards subsequently closed: Umatilla Juvenile Residential Facility, Marion Youth Development Center, and Withlacoochee Juvenile Residential Facility. Programs That Failed to Meet Minimum Quality Assurance Standards in 2007 Name Provider Program Type Gainesville Wilderness Institute Associated Marine Institute Day Treatment Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services (IDDS) Circuit 1 University of West Florida IDDS Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services (IDDS) Circuit 14 University of West Florida IDDS JESCA Day Treatment South James E. Scott Community Association Day Treatment Manatee Adolescent Treatment Services (MATS) Halfway House Premier Behavioral Youth Services Moderate Risk Male Manatee Juvenile Residential Facility Premier Behavioral Youth Services Sex Offender Moderate Risk Male Withlacoochee Juvenile Residential Facility Three Springs, Inc. Low Risk Male Outcome Evaluation Delinquency programs are designed to provide supervision and services to reduce youths further involvement with the juvenile justice system. Annual evaluation of these programs is critical to the implementation of effective services. A key outcome of interest to all stakeholders is recidivism following program services or program release. For more than a decade, the Department has maintained accountability in services through its comprehensive statewide assessment of recidivism rates. DJJ has received national recognition for these outcome evaluations and continues its strong record of service assessment. Each year the Department produces the Outcome Evaluation (OE) Report, an assessment of the juvenile justice continuum of services in Florida. The outcome evaluation analyses contain information and outcome data for the following juvenile justice services: prevention, intake, detention, probation and community intervention, and residential commitment. Data from nearly 1,000 different programs and case management units are collected and analyzed for the Outcome Evaluation. Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report

11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Intake and Detention chapters present data for FY , along with five-year trend data. Alternately, the chapters on prevention, probation and residential commitment present data on youth completing programs in FY , to allow for a one-year follow-up period for recidivism outcomes through FY Supplemental information and summary tables of youth outcomes and outputs, while referenced here, may be found in the Comprehensive Accountability Report appendices available on the web at: Prevention and Victim Services Program outputs and outcomes, including total releases, the percentage of youth adjudicated for offenses committed during services (ODS), number of completions and completion rates, demographic characteristics, six-month juvenile re-offending rates and one-year recidivism rates, are presented in the prevention chapter for each prevention program that released youth in FY The table below summarizes outcome information for prevention programs. Prevention Program Releases and Completions FY Total Releases Completions % ODS % Recidivism Florida Network Shelters 6,128 5,290 (86%) 1% 14% Hurricane Island Outward Bound (90%) 1% 13% Total Residential Prevention 6,314 5,457 (86%) 1% 14% Florida Network Non-Residential 7,001 6,495 (93%) 6% 6% PACE Center for Girls 1, (75%) 6% 5% Partnership/Invest in Children 6,160 4,423 (72%) 3% 4% Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention 2,897 2,438 (84%) 3% 4% Juvenile Accountability Block Grants 1, (68%) 5% 6% Special Member Projects (66%) 3% 7% Total Non-Residential Prevention 19,412 15,701 (81%) 4% 5% Total Prevention 25,726 21,158 (82%) 3% 7% During FY , a total of 25,726 youth were released from prevention programs. Eighty-two percent (n=21,158) completed their program. Among youth completing prevention programs, 48% were male and 62% were white. Statewide, almost one-third of all youth completing prevention programs had at least one delinquency charge prior to admission and approximately 1 in 8 had been adjudicated for a delinquent act prior to admission. For youth completing prevention programs in FY , the six-month recidivism rate was seven percent. The majority of prevention programs are non-residential and serve youth within the community. Exceptions to this are wilderness expedition programs and runaway shelters which provide residential services. Due to the nature of the service provided, the population served by the residential shelters differs from most of the other types of prevention programs. Although prevention programs are primarily designed for non-delinquents, almost half (45%) of the youth completing a shelter stay had previously been referred to DJJ, and 22% had been adjudicated delinquent. The six-month recidivism rate for the shelters was fourteen percent. Youth completing non-residential prevention programs had less prior DJJ involvement than those completing residential prevention programs. Twenty-eight percent of youth released from nonresidential programs had a prior charge, while only 8% had a prior adjudication. A 7% six-month recidivism rate was found for youth completing non-residential prevention programs. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report 9

12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Intake The delinquency intake process includes receiving youth charged with a crime, screening (including the Suicide Risk Screening), investigating, assessing, and processing allegations that a youth is delinquent or has violated the law. The intake process continues from the time the youth is charged with a criminal offense through the disposition of the case. Throughout 2007, the Department s circuit offices began adding an evidence-based risk and needs assessment that is statistically validated to predict a youth s likelihood of re-offending. The Department received 146,765 intake referrals during FY These referrals represented 91,497 individual youth, as many youth were referred multiple times during the year. The 146,765 delinquency referrals received by the Department during FY represents a 2.2% decrease from the previous fiscal year. The majority of referrals in FY involved male youth (70%) and youth between the ages of 15 and 17 years (69%). Roughly equal numbers of referrals involved white youth (41,167; 45%) and black youth (35,617; 39%). Detention The Department operates 26 juvenile detention centers in 25 counties, with a total of 2,057 beds and 2,099 full time employees. Detention is used to detain and monitor youth pending a court adjudication, disposition, execution of a court order while awaiting residential placement, or as a sanction for contempt of court, gun law violations, or a respite for domestic violence. Two types of detention are available: Secure Detention and Home Detention. A total of 32,023 youth were admitted to secure detention in FY Of these youth, most were male (78%) and the majority (70%) were between 15 and 17 years of age when they were admitted. Forty-seven percent of the youth admitted to secure detention were black and 36% were white, while 17% were classified as other. A total of 20,690 youth were admitted to Home Detention in FY Probation and Community Intervention The Probation and Community Intervention program areas address programming, planning, policy, and service delivery issues as they relate to the management of cases and the provision of follow-up monitoring services based on sanctions either through the court or state attorney. Each youth recommended for judicial processing is assigned a Juvenile Probation Officer who is responsible for monitoring the youth s progress while on probation and for initiating referrals for treatment and counseling, as determined by a variety of screening and assessment tools. The Probation and Community Intervention (PCI) section of the Comprehensive Accountability Report presents a profile of FY youth served and FY probation outputs and outcomes including total releases, the percentage of youth adjudicated for offenses committed during supervision (ODS), number of completions and completion rates, demographic characteristics, average length of stay, and recidivism rates. During FY , there were a total of 40,567 releases and 29,028 completions from the following eight Probation and Community Intervention program areas: Probation and Community Intervention Releases and Completions FY Program Area Total Releases Completions % ODS % Recidivism Diversion Services 4,051 3,554 (88%) NA 15% Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services 2,327 1,640 (70%) 12% 15% Probation Services 25,623 18,152 (71%) 32% 19% Day Treatment and Minimum Risk Commitment Programs 1, (43%) 38% 26% Redirection Programs (55%) 29% 33% Post-Commitment Services - Provider Operated 4,816 3,538 (73%) 18% 33% Post-Commitment Services - State Operated 1,869 1,281 (69%) 28% 28% Post-Commitment Services - Residential Programs (50%) 14% 33% Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report

13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The rate of offenses during supervision ranged from a high of 38% of the releases from Day Treatment and Minimum Risk Commitment Programs (down from 44% last year) to a low of 12% from Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services (IDDS). Completion rates varied from a high of 88% for Diversion services to a low of 43% from Day Treatment and Minimum-Risk Commitment programs. The majority of youth who completed PCI programs during the year were male (74%), white (61%) and non-hispanic (86%). The average age at admission was 16.1 years. In comparing program areas, Diversion services had the highest percentage of females (32%) and Redirection programs had the highest percentage of black youth (62%) among those who completed the programs. The average age at admission increased along the continuum of services from Diversion (15 years), to probation (16 years) to post commitment (17 years). Given that the PCI program areas serve a wide variety of youth, ranging from youth with no prior offense history to youth who have been committed, the substantial differences in the average prior seriousness indices observed across the program areas are as expected. Youth completing IDDS and other diversion programs had the least serious delinquency histories; while youth who were previously committed completing post commitment services had the most serious delinquency histories. Youth completing intensive programs such as Day Treatment and Redirection had more serious histories than youth completing general probation. Recidivism rates for Probation and Community Intervention programs varied by program area from a high of 33% for Redirection and provider operated and residential post commitment services, to a low of 15% for IDDS and Diversion services. Probation supervision had a lower rate of recidivism (19%) than Day Treatment (26%) or Redirection (33%) and youth completing state operated post commitment services had fewer recidivists than those completing provider operated (28% and 33% respectively). Redirections had a lower recidivism either Low-Risk or Moderate-Risk Commitment (33% and 39% respectively). Residential and Correctional Facilities Youth are placed in residential commitment when the court makes the determination that it is a detriment to public safety for them to remain in the community. Residential programs provide 24-hour physical care and custody of the youth with a comprehensive system of services that are public safety focused, outcome oriented, cost-efficient, and accountable. The Department s commitment programs are grouped into five custody classifications based on the assessed risk to public safety. The restrictiveness levels of placement represent increasing restriction on youth s movement and freedom. The least restrictive, or minimum-risk level, is non-residential and falls under the jurisdiction of Probation and Community Intervention rather than Residential Services. Section , Florida Statutes, designates four restrictiveness levels of residential commitment: Low-risk residential, Moderate-risk residential, High-risk residential, and Maximum-risk residential. During FY , there were a total of 9,251 releases from residential commitment programs. The rate of offenses during placement was six percent; indicating approximately 1 in 17 youth are adjudicated for an offense that occurred while in a commitment program. The table on the following page presents a breakdown of releases and completions by restrictiveness level for residential programs for FY Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report 11

14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Program Area Total Releases Completions % ODP % Recidivism Low Risk Residential Programs 1, (88%) 5% 39% Moderate Risk Residential Programs 6,099 5,417 (89%) 5% 39% High Risk Residential Programs 2,040 1,632 (80%) 8% 39% Maximum Risk Residential Programs (69%) 6% 33% Total Residential Programs 9,251 8,015 (87%) 6% 39% Residential Program Releases and Completions FY Residential commitment recidivism rates have steadily declined over the past ten years. The chart below shows the decrease in 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Fiscal Year those rates over the past decade. Residential Program Recidivism Rates by Fiscal Year Characteristics of the youth served in residential commitment varied by program and by restrictiveness level. For example, the average age at admission for youth increases as the restrictiveness level increases: 15.8 years for low-risk programs, 16.2 years for moderate-risk programs, 16.5 years for high-risk programs, and 16.9 years for maximum-risk programs. The extent and seriousness of youth s delinquency histories (as measured by the Average Prior Seriousness Index) also varied by restrictiveness level from 12.3 for youth completing low-risk restrictiveness programs, to 42.4 for youth completing maximum-risk programs. Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report

15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overall, 39% of youth who completed their residential program recidivated within one year after their return to the community. The recidivism rate varied little by restrictiveness level, from 39% for low, moderate and high risk programs, to 33% for maximum-risk programs. Statewide, recidivism rates for residential commitment programs have remained about the same over the past five years with a slight drop from 41% in FY to 39% in FY The data reflected that youths who recidivated had more extensive delinquency histories than non-recidivists. Male youth recidivated at higher rates than females, and black youth recidivated at higher rates than white youth. Recidivism rates declined steadily with age which may explain, in part, the lower recidivism rates for maximum-risk programs. In examining the time it takes for re-offending to occur, a consistent pattern has been observed over the last decade. The data demonstrate that if youth are going to recidivate within the first year, more than half will be rearrested within the first four months following program release. Among committed youth who recidivated in FY , the majority (54%) were re-arrested by the end of the fourth month and 80% were re-arrested by the end of the seventh month. Youth completing commitment programs spent an average of four to 18 months in a program, depending on restrictiveness level. With each increase in restrictiveness level, the average length of stay increased by approximately four months. There was no difference in the average length of stay between recidivists and non-recidivists. Residential Program Accountability Measures (PAM) The Florida Legislature authorizes in statute, s (4)(a)(b), the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to evaluate the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs that provide care, custody, and treatment for committed youth. To meet this requirement, the Department, in collaboration with the independent Justice Research Center (JRC), developed the annual Program Accountability Measures (PAM) Report. This year, the results of the PAM analyses are included as part of this report. The PAM evaluation is critical given that DJJ processes more than 140,000 intake referrals annually, with approximately 10,000 youth entering one of more than 140 residential programs. To ensure independent and objective evaluation, PAM analyses strictly adhere to the methodology determined annually at the Common Definitions Meeting. 1 By implementing an evaluation tool that assesses the effectiveness of programs in reducing recidivism while including a cost effectiveness measure, the PAM Report promotes accountability in the delivery of juvenile residential services. The report has been highlighted as a best practice in the use of juvenile justice data by the National Center for Juvenile Justice and selected as a national semi-finalist in the Harvard University Innovations in American Government Awards. Basic comparisons of program recidivism rates are often used to assess effectiveness. However, beginning in 1996, DJJ sought a more equitable, objective means of quantitatively evaluating programs that would examine differences in program costs as well as account for the fact that facilities serve youth whose risk for re-offending varies widely. The PAM model does this through two core measures: 1) recidivism effectiveness, which is measured as the difference between how well a program is expected to do given the risk for re-offending attributed to each youth completing the program (expected recidivism), and how well the program youth actually performed (observed recidivism); and 2) cost effectiveness, which is measured as the program's average cost per youth completing the program compared to the statewide program average cost per completion. Recidivism effectiveness is further broken down into five categories: Highly Effective, Effective, Average, Below Average, and Least Effective. Cost effectiveness is categorized into: Low, Medium, and High costs. The two measures are combined into a PAM score for each residential facility that can range from 1 to 100. Recidivism (subsequent adjudication/conviction) is tracked for one year 1 Each year, DJJ hosts the Common Definitions Meeting to delineate the methodology for calculating outcome measures for DJJ reporting. This methodology is carefully considered and developed by key juvenile justice policymakers and agencies including the Florida Legislature, the Governor s Office, the Office of Program Planning and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, DJJ, the Justice Research Center, contracted providers and other juvenile justice stakeholders. In a continual effort to improve measurement and accountability, participants at the Common Definition Meeting discuss potential additions to analyses and reporting. Under agreement with these major stakeholders, the official evaluation measures for the Program Accountability Measures (PAM) and other outcome evaluation analyses are defined (for additional information, see the Data Sources and Methods chapter). Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report 13

16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY following program completion. This year s PAM Report presents recidivism and cost effectiveness results for the 138 programs that released at least 15 youth during the one-year period between July 1, 2005 and June 30, Boot camps were included in the analysis but were removed from the tables due to their closure. Highlights include: Sixteen of the programs, representing 11.6% of the 138 facilities evaluated, had PAM scores of 80 or higher, a decrease of 27% over last year. Thirty-four and a half percent of facilities were ranked as Highly Effective or Effective last year, compared to 30.3% performing at this level this year, representing a decrease of approximately four percentage points. Most (78.5%) Highly Effective programs fell into the High Cost category, while one program Highly Effective program (Nassau Juvenile Residential Facility) fell into the low cost category. The majority of the Least Effective programs were either Low Cost or Moderate Cost (72.2%) facilities. Eighteen programs or 13.6% of the facilities examined were deemed Least Effective. Five of these programs were categorized as Low Cost, which means their low PAM rankings were primarily due to their higher-than-expected recidivism rates. The table on the following page lists the male and female programs with the five highest and five lowest PAM scores. Five Highest and Lowest PAM Scores by Gender FY Program Name* Five Highest PAM Scores - Female PAM Score Recidivism Rate 1 Cost Per Completion Number of Completions Alachua Juvenile Residential Facility² 82 16% $26, Project STEP II - Female 79 19% $6, Bowling Green New Beginnings - Diversified Behavioral Health Solutions, 76 18% $37, Desoto Dual Diagnosed Correctional Facility Moderate Risk - Female 75 19% $41, Live Oak Girls Juvenile Residential Facility² 75 25% $16, Five Highest PAM Scores - Male Kissimmee Juvenile Correctional Facility Sex Offender Program (SOP) 96 13% $71, St. Johns Juvenile Correctional Facility 94 17% $84, GOALS Program² 91 24% $31, Columbus Juvenile Residential Facility 88 22% $75, Eckerd Intensive Halfway House 87 25% $53, Five Lowest PAM Scores - Female Sawmill Academy² 60 37% $15, Umatilla Juvenile Residential Facility² 59 33% $56, Joann Bridges Academy 57 37% $30, White Foundation Family Homes - Female² 41 48% $24, Desoto Dual Diagnosed Correctional Facility High Risk - Female 35 39% $268, Five Lowest PAM Scores - Male Broward Intensive Halfway House 51 57% $48, Polk Halfway House 46 64% $31, Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility - Three Springs, Inc % $44, Greenville Hills Academy - MERIT² 40 68% $27, Palm Beach Juvenile Correctional Facility 40 65% $37, Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 2 Program either closed, changed names, changed providers or had a structural programatic change. Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report

17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Residential Program Report Card This marks the second year the Department is using the report card format for residential programs. This is in response to a request by the Florida Legislature to summarize program effectiveness into one concise document. The Report Card presents Quality Assurance scores, recidivism outcomes, cost-effectiveness, incident rates, and contract compliance, with a single summary program score for each individual residential program. All report cards are in alphabetical order in volume two of this report. Report Card Example Program Expenditures: State and Federal Funding The program expenditure tables in this report provide total state versus federal expenditures for juvenile justice programs and include self-reported federal expenditures from private provider organizations. The source documents from which these amounts were derived are as follows: FLAIR Report at Level 2 for period July 1, June 30, 2006; Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005; and program cost affidavits submitted by private provider organizations. The first two sources are submitted to the Florida Department of Financial Services and used by the State Auditor General's Office for their audit of the Department's expenditures of federal funds. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report 15

18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary Comprehensive Accountability Report

19 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS In August 2006, the Department s quality assurance, research and data, and technical assistance units were assigned to the Office of Program Accountability in the Office of the Secretary. This action was taken to ensure that program evaluation is independent and not influenced by the staff directly responsible for the day-to-day operations of programs and services. Independent assessment is furthered by the Department s contract with the Justice Research Center, the independent evaluation firm responsible for producing recidivism and cost effectiveness analyses for the annual Program Accountability Measures (PAM) Report, the Outcome Evaluation Report, and Performance-Based Budgeting (PB2). This chapter outlines the data sources and methods used in the Quality Assurance, Outcome Evaluation and Program Accountability Measures (PAM) analyses presented in this report. Quality Assurance (QA) Methodology The Department s quality assurance system was funded and implemented as part of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of This is a system that is recognized as a national model for quality assurance systems and representatives from states such as Texas, Ohio, and Georgia, have sent staff to Florida to be trained in the Florida QA Model. In addition, representatives from Australia, England, and Germany have either come to Florida or participated in conference calls to learn about the process and discuss ways to implement similar processes in their respective countries. Programs are evaluated by a team of professionals who have experience working in the program type being assessed. The team approach provides a broad and balanced perspective for program evaluation and allows programs to be evaluated, in part, by a peer who has operational experience in the program type being reviewed. In the Florida QA system, the QA reviewer not only seeks to determine if a program is meeting the minimum standard, but also seeks to determine the quality of services being provided. Quality assurance review teams are comprised of a Department employee who serves as the team leader, peer reviewers, and, in some cases, an employee representing the Florida Department of Education. The following data sources are used to determine the programs performance: Interviews with management Interviews with treatment staff Interviews with supervisors Interviews with youth Staff surveys Youth surveys Review of performance plans and related documents Review of treatment plans and related documents Review of fire safety reports, health inspection reports, etc. Observations of daily programming activities and staff-to-youth interactions. The Quality Assurance Performance Rating Juvenile justice programs and services are evaluated based on their performance on a given set of standards. Standards are the general program components on which programs and services are assessed to determine their overall level of quality. Each program model is reviewed using a distinct evaluation instrument which contains only those standards which are generally applicable to the program model. The quality assurance evaluation process incorporates multiple data sources to ensure the validity of the review. Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report 17

20 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS For example, in a juvenile justice residential program, the program components include: Program Management, The Residential Community (includes daily activities, recreation, visitation, etc.), Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, Health Care, Case Management, Food, and Program Safety. Within each program component there is a set of key indicators that are used to rate the overall performance of the program component. The rating instrument utilizes an 8-point scale, with 10 representing the highest level of performance possible. The numbers are not sequential; therefore, no conversion factor needs be used to transform the resulting percentage score into a normally recognized grading system. Reviewers use the following definitions as a guide when scoring a key indicator: Superior Performance: The program consistently exceeds all policy requirements with either an innovative approach or an exceptional, program wide dedication to performance that is efficient, effective, and readily apparent. There is evidence of very few, if any, exceptions to this. The rating will be a 9 or a 10. Satisfactory Performance: The program consistently accomplishes all policy requirements in an effective manner. The items, elements, or actions necessary to accomplish the policy are prevailing practice, though minor deficiencies occur occasionally. The rating will be 6, 7, or 8. Partial Performance: The program does not consistently accomplish policy requirements. Frequent deficiencies to the policy occur or the program is ineffective in implementing the policy. The rating will be a 4 or 5. Non-Performance: The items, elements, or actions necessary to accomplish the indicator are missing or are missing or are done so poorly that they do not contribute to the accomplishment of the indicator or the overall standard. (Note: falsified documentation will be considered as missing and result in a non-performance rating). The rating will be a 0. The method used to determine if a program meets the minimum standards set by the Department, adds all the numerical scores and applies them against the total possible score a program could receive. For example, Program A is rated in a program component which has four indicators. The program receives a satisfactory performance rating of 7 for each of the four indicators. The program s raw score would be 28 (the sum of the indicator scores: ). The program s maximum possible score would be 10 x the number of applicable indicators, which in this case is 4; the maximum possible score is 40 (10 x 4). The program s percentage score for the program component is derived by dividing the raw score (28) by the maximum possible score (40). This percentage, 70%, is Program A s performance for this component falls within the Acceptable Performance range. There are also a number of key indicators that do not provide opportunities for measuring the quality of the service or requirement. For example, background screening of employees and volunteers is either completed or not completed on individual employees. For these key indicators, reviewers use a 3-point, scale according to the guide below: Full Compliance: The program s policy, procedures and practice are in accordance with DJJ policy nearly all of the time. There may be minor deviations in some areas of documentation (8 points) Substantial Compliance: The program s policy, procedures and practice are in accordance with DJJ policy. There are some exceptions (5 point). Non-Compliance: The program s policy, procedures and practice are not in accordance with DJJ policy and/or there are numerous exceptions to the requirements of the indicator (0 points). Overall Program Scores: To determine a program s overall rating and performance, the same method used for computing the scores for program components is applied with one exception: instead of summing the key indicator scores, the overall score of the program component is totaled. At the overall program performance level, a program receives two scores: a raw score, the Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report

21 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS sum of all standard raw scores, and a maximum possible score, the sum of all standard maximum possible scores. The program s percentage score results from dividing the overall program score by the overall maximum possible score. For compliance indicators the scores of 8, 5 and 0 are used, as this gives fair credit for programs for earning a full compliance (8 of 8 100%), minimal credit for a substantial compliance (5 of 8 63%), and a zero for a non-compliance (0 or 8 0%). The following grid is an example of a completed performance rating profile for a fictional day treatment program. The QA process includes the following elements: Unannounced Reviews: In 2007, all QA reviews were unannounced. Identification of External Control Factors: The design of the quality assurance system is intended to hold programs accountable for those elements over which they have control as well as point out problems which affect good practice. Factors that may seriously impair a program's ability to perform, but which are beyond its control, are identified as external control factors. These factors, and the degree to which they influence each program component, are identified in the individual QA report. For example, a program may not have a camera system installed in all areas of the program. This may be a budget issue Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report 19

22 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS that cannot be resolved at the program level. The requirement will be rated out of compliance but an external control factor will be noted in the report. External control factors are not intended to be used as excuses for program directors. Identification of Critical Issues: Peer review teams are trained to be aware of situations in programs which may or may not be a part of the quality assurance review. Reviewers are instructed to contact the lead reviewer immediately when illegal, fraudulent, and unethical or other serious situations are suspected. The lead reviewer will contact the QA Bureau Chief, who will advise the Director of Interagency Operations, the Office of the Inspector General and appropriate Assistant Secretary of the circumstances so that an investigation/audit may be initiated or immediate corrective action can commence. Evidence of these situations is called a red flag. Provider Ability to Challenge their QA Report: The Department has implemented an internal challenge process to offer providers a mechanism to review draft reports and offer additional information that may impact their score or provide edits when errors are identified. Each draft report is ed to the program director and the regional office of the appropriate Department program area. The program director has five working days to contact the QA office and challenge the findings or advise the Department of errors in the report. For any issue that is surfaced, the regional QA manager discusses the findings with the lead reviewer and reviews the documentation. When necessary, other team members are contacted for their input. Conditional Status: This is an alert system for management to ensure programs are placed on corrective action to address issues of concern. A program is placed on Conditional Status when they achieve at least a minimal level of performance overall but fail to meet minimal performance level in one or more program components. In addition to corrective action, Conditional Status triggers more intensive monitoring by the contract manager or regional office of the effected program area. Programs that are not able to bring the standard(s) up to acceptable levels of quality within six months are subject to contract or administrative action. Outcome Evaluation (OE) Methodology Data Sources The annual DJJ Outcome Evaluation Report provides program outputs and outcomes for the continuum of juvenile justice services provided by the Department including: prevention, intake, detention, probation and community intervention, and residential commitment. There are methodological differences in the analyses of the various juvenile justice services due to variations in data sources and outcome measures. These differences are outlined below. The primary source of data for the OE analyses is the Department s Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS). The Juvenile Justice Information System contains demographic and delinquency referral information, admission and release dates, and release reasons for most youth receiving DJJ services. There are a few exceptions. Demographic, and release data for youth released by the Florida Network prevention programs, Multisystemic Therapy (MST) programs and Early Delinquency Intervention programs (EDIP) were provided to DJJ by the providers. To match this data to additional offense-related data in the JJIS system, a matching protocol was developed based on youth names, social security numbers and dates of birth. The source of subsequent delinquency referral data is JJIS. Additional recidivism outcome data are compiled from the adult system using information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and Florida Department of Corrections (DC). Arrest and disposition information for youth who reached the age of 18 years or who had cases transferred to adult court was obtained from FDLE's Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC). Information pertaining to dispositions on cases processed in adult court was obtained from DC and is limited to youth convicted of felonies and sentenced to adult probation or prison. Methods Each year since 1996, the Department holds a Common Definitions Meeting to determine the methodology for defining variables and calculating outcome measures for departmental reporting. This methodology is carefully considered and developed by key juvenile justice policymakers and providers including DJJ, the Justice Research Center, the Legislature, the Governor s Office, Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report

23 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS the Office of Program Planning and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, contracted providers and other juvenile justice stakeholders. Time Periods Covered At the Common Definitions Meeting, fiscal years were selected as the reporting period, as they correspond with the Department's budgetary calendar. The particular fiscal year (FY) covered in each OE section is based upon the primary focus of the data presented. For the Intake and Detention sections, the primary focus is on youth processed through intake and those placed in detention facilities. In those sections, data for FY are presented. For the Prevention, Probation, and Residential Commitment sections, the focus is on youth recidivism after release. In order to allow a suitable follow-up period to track subsequent offending, data for youth completing services in FY are presented. Demographic Variables The report provides information for youth by gender, race, ethnicity, and age. Categorizations of race and ethnicity are derived from DJJ staff interviews with youth. Race is measured as black, white or other. Ethnicity is categorized as Hispanic or non-hispanic. Age is defined as the youth's age at the time of admission in each of the sections except Intake. In the Intake section, age is measured on the date the youth's most serious offense occurred during the fiscal year. Release and Completion Status Identifying why youth leave a program and the percentage that complete a program, rather than leave for other reasons, are outcome measures reported. There are a variety of reasons why youth are released from a program other than the completion of services. Identifying the reason for a release is dependent on DJJ staff's categorization from a list of release reasons in JJIS. To ensure the reliability of these release reasons, their accuracy is assessed in relation to subsequent placements. The definition of program completion differs slightly across program areas as described below. Prevention and Victim Services: The release reasons in JJIS for prevention programs includes: 1) completing all services, 2) expelled from the program, 3) dropped out, 4) changed schools, 5) referred to another program/agency, 6) moved, or 7) other release. Youth are categorized in this chapter as either a "completion" (item 1 above) or an "other release" (items 2-7 above). The Florida Network uses the same categories in the dataset they provide to the Department. Probation and Community Intervention: Completions are defined as youth who complete the individualized treatment plan or court ordered sanctions and are released from the custody of the Department; or youth serving the maximum allowable time or who reach the maximum allowable age over which the juvenile court retains jurisdiction. Multisystemic Therapy providers categorized youth as either a "completion" or "other release" in the datasets provided to DJJ. Residential and Correctional Facilities: Completions are defined as youth who complete the program and are assigned to a conditional release or post-commitment probation program; youth who complete the program and were directly discharged; or youth serving the maximum allowable time or who reach the maximum allowable age over which the juvenile court retains jurisdiction. Offenses During Services, Supervision or Placement During the time period a youth is under DJJ supervision or custody it is possible for the youth to commit a crime. The number of youth who committed an offense during services (ODS), supervision (ODS) or placement (ODP) is a measure used to gauge the effectiveness of the programs in monitoring and guiding the behavior of the youth. The ODS/ODP rate is calculated as the percentage of youth who offended during the time they were receiving services, or were under supervision or placement. Only offenses that resulted in adjudication are counted. ODS/ODP is used as an outcome measure for all youth released from a program regardless of their completion status. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report 21

24 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS Prior Delinquency Measures Information on the offense histories for youth who completed prevention, probation, and residential commitment programs are presented in the respective sections. Differences in prior offending by gender, race and ethnicity are discussed. Measures of prior offending include: Percent of youth with prior charges: This measure is used in the Prevention section as many prevention youth have little to no prior delinquency history. As such, the percentage of youth with prior delinquency charges is presented, rather than the average number of prior charges per youth completing the program (which would often been less than zero). Percent of youth with prior adjudicated charges: This measure is used in the Prevention section as some prevention youth have little to no prior delinquency history. As such, the percentage of youth with prior delinquency charges is presented, rather than the average number of prior charges per youth completing the program (which would often been less than zero). Average number of prior charges per youth: This measure is used in the Probation and Community Intervention and Residential Commitment sections as most youth receiving these services have previously been referred to DJJ and adjudicated delinquent. The average number of prior charges provides a measure of the extent of the youth s involvement in delinquency. The measure is calculated by summing the total number of charges received by all youth prior to program admission and dividing by the total number of youth completing the program during the fiscal year. Average number of prior adjudicated charges: This measure is used in the Probation and Community Intervention and Residential Commitment sections as most youth receiving these services have previously been referred to DJJ and adjudicated delinquent. This is calculated only for those charges that ultimately result in an adjudication or an adjudication withheld. The measure is calculated by summing the total number of adjudications received by all youth prior to program admission and dividing by the total number of youth completing the program during the fiscal year. Seriousness index of prior charges and seriousness index of prior adjudications: The seriousness indices are designed to provide an indication of the extent and seriousness of a youths' delinquency history. A seriousness score is calculated for each youth by assigning point values to prior charges based upon the seriousness of the charged offenses. One of the following values is assigned for each charge: o o o o Violent felony 8 points Property or other felony 5 points Misdemeanor 2 points Any other charged offense 1 point The average seriousness index is calculated by dividing the seriousness score for all youth by the total number of youth completing the program during the fiscal year. In the Prevention section, both seriousness indices are presented. For the Probation and Residential Commitment sections only the seriousness index for prior adjudicated charges is presented. Within the sections this measure is referred to as the Average Prior Seriousness Index. In addition, prior adjudications are further classified by type (violent felony, property felony, other felony, misdemeanor, or unclassified offense) of the most serious prior adjudicated charge. Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report

25 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS Recidivism Outcome Methodology Delinquency prevention, probation and residential commitment programs are designed to provide treatment and curb youths further involvement with the juvenile justice system. These programs are expected to effectively mitigate the influence of risk factors and increase the resilience of the youth they serve. An important indicator of outcomes is the percentage of youth who recidivate. Recidivism rates are calculated only for youth who completed a program. This is done in an effort to determine the effectiveness of the program based on youth who actually received the services offered. Follow-up Period At the annual Common Definitions Meeting, the duration of one-year was selected as the official follow-up period for recidivism. This necessitates that youth in the study complete services during the prior fiscal year, so that sufficient time may elapse to allow for the collection of recidivism data. Therefore, youth included in the OE recidivism analyses are those who completed a program between July 1, 2004 and June 30, Recidivism is then tracked for the period beginning on July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006 (i.e., one-year follow-up period). Recidivism Measures There are numerous methods of measuring re-offending, each of which provides important yet different information. Five commonly used measures are presented in this report: Subsequent referral/arrest and felony referral/arrest: This indicates a youth has been charged with another offense. An arrest does not necessarily mean that the released youth committed the offense charged, but it does provide an indication of the workload generated for the juvenile and adult systems. Subsequent juvenile adjudication or adult conviction (including adjudications withheld): This provides a more substantive measure of subsequent criminal involvement. Such a disposition indicates that the youth was found to have committed the offense. The offense must have occurred within one year of release. This is the Department's official definition of recidivism used throughout the OE and PAM analyses. Subsequent felony adjudication or conviction: This examines whether youth are subsequently adjudicated or convicted for a felony offense that occurred within one year of release from a program. Subsequent sanctions: There are three potential subsequent sanctions measured and reported in the OE analyses: subsequent commitment to DJJ, sentencing to adult probation, and sentencing to adult prison. These measures provide additional information regarding the impact of re-offending. Length of Services The length of time that a youth spends in a program is an indicator of the extent of services provided. An average length of service, supervision or stay (ALOS) is calculated for each program based on the average number of days a youth was in the program. Days spent in temporary release status are not included. Data on ALOS are presented in the Detention, Prevention, Probation, and Residential Commitment sections for four groups of youth: All youth released including those youth who did not complete the program Youth who completed the program Recidivists Non-Recidivists Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report 23

26 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS Intake Measures The Intake chapter presents data on youth referred to DJJ in FY A referral is defined as all the charges received by DJJ for a youth on a given day. Data are categorized by offense seriousness (felony, misdemeanor or other), as well as by offense type (person, property, etc). Data in this chapter are presented based on the most serious offense for which a youth was referred during the fiscal year. Therefore, the data can only be used to categorize offenders, and is not appropriate for determining the number of offenses that were committed over a fiscal year. A profile of youth referred, based on gender, race, ethnicity and age, is also presented. Detention Measures The Detention chapter presents data on secure and home detention services. Measures of secure detention utilization including operating capacity, total service days, average daily population, average utilization rate, minimum and maximum daily population, and transfers into detention, are provided. The definition for each of these measures is as follows: Admissions are defined as each entry into a secure detention center. These figures may include multiple admissions for a single youth. Operating capacity is defined as the facility s number of beds. Total service days is measured as the sum of all youths' days in a given detention center during the fiscal year. This value is computed for each secure detention facility. Average daily population is calculated by dividing total service days by the 365 days in the year. Average utilization rate is the detention center s total service days divided by the total possible service days. Total possible service days are calculated by multiplying the center's operating capacity by 365 days in a year. Minimum and maximum daily population is calculated by examining total service days for each day of the year relative to the operating capacity and determining the lowest and highest population for a given secure detention center. Transfers in to detentions are those youth transferred from one detention center into another. Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report

27 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS Program Accountability Measures (PAM) Methodology The Program Accountability Measures (PAM) analysis is an annual assessment and ranking of Florida s residential juvenile justice programs based on both recidivism and cost effectiveness. The PAM methodology has been highlighted as a best practice in the use of juvenile justice data by the National Center for Juvenile Justice and selected as a semifinalist in the prestigious Innovations in American Government Awards, sponsored by the Harvard University, Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation. The nationally recognized model employs the data sources and methods set forth below. Data Sources Data for the PAM analysis were compiled from the DJJ Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement s Florida Criminal Information Center (FCIC), the Florida Department of Corrections (DC), the DJJ Office of Finance and Accounting, and the DJJ Bureau of Quality Assurance. The JJIS system was used to identify the youth who completed residential commitment programs during the one-year period from July 1, 2005 to June 30, Demographic data for these youth, as well as their offense histories, were obtained from JJIS. Youth who subsequently re-offended were identified through both juvenile offense records in JJIS and, for those who reached 18 years of age during the follow-up period or had a case handled in adult court, through adult records in FCIC and DC. For a number of years, many stakeholders have noted the need to incorporate additional risk factors in controlling for program differences in the relative risk of offenders served. To that end, the Department and the Justice Research Center have been committed to incorporating other variables and determined that such data could be extracted from JJIS risk assessment instruments. Until recently however, these data were not available in JJIS. Now, for the fourth year, risk assessment data were included in the PAM calculations. The Juvenile Justice Information System was used to extract individual youth risk factor data from Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) and Supervision Risk Classification Instrument (SRCI) administrations. Data from DRAI and SRCI administrations completed prior to program admission were controlled for in comparing youth recidivism outcomes by program. Methods The Department hosts a Common Definitions meeting annually to outline the methodology for calculating outcome measures for departmental reporting. This methodology is carefully considered and developed by key juvenile justice policymakers and providers including DJJ, the Justice Research Center, the Legislature, the Governor s Office, the Office of Program Planning and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, contracted providers and other juvenile justice stakeholders. In a continual effort to improve measurement and program review, participants at the Common Definition meetings discuss potential additions to analyses and reporting. Under agreement with these major stakeholders, the official measure of recidivism has been defined as: a subsequent juvenile adjudication, adjudication withheld, or adult conviction for an offense that occurred within one year of a youth's completion of a Department of Juvenile Justice commitment program and release to the community or a conditional release program. While consistency in measurement over time is a primary objective, there are times when changes are introduced in a given year s PAM report (e.g., availability of data on additional risk factors; reporting changes stemming from the re-classification of non-residential programs as probation facilities). Such changes and improvements to methodology are reported as applicable. Program PAM results are presented for residential programs that released at least 15 youth during the one-year period. Scores are reported for some programs that have closed because PAM scores are now incorporated in past performance criteria used in contracting for new programs. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report 25

28 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS Calculating the PAM Score The PAM Score is comprised of a program recidivism effectiveness measure and a cost effectiveness measure. Program recidivism effectiveness is the standardized difference between the programs expected recidivism and observed recidivism. Cost effectiveness is measured as the standardized difference between each program s average cost per youth completing the program and the statewide average cost per completion. Program Recidivism Effectiveness Measure Rather than merely comparing residential programs on the basis of the observed recidivism rate of youth completing the program, the PAM model accounts for the fact that facilities serve youth whose risk for re-offending varies widely. Failure to control for underlying program differences in youths' risk to re-offend would unfairly penalize those facilities serving more challenging youth. Therefore, the PAM model uses multivariate, multi-level analyses to calculate programs' expected recidivism, given the risk levels of the youth completing services, and compares this to how well the program actually performed in terms of youths' observed recidivism rates. The following risk factors were extracted from JJIS, SRCI and DRAI data and examined in the 2007 PAM analyses: Demographic Variables SEX : Male, female RACE: Non-white, white AGE AT RELEASE: Age at time of release from PAM program REGION: Region of state where youth resides (northwest, northeast, east, west, south) LEVEL: Program restrictiveness level (low, moderate, high, maximum) TRANSFER : Whether youth was transferred from another residential program DAYS SERVED: Youth s length of stay in the program (in days) Extent and Seriousness of Prior Offending Variables TOTAL REFERRALS: Total number of prior referrals TOTAL ADJUDICATIONS: Total number of prior referrals adjudicated MOST SERIOUS PRIOR OFFENSE: Specific most serious prior offense (ordinal) REFERRAL INDEX: Average seriousness score of all prior referrals ADJUDICATION INDEX: Average seriousness score of all prior adjudications PERSON OFFENSE: Whether most serious prior referral was a person offense PROPERTY OFFENSE: Whether most serious prior referral was a property offense DRUG OFFENSE: Whether most serious prior referral was a drug offense FELONY REFERRALS: Total prior felony referrals FELONY ADJUDICATIONS: Total prior felony referrals adjudicated VIOLENT FELONY REFERRALS: Total prior violent felony referrals VIOLENT FELONY ADJUDICATIONS: Total prior violent felony referral adjudications FELONY PROPERTY ADJUDICATIONS: Total prior felony property adjudications Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report

29 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS PRIOR MISDEMEANOR REFERRALS: Total prior misdemeanor referrals PRIOR MISDEMEANOR ADJUDICATIONS: Total prior misdemeanor adjudications SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM: Whether program serves juvenile sex offenders. DRAI and SRCI Variables CURRENT ABUSE: Whether youth was abused just prior to the screening (DRAI variable) HISTORY OF ABUSE: Whether youth had history of abuse (DRAI variable) PHYSICAL ABUSE: Whether youth was physically abused (DRAI variable) SEXUAL ABUSE: Whether youth was sexually abused (DRAI variable) NEGLECT: Whether youth was neglected (DRAI variable) EMOTIONAL ABUSE: Whether youth was emotionally abused (DRAI variable) ESCAPE: Whether youth escaped from a program (DRAI variable) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSE: Whether current offense involved domestic violence incident (DRAI variable) TOTAL SRCI SCORE: Maximum SRCI score received prior to youth s admission into the PAM residential program (SRCI variable) SRCI RISK LEVEL: Youth s classified risk level on SRCI (SRCI variable) HIGHEST PLACEMENT LEVEL: Highest level of prior sanction: none, probation, commitment (SRCI variable) DRUG USE: Whether youth uses drugs chronically, occasionally, or not at all (SRCI variable) SCHOOL ATTENDANCE: Whether youth was regularly attending school, chronically truant or tardy, or dropped out of school or was expelled/suspended (SRCI variable) NEGATIVE PEERS: Whether youth associated with primarily negative peers (SRCI variable) GANG-INVOLVED PEERS: Whether youth was in a gang or associated with gang members (SRCI variable) PARENTAL CONTROL: Whether parents supervised and controlled youth, had limited control and supervision over youth, or had no control or supervision over youth (SRCI variable) NEGLECT: Whether youth was neglected (SRCI variable) ABUSE: Whether youth was physically or sexually abused (SRCI variable) MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT NEEDED: Whether youth was deemed in need of mental health assessment (SRCI variable) MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS: Whether youth had been diagnosed with a mental health problem or DSM-4 diagnosis (SRCI variable) EMPLOYMENT: Whether youth was 16 or older, not employed and not pursuing education (SRCI variable) The following factors were statistically significant predictors of re-offending for the youth completing residential commitment programs in Florida between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006: sex, race, age at release from program, number of prior juvenile adjudications, verbal aggression, prior property adjudications, gang involvement, level of maturity, runaway risk, region of the state in which youth resides, placement in detention, and school status (suspended, expelled, and/or dropped out). Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report 27

30 DATA SOURCES AND METHODS Program Cost Effectiveness Measure Program cost per completion is calculated by dividing total expenditures for each program by the number of youth completing the program during FY Program total costs are defined as all DJJ expenditures allocated to the program over the one-year period, plus all other sources of government funding including all state and federal monies, excluding school board funding. The PAM Score: Combining Program Recidivism and Cost Effectiveness Measures The PAM score combines the cost and effectiveness measures as defined above. The PAM score is the sum of the program effectiveness measure weighted by a factor of two-thirds and the program cost measure weighted by a factor of one-third. These weights have been used for nearly a decade and were approved during Common Definitions meetings after consultation with members of the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board, the Legislature, the Governor s Office, OPPAGA, the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, contracted providers and other juvenile justice stakeholders. Data Sources and Methods Comprehensive Accountability Report

31 PHILOSOPHY OF EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMING In its efforts to make a positive impact on the lives of youth, DJJ has turned to program models, treatments, and management tools that have been demonstrated by research to be effective in reducing subsequent criminal activity, thus increasing public safety. The important challenge for the Department is to ensure programs and policies meet the criteria for effectiveness as established by research and that they develop in concert with new findings in the field. Juvenile offender assessment and rehabilitation form the basis of effective corrections. Successful programming requires the means of differentiating lower risk to re-offend from higher risk youth. The development of effective alternatives to residential commitment entails the diversion of low risk to re-offend youth to the community and the release of moderate risk offenders into the community under supervision and appropriate treatment, reserving residential commitment for moderate-high and high risk to re-offend youth. The 5 Principles of Effective Intervention: 1) Risk Principle 2) Need Principle 3) Treatment Principle 4) Responsivity Principle 5) Fidelity Principle Research has become a primary tool for providing solutions within the four program areas; Prevention and Victim Services, Detention, Probation and Community Intervention and Residential Services. The Principles of Effective Intervention guide the development and operation of the Department in this endeavor. These five principles form a coordinated strategy for the reduction of juvenile crime based on the risk of re-offending and service needs related to re-offending behavior. The Department has implemented a statewide system of continual program improvement based on the following five principles: Risk Principle. Target offenders who are most at risk. Intensity of services provided should mimic the risk to re-offend level of the youth, with the most intense services tailored to the highest risk to re-offend youth (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Harland, 1996, McGuire, 2002; Sherman et al., 1998). Criminological literature shows high intensity services delivered to low risk to re-offend youth are iatrogenic, meaning they have the unintended consequence of actually increasing recidivism. Need Principle. Services provided should address criminogenic needs, which are dynamic, changeable needs associated with re-offending behavior. The strongest factors associated with crime are peer relationships, family factors, substance abuse, antisocial attitudes toward authority, education, and employment (Gendreau, Andrews, Cogin & Chanteloupe, 1992). Programs successful in reducing these criminogenic needs can expect corresponding reductions in recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Gendreau et al., 1994; Elliot, 2001; Harland, 1996). Treatment Principle. Employ evidence-based treatment approaches. These services should incorporate cognitive behavioral theoretical foundations (i.e., reinforcement of pro-social behaviors) and be structured, and focused on developing skills (Gendreau & Goggin, 1995; Palmer, 1995; Steadman & Morris, 1995). Philosophy of Effective Programming Comprehensive Accountability Report 29

32 PHILOSOPHY OF EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMING Responsivity Principle. Services provided should be tailored with respect to matching the teaching style to the learning style of the youth, varying treatment according to the relevant characteristics of youth such as gender, culture, developmental stages, IQ, motivation, mental disorders, history of physical or sexual abuse, and psychopathy (Gordon, 1970; Miller & Rollnick, 2002). Fidelity Principle. Monitor the implementation quality and treatment fidelity to ensure programs are delivered the way in which they were designed and intended to maximize program success and recidivism reduction (Lipsey, 1993; McGuire, 2002; Miller & Rollnick, 2002). These principles are derived from the results of a statistical technique, meta-analysis, which allows the results of many individual studies to be integrated to gain a clear indication of the empirical evidence on an issue. Meta-analyses have been used both to identify individual risk factors associated with recidivism, as well as to determine the characteristics of the most effective delinquency treatment programs (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Andrews et al, 1990; Lipsey, 1989, 1992). Research on offender rehabilitation and behavioral change has evolved to the point of providing guiding principles to enable corrections to make meaningful decisions with regard to what works to reduce juvenile recidivism and improve public safety (Bogue, et al., 2004; Burrell, 2000; Carey, 2002; Corbett et al., 1999; Currie, 1998; Elliot et al., 2001; Latessa et al., 2002; McGuire, 2002; Sherman et al., 1998; Taxman & Byrne, 2001). Following these principles will ensure decision-makers that they are purchasing and providing what is needed to reduce juvenile crime and rehabilitate the juvenile offender population. The first step to ensuring proper delivery of services is implementation of a valid evidence-based risk/need assessment, such as the Department s Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT). Currently, there exists an extensive history of risk prediction of offending behavior in the criminal and juvenile justice fields (Gottfredson, 1967; Gottfredson & Tonry, 1987; Mannheim & Wilkins, 1955; Simon, 1971). Prediction has evolved both in methodology as well as accuracy. Historically, risk to re-offend was predicted using clinical judgment, the intuitive approach. Prediction progressed into utilizing statistical techniques correlating static characteristics of the individual (such as age, prior criminal history, and prior substance abuse) with the dependent behavior (such as offending behavior) (Shichor, 1997). The third generation of prediction examined both static factors and dynamic factors (such as attitudes and beliefs). Finally, the fourth generation of risk assessment has attempted to assess static and dynamic risk factors as well protective factors. Adding an evaluation of protective factors that may reduce the risk to re-offend has created a more advanced, and potentially more accurate, predictive model. Risk and protective factors are not, however, mutually exclusive categories, meaning the same issues may be risk or protective factors. For example, family issues may be a risk factor for one juvenile with abusive parents who engage in criminality themselves, and protective for another youth who has a supportive, consistent parenting style. Research has shown that informal, subjective, clinical judgments are far less accurate than actuarial/statistical methods in the prediction of risk to re-offend (Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Bonta et al., 1998; Grove et al., 2000; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Meehl & Grove, 1996; Mossman, 1994). The PACT assessment allows for the classification of youth into four risk to re-offend categories (low, moderate, moderate-high, and high) and identifies the criminogenic needs and protective factors of each youth to guide placement decisions, case management and treatment plans. Through a doctoral dissertation out of the Department of Criminology, Law, and Society, University of Florida, the PACT assessment has been formally validated. The validation study illustrates the ability of the PACT assessment to significantly predict recidivism of the juveniles served by the Department. The PACT was shown to be a valid prediction instrument for both male and female youth, and across race. An integrated and strategic model for evidence-based practice is necessary to adequately bridge the gap between current practice and research-supported practice (Brogue, 2004). Research has indicated that evidence-based practice in corrections should, at the very least: Develop staff knowledge, skills, and attitudes congruent with research-supported practice; Implement programming consistent with research recommendations; Philosophy of Effective Programming Comprehensive Accountability Report

33 PHILOSOPHY OF EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMING Monitor implementation of programming to identify fidelity issues; Routinely measure recidivism outcomes (Brogue et al., 2004). Evidence Based Practices Initiative: A Strategic Plan The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice has embarked on a systematic program of disseminating and implementing evidencebased treatment and practices to reduce juvenile crime. The Department's Evidence-based Strategic Plan provides the basic framework necessary to assess departmental progress toward the goal of implementing evidence-based practices (EBP), determine and prioritize needs, and to evaluate the quality of implementation. The Department consulted with national experts and released an official definition of evidence-based practices. Evidence-based practices are Treatment and practices which have been independently evaluated and found to reduce the likelihood of recidivism or at least two criminogenic needs, with a juvenile offending population. The evaluation must have used sound methodology, including, but not limited to, random assignment, use of control groups, valid and reliable measures, low attrition, and appropriate analysis. Such studies shall provide evidence of statistically significant positive effects of adequate size and duration. In addition, there must be evidence that replication by different implementation teams at different sites is possible with similar positive outcomes. As discussed above, the strategy the Department has developed to implement evidence-based practices builds on the Five Principles of Effective Intervention (Risk, Need, Treatment, Responsivity, and Fidelity). Each core principle of this approach suggests strategies that the program areas should consider with regard to their respective role in supporting the Department s adoption of EBP. These strategies, as described below, will help programs to satisfy the intent of each principle. Strategic Plan for Adoption of Evidence-Based Practices The Risk Principle Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Implement a valid and reliable risk/need assessment that can differentiate among youth with regard to their risk to re-offend and classify them accordingly (This process has been achieved by statewide implementation of the PACT). Utilize the risk each offender presents to guide decisions about placement, intensity, and duration of treatment/services within the continuum of restrictiveness provided by each branch. Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Ensure that available resources are matched with projected number of youth at each level of risk, from minimal to maximum. Distributing resources according to risk projections helps to ensure that youth may be held accountable, make restitution, and receive appropriate treatment, including Prevention/Intervention. Increase the awareness of juvenile justice stakeholders, if necessary, to ensure their support for the implementation of the Risk Principle throughout all Departmental components. Strategy 5 Develop monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure that the principle is implemented appropriately and to assess for any detrimental impact to public safety The Need Principle Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Educate all staff and stakeholders in the risk/resilience model. Assess dynamic risk factors, criminogenic needs, and resilience/protective factors for each youth. Strategy 3 Develop case plans with goals that focus on reducing the level of risk due to dynamic risk factors while leveraging resilience/protective factors. Strategy 4 Avoid treating non-criminogenic factors whenever possible. Strategy 5 Base completion of program/services on success in reducing risk/strengthening resilience. Philosophy of Effective Programming Comprehensive Accountability Report 31

34 PHILOSOPHY OF EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMING Strategic Plan for Adoption of Evidence-Based Practices (continued) The Treatment Principle Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Avoid implementing or contracting for services that have not been empirically proven to reduce recidivism or criminogenic risk. Favor implementing or contracting for evidence-based practices and model/promising programs and treatment over untested programs and treatment. Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Educate staff/stakeholders about the evidence-based approach. Develop departmental training capacity on core Evidence-Based Practices. Strategy 5 Base Quality Assurance in part on the extent to which programs and services employ Evidence-Based Practices (QA Tier II Standards). Strategy 6 Develop Request For Proposals (RFP s) and Contracts that effectively specify the provider s duty to employ Evidence-Based Practices. Strategy 7 Motivate and provide Technical Assistance to existing program/service providers to embrace and adopt an evidence-based approach. The Responsivity Principle Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Match teaching style to learning style of youth. Vary treatment according to the relevant characteristics of youth: A. Gender B. Developmental Stage C. IQ/Cognitive Ability D. Motivation E. Mental Health Disorders (Psychopathy) F. Cultural Factors The Fidelity Principle Strategy 1 Educate staff and stakeholders regarding the impact of implementation quality on outcomes and cost. Strategy 2 Develop and disseminate implementation guidelines and standards designed to ensure high quality treatment and services. Strategy 3 Provide advanced training for supervisory personnel, including the use of monitoring tools. Strategy 4 Provide Technical Assistance and Coaching services to programs that choose to implement Evidence-Based Practices. Strategy 5 Provide a departmental Quality Assurance process that assesses implementation quality and treatment fidelity. Strategy 6 Target poorly performing programs for Technical Assistance, Coaching or contract sanctions. Philosophy of Effective Programming Comprehensive Accountability Report

35 PHILOSOPHY OF EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMING Development of strategies should be considered a senior management function to ensure coordination among the program areas. The list of strategies under each principle allows each Office to develop area-specific goals and objectives toward operationalizing each principle, as appropriate. This basic process serves as a template for the Department in developing a comprehensive plan to disseminate and implement evidence-based programming. In August 2006, the Department created the Office of Program Accountability. Under the Office of Program Accountability are housed Quality Assurance, Research and Planning, and the then newly created Programming and Technical Assistance Unit. Historically, Quality Assurance has focused on process issues and Research and Planning on outcomes. There had been a lack of focus in the area of quality improvement. Programming and Technical Assistance was designed to fill that gap. The main goal of the Programming and Technical Assistance Unit (PTA) is to strengthen the Department s prevention, intervention, and treatment services so that youth are served in environments that employ evidence-based practices. The PTA process is founded upon the concept of continuous improvement while focusing on processes and outcomes directed toward achieving treatment goals and objectives. The Department s programming and technical assistance process is designed to be a departure from compliance monitoring and quality assurance reviews by: Accurately and efficiently coordinating and monitoring the implementation and delivery of evidence-based practices and effective behavior management strategies; Focusing on treatment integrity and fidelity rather than simply inclusion of treatment; Focusing on improving the present condition (continuous improvement) through training of program staff; Emphasizing the doctrine of continuous improvement at all levels of performance; Focusing on delivery of treatment and performance rather than accepting minimum levels of compliance. Additionally, The Programming and Technical Assistance Unit provides referred programs with a variety of services including: Providing program staff training on: Delivery of evidence-based practices Effective behavior management strategies Effective group facilitation Tier II Quality Assurance Evidence-based Standards; Providing program administrative staff training on: Tier II Quality Assurance Evidence-based Standards Implementation of evidence-based practices Training on effective communication strategies with youth The Principles of Effective Intervention Technical Assistance Specialists provide the following additional services within referred programs: Facilitate evidence-based groups Develop facility action plans to implement evidence-based practices Assist with a re-design of the program s behavior management system Provide fidelity monitoring of evidence-based curricula Training on effective communication strategies with youth There exist four main reasons supporting the widespread implementation of evidence-based practices: Demonstrate improved recidivism rates and increase public safety; Reduce staff turnover; Reduce the number of youth-on-youth, youth-on-staff, and staff-on-youth incidents; and Funding agencies are requiring the use of evidence-based practices Philosophy of Effective Programming Comprehensive Accountability Report 33

36 PHILOSOPHY OF EFFECTIVE PROGRAMMING Philosophy of Effective Programming Comprehensive Accountability Report

37 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Over 150,000 students a year are referred to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) with approximately 16,000 students served within juvenile justice schools ranging from prevention, intervention, detention, residential and/or post-commitment program services. The state provides oversight through juvenile justice education quality assurance, school district designated transition contacts, and annual review of all juvenile justice cooperative agreements and contracts by the Department of Education (DOE). Each juvenile justice educational program has a separate school number, budget, enrollment, and exit requirement similar to other publicly funded schools in the district. Requirements for juvenile justice education are specified in Section , Florida Statutes and Rule 6A , Florida Administrative Code. Accountability includes data and progress monitoring, published quality assurance reports, and annual reports to the Florida Legislature by the Florida Department of Education and Department of Juvenile Justice. The partnerships between public school districts and the Department provide for a variety of models throughout the continuum of services provided to juvenile justice involved youth. Regional Juvenile Detention Centers, for example, have teachers assigned from the local public school district. The majority of the PACE Centers for Girls and Associated Marine Institutes employ teachers with contracted school district funds allowing for an integrated team approach and consistent professional development. Residential programs may have contracted educational services or teachers provided by the local school system. Each of these programs is a separate school with continuity of youth education as a consistent theme with related educational standards, monitoring and reporting. As stated in statute, the Florida Legislature finds that education is the single most important factor in the rehabilitation of adjudicated delinquent youth in the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) programs. It is the goal of the Legislature that youth in the juvenile justice system be afforded the opportunity to obtain a high quality education. The Department of Education (DOE) serves as the lead agency for juvenile justice education programs, curriculum, support services, and resources. To this end, DOE and DJJ each designate a Coordinator for Juvenile Justice Education Programs to serve as the point of contact for resolving issues not addressed by district school boards and to provide each department s participation in the following activities: Training, collaborating, and coordinating with the Department of Juvenile Justice, district school boards, educational contract providers, and juvenile justice providers, whether state operated or contracted. Collecting information on the academic performance of students in juvenile justice programs and reporting on the results. Developing academic and career protocols that provide guidance to district school boards and providers in all aspects of education programming, including records transfer and transition. Prescribing the roles of program personnel and interdepartmental district school board or provider collaboration strategies. Educational Services Comprehensive Accountability Report 35

38 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Key Performance Areas In September of 2007, Governor Charlie Crist identified education as one of six key performance categories. The Governor s Education goal is to Provide quality learning opportunities for Florida students through resources and accountability. The Office of Educational Development s (OED) included within the Department of Juvenile Justice addresses Governor Crist s education goal through support of quality education throughout the youth s involvement in the juvenile justice system. The State of Florida s education goals include high school graduation rate, student performance, school performance, secondary education, and class size/ education funding. There are approximately two hundred self-contained juvenile justice education programs in Florida covered under Section , Florida Statutes. These include those within community-based prevention programs, day treatment programs, detention centers and residential commitment programs. Graduation Rate The Department of Education and Department of Juvenile Justice produce an annual report as required by the Florida Legislature. This report, entitled Developing Effective Education in Department of Juvenile Justice and Other Dropout Prevention Programs, juvenile justice programs were reported to have a graduation rate of 12%. This does not take into account a student withdrawing and earning their high school equivalency diploma. A survey of programs administered by the Department of Juvenile Justice in December 2005 indicated almost 819 students had earned their high school diploma by passing the General Education Diploma while in a juvenile justice school during the 2005 calendar year. Student Performance The Developing Effective Education in Department of Juvenile Justice and Other Dropout Prevention Programs report also indicated that in , 16,040 students participated in a juvenile justice education program for at least 50% of the prescribed length of the program. Outcomes data for these students reveal: 89% were promoted 13% scored at level 3 or higher on FCAT reading 19% scored at level 3 or higher on FCAT math 94% students taking the GED tests passed (29% of these students earned a standard diploma and 71% of these students earned a State of Florida diploma) 36% were employed in fall 2005; for juvenile justice program completers, the employment rate was 50%; for dropouts, the rate was 26%. School Performance Of two hundred juvenile justice educational programs with varying lengths of participation and a mobile student population, two schools were eligible to report achievement of Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): Big Cypress Wilderness Institute and Gulf Coast Youth Academy. Post-High School Education 14% pursued post-secondary education 64% of these students found employment and continued their education Educational Services Comprehensive Accountability Report

39 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES The Florida Education & Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) also tracks juvenile justice student involvement with quarterly reports based upon social security numbers reported to the Department of Education. According to their Fall 2005 Findings, youth attending post-secondary education, employed or a combination of both indicated lower rates of recidivism than the statewide average of 40%. Class Size/Education Funding DJJ students are grouped within juvenile justice programs based upon gender, level of juvenile justice system involvement, academic levels and size within environmental and personnel limitations. The diversity of student needs in juvenile justice programs requires dedicated statewide and local school district support. The Department of Education reported a 49% turnover of educational personnel in the 2005 annual report produced by the Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Program (JJEEP). Juvenile Justice educational programs are subject to the same requirements of public schools with additional requirements as a result of separate legislation and State Board of Education rules. Youth are provided with education up to 250 days a year. All students have an individualized education plan. The limited number of teachers and diversity of instructional requirements is difficult for small programs. Students are assessed for academic status, vocational interests, and, in programs serving students beyond ninety days, results of pre and post-academic assessments are reported to the Department of Education. Students in juvenile justice programs were included under the dropout prevention and academic intervention statute, Section , Florida Statutes and Rule 6A , Florida Administrative Code; Youth Services Programs rule, until April 16, 2000; and implementation of Rule 6A , Florida Administrative Code, following amendments to Section , Florida Statutes. A fiscal impact study implemented in 2001, documented the need for increased allocations for juvenile justice education programs. After elimination of separately weighted dropout prevention funding, a hold harmless provision has remained in effect for the last eight years in an attempt to provide for the fiscal needs unique to the juvenile justice educational programs. The Legislature responded to the need for an increase due to rising costs of education during the 2006 legislative session with an allocation specific to juvenile justice educational programs. Funds were allocated using a base student allocation of $4, for the FEFP. A supplemental allocation factor of $ per student was also allocated to juvenile justice education programs where appropriate. If a school district provided incentive funding for teachers to work in a failing school, then an equal incentive bonus was provided to teachers teaching in juvenile justice facilities. A full copy of the appropriations bill can be found at: The Department of Juvenile Justice Office of Education provides a point of contact for students, families and others in need of information and technical assistance. It also serves as a forum for collaboration across the educational continuum of services and community, county, circuit, region, state and national resource development and training. State level policy, program and professional development activities are ongoing within the Department of Juvenile Justice and encompass collaboration with school districts and providers throughout Florida, the Department of Education (DOE), Department of Children and Families (DCF), Agency for Persons with Disabilities, Agency for Workforce Innovation, Workforce Florida, Inc., regional work force boards, judiciary and other persons invested in the improvement of educational and employability outcomes of juvenile justice involved youth. A stronger emphasis on school and community-based prevention is essential to developing alternatives to arrest and incarceration. Community-based programs serving youth such as the Florida Network, Pace Centers for Girls, and Associated Marine Institutes provide options for youth in need of prevention and intervention services. Each of Florida s regional juvenile detention centers also pride themselves in quality education for youth despite the diversity and transient nature of students. Residential programs strive to maintain educational coursework comparable to students prior schedule, although many serve youth that have not been attending school prior to their juvenile justice system involvement. Several school districts and residential programs have demonstrated outstanding efforts to improve academic outcomes and employability of students while in their care. It is essential that school personnel collaborate with juvenile justice personnel and contract providers to maximize available resources and integrate as many educational opportunities as possible into the overall schedule. Educational Services Comprehensive Accountability Report 37

40 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES As set forth in the Department s Long Range Program Plan (LRPP), residential programs have implemented the following strategies to enhance meaningful vocational programming for youth in their care: Establish baseline and growth in each category of vocational education provided in juvenile justice residential commitment programs. Develop a Model Exit Transition checklist for residential commitment programs for standard program use in documenting value-added life skill, career education and employability readiness upon program completion. Collaborate with workforce development programs to initiate local partnerships and resource development. Participate in updating Florida s Career and Technical Education Plan for Juvenile Justice Involved Students. Develop legislative budget requests for additional vocational placement and distance learning opportunities. Showcase best practices at state and regional conferences and through product development. Collaborative Efforts and Initiatives The Department has a strong commitment to excellence, cross-program and cross-agency training and collaboration with others. This past year juvenile justice personnel participated in and/or presented at all of the following: Annual Juvenile Justice Education Institute Able Trust Fund initiatives Jobs for Florida s Graduates National Conference The nations first Faces of Courage Training Institute, aimed at reducing the incidence of women in the criminal justice system, particularly women of color The DOE Dropout Prevention Task Force DCF Dependency Summit Adult and Community Education task forces on adults with learning disabilities Adult education and the GED practitioner s task force Native American statewide training event National and statewide workforce development initiatives The federally mandated State Advisory Board required by the Bureau of Exceptional Student Education and Community Services National public/private partnership summits on child welfare privatization Regularly scheduled training for front line workers in the areas of detention, probation and residential officers. The latter includes the importance of collaboration and information sharing with school districts in individualized service coordination and planning for multidisciplinary, multi-agency involved youth. The Education Office also regularly contributes to the following interagency initiatives: DOE/DJJ Interagency Workgroup established by Section (1)(d), Florida Statutes, prescribing the roles of program personnel and interdepartmental district, school board or provider collaboration strategies. Strengthening Youth Partnership, a replication of the federal Department of Labor Strengthening Youth Partnership model with the goal of interagency collaboration with a focus on employment of Florida s youth who are most in need. DOE State Advisory for the Education of Exceptional Students, a statewide workgroup required by the Individuals with Disabilities Act serving as a forum for review and input to the Department of Education's plan for federal funding available to youth served in exceptional student education programs. Educational Services Comprehensive Accountability Report

41 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Drug Control Strategy Committee, interagency workgroup charged with the task of developing the Governor's Drug Control Strategy for Communities in Schools: DJJ serves on the Board of Directors for the nation s largest dropout prevention organization focused on helping kids stay in school and prepare for life by connecting community resources with the students and families that need them most. The Department is collaborating closely with them at the state level and four communities with shared prevention grant activities. CIS wants to ensure that youth have access to the 5 Basics which include: o A one on one relationship with a caring adult. o A safe place to learn and grow. o A healthy start and a healthy future. o A marketable skill to use upon graduation. o A chance to give back to their peers and the community. Florida Council on Crime and Delinquency: DJJ serves on the Board of Directors to the statewide organization consistent of thirty-three chapters across the state with a focus on professional and resource development for criminal justice agencies and related community needs. Interagency Services Committee for Youth and Young Adults with Disabilities, authorized by Senate Bill 1278 to align the transition services and eliminate barriers in order to ensure a successful transition to employment and further educational opportunities for youth and young adults with disabilities. Governor's Commission on Disabilities--Executive Order # , includes the DJJ to have an appointed "Disability Champion" to develop strategies and modalities to ensure availability of information to persons with disabilities. Children's Cabinet includes service by the Secretary of the Department of Juvenile Justice with the goal of writing a plan to improve statewide collaboration among child serving agencies in Florida. Board of Directors for Workforce Florida, Inc., with representation by the Secretary of the Department of Juvenile Justice or designee, to establish workforce policy for the State of Florida. The Department of Juvenile Justice also has a continuing relationship with Very Special Arts of Florida. This program makes it possible for artists to work with youth in prevention, detention, day treatment and residential settings. Youth benefit from the instruction of professional artists and are able to express themselves through positive outlets. Programs featuring artists working with youth this past year included: Pensacola Boys Base, Columbus Juvenile Residential Facility, Duval Pace Center for Girls, DeSoto Dual Diagnosis, Camp E-Ma-Chamee, Union Juvenile Residential Facility, St. Lucie Pace Center for Girls, Space Coast Marine Institute, Three Springs Sex Offender Program, Lighthouse Juvenile Residential Facility, Miami Dade Regional Juvenile Detention Center, Collier Regional Juvenile Detention Center, Peace River Outward Bound, Price Halfway House, Monticello New Life, Okeechobee Juvenile Offenders Correctional Center and the Palm Beach Juvenile Correctional Facility. Just Read, Florida! Juvenile educational programs are also making an impact on youth literacy (Section , Florida Statutes) having identified the following four strategies as their focus in this area: Active participation in the Just Read, Florida! Workgroup. Appointment of education coordinators in each of the three regions to work with area Detention centers in planning and executing comprehensive educational programming, and specifically youth literacy. Establish libraries in cooperation with local entities as a means of improving youth literacy. Monitor progress through analysis of reports on regional activities and accomplishments forwarded to Detention Services at Headquarters. Educational Services Comprehensive Accountability Report 39

42 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Career and Workforce Education Older adolescents involved with the Department of Juvenile Justice are often dependent upon the State to prepare for self-sufficiency. Despite limited resources and, more significantly, staff availability, many individuals, boards and programs have developed programming to address this growing need. The Eckerd Family Foundation funded a study two years ago which describes the need of employers, and the challenges present when educators and social workers assume the majority of the responsibility for ensuring job readiness amongst this population. This study is currently posted on the juvenile justice website and can found at the link: The Department of Juvenile Justice, Department of Education, and the Agency for Workforce Innovation and Workforce, Florida, Inc. are primary contributors of resources for workforce education in juvenile justice programming. The Department of Juvenile Justice has worked with the Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI) and Workforce Florida Inc. (WFI) to engage this population. Employees and youth exiting the system provide a potential workforce. AWI has agreed to develop a two-year pilot program that will focus on DJJ and foster care youth. In the current workforce system, services must begin and end in the same workforce region by the same Regional Workforce Board (RWB). This was problematic because of the transient nature of these youth. This provided both a fiscal and performance disincentive for serving DJJ youth. The pilot program will allow services to follow the youth regardless of location and will allow RWBs to receive credit for a positive outcome regardless of what region the services were opened or closed. This pilot has the full support of the United States Department of Labor and is being monitored for possible national replication. Statewide, over 14,732 students were enrolled in career and technical education coursework within juvenile justice programs according to data reported to the Florida Department of Education. In August 2007, the Florida Department of Education awarded $450,000 worth of Perkins Grants to seven juvenile justice programs throughout the state. These funds are used to enhance existing career related programs or create new ones. Adopting workforce preparation is one of the most fundamental objectives of residential therapeutic intervention and other youth development services. - The Y-Works Project The DJJ also worked with DOE to design the Ready to Work certification. Currently there are 30 juvenile justice programs delivering the RTW program. A few individual programs receive a higher per diem to incorporate vocational training from the Department of Juvenile Justice. Others have received Perkins funding from the Department of Education through their local school district. Workforce Florida, Inc., has also collaborated in the past two years to provide start-up funding and employability services to the state s first residential vocational commitment program for girls in Florida, known as the DOVE Academy, and reorientation of a residential commitment program where youth committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice may attend Washington-Holmes Technical Institute. A variety of programs incorporate vocational offerings as part of the school day and are considered Level Three programs in the area of employability preparedness. Those programs include Avon Park, Dozier School for Boys, Gulf Coast Youth Academy, Cypress Creek Academy, Bristol Youth Academy, Blackwater Stop Camp, Dove Academy, Greenville Hills, Joanne Bridges Academy, Liberty Wilderness Crossroads Camp, Forestry Youth Academy, Space Coast Marine Institute, Les Peters Halfway House, Columbus Residential Juvenile Facility, Nassau Juvenile Residential Program, Pines and Oaks Stewart Marchman Juvenile Residential Facilities, Eckerd Youth Development Center, Thompson Academy, Orange, Pinellas and Hillsborough Homebuilder s Inc. (HBI) Upon completion of those programs incorporating HBI, youth exit the program with academic credits leading towards graduation and industry-recognized, construction-related certifications. HBI also assists with job placement, transition, and follow-up. For more information on HBI, please visit: Educational Services Comprehensive Accountability Report

43 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Other programs have a long-standing partnership with their communities and, in the case of Pensacola Boys Base, the local military base. The Pensacola Boys Base recently reported that youth academic achievement is steadily improving. Of the fifty-five youth enrolled at the facility since July 1, 2007, thirty-two passed the GED exam earning State of Florida high school diplomas, two received regular high school diplomas, four earned Option 2 Special Diplomas, and fifteen students returned to school upon release. Equally as impressive is that two youth are currently attending college. They recently received national recognition for their demonstrated academic students progress from participating in the Fast Forward curriculum. On May 17, 2007, Rule 63B-1 was enacted. This order addresses career related programs within the Department, and was developed to more clearly define the responsibilities of the Department and contract providers relating to vocational and career programs. Department of Juvenile Justice Rule 63B-1 establishes the standards and requirements for the Department s juvenile justice career-related programs. The rule specifically addresses the requirement for all programs to incorporate a level of vocational training, the hiring of vocational staff by the department, youth assessment and participation in vocational activities, the cooperative agreement with the Department of Education and reporting requirements. To view the rule in its entirety, please visit: https://www.flrules.org/gateway/chapterhome.asp?chapter=63b-1 Post-Secondary Education and Partnerships Post secondary options for the high school graduates in juvenile justice detention and residential commitment programs remain a continuous need. There is no dedicated funding to serve this population, and programming is contingent upon local resourcefulness and creativity. Youth may enter detention having already completed a high school diploma and/or be placed in a commitment program. All programs are encouraged to create career centers, within their programs to accommodate the postsecondary and employability preparation needs of these students. In response to this issue the Juvenile Justice Accountability Block Grant awarded a $269,000 grant to Success 4 Kids and Families, Inc operating out of Hillsborough County to research juvenile justice involved youth having dropped out of school, pilot a model to re-engage these students and offer opportunities for post-secondary education. Juvenile justice commitment programs applied for mini grants to address the needs of high school graduates with approximately 100 youth served by these funds. Computer-based skill development, college tuition, and vocational skill development were among the services made available which also incorporated an effort to increase commitment to school among probation youth in Circuit 13. Although it is too early to evaluate the success of this program, data to date appear to indicate significantly reduced recidivism rates when compared to other probation youth in the state. The Education Office has also collaborated with the Florida Juvenile Justice Foundation in development of the William Bankhead Scholarship, a Gammons Reading Program, and partnership with VSA arts of Florida. A partnership formed with the Tallahassee Community College (TCC) Foundation in the fall of 2006 piloted legislatively available matching funds for scholarships. CSX was the first corporation to contribute $5,000 to this fund with the goal of statewide replication. Six students have received $1,000 scholarships from the Juvenile Justice Foundation to date, and scholarships remain available from TCC pending further applications. Older adolescents in juvenile justice programs are primarily interested in employability readiness. Many students within the programs come from outside the school district or have not been attending school regularly prior to placement in a detention or commitment program. The majority of school districts provide support at levels above the minimal requirements to these programs despite the specific issues faced when operating these self-contained schools with little to no control over the student population. Students in these programs are not eligible for school choice and are often geographically isolated from family members. Schools work to include families unable to visit through conference calls and correspondence. Educational Services Comprehensive Accountability Report 41

44 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES The majority of juvenile justice education programs are funded by the school district in which the facility is located, but there are exceptions. Washington County Schools provides educational programs and services to residential programs in Jackson and Okeechobee Counties as a result of the Bobby M lawsuit settlement. This settlement not only reduced student populations at these facilities, it also provided funding for the development of vocational programs at the Dozier School for Boys. Students served by the Eckerd Youth Wilderness Programs throughout Florida are all enrolled in Pinellas County Schools as a result of a longstanding partnership between the program and school district serving students multiple counties. The majority of Florida s juvenile justice schools are proud of their efforts to re-engage students in education and further their progress in many arenas contributing to the goals of healthier, more educated and employable citizens. Student progress is a result of many variable factors including youth motivation, involvement of family, and strength of local leadership. Examples of community involvement and educational outreach shared by one school district are included below as an example of the myriad of programs and services that juvenile justice and educational personnel collaboratively make available to youth above and beyond school curriculum, federal and state requirements. Ms. Peggy Morrison-Thurston, Director of Alternative Education/Dropout Prevention for the School Board of Broward County, shared the following list of activities occurring through the month of September and early October. The type of programs and speakers on this list may be found in many other juvenile justice education programs and reflect not only practical and culturally diverse information but the dedication and commitment of hundreds of individuals. In appreciation Michael Hale from the Broward Detention Center shared that David Watkins, Assistant Principal of the Whiddon-Rogers Education Center, Detention Superintendent Ms. Wolf, Assistant Superintendent Captain Smith and Mr. Hale, Guidance Services, developed a collaborative plan to incorporate community involvement, vocational and career opportunities, college and university exposure, restorative justice, reading, and more. Instruction from Chef Mike, a/k/a/ Michael Dubanewicz, of the Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts Miami A five week series workshop on domestic violence entitled, Women in Distress, by Ms. Viola Joseph Mr. Dan Izinga from the local humane society has partnered with the Broward Sheriff s Office to provide foster care for animals that live in homes where domestic violence is occurring. He also discusses the importance of pet safety, pet responsibility, how animals help the sick, and a history on K-9 and feline species, pet food ingredients, and much more. Curtis Burns, a congressional assistant to U.S. State Representative Kendrick Meek spoke to the youth September 6 th. With a passionate style that allowed him to easily relate to youth, his message about making the right choices, believing in themselves, and the importance of reading and receiving a great education, was well received by the students. He emphasized the importance of voting and getting to know your public servants. Richard Dillon, a water treatment expert spoke September 18 th with the youth about this promising in-demand career. He explained the licensure procedures, pay, benefits, and discussed the procurement of clean drinking water. He showed a video demonstrating the benefits of a career in water treatment. He also explained how to register for courses at Piper High School, which offers the licensure classes. Altaf Ali shared his knowledge on cultural diversity, educating the youth on what it means to be Muslim and more. He shared information about helping to lessen hatred through understanding and mutual respect. He showed a fascinating PowerPoint presentation which explained some basic facts about Islam and its influence throughout the world. Additionally, to underscore the importance of cultural diversity, a female practitioner of the religion shared her story and discussed differences in beliefs. Penny Miller, program coordinator for the Urban League, a Crime Prevention & Intervention Program, funded through Broward County s Attorney Office, also presented to youth in Broward Detention about their services, including teenage pregnancy prevention, youth groups, employability workshops, and teen summits. Educational Services Comprehensive Accountability Report

45 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A presentation was provided by ARLIC- African-American Research Library & Cultural Center including artifacts, story reading, initiation of a monthly book club for the female class (addressing gender specific issues), and demonstrations/try-outs of various instruments. The representative continues to donate books to the facility. Prince Jones from the local health department spoke with youth about nutrition on September 17 th and 27 th and other important health issues such as vitamins, exercise, food preparation (grilling, broiling, steaming vs. frying), he even brought in a five pound synthetic fat belt to help youth learn how it feels to carrying around a few extra pounds. He conducts monthly science health classes with female students, covering topics such as pre and post-natal health and pregnancy. Thomas Collins spoke with the youth about the three technical/vocational schools located in Broward County. Using a power-point presentation as well as a question and answer format, Mr. Collins explained everything from the various majors to entrance requirements, scholarship opportunities, and potential career choices. A Laughter Workshop was conducted October 9th by Gail Choate, inspired by real life doctor Patch Adams, showing students the health and other benefits of laughter. She played music and danced and had an interactive question and answer sessions to engage youth in this fun-filled workshop. Harrison, owner of African Book Store, shared his wisdom on life, reading, and cultural awareness This fascinating speaker discussed his TOP 10 MYTHS MY TEACHER TAUGHT ME which included things such as: Columbus discovering America, Black skin/hair being bad, The Olmec people, the myth behind having blue eyes, the true number of continents (Europe is not a continent, it s simply western Asia), etc. Regular programs presented by the School Of Health include discussing medical and dental programs with the youth. The program, ON-TRACK, in Hollywood, FL, runs from October through March where students learn basic business skills and learn to start and run a real life business. They learn how to silk-screen T-Shirts; they choose a president, treasurer, etc., form a real corporation, and also earn money from it. Through JA (Junior Achievement), they create a business under this umbrella. They deposit money into a real account and keep track of it. They cannot have any repeat negative behavior, no suspensions from school, and must attend school regularly. Other subject areas brought through outreach to Broward s students who are involved with the juvenile justice system include: job corps, automotive repair, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, quality assurance, science health with female students (covering such important topics as pre and post-natal health, pregnancy, complications from nicotine); the National School of Technology, DFYIT- Drug Free Youth In Town, Critter Control, Manding Jata (a live theatrical performance celebrating the regions of Africa), SEAS (Student Enrichment in the Arts), Harmony Development Center, GREAT (Gang Resistance Education And Training), Broward Community College, and Ready to Work (an initiative stemming from the ACT organization with successful partnerships with Winn-Dixie, American Express and dozens of other employers, where students take a diagnostic test, and when ready, take a timed, online work assessment). Mr. Carroll Williams, a former record setting running back from Xavier University spoke with students about how to set and reach goals, determination, and the importance of a good education, This type of networking translates into academic successes in residential programs as well. For example, Thompson Academy, South Pines Academy, Broward Intensive Halfway House, Lighthouse, and The Juvenile Detention Center combined had 44 out of 51 juvenile justice students earn their high school diplomas last year. Additionally, five students earned Youth Automotive Scholarships at South Pines Academy and Thompson Academy. One talented student was one of four winners in a Black History Essay Contest and was awarded a DELL laptop computer. Finally, female students from Lighthouse were selected to manage the "Pet Pictures with Santa" promotion from Petsmart, where the students participated in all aspects of the promotion and all monies earned were donated to Adopt a Stray, a local pet rescue group. Student contacting juvenile justice personnel with success stories after leaving programs occurs on a regular basis. These are not captured in performance reporting systems but keep personnel motivated year after year. Educational Services Comprehensive Accountability Report 43

46 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Educational Services Comprehensive Accountability Report

47 PREVENTION PROGRAMS The majorities of prevention programs are non-residential and serve youth within the community. In FY , 21,158 youth completed prevention programs. Of those completions, 14% were adjudicated or convicted within six months of completion from a residential prevention programs while only 5% recidivated from non-residential prevention programs. There was an overall six months recidivism rate of 7% for all prevention programs. Prevention programs provide intervention for at-risk youth and their families in order to reduce juvenile crime and protect public safety. Funding for prevention programs comes from a variety of sources, including general revenue and state and federal grants. Providers are contracted to provide prevention services that target particular geographic areas in Florida (identified by zip codes) with high numbers of at-risk youth. The Department receives general revenue funds for three primary programs: Children in Need of Services/Families in Need of Services (CINS/FINS), PACE Center for Girls, and Outward Bound Discovery. Other prevention programs are funded through two different sources: 1) State grants, which includes: State Community Partnership and State Invest in Children. These programs are recommended by the local Juvenile Justice Board and County Council, who are volunteers of the community. 2) Federal grants administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Members of the State Advisory Group (SAG), appointed by the Governor, approve federal programs. Prevention Funding Sources Prevention funding comes from general revenue and state and federal grants. Listed below and on the following pages are funding sources and types of programs operated in the prevention arena. State General Revenue Funded Programs The Florida Network of Youth and Family Services, Inc. The Network is a not-for-profit statewide association of 27 agencies that includes 30 residential crisis shelters and non-residential delinquency services. Counseling is provided at over 100 service sites. Through a contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Network agencies serve Children In Need of Services/Families In Need of Services groups, including runaway, truant, ungovernable and other troubled children and their families with a continuum of services designed to strengthen and stabilize the family unit. Services are aimed at preventing children from entering the juvenile justice and child welfare systems, thereby avoiding more costly care and custody. Youth and families may access these services on a voluntary basis or by order of the court. These services are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week and include: centralized intake, screening, assessment, prevention outreach, case management, non-residential counseling services, and temporary shelter services. Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report 45

48 PREVENTION PROGRAMS PACE Center for Girls, Inc. Practical Academic Cultural Education (PACE) operates programs in 19 centers, 4 outreach, and 1 pre-teen program statewide that target the unique needs of females 11 to 18 years of age who are identified as dependent, truant, runaway, ungovernable, delinquent, or in need of academic skills. PACE accepts referrals from the juvenile justice system, the Department of Children and Families, school personnel, community services agencies, parents, family members, friends and selfreferrals. Its purpose is to intervene and prevent school withdrawal, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, substance abuse and welfare dependency. PACE programs provide the following services: academic education, individualized attention, a genderspecific life management curriculum (SPIRITED GIRLS ), therapeutic support services, encouraging parental involvement, student volunteer service projects and transition follow-up services. Every female at PACE sets individual educational and social goals that are focused on earning a high school diploma or GED, re-entering public school, attending college, getting vocational training, joining the military or entering the private workforce. After program completion, PACE continues to monitor each girl s educational and personal development with three years of follow-up case management. Outward Bound Discovery Outward Bound Discovery provides services for CINS/FINS youth. Opened in 1983, the program consists of a 40 days minimum wilderness expedition that is designed to help youth develop personal competencies in group decisions, problem solving, anger management, communication skills, leadership and service to others. Youth are referred from the court, the Department of Children and Families, schools and from DJJ. These coed programs, located in Circuits 9 and 11, accept youth 13 to 17 years of age. Following the expedition, staff members help youth apply what they have learned to their family, community and school environments through case management follow-up services. State Funded Grant Programs The following grant programs provide funding for prevention programs throughout the state. All programs are recommended by the local juvenile justice board and county council. These grants include: Community Partnership Grant Programs. The Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant program was established by the Legislature to actively address the problem of juvenile crime in Florida. The program encourages the development of partnerships among law enforcement, public schools, DJJ and the Department of Children and Family Services in providing juvenile crime prevention services in Florida communities. Priority is given to programs that target at-risk youth, those between the ages of 10 to 17 years of age, and provide services intended to reduce juvenile crime by providing direct services for at-risk and/or delinquent youth. One dollar from the sale of every license plate in Florida is placed in the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Trust Fund. Forty-two cents of that dollar goes to the Department, of which thirty cents is used to fund the Community Partnership grants, and twelve cents is used to fund conditional release. Invest in Children Grant Programs. Since 1994, Floridians who buy an Invest in Children license plate contribute directly to efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency in their home communities. Revenue from the sale of Invest in Children license plates, which cost consumers an additional $20 each, is spent in the county in which it is collected, minus the cost of the plates and a 7% fee that is applied towards state General Revenue Funds. The remainder of the money raised through the sale of these plates is used to fund delinquency prevention efforts at the local level. Special Member Projects. These programs are legislative initiatives designed to reduce and prevent juvenile crime. Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report

49 PREVENTION PROGRAMS Federally Funded Grant Programs Monies received from federal grants are used to fund prevention programs. All federal grants are approved by the State Advisory Group. Such grants include: OJJDP Grant Programs. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awards grant funds to states. The Department is responsible for administering the federal funds for Florida. Grants are awarded to agencies and are categorized into Title II, Title V and Challenge grant awards. Title II Grants: Title II grant awards are for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs and target youth in high-crime neighborhoods. All Title II grant recipients have a maximum of two renewals for their yearly grants (up to three years of funding). The expectation is that recipients will seek out other funding sources to enable program continuation. Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Grants: DMC grants are funded with Title II federal money. In the JJDP Act of 2002, Congress required that states participating in the formula Grants Program address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups, who come into contact with the juvenile system (see 42 U.S.C. 223(a)(22)). For the purposes of this requirement, OJJDP has defined minority populations as American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African-American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders. Any state that fails to address the overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system stands to lose 20% of its Formula Grants allocation for the year. Title V Grants: Title V grant awards are administered to local units of government to facilitate coordinated community delinquency prevention planning. This funding is targeted for cities and counties to form and/or mobilize coalitions that take a comprehensive approach to reducing juvenile crime through programs and systemic changes. A 50% cash or in-kind match is required on the part of the government agency in order to qualify for a grant. Challenge Grants: Challenge grants are intended for specific purposes. Florida has designated programs and research designed to end gender bias in the placement and treatment of juvenile offenders. All Florida Challenge grants will expire in FY This federal program was terminated in Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Programs. Block Grant programs are funded through the federal Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program, administered by the State Relations and Assistance division of OJJDP, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The JABG programs support state and local efforts to address juvenile crime by encouraging reforms that hold juveniles accountable for their actions. Funds may be used for specific purposes, including school safety, restorative justice, diversion and accountability-based programs for juveniles. Profile of Youth The following tables provide demographic data taken from service history extracts and delinquency referral extracts developed from files in the Department s Juvenile Justice Information System. Profile data are based on the number of youth who served a prevention program in FY Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report 47

50 PREVENTION PROGRAMS Florida Network Shelters Age Unknown Youth Served Statewide ,957 3, ,226 Percentage 0% 3% 37% 60% <1% 0% 100% Male Gender/Race Female White Black Other White Black Other Unknown Youth Served Statewide 1, ,468 1, ,226 Percentage 24% 19% 4% 28% 20% 5% 1% 100% Florida Network Non-Residential Services Age Unknown Youth Served Statewide 208 1,297 4,573 4, ,420 Percentage 2% 12% 44% 42% <1% 0% 100% Male Gender/Race Female White Black Other White Black Other Unknown Youth Served Statewide 3,074 1, ,613 1, ,420 Percentage 30% 18% 4% 25% 17% 4% 3% 100% Outward Bound Discovery Age Unknown Youth Served Statewide Percentage <1% 0% 51% 48% 0% 0% 100% Male Gender/Race Female White Black Other White Black Other Unknown Youth Served Statewide Percentage 60% 12% 0% 20% 8% 0% 0% 100% PACE Age Unknown Youth Served Statewide , ,306 Percentage 1% 2% 39% 57% 1% <1% 100% Male Gender/Race Female White Black Other White Black Other Unknown Youth Served Statewide , ,306 Percentage 0% 0% 0% 57% 42% 1% <1% 100% Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report

51 PREVENTION PROGRAMS OJJDP Age Unknown Youth Served Statewide 245 1,458 2,173 1, ,319 Percentage 5% 27% 41% 23% 1% 3% 100% Male Gender/Race Female White Black Other White Black Other Unknown Youth Served Statewide 1,627 1, ,250 1, ,319 Percentage 31% 23% 1% 24% 21% 1% 0% 100% Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Programs Age Unknown Youth Served Statewide Percentage 2% 10% 33% 46% 3% 6% 100% Male Gender/Race Female White Black Other White Black Other Unknown Youth Served Statewide Percentage 34% 29% 1% 20% 16% <1% 0% 100% Partnership/Invest in Children Age Unknown Youth Served Statewide 567 2,165 3,600 2, ,689 Percentage 7% 25% 41% 25% 1% 1% 100% Male Gender/Race Female White Black Other White Black Other Unknown Youth Served Statewide 2,550 2, ,054 1, ,689 Percentage 29% 24% <1% 24% 22% 1% 0% 100% Special Member Projects Age Unknown Youth Served Statewide , ,856 Percentage 3% 6% 22% 66% 4% <1% 100% Male Gender/Race Female White Black Other White Black Other Unknown Youth Served Statewide ,856 Percentage 36% 15% 2% 30% 16% 1% <1% 100% Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report 49

52 PREVENTION PROGRAMS Program Listing: Florida Network and PACE Center for Girls The following tables provide a list of the general revenue funded prevention programs that are currently in operation. Programs are listed by circuit, program name, and provider organization. These data are based on the October 2007 Juvenile Justice Information System capacity report. Not all programs referenced here will be reported in the program evaluation section below, as they may have had no releases for FY Prevention Program Listings by Judicial Circuit Circuit County Program Name Contract Provider Florida Network Shelters and Non-Residential Programs 1 Escambia Currie House Lutheran Services of Florida, Inc. 1 Okaloosa Hope House Lutheran Services of Florida, Inc. 2 Leon Someplace Else and Youth Shelter Capital City Youth Services 3 Columbia CDS - Interface Northwest CDS Family and Behavioral Health Services, Inc. 4 Duval Youth Crisis Center Youth Crisis Center, Inc. 5 Marion Arnette House Arnette House, Inc. 5 Hernando New Beginnings Youth and Family Alternatives, Inc. 6 Pinellas Family Resources - Pinellas Family Resources, Inc. 6 Pasco Runaway Alternative Project (RAP) Youth and Family Alternatives, Inc. 7 Volusia BEACH House ACT Corporation 7 Putnam CDS - Interface East CDS Family and Behavioral Health Services, Inc. 8 Alachua CDS - Interface Central CDS Family and Behavioral Health Services, Inc. 9 Orange Youth and Family Services Program Orange County Youth and Family Services Division 9 Osceola Sunnyside Village Youth Shelter Park Place Behavioral Health Center 10 Polk George W. Harris Jr. Runaway and Youth Crisis Shelter Youth and Family Alternatives, Inc. 11 Miami-Dade Community Based Youth Intervention Center for Family and Child Enrichment 11 Miami-Dade Miami Bridge North and South Miami Bridge Youth and Family Services, Inc. 12 Manatee Family Resources - Manatee Family Resources, Inc. 12 Sarasota Sarasota YMCA Youth Shelter Sarasota Family YMCA, Inc. 13 Hillsborough Child and Family Counseling Program Hillsborough County Dept. of Children's Services 14 Bay Hidle House Anchorage Children's Home 15 Palm Beach Safe Harbor Runaway Center Children's Home Society, West Palm Beach 16 Monroe Florida Keys Children's Shelter-Tavernier Florida Keys Children Shelter, Inc. 17 Broward Devereux Florida Devereux Florida, Inc. 17 Broward Friends of Children Friends of Children, Youth and Families, Inc. 17 Broward Lippman Youth Shelter Lutheran Services of Florida, Inc. 17 Broward Mount Bethel Mount Bethel Human Services Corporation, Inc. 18 Brevard Crosswinds Youth Shelter Crosswinds Youth Services, Inc. 18 Seminole Girls & Boys Town of Central Florida Father Flanagan's Boys Town of Central Florida 19 St. Lucie Wave CREST Shelter Children's Home Society, Treasure Coast 20 Lee Oasis Youth Shelter Lutheran Services of Florida, Inc. Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report

53 PREVENTION PROGRAMS Prevention Program Listings by Judicial Circuit (continued) Circuit County Program Name Contract Provider Slots PACE Center For Girls 1 Escambia PACE Center for Girls of Escambia Santa Rosa PACE, Inc Leon PACE Center for Girls of Leon PACE, Inc Duval PACE Center for Girls of Jacksonville PACE, Inc Marion PACE Center for Girls of Marion PACE, Inc Pinellas PACE Center for Girls of Pinellas PACE, Inc Pasco PACE Center for Girls of Pasco PACE, Inc Volusia/Flagler PACE Center for Girls of Volusia Flagler PACE, Inc Alachua PACE Center for Girls of Alachua PACE, Inc Orange PACE Center for Girls of Orange PACE, Inc Polk PACE Center for Girls of Lakeland PACE, Inc Manatee PACE Center for Girls of Manatee PACE, Inc Hillsborough PACE Center for Girls of Hillsborough PACE, Inc Palm Beach PACE Center for Girls of Palm Beach PACE, Inc Monroe PACE Center for Girls of Monroe - Upper Keys PACE, Inc Monroe PACE Center for Girls of Monroe - Lower Keys PACE, Inc Broward PACE Center for Girls of Broward PACE, Inc St. Lucie PACE Center for Girls of Treasure Coast PACE, Inc Collier PACE Center for Girls of Immokalee PACE, Inc Subtotal Lee PACE Center for Girls of Lee PACE, Inc Program Evaluation Florida Network shelters and non-residential services and Practical Academic Cultural Education (PACE) are evaluated through the Department s quality assurance process following a set of standards developed specifically for each program model. Standards are based on evidence-based practices and state policy and law. Prevention programs are evaluated on outcome data related to recidivism. Program Accountability Measures are not provided for prevention programs. Quality Assurance Performance The table on the following page ranks Florida Network shelters and non-residential services and Practical Academic Cultural Education (PACE) programs on their 2007 QA performance score. The Devereux Florida program received the highest performance score with a 90%. Practical Academic Cultural Education (PACE) programs did not receive a 2007 QA review because of their deemed status in Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report 51

54 PREVENTION PROGRAMS 2007 Prevention Programs QA Performance Rankings Rank Circuit Program Name County QA Score Prevention Programs 1 17 Devereux Florida Broward 90% 2 11 Miami Bridge North and South Miami-Dade 86% 2 4 Youth Crisis Center Duval 86% 3 6 Family Resources- Pinellas Pinellas 84% 4 2 Someplace Else and Youth Shelter Leon 83% 4 10 George W. Harris Jr. Runaway & Youth Crisis Shelter Polk 83% 5 17 Friends of Children Broward 82% 6 5 Arnette House Marion 81% 7 12 Sarasota YMCA Youth Shelter Sarasota 80% 8 7 BEACH House Volusia 79% 8 1 Currie House Escambia 79% 9 1 Hope House Okaloosa 78% 9 6 Runaway Alternative Project (RAP) Pasco 78% 9 9 Youth and Family Services Program Orange 78% Family Resources - Manatee Manatee 77% Girls & Boys Town of Central Florida Seminole 77% Hidle House Bay 77% 11 8 CDS - Interface Central Alachua 76% Child and Family Counseling Program Hillsborough 75% Wave CREST Shelter St. Lucie 75% Lippman Youth Shelter Broward 74% 14 7 CDS Interface East Putnam 72% 14 3 CDS Interface Northwest Columbia 72% Oasis Youth Shelter Lee 69% 16 5 New Beginnings Hernando 68% Safe Harbor Runaway Center Palm Beach 67% FL Keys Childrens Shelter-Tavernier Monroe 65% Community Based Youth Intervention Miami-Dade 60% Crosswinds Youth Shelter Brevard 60% 19 9 Sunnyside Village Osceola 60% Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report

55 PREVENTION PROGRAMS Outcome Evaluation Performance Program profile summaries and outcomes, including total releases, the percentage of youth adjudicated for offenses committed during services (ODS), number of completions and completion rates, demographic characteristics, average length of stay, and recidivism rates, are presented in the following table. 1 ODS is the percent of releases adjudicated for an offense during supervision 2 Italics indicate the program completed less than 15 youth and care should be taken in interpreting this data. 3 The seriousness index is comprised of the sum of all prior scores. The following point values are assigned: 8 for a violent felony, 5 for a property or other felony, 2 for a misdemeanor, and 1 for any other charge. 4 Recidivism is defined as an adjudicated juvenile or convicted adult offense occurring within 6 months of completion. Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report 53

56 PREVENTION PROGRAMS 1 ODS is the percent of releases adjudicated for an offense during supervision 2 Italics indicate the program completed less than 15 youth and care should be taken in interpreting this data. 3 The seriousness index is comprised of the sum of all prior scores. The following point values are assigned: 8 for a violent felony, 5 for a property or other felony, 2 for a misdemeanor, and 1 for any other charge. 4 Recidivism is defined as an adjudicated juvenile or convicted adult offense occurring within 6 months of completion. Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report

57 PREVENTION PROGRAMS 1 ODS is the percent of releases adjudicated for an offense during supervision 2 Italics indicate the program completed less than 15 youth and care should be taken in interpreting this data. 3 The seriousness index is comprised of the sum of all prior scores. The following point values are assigned: 8 for a violent felony, 5 for a property or other felony, 2 for a misdemeanor, and 1 for any other charge. 4 Recidivism is defined as an adjudicated juvenile or convicted adult offense occurring within 6 months of completion. Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report 55

58 PREVENTION PROGRAMS 1 ODS is the percent of releases adjudicated for an offense during supervision 2 Italics indicate the program completed less than 15 youth and care should be taken in interpreting this data. 3 The seriousness index is comprised of the sum of all prior scores. The following point values are assigned: 8 for a violent felony, 5 for a property or other felony, 2 for a misdemeanor, and 1 for any other charge. 4 Recidivism is defined as an adjudicated juvenile or convicted adult offense occurring within 6 months of completion. Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report

59 PREVENTION PROGRAMS 1 ODS is the percent of releases adjudicated for an offense during supervision 2 Italics indicate the program completed less than 15 youth and care should be taken in interpreting this data. 3 The seriousness index is comprised of the sum of all prior scores. The following point values are assigned: 8 for a violent felony, 5 for a property or other felony, 2 for a misdemeanor, and 1 for any other charge. 4 Recidivism is defined as an adjudicated juvenile or convicted adult offense occurring within 6 months of completion. Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report 57

60 PREVENTION PROGRAMS 1 ODS is the percent of releases adjudicated for an offense during supervision 2 Italics indicate the program completed less than 15 youth and care should be taken in interpreting this data. 3 The seriousness index is comprised of the sum of all prior scores. The following point values are assigned: 8 for a violent felony, 5 for a property or other felony, 2 for a misdemeanor, and 1 for any other charge. 4 Recidivism is defined as an adjudicated juvenile or convicted adult offense occurring within 6 months of completion. Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report

61 PREVENTION PROGRAMS 1 ODS is the percent of releases adjudicated for an offense during supervision 2 Italics indicate the program completed less than 15 youth and care should be taken in interpreting this data. 3 The seriousness index is comprised of the sum of all prior scores. The following point values are assigned: 8 for a violent felony, 5 for a property or other felony, 2 for a misdemeanor, and 1 for any other charge. 4 Recidivism is defined as an adjudicated juvenile or convicted adult offense occurring within 6 months of completion. Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report 59

62 PREVENTION PROGRAMS Program Expenditures The following table provides total state versus federal expenditures for prevention programs and includes self-reported federal expenditures from private provider organizations. The source documents from which these amounts were derived are as follows: Florida Network of Youth and Family Services, Practical Academic Cultural Education (PACE), and provider organizations. Florida Network Shelters and Non-Residential Programs State and Federal Expenditures FY Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report

63 PREVENTION PROGRAMS Florida Network Shelters and Non-Residential Programs (continued) State and Federal Expenditures, FY Practical Academic Cultural Education (PACE) State and Federal Expenditures, FY Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report 61

64 PREVENTION PROGRAMS Prevention Programs Comprehensive Accountability Report

65 DELINQUENCY INTAKE In FY , Delinquency Intake processed 91,497 youth representing 146,765 delinquency referrals (unduplicated). This is a 6% drop from five years prior (97,730 youth) compared to the overall increasing youth population at risk (up by 10%). Of those youth referred 41% had a felony offense as their most serious presenting offense. Felony property offenses accounted for the majority of the felony arrests. Intake is the entry point for all juveniles referred to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for delinquent acts and is a responsibility of the Probation and Community Interventions services. A referral is similar to an arrest in the adult criminal justice system. Youth under age 18 who are charged with a crime are referred to DJJ. The purpose of the intake process is to assess a youth s risks and needs to determine the most appropriate referral and treatment plan. Each youth referred is assigned a juvenile probation officer (JPO), who must conduct a face-to-face intake conference with the youth and his or her parents or guardian to gather information and assess the juvenile s service needs. The Department provides a recommendation to the state attorney and the juvenile court regarding appropriate sanctions and services. The recommendation is based on information from the arresting law enforcement officer and interviews with the victim, the youth and his or her family, and other sources (e.g. teachers). Data in this chapter are presented based on the most serious offense for which a youth was referred during FY Trends are discussed and findings of note are brought forward. Findings are pulled from the Profile of Florida Delinquency, an online publication that can be downloaded at the link below. In addition to Intake data, detailed information on diversion, probation, commitment, transfers to adult court and other topics at the state, judicial circuit and county levels are available from the Profile, which serves as the Department s primary annual reference document for descriptive statistics on delinquency referrals and youth referred. The Delinquency Profile can be downloaded at: Profile of Youth A total of 91,497 youth were referred to DJJ during FY , presenting 146,765 delinquency referrals (unduplicated). The majority of youth referred were males (70%), white (45%), and were age 15 or under (47%) at the time of their most serious referral. Delinquency Intake Comprehensive Accountability Report 63

66 DELINQUENCY INTAKE AGE Youth Served Statewide 120 2,764 23,330 62,921 2,362 91,497 Percentage <1% 3% 25% 69% 3% 100% GENDER/RACE Male Female White Black Other White Black Other Youth Served Statewide 27,896 25,082 11,216 13,271 10,535 3,497 91,497 Percentage 30% 27% 12% 15% 12% 4% 100% Listing by Judicial Circuit The following table provides a listing of intake centers currently in operation. The Department s quality assurance process only assesses the Juvenile Assessment Centers that provide an intake function for the Department. Others are operated by the Department of Juvenile Justice and are evaluated with the Circuit or are funded to provide security only. Delinquency Intake Comprehensive Accountability Report

67 DELINQUENCY INTAKE Statewide Delinquency Youth Referral Rates Youth between the ages of 10 and 17 are considered the population most at-risk of becoming delinquent. During FY , there were more than 1.89 million youth at-risk for delinquency in Florida. In this same year, 91,497 youth were referred to the Department for a delinquent offense. This represents a delinquency rate of 48 youth referred per 1,000 among the at-risk population. Between FY and FY , the population at-risk grew by 10% however, the number of youth referred to DJJ decreased by six percent. This represents a 15% drop in the delinquency rate from 57 to 48 youth referred per 1,000 youth at-risk in the population. Statewide Delinquency Youth Referrals and Rates From FY through FY Youth Referred by Offense Seriousness During FY , the majority of youth (52%) referred to DJJ were referred for the most serious offense as a misdemeanor. Forty-one percent of the youth were referred for felony offenses while less than 7% were referred for other offenses. The other offense category includes violations of probation or conditional release, cases reopened, cases transferred to other counties, and interstate compact cases. Misdemeanor offenses have historically represented the most common offense category for which youth are referred to DJJ. Over the last five fiscal years, the number of youth referred for felony offenses and misdemeanor offenses has dropped by 1% and 11%, respectively. During the same period, the number of youth referred for other offenses declined by five percent. Statewide Youth Referred by the Most Serious Offense Type From FY through FY Delinquency Intake Comprehensive Accountability Report 65

68 DELINQUENCY INTAKE Person Offenses Overall, person offenses remained essentially unchanged between FY and FY (from 36,804 to 36,256). The majority of person offenses during FY involved misdemeanor assault/battery (20,078) followed by aggravated assault/battery (9,869), which is a felony. Two felony offenses, murder/manslaughter and attempted murder/manslaughter, increased significantly, however, during this time period. Combined, these offenses increased 90% between FY and FY (from a combined 109 to 207 offenses). Armed robbery also increased from 800 to 1,337 offenses during this five-year period (a 67% increase). Statewide Delinquency Youth Referrals of Person Offenses From FY through FY Property Offenses During FY , there were 42,476 referrals for property offenses, a four percent increase over the previous year. Misdemeanor theft (16,939 referrals) was the most common offense, accounting for 40% of all property offenses. Burglary was the next most common offense with 13,196 referrals during FY Though misdemeanor theft contributed a significant proportion of property offenses, since FY , this offense has declined considerably (from 22,068 to 16,939 referrals), representing a decrease of 23%. Delinquency Intake Comprehensive Accountability Report

69 DELINQUENCY INTAKE Statewide Delinquency Youth Referrals of Property Offenses From FY through FY Substance-Related Offenses During FY , there were 17,230 referrals for drug and alcohol offenses. Marijuana misdemeanor offenses accounted for nearly half the total. The most serious type of drug offense, non-marijuana felonies, accounted for 4,520 or 26% of all drug and alcohol referrals. Referrals for non-marijuana felonies have increased 28% since FY (from 3,522 to 4,520). In general, however, during the last five years the total number of drug and alcohol offenses decreased seven percent. Notably, misdemeanor alcohol possession decreased from 2,322 offenses in FY to 1,893 in FY , representing an 18% reduction. Statewide Delinquency Youth Referrals of Substance-Related Offenses From FY through FY Delinquency Intake Comprehensive Accountability Report 67