Click here to see the Java version of this page.
Net-ItNow!
This page created
with Net-It Now! Click
here to try it for free.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Table of ContentsPage 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE..................................................................................................5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................6
RECIDIVISM METHODOLOGY.......................................................................8
Preparation of the Recidivism Cohort........................................................................8
Eligibility for Recidivism...............................................................................................9
Computing Recidivism Results.................................................................................10
Data Limitations..........................................................................................................11
THE CONTINUUM.....................................................................................14
Prevention Programs................................................................................16
Prevention Program Model Descriptions.................................................................16
Methodology.................................................................................................................17
Florida Network for Youth and Family Services (Network).....................................18
Services Provided..................................................................................................18
Client Profiles..........................................................................................................18
Program Costs........................................................................................................20
Overall Program Effectiveness.............................................................................21
Practical Academic Cultural Education (PACE) Centers for Girls........................21
Services Provided..................................................................................................21
Client Profiles..........................................................................................................21
Program Costs........................................................................................................23
Overall Program Effectiveness.............................................................................23
Hurricane Island Outward Bound...............................................................................23
Services Provided..................................................................................................23
Client Profiles..........................................................................................................23
Program Costs........................................................................................................25
Overall Program Effectiveness.............................................................................25
Intensive Learning Alternative Program (ILAP)........................................................26
Services Provided..................................................................................................26
Client Profiles..........................................................................................................26
Program Costs........................................................................................................27
Overall Program Effectiveness.............................................................................27
Discussion...............................................................................................................28
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 2Table of Contents
Intervention..............................................................................................29
Program Descriptions.................................................................................................29
Non-Judicial Intervention Programs....................................................................29
Judicial Intervention Programs.............................................................................30
Juvenile Alternatives Services Program...................................................................30
Recidivism Methodology.......................................................................................32
Population Profile...................................................................................................32
Program Outputs.....................................................................................................33
Recidivism to the Juvenile Justice System........................................................34
Community Control......................................................................................................35
Recidivism Methodology.......................................................................................36
Population Profile...................................................................................................36
Program Outputs.....................................................................................................37
Recidivism to the Juvenile Justice System........................................................38
Discussion....................................................................................................................39
Intervention Data Tables.............................................................................................42
Commitment.............................................................................................48
Chapter Organization..................................................................................................48
Grouping of Program Models.....................................................................................49
Assignment of Commitment Restrictiveness Level.................................................49
The Supervision Risk Classification Instrument................................................50
Developing the Index Score..................................................................................52
Discussion...............................................................................................................53
Explanation of Tables..................................................................................................57
Minimum-Risk Non-Residential Programs (Level 2)...............................................62
Program Descriptions............................................................................................62
Population Profile...................................................................................................63
Client History...........................................................................................................65
Program Outputs.....................................................................................................67
Recidivism to the Juvenile System......................................................................69
Recidivism to the Adult System...........................................................................71
Discussion...............................................................................................................72
Level 2 Data Tables...............................................................................................75
Low-Risk Residential Restrictiveness Level (Level 4)...........................................99
Program Descriptions............................................................................................99
Population Profile.................................................................................................100
Client History.........................................................................................................102
Program Outputs...................................................................................................104
Recidivism to the Juvenile System....................................................................107
Recidivism to the Adult System.........................................................................108
Discussion.............................................................................................................108
Level 4 Data Tables.............................................................................................113
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Table of ContentsPage 3
Moderate-Risk Residential Restrictiveness Level (Level 6).................................125
Program Descriptions..........................................................................................125
Level 6 Program Grouping..................................................................................126
Population Profile.................................................................................................127
Client History.........................................................................................................128
Program Outputs...................................................................................................130
Recidivism to the Juvenile System....................................................................132
Recidivism to the Adult System.........................................................................133
Discussion.............................................................................................................134
Level 6 Data Tables.............................................................................................137
High- and Maximum-Risk Residential Programs (Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps)161
Program Descriptions..........................................................................................161
Population Profile.................................................................................................164
Client History.........................................................................................................165
Program Outputs...................................................................................................168
Recidivism to the Juvenile System....................................................................169
Recidivism to the Adult System.........................................................................170
Discussion.............................................................................................................171
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camps Data Tables...............................................176
Aftercare.....................................................................................................................188
Program Descriptions..........................................................................................188
Population Profile.................................................................................................190
Client History.........................................................................................................192
Program Outputs...................................................................................................194
Recidivism to the Juvenile System....................................................................196
Recidivism to the Adult System.........................................................................198
Discussion.............................................................................................................198
Aftercare Data Tables..........................................................................................203
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF SYSTEM ISSUES....................................227
Relation Between Client Characteristics, Program Models and Restrictiveness
Levels....................................................................................................227
Length of Stay............................................................................................................229
Completion Rates......................................................................................................229
Aftercare.....................................................................................................................230
Recidivism..................................................................................................................230
What Impacts Recidivism?......................................................................231
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 4Table of Contents
MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................232
Prevention..................................................................................................................232
The Commitment Continuum...................................................................................234
Aftercare....................................................................................................................236
Data............................................................................................................................238
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................240
APPENDIX A: RECIDIVISM METHODOLOGY..................................................1
APPENDIX B: SUPERVISION RISK CLASSIFICATION INSTRUMENT (SRCI)...10
APPENDIX C: SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH PRELIMINARY
SCREENING (SAMH-1)..........................................................................11
APPENDIX D: SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................12
APPENDIX E: DJJ SERIOUS OR HABITUAL OFFENDER (SHO) WORKSHEET13
APPENDIX F: PRE-DISPOSITION REPORT (PDR) FORMAT.......................14
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
PrefacePage 5
PREFACE
The Juvenile Justice Advisory Board was given the statutory responsibility to "establish and
operate a comprehensive system to annually measure and report program outcomes and
effectiveness for each program operated by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) or operated
by a provider under contract with the department." Section 39.003(4)(d), Fla. Stat. This report is
the first outcome evaluation report produced in-house by the Board.
The Outcome Evaluation report examines DJJ programs that range from prevention to deep-end
maximum-risk services to aftercare. This evaluation should prove useful to DJJ, the Legislature,
providers and concerned citizens in their attempt to determine the most efficient and effective
strategy for dealing with delinquent youth.
The Advisory Board has compiled data and reported rates of recidivism based on data gathered
from the department's Client Information System (CIS), the Department of Corrections and the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Along the way, important findings began to emerge
which raised questions about everything from how juveniles were placed in restrictiveness levels
and programs to whether there was any relation among the usual indicators of performance such
as average length of stay, program completion, provision of aftercare and overall rates of
recidivism. This report goes beyond analyzing numbers, offering thought-provoking questions and
discussions about the interpretation of the data.
The Juvenile Justice Advisory Board offers this report as a springboard to future discussions about
how the Department of Juvenile Justice can and should go about maintaining public safety while
providing effective care and treatment aimed at making lasting positive changes in the lives of
delinquent youth.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 6Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the findings in the individual chapters, the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board has made the
recommendations which follow. These recommendations are intended to stimulate further
development of research-based prevention efforts, improve the process of classification and
placement of juveniles within treatment programs, increase the level of consistency in program
performance within each treatment model found in the continuum, and to increase the level of
accountability across the entire continuum of juvenile justice treatment and services.
Prevention
he Legislature must give the highest priority to the development and enhancement of a
coordinated and comprehensive continuum of prevention programs to serve youth and
families of youth at risk of involvement in the juvenile justice system.
³
he Legislature must ensure that there is a coherent research-based framework for prevention
in statute, and should insist that this framework become the organizing principles for the
substantial prevention efforts of the Department of Children and Family Services, the Department
of Education, the Department of Health, and the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
³
ny future delinquency prevention programs funded by the Legislature through the
appropriations process, or the Department of Juvenile Justice through contracts or grants,
should include clearly defined measurable goals and outcomes. These goals and outcomes should
be focused on minimizing the risk factors or strengthening the resiliency factors that operate within
the individual, home, school, and community domains of a youth's life. The level of cooperation
and coordination with other prevention programs should weigh heavily in the evaluation of the
performance of delinquency prevention programs.
The Commitment Continuum
he Department of Juvenile Justice should evaluate, revise, and validate its supervision risk
classification instrument which is the cornerstone to decision-making with regard to the
restrictiveness level of each committed youth, the type of aftercare to be provided, and to
funding and resource allocation decisions as well. The service or treatment needs of youth, and
the ability to effectively address the assessed needs of each youth must play an appropriate role in
the choice of both the commitment restrictiveness level and aftercare services.
³
ach program in the DJJ continuum of services must have a clearly articulated philosophical or
theoretical framework. While no one such framework will be adequate for all offender types,
programs should be encouraged to go beyond behavioral frameworks, integrating
T
T
A
T
E
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Executive SummaryPage 7
developmental theory and implementing research-based practice within programs. Through links to
aftercare, programs should be encouraged to communicate treatment philosophy into the
communities of the youth served.
Aftercare
lthough the Legislature has declared in statute its belief that aftercare services can reduce
recidivism, the Department of Juvenile Justice must take responsibility to determine the most
effective strategies for achieving that goal. The department must clarify its expectations and
its performance measures for aftercare services. The strategies will dictate how the performance
of aftercare programs and services should be measured. At issue is whether the goal of no
recidivism for youth who are leaving residential commitment can best be achieved through a
treatment strategy that involves the delivery of services to assist the transition of a juvenile back
into the home and community, or through a law enforcement approach that involves surveillance
and the swift detection of violations of aftercare rules before they escalate into new crimes.
³
he Legislature should earmark a portion of any new funding for aftercare services for
research that can test the usefulness and effectiveness of aftercare, and assess the strengths
and weaknesses of the various aftercare models now provided or proposed by the
Department of Juvenile Justice. The use of these research funds should be linked to the
development of an inter-agency agreement between the Department of Juvenile Justice and the
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board (JJAB) that would specify: (1) the aftercare models to be tested,
(2) a comprehensive experimental research design that apportions responsibilities for carrying out
the research design and related data collection procedures among the department, the Advisory
Board, third party consultants, and providers; and (3) a time table for completion of the project and
reporting results to the Legislature.
Data
he availability of timely and accurate data affects funding decisions by the Legislature,
management decisions by DJJ, and outcome evaluation by the JJAB. The Department of
Juvenile Justice must begin an aggressive program of training and quality control now, so that
when its new juvenile justice information system (JJIS) becomes operational the data that is
produced will be valid and reliable.
³
he DJJ must complete the process of properly apportioning the costs associated with different
programs and services within the SAMAS system. Likewise, DJJ must find a means of
differentiating in CIS the clients who receive varying types of services from a single provider
at a single location, and the costs associated with serving them. Without client and program
specific information, neither the outcomes of clients served nor the cost effectiveness of programs
can be determined.
A
T
T
T
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 8Recidivism Methodology
RECIDIVISM METHODOLOGY
From the first outcome evaluation reports produced by the Children, Youth and Family Services
division of the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in 1987, a
recidivism report has been produced in conjunction with data analysis regarding juvenile justice
program outputs. Recidivism reports were based on the juveniles released from programs during a
six-month period. Juveniles eligible for these studies were a subset of those released: juveniles
who were released by transfer to another HRS commitment program, juveniles on temporary
release (for example, medical or psychological treatment or evaluation), juveniles who were
released for incarceration within the Department of Corrections, and juveniles on other specific
types of releases which did not place the youth at-large in the community for any time were
necessarily excluded from the pool of potential recidivists.
The rationale for this sampling method was sound. Due to the small numbers of juveniles in the
resulting sample, however, performance evaluation based on average outputs and recidivism rates
could have been quite misleading.
In an effort to supply reliable and useful information to decision makers, this study features a
recidivism sample drawn from the entire fiscal year, rather than a six-month period. This did have
the effect of increasing most sample sizes, and therefore improved the usefulness and reliability of
available data. In some cases, individual programs have sufficient samples to support inferences.
In other cases, data was aggregated in the way which seemed to be the most useful. For local
non-residential programs, for example, resources were aggregated by program type within each
district in view of the fact that these programs are not regular contracted providers, but are
typically small and tailored to the special needs of individual offenders.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 1994-95, the period between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1995, there were more
than 12,000 admissions to DJJ commitment programs for a total of more than 8,600 individual
juveniles. The recidivism sample, or cohort, for the present study includes 7,798 individual juveniles
who were placed one or more times within one or more DJJ programs. These numbers are based
on the September, 1996 extract, or snapshot of data in time, from the Florida Assessment,
Classification and Tracking System (FACTS).
For the first time, the production of the recidivism sample, as well as matches with data from the
Department of Corrections, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the DJJ jail
compliance monitoring unit were conducted under an inter-agency agreement between the
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board and the Department of Juvenile Justice. This was done in order
to minimize duplication of effort, to standardize definitions, and eliminate discrepancies between
data presented by either agency to decision makers and stakeholders.
Preparation of the Recidivism Cohort
Because the Client Information System (CIS) was originally designed to facilitate the management
and tracking of juvenile justice clients, obtaining an accurate picture of the number of individual
(unduplicated) juveniles, the beginning and end of their stays at any one resource, the number of
programs in which they have stayed during a period of commitment, or the length of time they
have been under the custody of the department is problematic. The process of correcting mistaken
entries or other data problems, commonly referred to as "cleaning" of the data, reduces the
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Recidivism MethodologyPage 9
number of individual juveniles or placements in resources. Whereas the unduplicated number of
individual juveniles released from programs exceeded 8,600, the recidivism sample, or cohort, for
this study is 7,798 youth.
Eligibility for Recidivism
The guiding principle for inclusion in the sample was whether the individual was released from the
program and was at-large during some period between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1995. The
following release reasons qualified the juvenile for inclusion in the sample:
Program Completion;
Furlough;
Post-Commitment Community Control;
Maximum Term Served;
Reaching Age of Majority;
Other Release (released and at-large); and
Transfer to Level 2 for Step-Down or Aftercare.
Programs were assessed for recidivism only if the juvenile had a legitimate stay at the resource,
and had committed an offense within 365 days of release. This means that some juveniles who
were admitted to two or more programs, which could include a commitment program or aftercare,
had two or more "recidivism periods" during which offenses were assessed to the respective
resource. If those periods overlapped, both programs were assessed for recidivism.
Released from
Care and Custody*Completed the program*Reached the maximum age*Served the maximum time*Other
Aftercare*Reentry*Furlough*PCCC
Level 2 Stepdown*Day Treatment*SIG*Others
Released - but not included in recidivism samplebecause was not at-large to commit a new offense
*Sentenced or transferred to adult jail or DC*Transferred or recommitted to a commitment program of a higher level*Transferred or recommitted to a commitment program of the same level*Transferred to a commitment program of a lower level (but not Level 2)*Temporarily released for medical treatment or court appearances*While escaped or absconded youth are at-large, they are not released
Youth in the recidivism sample have been released from a programto the community. Some youth are placed in aftercare. Some youthare not under any type of additional supervision or surveillance. Ineither case, these youth have the opportunity to commit a newoffense.
How the Recidivism Sample Was Developed
Recidivism Sample
Youth
Released
Commitment
Program
SchoolHome
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 10Recidivism Methodology
Computing Recidivism Results
Files from the DJJ, DC, FDLE and jail monitoring data were matched against the records of all
commitment and aftercare programs.1 Records were examined to determine whether juveniles
had received subsequent referrals or arrests as juveniles or adults, had been adjudicated or found
guilty, or had been re-committed to the department or to DC probation or prison. In some cases,
records indicated that a juvenile had been arrested, prosecuted or committed both as a juvenile and
an adult. Tables are therefore carefully noted to explain the data contained therein.
Resulting percentages were based on the number of juveniles within the recidivism sample. Past
practice has been to define the overall recidivism rate as re-commitment to the department,
placement on adult probation or incarceration within Department of Corrections facilities. Out of
consideration for its usefulness, this definition is used for the overall rate of recidivism reported in
tables and within the text. This definition does have limitations, however, because it does not take
into account juveniles who are adjudicated, but are placed on community control in lieu of
immediate commitment.
The former definition of recidivism was established from the perspective of program management
and load on the commitment system. It may not be adequate, however, for the evaluation of client
outcomes. Even though a client may not offend at the level of seriousness which would require
commitment, the evidence provided by adjudication indicates that a pattern of offending behavior
may in fact persist. Future evaluations will continue to utilize the definition commonly used in the
past. In addition, rates of adjudication or adjudication withheld in either the juvenile or adult system
will be cited in order to provide a measure which reflects the client outcome rather than program
output.
Alternate Definitions of Recidivism. Although the overall recidivism rate for the purpose of
this evaluation is based on juvenile re-commitment or adult probation or prison within one year of
release, there is no universally accepted recidivism measure. Some studies have defined
recidivism as any subsequent arrest following the release from a program or institution, while
others have defined it as any subsequent adjudications or commitments. Other studies have
introduced suppression effects as an alternate definition of recidivism. A comparison is made
between a juvenile's record of offending before placement in a commitment program with
offenses committed after release in order to determine whether there has been a diminution or
suppression in either the severity or frequency of the juvenile's pattern of offending. The
measurement of suppression involves an acknowledgement that while recidivism of any type is not
an acceptable outcome, a reduction in the level of violence, victimization, or disruption of public
safety may nonetheless be counted as an improvement worth noting. Likewise, a suppression of
the frequency of re-offending, or a lengthening of the time to failure, may in some ways represent
success.
1 Because juveniles in prevention programs had not received referrals or commitments, "recidivism," termed
"subsequent involvement," was computed on the sole basis of referrals recorded in the CIS Delinquency and
Dependency Referral (DDR) file.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Recidivism MethodologyPage 11
Data Limitations
The data used in this evaluation were obtained from the September, 1996, extract from the
FACTS, Delinquency and Dependency Referral (DDR), and Children Youth and Families and
Child Welfare (CYFCW) data files within the department's Client Information System. This
system has limitations which must be recognized when interpreting some of the findings contained
in this evaluation. Some of the limitations of the CIS are noted below:
Information System Design and Purpose. The CIS was originally designed to facilitate the
management and tracking of juvenile justice clients, rather than program evaluation. It is difficult
to obtain an accurate picture of the number of individual (unduplicated) juveniles, the beginning
and end of their stays at any one commitment program, the number of programs in which they
have stayed during a period of commitment, or the length of time they have been under the
custody of the department.
Database Design Limitations. Within the client information system, the FACTS, DDR and
CYFCW files are extracted from a "live" relational database. This makes it difficult, if not
impossible, to connect specific cases or offenses with the disposition and treatment an offender
receives in a program. Better links and improved compatibility among these data sources would be
beneficial in tracking and comparing delinquency cases and services among programs.
Data Entry. The process of entering data in the CIS may be delayed up to four months.
Consequently, the person entering data in CIS may not have had any contact with clients. Missing
data or ambiguous information in the paper records can lead to errors by data entry operators.
Outcome Evaluation Timeline
Each youth is tracked for 12 months after being released from
the program. During that time, if a youth comes into contact with law
enforcement for a new offense, the event will be captured in the CIS data system.
Delays in
data entry
prevent
immediate
analysis.DOC & DJJ data
is collected and
matched to the
recidivism cohort.
July'94Oct'94Jan'95April'95July'95Oct'95Jan'96April'96July'96Oct'96Jan'97April'97July'97
Release
Period
Recidivism Window
DelayedCISdataentry
DataCollection,
Analysis,
&
Reporting
Report is presented to
the Legislature during
the session.
Each youth released from
DJJ programs during the
12-month period makes up
the recidivism cohort.
1
2
3
4
5
FY 1994-95FY 1995-96FY 1996-97
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 12Recidivism Methodology
Missing data regarding race and gender of clients are examples. One result is a small percentage
of juveniles whose gender or race is reported as unknown.
Coding of Data. The client information system has 49 offense categories that are intended to
give an idea of the seriousness and nature of the offenses committed by a juvenile. Only 20 of
these are felony offense codes, and in some cases these codes contain both property and violent
offenses. In the development of statutory guidelines for adult sentencing, more than 275 felonies
were grouped into categories. Because these felonies are aggregated into 20 categories, accurate
and reliable analysis is difficult to conduct.
Data Entry Errors. The management of data entry errors also affects the reliability of CIS
data. One of the drawbacks of CIS is that data entry errors cannot be erased. Errors must be
corrected through a process of reversing entries, which affects the reliability of the data. For
example, if a juvenile is transferred out of a program, but the data entry for the subsequent
program is incorrect, the database can only be corrected by transferring the youth out of the
incorrect program into the correct one. The resulting entry makes it appear as if a juvenile was
admitted to a program for the period of one day, when in fact the youth was never there. If a
youth is mistakenly placed in a program by intake staff, the record on that youth must be closed
out of that particular program before the youth can be appropriately placed. Although the youth
may not have been physically placed in the program, the record will indicate the youth was served
by the program. This issue must be dealt with to ensure an accurate comparison of program
outputs and client outcomes among and between programs.
The training of staff to operate the new system currently under development must begin
immediately. Untrained staff entering inaccurate data will result in unreliable evaluations.
Therefore, it is imperative for the department to begin to incorporate training on the new
information system into their existing training curriculum at this time. This training will allow the
department to have competent personnel available when the system becomes operational.
Court Procedure. Due to changes in charges and plea agreements, the disposition of the case
may not be the same as the offense recorded in the client information system but may in fact be
the disposition to a less serious charge. These changes are not always reported in the system. In
addition to the tracking problems posed by plea bargaining, the consolidation of cases makes
connecting a case or particular charges to placement in the commitment system impossible.
Missing Data Elements. Currently there are required and optional data fields within CIS.
Intake staff must enter data within required data fields in order to enter a client record, or the
computer will reject the entry. Other fields are not required, and for the sake of expediency are
frequently left incomplete. An example of a required data element is the racial group to which a
youth belongs. In contrast, the ethnicity of a youth is an optional data element that is not required
by the department.
The lack of ethnicity data is a well-noted example of the limitations of the current information
system. Currently, there is no data available by which to accurately identify youth of Hispanic
origin. Many of these youth are coded as white or black by the department's intake staff. In large
part, the determination of whether Hispanic youth are coded as white or black is determined by
information provided by the client.
Because black youth, white youth, and Hispanics have unique individual, family and social
differences, identifying race and ethnicity has implications not only for equitable treatment under
the law, but also for treatment strategies which include family and neighborhood. An example of
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Recidivism MethodologyPage 13
this can be found in Level 8, 10 and boot camp programs where 60% of the youth are minority. If
those Hispanic youth who are currently identified as white were included as a separate minority in
the Level 8, 10 and boot camp population, the proportion of minorities in relation to white youth
within these programs could change dramatically. Accurate racial and ethnicity data will allow
treatment strategies to better identify cultural needs that may be an important aspect of the
development of minority youth.
Other missing data elements not found in the current information system include the supervision
risk classification score, drug screening information, employment information, mental health
information, mental, cognitive, social-psychological and learning disability assessments, pre- and
post-educational and treatment testing, parental financial status (ability to pay for treatment),
detailed supervision plan and requirements and treatment goals. These data are essential for
developing treatment plans, as well as for making accurate and reliable comparisons between
populations served by the department's programs. Any attempts at developing a performance-
based program budgeting system must have access to the data elements to make reliable
comparison among programs.
Financial Data. Within the current coding of the SAMAS system, it is difficult to determine the
funding amount of individual programs contracted by a sole provider. This system only reports the
total amount funded for all programs operated by a contracted provider. The reporting of individual
program costs has been mandated by the Legislature, but coding changes must be completed
before a reliable cost-benefit model can be developed and implemented as mandated by statute.
Summary. Given the limitations and deficiencies within the current information system, a new
information system is being developed by the department. If the department continues to solicit
input from providers, JJAB and other stakeholders within the juvenile justice system, many of
these issues will be addressed within the new system.
The new information system must be designed for needs beyond those of management. Although
the measurement of program outputs and on-going management of clients and caseloads is
essential, data with regard to client characteristics and client outcomes must be included. If these
data elements are developed thoughtfully, they will allow evaluations to go beyond recidivism
rates. Programs should be evaluated not only on basic outputs, but also on their ability to influence
and change the lives of the youth they serve.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 14The Continuum
THE CONTINUUM
The mission of the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board is to support and assist the Legislative and
Executive branches by recommending funding priorities and ideas for improvement for the
Department of Juvenile Justice based on:
Monitoring of the department's ability to deliver and use programs and services;
Review of the department's programmatic and fiscal policies; and
Evaluation of the outcomes and effectiveness of the department's programs.
The completion of this report marks the first year the JJAB and its staff have conducted and
completed such a comprehensive analysis of the department's programming. This report was
completed in partnership with the department's Bureau of Research and Data.
The format of the report presents the juvenile justice continuum from prevention programs to
intervention programs, which includes the Juvenile Alternatives Services Program (JASP) and
community control; to the commitment continuum, which includes restrictiveness levels 2
through10, and lastly, aftercare programs including re-entry and intensive day treatment programs.
The commitment and aftercare sections are formatted similarly while the sections that address
prevention and intervention programs follow a very different format. This is due to the fact that
the data requirements and data collected on these programs are very different from commitment
programs. Each of the sections begin with a broad definition of the program type and individual
program model descriptions. Then, the narrative and data shifts to client population data, program
outputs, recidivism data, and a discussion section. The commitment sections include a serious of
tables. These tables include program information, program output information, client demographics,
client referral history, client treatment history, and program recidivism rates. Throughout the
document, percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
The conclusion of the report includes the findings and recommendations of the Juvenile Justice
Advisory Board.
An appendix section provides the following:
An explanation of the recidivism methodology;
A copy of the Supervision Risk Classification Instrument (SRCI);
A copy of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Preliminary Screening (SAMH-1);
A copy of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Assessment Summary of Findings and
Recommendations;
A copy of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Serious or Habitual Offender (SHO)
Worksheet; and
A copy of the Pre-Disposition Report (PDR) format.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
The ContinuumPage 15
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 16Prevention
Prevention Programs
Florida law states that delinquency prevention programs are designed to reduce the number of
youth who enter the juvenile justice system. Many of the youth and families served by juvenile
justice prevention programs are commonly referred to as Children in Need of Services/Families in
Need of Services (CINS/FINS). These programs offer services targeting high-risk behaviors that
include habitual truancy, other school-related problems, running away from home and
ungovernable behavior. Services are designed to enhance family functioning, personal growth and
development, school attendance and academic performance. These programs are community-
based and are usually operated by non-profit organizations.
The Department of Juvenile Justice administers a variety of prevention programs from three major
funding sources.
The federal grants program is funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP). During FY 1994-95 the department awarded 26 OJJDP prevention
grants throughout Florida, totaling $2,922,000.
The Florida Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program, funded through the
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Fund, received a portion of a $1 fee added to each
vehicle registration in the state. The department reports that there were 110 grants funded
for a total of $7.9 million during FY 1994-95.
In addition, the department reports in its 1995-96 Annual Report that since the "Invest in
Children" license plates went on sale in May 1995, 21,570 plates have been sold, yielding
$431,407. The proceeds of the sale of these plates in each county is earmarked for local
prevention and intervention programs.
The department's principle prevention budget of $35,532,277 is appropriated by the
Legislature from the general revenue fund.
Prevention Program Model Descriptions
Although there are many other prevention programs, the following programs consume a majority
of the department's prevention and diversion budget. These programs have individually
standardized data systems that permit outcome evaluation.
Agencies of the Florida Network of Youth and Family Services, Inc. (Network). The
Network is a not-for-profit statewide association composed of CINS/FINS agencies which serve
homeless, runaway and troubled juveniles ages ten and older, and their families. The Department
of Juvenile Justice contracts with the Network to provide oversight of the CINS/FINS programs
and services. The Network also provides technical assistance and training to member provider
agencies.
CINS/FINS agencies provide two types of services. The first includes intake services to the youth
and family at the time the youth or family commences services with the agency. Intake services
include completing an assessment of youth, or family, or both, intervention services such as
counseling and referrals to appropriate agencies. The second service includes temporary staff-
secure shelters or voluntary "host homes" licensed by the Department of Children and Families.
These shelters and host homes provide temporary care for youth which includes shelter, food,
clothing, supervision, recreation, education and counseling. The shelters serve CINS youth,
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
PreventionPage 17
delinquent youth with prior or open delinquency charges, and dependent youth under the
supervision of the Department of Children and Families. These temporary residential placements
of dependent youth are funded by Emergency Shelter contracts with the Department of Children
and Families.
Practical Academic Cultural Educational Center for Girls, Inc. (PACE). During the
period covered by this report there were seven PACE centers operating throughout Florida. The
centers were located in Manatee, Duval, Orange, Broward, Dade, Leon, and Escambia counties.
PACE opened its first program in Jacksonville in 1985. PACE offers a six to eight month program
serving females between 12 and 18 years of age. PACE clients generally fall into one or more of
three legal categories: status offenders who are either ungovernable, runaway or truant;
delinquents who are under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Justice; and dependents
who are under the supervision of the Department of Children and Families. The two phases of the
PACE program include a Level I day treatment component and a Level II follow-up supervision
period that lasts up to three years.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound. Hurricane Island has been in operation since 1983. This
program serves male and female youth between the ages of 13 and 17 years from DJJ Districts 4,
5, and 8. Youth are referred to the program from schools, runaway shelters and other social
services agencies. The program has two components: an 18 day wilderness trip and a 10 day
follow-up component featuring weekly face-to-face contacts with the youth and their family in the
school, home and community.
Intensive Learning Alternatives Program (ILAP). ILAP has been operational in
Hillsborough County Schools since 1977. During the 1994-95 school year ILAP counselors were
located in 38 middle schools throughout the county. Referrals to ILAP are initiated by school
teachers or administrators, the parents or the youth. Youth referred to the program are
disinterested and unmotivated within their current school setting and are at risk of experiencing
school problems such as failing grades or unexcused absences. Specific services include self-
contained classes, daily counseling and frequent communication with the family. The goals of the
program include improved academic performance, attendance, behavior and reduced delinquency
and school suspensions.
Methodology
The four prevention program models included in this evaluation were designed to serve youth
before they enter the juvenile justice system for formal processing. Therefore, information on
these youth is not collected within the department's client information system (CIS). This
evaluation is based on data collected by the four programs during FY 1994-95, and subsequently
submitted to, but not verified by, the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board. Fiscal Year (FY) 1994-95
includes the period from July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995. Many of the data elements collected
by the programs are based on self-reports by the youth participating in the programs. All four
program models submitted standardized data sets, which represents an improvement in the data
collection and reporting efforts by these programs. Although improvements have been made, it
was evident through the course of this evaluation that continued improvements are needed. ILAP,
Hurricane Island Outward Bound and the Network have an adequate data reporting system in
place that has the necessary individualized data elements which allow for more accurate
evaluations. It should be noted that the PACE program is in the process of creating a client
focused data system that will be beneficial for future evaluation studies.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 18Prevention
Subsequent referral analyses were compiled using CIS data. This study contains data on more
than 12,000 youth discharged from these prevention programs.
Florida Network for Youth and Family Services (Network)
Services Provided
The Network reports on a diverse array of services which are intended to enhance family
functioning, personal growth and development, school attendance and academic performance. The
Network's database consisted of 15,712 cases on
12,719 individual youth discharged during FY 1994-95.
Of the 12,719 youth discharged, data were missing on
2,200, or 17.6%, of the youth. Therefore, this analysis
is based on the 10,519 youth discharged for whom the
Network had available data.
Counseling and therapy services were provided to 97%
(10,203) of the youth, making it the most frequently
provided service. The Network offers a variety of
counseling options, including individual, group, family,
and peer counseling and therapy. Fifty-six percent
(5,890) of these youth were provided basic support
services, which included food, emergency shelter, transportation and clothing donations. Life skills
training, which included training in the areas of communication skills, conflict resolution, goal
setting and assertiveness training, was provided to 48% (5,049) of the youth. Other frequently
provided services included, recreational activities 30% (3,155), education 25% (2,630) and crisis
intervention hotline 19% (1,998).
Client Profiles
The 10,519 youth included in the study sample were referred from various sources. The sample
included 5,637 females, 53.6%, and 4,761 males, 45.3%, and the gender of 1.1% was unreported.
The racial and ethnic composition of the population
consisted of 64.8% (6,816) white, 22.7% (2,392) black,
97%
56%48%
30%25%19%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Service
Services Provided
Gender Composition
Not Reported1%Females54%
Males45%
Referral Sources
School13%
Parent/Legal Guardian16%
Self6%
Law Enforcement27%
Other31%
Juvenile Justice7%
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
PreventionPage 19
8.4% (885) Hispanic, 1.4% (151) Asian, 1.1% (126)
American Indian or Alaskan Native and 1.4% (149)
whose race or ethnicity was not reported. More than
90% of the youth were between the ages of 12 and 17 years.
School Status
Of the 10,519 youth discharged, 52% (5,451) were middle school students and 30% (3,177) were
high school students. Eleven percent (1,156) were elementary school students and the grade levels
were not reported for 7% (735).
Many of the youth reported problems at school. One-third of the youth reported attending school
irregularly, due to suspension, expulsion or withdrawal from school. In addition, more than one-
third of the youth in the study sample reported that their academic performance was poor.
Presenting Problems
These youth reported a number of presenting problems
upon admission into Network programs. The youth
frequently reported poor relationships with their parents,
and a variety of mental health problems.
Slightly more than 43% (4,528) of these youth reported
prior runaway episodes. Of these 4,528 youth, 39%
(1,768) reported one, 32% (1,448) reported two or three,
and 28.4% (1,285) reported four or more prior runaway
episodes.
Family Dynamics
With regard to the living situation of youth at the time of admission, 84.2% (8,855) of the youth
reported they were living with their parent(s) or guardian(s), 3.6% (378) with a relative, 2.5%
(262) with a friend, 1.7% (185) in a foster home and the remaining 8% (839) reported other living
arrangements. Nearly one-half of the youth (5,154) reported relationship problems with their
mothers and 33.5% (3,471) with their fathers. Twenty percent (2,103) of the youth reported
emotional abuse by their parents and 12% (1,262) of the youth reported physical abuse or assault.
In addition, substance abuse by a household member was reported by 9.1% (957) of the youth.
6.6%7.4%13.8%19.9%21.9%18%11.8%
0.6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Age
Age CompositionRacial/Ethnic Composition
White66%
Asian1%
Native American1%Not Reported1%
Hispanic8%
African-American
23%
24.2%22%9%4.5%
0102030405060708090100
Mental Health Concerns Reported
Mental Health Concerns
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 20Prevention
Program Completion
Of the 10,519 youth discharged from the Network programs between July 1, 1994 and June 30,
1995, 55.9% (5,876) received short-term residential care (shelter), while 43.7% (4,597) received
non-residential care and less than 1% (46) received long-term residential care.
It was found that 68% (7,153) of the youth completed the program which the Network
provider had planned for him or her.
The most frequently cited reason for failure to complete the program was the parent or
youth stopped services (28%). The reasons for terminating the services were often not
reported. Participation in the Network, like all prevention programs, is voluntary.
Therefore, parents may stop services because they feel the child's problem has been
addressed although the child has not completed all of the individual goals established by
the program. Some of the youth may have been near completion at the time of
termination. The number of youth within this category is unknown. The Network reports
that they intend to report on these youth in the future.
More than 70% (7,643)of the youth returned to their parent or guardian's home, 7.0% to
the street, 4.0% (421) to a relative's home, 2.0% (209) foster home and 1.7% (176) to a
friend's home after their discharge. The remaining youth 13.3% (1,340) reported other
living arrangements at the time of discharge.
Delinquency Referrals to Release
Subsequent referral analyses were conducted on the 10,519 youth discharged from Network
programs. Of these youth, 82% did not receive delinquency referrals subsequent to discharge
from the program. Twenty-three percent (1,341)
of the youth discharged from the Network's
short-term residential programs received one or
more delinquency referrals within one year after
discharge. Twelve percent (552) of the youth
discharged from non-residential programs
received referrals subsequent to program
discharge. Of the youth that failed to complete
the program, almost one third received a
delinquency referral subsequent to exiting the
program. Eleven percent of the youth that
completed the program had no delinquency
referrals subsequent to program discharge.
Program Costs
The department spent $19,452,175 for CINS/FINS services during FY 1994-95. Other state
funding included $2,024,589 from the Departments of Health and Rehabilitative Services (now the
Department of Children and Family Services) and Education (DOE), Partnership Grants, and
OJJDP. Funding from the federal government totaled $2,599,860. An additional $5,234,950 was
secured from local governments and private donations. The Network reported that total financial
support for these programs exceeded $29 million.
Based on DJJ funding alone, the average cost per case (15,712) was $1,238; the average cost per
discharged youth was $1,529 (12,719); the cost per youth who completed the program (7,153 out
18%23%12%
33%
11%
010
2030405060708090
100
Program(s) Completed
Subsequent Delinquency Referrals
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
PreventionPage 21
of 10,519) was $3,019 and the cost per discharge without a subsequent referral (8,625 of 10,519)
was $2,255.
Overall Program Effectiveness
The Network programs continue to be an effective prevention strategy for at-risk youth. During
FY 1994-95 the subsequent delinquency referral rate increased by only one percent, from 18% in
FY 1993-94. The program completion rate of Network youth increased by seven percent from
FY 1993-94. This increase represents the positive efforts of the Network in serving at-risk youth.
However, the termination of services by parents or youth increased by eight percent in FY 1994-
95, from 20% in FY 1993-94. This issue must be examined and addressed by Network programs
to further improve the effectiveness of their services.
Special attention should also be given to the relatively high (16%) percentage of missing data
submitted by the Network. The Network should thoroughly examine its data management and
reporting system to correct this problem. Quality evaluations are dependent on accurate and
consistent data reporting.
Practical Academic Cultural Education (PACE) Centers for
Girls
Services Provided
PACE offers a variety of services to females who are at risk of delinquency, pregnancy and
academic failure. PACE centers are divided into two distinct program components (Level I and
Level II). Level I consists of an on-site educational day treatment program designed to meet the
educational needs of the youth enrolled in PACE. Many of the students served by PACE are
mainstreamed back into public schools. After exiting the Level I phase, youth are transferred to
the Level II phase. Youth may be transferred from Level I to Level II without completing Level I.
The Level II component involves three years of follow-up services including face-to-face and
telephone contact with the youth as deemed necessary by staff. PACE attempts to provide
follow-up services to all youth regardless of their transfer status from Level I.
Client Profiles
There were 452 females transferred from Level I to Level II (follow-up) in the seven PACE
Centers in FY 1994-95. The racial composition of these youth consisted of 50% (226) white, 43%
(195) black and 6% (27) Hispanic. Asian and American Indians comprised 1% (4) of the total
population. More than 88% of the females transferred from Level I were between the ages of 14
and 17 years.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 22Prevention
School Status
Of the females discharged, more than 60% (276) were mainstreamed back to their home schools
or other appropriate setting. An additional ten percent (37) graduated or received a General
Equivalency Diploma (GED).
Program Completion
Because PACE has two distinct program components (Level I and Level II) that may span over
several years, it is difficult to obtain an accurate picture of the discharge and completion rate for
the program. It should be noted that even youth released from PACE due to behavioral problems
continued to receive follow-up aftercare services. Nearly one-half (97) of these youth were
enrolled in school, employed, or both at some point one year after release. For this reason an
alternate methodology had to be used for PACE programs. This evaluation is based solely on the
youth who were transferred from Level I to Level II.
Fifty-three percent (240) of the youth successfully completed Level I and were
transferred to Level II.
Forty-five percent (203) of youth who made the transition from Level I to Level II failed
to complete Level I.
Two percent (9) of the youth transferred from Level I to Level II received a referral(s) to
a treatment program (residential or non-residential)
The most frequently reported reason for failure to complete Level I was non-compliant
behaviors (98%).
The average length of stay for those youth that successfully completed Level I was 227
days.
In contrast, the average length of stay for those youth that failed to complete Level I was
129 days.
Delinquency Referrals Subsequent to Release
Nearly 90% of the 452 youth transferred from Level I to Level II during FY 1994-95 had no
delinquency referrals within one year of leaving the program. Approximately 19% of the
discharged youth (90) had prior delinquency referrals before entering PACE. Only 11% of the
(48) youth discharged received delinquency referrals within one year after discharge from the
program. More than 55% (26) of those youth who received delinquency referrals subsequent to
program discharge failed to complete Level I.
Racial/Ethnic Composition
White50%
African-American43%
Asian1%
Hispanic6%
3%11.5%
24%33.9%
20%
5.2%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ages
Age Composition
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
PreventionPage 23
Program Costs
PACE reported that the department spent $1,664,767 for PACE Centers for Girls during
FY 1994-95. Other state funding included $459,058 from the Executive Office of the Governor,
OJJDP and Community Partnership Grants. Funding from the federal government totaled
$459,058. An additional $1,451,747 was secured from local governments, school boards and
private donations.
Based on DJJ funding alone, the average cost per youth transferred from Level I to Level II was
$3,683; the average cost per successful completion of Level I was $6,936; and the average cost
per completion of Level I without a subsequent referral was $4,100.
Overall Program Effectiveness
The 53% Level I completion rate for PACE programs in FY 94-95 represents a 17% decrease
from the previous year, and was also less than the 70% completion rate contained in PACE's
contract with the department. This decline may be attributed to the increasing number of at-risk
females with various service needs and the lack of accurate assessments. PACE programs are
the largest provider of services to at-risk females, and therefore is called upon to serve youth that
may need alternative services that are not available. The impact of these factors on the
effectiveness of PACE programs can only be determined through an in-depth process analysis.
The high percentage of youth dismissed for behavioral reasons causes some concern. PACE may
need to review this category to identify alternative strategies for dealing with difficult clients.
Although the rate of program completion for PACE programs declined in FY 1994-95, the
program continues to work diligently with its available resources. PACE programs were effective
in maintaining a low rate of subsequent referrals by the youth served by the program. This was
evident by the fact that only ten percent of the youth served received subsequent delinquency
referrals, and more than 60% of the youth discharged were mainstreamed back to their home
school.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
Services Provided
The services provided to the population served by this program include:
An admission assessment - the purpose, extent and validity of which is not known;
Individual and group counseling - 85% (143) of the youths' parents participated in at least
two group or family counseling sessions; and
Follow-up services - approximately 82% (138) of youths' parents received at least two
follow-up contacts.
Client Profiles
There were 168 youth who participated in the 14 courses conducted by Hurricane Island Outward
Bound during FY 1994-95. Youth were referred to the program from various sources with a
majority coming from HRS.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 24Prevention
Of the 168 youth that participated in the program, 66% (111) were male and 34% (57) were
female.
The racial and ethnic composition of the participants was 85.1% (143) white, 10.7% (18)
Hispanic, 3.0% (5) black, and 1.2% (2) American Indian or Asian.
School Status
At the time of admission, more than 50% (87) of the
youth reported irregular school attendance or truancy
problems. Almost 72% (121) of youth were enrolled in
regular educational classes. However, 25% (42) of the
youth discharged had special educational needs: 9.6%
were learning disabled; 9.5% were eligible for special
education; 4.2% were emotionally disabled; and 1.8%
were eligible for drop out prevention services. Youth
enrolled in gifted and honor classes represented 3.6% of
program participants.
Presenting Problems
Of the 168 youth discharged from Hurricane Island
Outward Bound in FY 1994-95, 20% (34) had prior
involvement in delinquent activity and fewer than 5% (8)
had active delinquency cases. Only 1.2% (2) of the youth
had open FINS cases. Youth were referred because they
were:
Reported beyond the control of their parent or
guardian (more than 90%, or 152);
Truant (4.8%, or 8);
Running away from home (1.2%, or 2);
Delinquent (1.2%, or 2); or
Had other school-related problems (1.2%, or 2).
Gender Composition
Male66%
Female34%
Referral Sources
HRS54%
DJJ8%
Other3%
Community Agency35%
9.5%9.5%4.2%3.6%1.8%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Type of Special Need
School Status
91.1%
4.8%1.2%1.2%1.2%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
School-Related Problem(s)
Presenting Problems
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
PreventionPage 25
Family Dynamics
More than 31% (52) of the youth came from a single parent household. Twenty-seven percent
(45) resided with both of their natural parents, 33% (55) resided with a natural parent and a
stepparent or other adult and 9% (16) resided in other types of homes with a legal guardian,
relative, foster or adoptive parents.
Program Completion
Of the youth discharged from Hurricane Island Outward Bound during FY 1994-95, 120
completed the program (72%). Successful completion included participation and cooperation with
the treatment process and achievement of individualized goals.
Of the remaining 48 youth, 21 were removed from the program due to the parent or child stopping
services (43.8%), 15 were removed for running away (31.2%) and 12 were removed for
behavioral problems (25%).
Delinquency Referrals Subsequent to Release
Eighty-one percent (81%) of the 168 youth who were discharged from the program during the
study period had no delinquency referrals within a year after discharge from the program.
Twenty-five percent (12 of 48) of the youth who failed to complete the program received
delinquency referrals within one year of discharge. Less than 18% (21 of the 120 youth) who
completed the program received delinquency referrals within one year of discharge.
Program Costs
The department spent $353,658 for Hurricane Island Outward Bound services during FY 1994-95.
This amount is identical to the FY 1993-94 expenditure.
Cost per discharged youth was $2,105;
Cost per successful completion (168) was $2,947;
Cost per successful completion without subsequent referral (99) was $3,572; and
Cost per non-recidivist participant (135) was $2,620.
Overall Program Effectiveness
Hurricane Island Outward Bound experienced a four percent decline in the rate of program
completion in FY 1994-95. However, it continues to report the highest rate of program completion
among all DJJ funded prevention programs. In addition, 81% of the youth discharged from the
program received no subsequent delinquency referral within one year. For these reasons
Hurricane Island Outward Bound remains a very effective prevention strategy for the limited and
selected population of youth they serve.
Special attention should be given to Hurricane Island's under-representation of minority youth
served. A focused effort by Hurricane Island Outward Bound and its referral agencies is
recommended to address this issue.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 26Prevention
Intensive Learning Alternative Program (ILAP)
Services Provided
The program offered a variety of traditional instructional programs and strategies for the purpose
of increasing the likelihood that the youth would remain in school and obtain a high school diploma
or its equivalent. The program is based on three individualized objectives which are attendance,
academics and attitude. A youth must show improvement in all three of these areas to
successfully complete his or her individualized program objectives. Improvement in any two of
these areas is considered partial completion and one improvement or less represents a failure to
complete the individualized objectives of the program.
Client Profiles
There were 1,447 students enrolled in ILAP during the 1994-95 school year. This group of youth
was composed of 57.7% (835) males and 42.3% (612) females.
Of these students, 52.5% (760) were white, 30.4% (440) were black and 16.4% (237) were
Hispanic. Other racial and ethnic groups comprised less than 1% (10) of the population served.
School Status
During the 1994-95 school year, ILAP served youth
from the seventh to the ninth grade.
Almost 98% of the youth participating in the
program remained in school and enrolled in a
course of study that could lead to a standard high
school diploma. The youth served by the program
had a combined 1.4 grade point average prior to
their enrollment in the program. The grade point
average of the participants increased to 2.0 while
they were enrolled in the program. There was a
34.6% reduction in the number of total absences
after placement in the program. Almost 80% of the youth enrolled in the program for at least nine
weeks accumulated less than five unexcused absences during any grading period after their
enrollment. More than 76% of the youth enrolled in the program for at least one grading period
were promoted to the next grade level at the end of the school year. There was a 22.8% reduction
Gender Composition
Male58%
Female42%
Racial/Ethnic Composition
Hispanic16%
Other1%
White53%
African-American30%
789
36.1%32.6%31.3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
789
Grade
Grades Served
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
PreventionPage 27
in the number of suspensions, and a 16.6% reduction in the number of suspension days while
participants were enrolled in the program.
Presenting Problems
Almost 97% of the youth were referred to the program for one or all of the following: lack of
motivation, continued disruptive behavior, consistently poor academic performance or some
combination of factors that placed the youth at risk of dropping out of school.
Program Completion
Of the 1,447 students who participated in ILAP during the academic year, 50% (724)
completed the individualized program objectives. This includes improvements in all of the
programs individualized objectives (attendance, academics and attitude).
More than 22.8% (330) partially succeeded in meeting the individualized program
objectives, which requires improvement in two of the individualized objective areas.
Less than 5% (72) were released prior to a determination of program completion, 0.8%
(12) transferred to another alternative education program and 22.1% (320) were
unsuccessful (did not show any improvement or completed only one individualized
program objective).
Youth enrolled in the ILAP program are not considered to have successfully completed the
program if they fail to complete their individualized objectives. For example, although youth may
improve their GPA and attendance, they are not considered to have successfully completed the
program until all of their individualize objectives are completed. This may contribute to ILAP's low
rate of program completion by the youth participating in the program. This reflects the high
standards and commitment of the program in its attempt to direct the lives of at-risk youth.
Delinquency Referrals Subsequent to Release
Subsequent delinquency and dependency data were not available, because ILAP does not
currently track students after release. However, among the 1,447 youth discharged, there were
411 delinquency referrals and 153 dependency referrals involving these youth in the year prior to
placement in the program. The program reports a 67% (135) reduction in delinquency referrals
and a 78% (33) reduction in the number of dependency referrals on these youth while enrolled in
the program.
Program Costs
The total DJJ budget for ILAP services during FY 1994-95 was $846,689. The Hillsborough
County School Board contributed $510,843 toward this amount.
The average cost per participant was $585 and the average cost per successful completion was
$1,169.
Overall Program Effectiveness
The ILAP program continues to be a solid school-based prevention concept. However, some
critical attention must be given to the reasons why youth do not complete their individualized
program objectives. Although the rate of successful completion of all the individual objectives by
the youth in the ILAP program has been consistently lower than the other prevention programs,
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 28Prevention
the students served by the program continue to show improvement in their academic performance.
The reduction in delinquency and dependency issues among the population served while in the
program is also commendable. For these reasons, ILAP should be considered an effective short-
term prevention program.
Discussion
The four programs evaluated here are effective at targeting juveniles who have a demonstrated
need. In addition, they achieve effectiveness at keeping juveniles with problems from becoming
problems themselves. The completion rate for these programs are comparable to those of JASP
and community control, as are their drop-out rates (see the table below). In addition, their rates of
subsequent delinquency referrals within one year of release are well below that of the intervention
programs.
Completion, Drop-Out and Juvenile Referral Rates
for Prevention and Intervention Programs
ProgramCompleteDrop-OutReferred to DJJ
Prevention Programs
Florida Network68.0%28.2%18.0%
PACE53.1%Unknown11.0%
Hurricane Island71.4%12.5%19.0%
ILAP50.0%1.9%Unknown
Intervention Programs
JASP63.6%21.0%28.5%
Community Control47.3%N/A25.3%
Primary prevention programs are those which are intended to stop trouble before it begins, and are
usually targeted at the general population. Examples of primary prevention efforts include
immunization programs, literacy programs, pre-natal care and community development programs.
Secondary prevention programs are those which are intended to reduce or limit problems once
they have begun occur. The prevention programs evaluated in this report are secondary
prevention programs. The department has not engaged in extensive primary prevention efforts.
Primary prevention may in fact fall outside the mission of the department. Other agencies,
including the Department of Children and Family Services, the Department of Education and the
Department of Health provide services which could be considered primary prevention in the
juvenile delinquency arena. The connections between the efforts of these agencies and their
importance in the realm of delinquency prevention have not been clearly stated. What is clear is
that the interests of these agencies and the Department of Juvenile Justice in primary prevention
should be held in common.
This common interest has implications with regard to the need for a clearly stated mission and
purpose for prevention, a multi-agency prevention strategy, the need for programs based on
current theory and knowledge, and the need for measurable goals and objectives derived from
them. These topics will be discussed in detail in the findings and recommendations section.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
InterventionPage 29
Intervention
The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) defines intervention programs as community-based,
non-residential programs or services available to youth who have been charged with a law
violation. Intervention services are to focus on long-term public safety, with a progressive
response of structured supervision, making amends to victims and communities and competency-
based youth development. Many intervention programs and services can be grouped into two
categories: non-judicial and judicial.
Program Descriptions
Non-Judicial Intervention Programs
The non-judicial category includes programs which divert
youth from court. As determined by the Supervision Risk
Classification Instrument (SRCI), these youths' prior
history and individual or family needs do not indicate the
need for a more intensive intervention model such as
community control. The case manager or the state
attorney's office usually recommends non-judicial handling
of cases for youth who may not require the attention of the
juvenile court. These recommendations are based on the
presenting offense, prior history and the child's needs. It is
the state attorney's office, however, that makes the final
decision whether a case will be handled non-judicially or
judicially.
These programs are:
Civil Citation. Civil citation is a community-based
alternative for handling juveniles who have committed no
more than two non-violent misdemeanor offenses, providing
immediate consequences by allowing the law enforcement officer to issue a citation with a
maximum penalty of 50 community service hours.
Community Arbitration. This is a community-based program in which a third party or panel of
citizens listens to facts and arguments involved with a misdemeanor or local ordinance violation
and imposes sanctions as agreed upon by the participants. In addition to the youth and the parent,
the arresting law enforcement officer, victim(s) and witness(es) are encouraged to participate.
Teen Court. Teen court is a process in which first-time offenders experience a trial by a jury of
his or her peers. The jury of peers determines the sanctions the youth shall receive.
Juvenile Alternatives Services Program (JASP). JASP is a program in which the intent is
to impose sanctions and provide services to hold children accountable for delinquent behavior in a
timely manner.
Section 39.047 (1)(a)3., Fla. Stat.
(Supp. 1996).
Intake and case management.--
The Department of Juvenile Justice
shall develop a case management
system whereby a child brought into
intake is assigned a case manager if
the child was not released, referred to
a diversionary program, referred for
community arbitration, or referred to
some other program or agency for the
purpose of nonofficial or nonjudicial
handling, and shall make every
reasonable effort to provide continuity
of case management for the child;
provided, however, that case
management for children committed to
residential programs may be
transferred as provided in s. 39.067.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 30Intervention
Judicial Intervention Programs
The second category within the intervention realm is comprised of two primary programs that are
ordered by the juvenile court: Early Delinquency Intervention Programs (EDIP) and community
control.
Early Delinquency Intervention Programs
(EDIP). EDIP is designed to provide case
management services, treatment modalities,
educational services, independent living skills and
other services.
Community Control. Similar to adult probation,
youth are supervised in the community by a DJJ
case manager.
For evaluation of intervention programs, the DJJ
client information system maintains statewide data
on program participation, admission, and release for
only community control and JASP. Therefore, the
following two sections will evaluate only JASP and
community control by the DJJ districts. While the
department refers youth to EDIP, community
arbitration, teen court, as well as other intervention
options, these programs are not required to submit
data to the department.
Juvenile Alternatives Services
Program
The Juvenile Alternative Services Program (JASP) is the largest juvenile diversion program
funded by the department. Started in 1979, the program was originally designed as a diversionary
alternative for those youth whose cases would otherwise have been sent to court for judicial
handling and, if found to have committed a delinquent act, would have been placed in community
control. The intent was to provide swift and certain sanctions for youth who had committed minor
law violations and to deter future law violations. This was consistent with research documenting
that early intervention and identification of a child's needs was a cost effective means of reducing
future delinquent behavior. It was piloted in three areas of the state and was expanded statewide
in 1981.
Neither the Legislature nor the department has developed specific legislation or guidelines to
define the type of client to be served by the program or the types of services that the program
should provide. The assumption, as well as the practice of the DJJ case managers and state
attorneys, has been to send first- time misdemeanor offenders to the program. The hope was that
if the offender received swift and sure consequences, future delinquent behavior would be
deterred. Although originally designed as an alternative for judicial handling, there has been a
growing trend for the juvenile court judge to order youth into the program. This placement is
commonly referred to as "Judicial JASP."
The department, the state attorney or both may recommend sanctions and services for the youth
based upon the seriousness of the law violation and the needs of the youth and family. Sanctions
Section 39.052(4)(f), Fla. Stat. (Supp.
1996).
Hearings.-- Disposition Hearing for
Delinquency Cases.-- When a child has
been found to have committed a
delinquent act, the following procedures
shall be applicable to the disposition of
the case. . . .
If the court determines not to adjudicate
and commit to the department, then the
court shall determine what community-
based sanctions it will impose in a
community control program for the child.
Community-based sanctions may include,
but are not limited to, participation in
substance abuse treatment, restitution in
money or in kind, a curfew, revocation or
suspension of the driver's license of the
child, community service, and appropriate
educational programs as determined by
the district school board.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
InterventionPage 31
and services may include community service, monetary or in-kind restitution, completion of essays
and apology letters, and referrals to individual or family counseling services. Typically, the duration
of supervision is 90 days.
The department contracts with a variety of providers throughout the state for JASP services. A
model contract specifies the expected program outcomes that the provider should meet, including
a successful termination rate, a recidivism rate, an increase in felony offenders served, and a
reduction in judicial JASP referrals in cooperation with the state attorney. The target for each of
these outcomes is negotiated between the provider and the district annually. The model contract
suggests "services that should be considered are family counseling, community work services,
restitution programs, individual counseling, volunteer programs and community arbitration" (7/1/94
Standard Contract, Attachment I).
Three providers cover the majority of JASP services statewide: The University of West Florida,
Juvenile Services Program Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services. Several state attorney's offices
and county programs contract and operate the program in other DJJ districts. In FY 1994-95, the
department contracted $4,742,096 with JASP providers, a decrease from the previous year's
budget of $5,440,885. This averages about $190 per youth served.
JASP Funding by District
DistrictContracted Provider Program
Expenditures Youth
Released
Avg. Cost
Per Youth
1University of West Florida$ 301,854 1,095 $ 275.67
2University of West Florida351,261 1,170 300.22
3University of West Florida195,529 870 224.75
4Baker County School Board30,000 4Office of the State Attorney, St. Johns County36,000 3,154 118.49
4Office of the State Attorney, Duval County307,732
5Juvenile Services Program, Inc.345,356 1,702 202.91
6Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.414,900 2,512 165.17
7Seminole County Board of County Commissioners106,859
7Prosecution Alternatives for Youth129,285 2,159 239.91 7Human Services Council (Osceola and Orange Counties)281,831
7Office of the State Attorney, Brevard County1N/A
8Juvenile Services Program, Inc.264,169 1,237 213.56
9Juvenile Services Program, Inc.335,934 406 827.42 10Broward County Board of County Commissioners335,558 2,960 113.36
11Juvenile Alternatives Sanctions System, Metro Dade County582,799 6,588 102.50
11Office of the State Attorney, Monroe County92,456
12Office of the State Attorney121,471 988 122.95
13University of West Florida216,111
14Bay Area Youth Services, Inc.175,404 15Juvenile Services Program, Inc.117,587 68 1,729.22
Statewide Total$ 4,742,096 24,909 $ 190.38
1 This contract was effective July 1, 1995.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 32Intervention
In 1994, the Office of the Auditor General completed a performance audit of the JASP in three
HRS districts and assessed the type of youth being referred. The Auditor General concluded that
juveniles were being inappropriately placed in JASP. This finding was based on the Auditor
General's position that JASP should serve clients who would
otherwise be placed on community control. Therefore, the
population that JASP should serve are youth who meet
community control criteria (first and second degree felonies or
third degree felonies with prior offenses). The Auditor General
also noted that placing youth who were judicially referred to the
program was contrary to its original intent of diverting
adolescents from court. In response to this report, the
department negotiated new contracts with JASP providers to
better identify appropriate youth for JASP services.
Recidivism Methodology
Recidivism for JASP youth into the juvenile justice system was computed by district. The
recidivism cohort includes individuals within the district who had been terminated from the
program because of the following reasons:
Completion of the program;
Moved;
Absconded;
Were uncooperative; or
The parents proved to be uncooperative.
Each juvenile was matched against the CIS Delinquency and Dependency Referral File. If the
client identification number matched a record in the referral file, and the date of the referral was
within one year of their termination date from an intervention program, they were considered re-
referred. Referrals positively identified were analyzed to determine whether there was an
adjudication, a withheld adjudication or a commitment to the department.
Because recidivism figures are computed on juveniles who have completed the program, the
recidivism figures do not reflect the numbers of juveniles terminated due to a new law violation.
Population Profile
Gender and Race
Statewide there were 24,909 individual youth served by JASP
during FY 1994-95. Of the youth released, 69.5% were male,
30.4% were female and 0.1% were unreported. The racial
distribution of youth released from JASP was 61.2% white,
37.4% black, 0.6% Asian, and 0.8% unreported. According to
the Demographic Estimating Conference database, Division of
Economic and Demographic Research, Florida Legislature, the
racial distribution of Florida youth between the ages of 10 to 17
years as of January 1, 1995, was 76.1% white, 21.7% black and
Future evaluation efforts will
consider implementation of
the recommendations of the
Office of the Auditor
General and how the
system has responded.
More than 50% of the youth
placed in commitment
programs during FY 1994-95
were black, while only 32% of
the youth served by JASP
were black.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
InterventionPage 33
2.2% other. The CIS data do not differentiate those youth of Hispanic origin. This racial
composition shows that black youth are somewhat under-represented in this juvenile justice
program compared to their representation in the commitment population.
Average Age
The average age of the clients at the initiation of the JASP services was 15.2 years. Fifty-five
percent of the youth served were between the ages of 15 and 17 years. Almost seven percent of
the clients in the program were less than 12 years of age. Several districts reported serving
children who were six years old or younger.
Program Outputs
This section examines the completion rates, release types and average length of stay for JASP
clients. Recidivism to the juvenile justice system is also discussed.
Program Completion
Rates
In FY 1994-95, 63.6% (15,842)
of the 24,909 clients met the
requirements for program
completion. District 15 had the
highest rate with 97.1% (66) of
the youth released completing
the program. Only 37.0% of
youth released from District 4
completed the program.
12345678910111215
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
12345678910111215
District
JASP PopulationGender Served by JASP
Male70%
Female30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
District
JASP Completion Rates
Why is there such
variability in
completion rates?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 34Intervention
Release Categories
Eighteen percent, or 4,483, failed to cooperate and were violated from the program. Three percent
were failed due to a parent not cooperating, 1.7% of the youth received a new law violation, and
4.0% of the youth were either transferred or moved out of state.
Average Length of Stay
The average length of stay for
youth in JASP was 87 days.
District 6 had the shortest length of
stay with 68 days and District 15
had the longest with 176 days.
Recidivism to the
Juvenile Justice
System
This analysis includes the rates of
re-referral, re-adjudication, and
commitment within one year of
release.
Juvenile Re-Referral Rate
Of the 21,624 juveniles in the JASP recidivism cohort, 28.5% (6,157) were re-referred to the
juvenile justice system within one year of release from the program. District 4 had the highest
percentage with more than 38% (471) of the juveniles receiving subsequent referrals. District 3
had the lowest percentage with 23.2% (195) of youth receiving referrals within one year of
release.
Juvenile Adjudication
Of the releases in the JASP recidivism cohort, 15.0% (3,236) were adjudicated within one year of
release. District 5 releases accounted for the highest percentage, 26.4% (422), while District 11
had the lowest, 5.8% (345).
Juvenile Commitment
Nearly 4% (772) of releases in the JASP
recidivism cohort were committed to the
department within one year of release.
More than 8% (107) of the youth
released from District 4 were committed
within one year of release. This is more
than twice the state average. District 11
had the lowest percentage with 1.4%
(83).
12345678910111215
95.880.885.493.796.3
6877.785.7
103.796
82.9
101.1
176.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
12345678910111215
District
JASP Average Length of Stay
28.5%
15.0%
3.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
JASP Recidivism
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
InterventionPage 35
Community Control
When a youth's delinquency case is formally processed in the court system and results in an
adjudication or adjudication withheld, the court can
order community control or commitment. After the
court evaluates the seriousness of the law violation and
the needs of the youth and family, it may order
community control supervision. The intent of the
program is to be an individualized form of supervision
for the youth while he or she continues to reside in the
community. A supervision plan is developed with each
youth which describes what the youth must do to earn a
recommendation for termination from supervision. This
includes any court-ordered sanctions.
Conditions of community control that could be imposed
by the court include:
Supervision contacts with the youth, family and others who are involved with the youth
and family in a variety of settings such as school, work and in the home;
Restrictions such as a curfew and revocation or suspension of the driver's license; or
Community treatment, including community service and referrals to social service
agencies; required education, employment, or both; and other appropriate sanctions.
A Supervision Risk Classification Instrument (SRCI) is completed by a DJJ case manager to
assess a youth's needs and risk to public safety. The most appropriate level of supervision is
determined based on these factors. This instrument is completed every 60 days, or sooner if a
change in the supervision is needed because of a new law violation or the youth's level of
compliance changes. The frequency of contact with the youth is based on the score received on
the instrument. The department defines five levels of supervision contacts in descending order:
Intensive - Two face-to-face contacts with the youth weekly, one face-to-face contact
with the parents bi-weekly and one weekly evening telephone call with the parent to
verify the whereabouts of the youth. Some case managers have a caseload of no more
than 15 cases, and have three face-to-face contacts with the child weekly, in addition to
the other contacts.
General - Three face-to-face contacts monthly with the youth, one face-to-face monthly
contact with the parent and one bi-weekly telephone call with the parent.
Minimum - One face-to-face contact with the youth monthly, and one telephone call or
face-to-face contact with the parent monthly.
Demand - As needed, for restitution and community service only, or for cases pending
termination. The department case manager meets with the youth and parent at least every
60 days to assess the case status.
All levels of supervision provide for additional contacts with individuals who are working with the
youth or family. Examples of such collateral contacts include SHOCAP counselors, teachers,
employers, and mentors.
Section 39.001(16), Fl. Stat. (Supp. 1996).
"Community control" means the legal
status of probation created by law and
court order in cases involving a child who
has been found to have committed a
delinquent act. Community control is an
individualized program in which the freedom
of the child is limited and the child is
restricted to noninstitutional quarters or
restricted to the child's home in lieu of
commitment to the custody of the
Department of Juvenile Justice.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 36Intervention
The duration of supervision as recommended by the department should be three to six months.
Violations of community control may include non-law or technical violations and new law
violations. The department case manager may file an affidavit of violation of community control
with the state attorney who will decide whether to petition for a hearing. Termination from
community control must be approved by the court.
The expenditures for community control supervision during FY 1994-95 were a part of the budget
for intake and case management, which was $46,494,747. They are reported together because the
same budget category is used for all three programs. Expenditures cannot be separated for each
program component at this time.
Recidivism Methodology
This analysis includes the rates of re-referral, re-adjudication, and commitment within one year of
release, computed in the same manner as JASP with the exception of sample selection.
The recidivism cohort includes individuals within each district who had been terminated from
community control because of the following reasons:
Completed the program;
Moved; or
Absconded.
Population Profile
The distribution of community
control juveniles by district is
displayed in the adjacent chart.
Gender and Race
There were 20,559 youth released
from community control during FY
1994-95. Of the youth released
80.2% were male and 19.7% were
female. The racial distribution of
youth released from supervision
was 56.7% white; 42.3% black;
0.4% Asian and 0.1% Native
American and 0.5% were unreported. This distribution shows black youth as over-represented in
this juvenile justice program based on their percentage in the population at risk (21.0%).
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
District
Community Control Population
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
InterventionPage 37
Average Age
The average age at the time of placement on community control was 15.9 years. Forty-one
percent of the youth were between the ages of 15 and 16 years.
Referring Offense
According to CIS data, for cases disposed with placement to community control, the most
common felony offense was burglary and the most frequent misdemeanor offense was retail theft.
There has been little variation in the types and frequency of felony and misdemeanor offenses that
result in a disposition of community control over the last five years.
Program Outputs
This section describes the completion
rates, release rates, average length of
stay and recidivism to the juvenile justice
system.
Program Completion Rates
The department identifies three types of
terminations: satisfactory adjustment,
unsuccessful, and those required by law.
Satisfactory adjustment indicates that the
juvenile has
completed the
sanctions and
requirements of
the court order.
More than 47%
(9,724) of the cases in community control were terminated as a satisfactory adjustment. The
range between the districts for completion varied from 29.3% in District 15 to 64.2% in District
13.
The second type of termination is defined as "unsuccessful" completion. These cases are
terminated because the youth were:
Gender Composition
Male80.2%
Female19.7%
Unknown0.1%
Racial Composition
Black42.3%
White56.7%
Asian0.4%
NativeAmerican0.1%
Unknown0.5%
Community Control
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
District
Community Control Completion Rates
Why is there a
35% variance
among districts for
program
completion rates?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 38Intervention
Placed in a commitment program due to a new law violation;
Placed in a commitment program for committing technical violations of the community
control order;
Sentenced to adult probation; or
Sentenced to adult corrections.
Of the 20,559 youth released, 14.3% (2,939) were terminated as unsuccessful. More than eight
percent (1,645) of the youth were violated due to a new law violation, while 3.3% (678) were
terminated as a the result of a technical violation. Slightly more than one percent were sentenced
to adult probation and 1.4% (288) were sentenced to an adult correction facility.
The third type of termination, "required by law" is defined as those
youth which have an unsatisfactory adjustment, but are terminated
from the program because the length of sentence expired, the youth
reached 19 years of age, or similar reasons. Almost 13% (2,673) of the
youth were terminated under this requirement. There was a wide
range between the districts for this type of termination; District 1
closed 6.3% and District 7 closed 19.9%.
A large percentage (23.2%) of the cases were coded as transfers.
District 12 had the largest
amount with 44.5% of the
caseload being
transferred. In contrast,
District 3 transferred
3.3%. This transfer could
be either that the youth
moved to another location
or the case was
transferred internally from
one case manager to
another.
Average Length of
Stay
The average length of
supervision for youth on community control statewide was 265.7 days. The length of supervision
throughout the state varied from 220.4 days in District 1 to 364.3 days in District 9. This exceeds
the department's own recommended length of stay of 90 to 180 days.
Recidivism to the Juvenile Justice System
Juvenile Re-Referral Rate
Of the 10,300 juveniles in the community control recidivism cohort, 25.3% (2,604) were re-
referred to the juvenile justice system within one year of release. District 6 had the highest
percentage with almost 32.0% (399) of the juveniles receiving referrals. District 15 had the lowest
percentage with 15.7% (31) of youth receiving referrals within one year of release.
Could the high rate of
transfers in District 12 be
related to a presumably
high rate of youth who
vacation in the Daytona
Beach area?
Community Control Termination
Reasons
Completed47.3%
Transferred
23.2%
Requiredby Law
12.6%Deceased
0.1%
Absconded
or Moved2.5%
New Law
Violation8.3%
Non-LawViolation3.3%
To DCProbation1.3%
To DC
Prison1.4%
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
InterventionPage 39
Juvenile Adjudication
Of the releases in the recidivism sample, 14.8%
(1,527) were adjudicated delinquent within one
year of release from community control.
District 6 had the highest rate with 18.6% (233)
while District 11 accounted for the lowest with
8.7% (75).
Juvenile Commitment
Nearly 5% of the releases in the community
control recidivism cohort were committed to the
department within one year of release from
community control. Of the releases from
District 3, almost 8% (29) were committed
within one year of release. Districts 11 and 12
had the lowest rate with 3.1%.
Discussion
JASP
There is a wide variety of approaches to the provision of JASP services. Probably the most
consistent characteristic of these programs is the average length of stay, 87 days. This average is
consistent with the designed length of stay of 90 days. Most programs stayed at or within 7 days
of the designed length of stay.
Program Performance. For the most part, performance of JASP programs is inconsistent
among the districts. Program completion rates, for example, increase gradually from a low of
37.4% in District 4 to a high of 97.1% in District 15. Most districts were within a reasonable range
of the average, but five districts appeared to be significantly above or below the statewide
average. Average length of stay ranged from 68.0 to 176.3 days. Overall recidivism rates in terms
of DJJ commitment were quite low and fairly consistent. Adjudications and adjudications withheld,
however, varied from 5.8% to 26.4%.
Relation Between Performance Indicators and Recidivism. This inconsistency in
performance was even more puzzling when no clear relation between average length of stay,
rates of completion, and rates of recidivism was detectable. The district with the highest
completion rate (97.1%) had one of the highest percentages for all three of the recidivism factors:
Juveniles re-referred (36.8%), adjudicated (22.1%), and committed (7.4%). It also had the longest
length of stay of 176.3 days. The district with the lowest completion rate had the highest rate for
youth re-referred to the juvenile system (38.2%) and the highest rate of commitment (8.7%).
Inconsistency Among Contracts. The contracts for the program are inconsistent across
districts. Although the outcome measures are specified, the rates are negotiated. The provider and
the DJJ district can also negotiate additional service components such as education programs or
community-based activities. Although this allows for flexibility and creativity among the districts, it
makes it difficult to determine if the program in general is effective or if it is the individual
providers that may have more effective techniques in working with the youth.
25.3%14.8%
4.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Community Control Recidivism
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 40Intervention
Budget and Expectations for Services. Given the budget set for JASP services statewide
($4.7 million), can JASP providers be expected to hire professionals qualified to perform the
services outlined in their contracts? Most district coordinators are forced to hire minimum wage
staff with little or no higher education to provide family counseling, individual counseling,
community services and other educational services. Are JASP contractors expected to provide
services which they were never originally intended to provide?
Lack of a Clear Mission, Purpose, Goals and Objectives. In view of their limited
resources, it is apparent that the mission and goals of JASP need to be clarified and clearly
articulated, with realistic expectations. JASP currently suffers from an identity crisis: Is JASP a
means of swift and sure consequences by which we extract accountability from the youth? Is
JASP intended to provide treatment or do problem solving for the youth and the family? Is JASP
supposed to merely supervise the youth? Whereas the contracts imply one identity, the funding
implies another. Inconsistent expectations and performance across districts is the inevitable result.
Auditor General's Report. The Auditor General's findings may have given the department
some guidance in terms of the type of juvenile JASP should serve. The department's response to
the Auditor General's findings and recommendations for the JASP services, however, has not
been thoroughly evaluated. Are JASP staff equipped to handle a higher risk population? Are first
time misdemeanants still being sent to JASP? If not, what interventions are the youth formerly
served by JASP currently receiving? What is the recidivism rate for the class of youth who no
longer receive services due to community control criteria - do these juveniles pose a threat to
public safety? These questions will be addressed in future outcome evaluation reports.
Community Control
Program Performance. As was the case with JASP, community control performance is
inconsistent. The average length of stay for community control programs (265.7 days) exceeds the
designed maximum length of stay of 90 to 180 days by 47.6%. The range in the average length of
stay varied from 220.4 days in District 1 to 364.3 days in District 9. Program completion rates
ranged from a high of 64.2% in District 13 to a low of 29.3% in District 15. Whereas the rate of
re-commitment to DJJ programs was low and fairly consistent, the rate of adjudication and
adjudications withheld varied from 8.7% to 18.6%.
Relation Between Performance Indicators and Recidivism. Again, this inconsistency in
performance was even more puzzling when no clear relation between average length of stay,
rates of completion, and rates of recidivism was detectable. Increases in average length of stay
were not associated with corresponding increases or decreases in rates of adjudication or
adjudications withheld. The statewide average length of stay was 265.7 days. The rates of
completion for programs with low rates of adjudication and adjudications withheld ranged from
29.3% to 49.1%, while those for programs with high rates ranged from 36.8% to 62.1%. The
statewide average was 47.3%.
Management Issues. Delinquents are released under the terminated as required by law
category, often because either the paperwork was not filed in a timely manner for a misdemeanor
case with a 60 day jurisdiction, or the child turned 19 before completing his sanctions. Transfers
within and between districts ranged from 3.3% to 44.5%. Twenty-three percent (23%) of the
community control releases were transferred. This high percentage and wide variance among the
districts should raise questions about the level of supervision for these youth while on community
control, staff turnover, and "dumping" of difficult clients.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
InterventionPage 41
The inconsistency in the performance both of JASP and community control indicate the need of
serious evaluation and adjustment.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 42Intervention
Intervention Data Tables
JASP Client Demographics
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
InterventionPage 43
JASP Program Outputs Table
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 44Intervention
JASP Program Recidivism Table
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
InterventionPage 45
Community Control Client Demographics Table
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 46Intervention
Community Control Program Outputs Table
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
InterventionPage 47
Community Control Recidivism Table
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 48Commitment
Commitment
Commitment by the court means the placement of the
child in the legal custody of the Department of Juvenile
Justice. In many cases the juvenile is removed from the
home and placed in the physical custody of a treatment
program. These juveniles are placed by the court within a
designated level of restrictiveness appropriate to the
concern for public safety raised by the youth's behavior,
consequences logically related to his or her offenses, and
the juvenile's needs for guidance and treatment. Florida
law defines five restrictiveness levels, classified as:
Minimum-Risk Non-Residential Programs (Level 2);
Low-Risk Residential Programs (Level 4);
Moderate-Risk Residential Programs (Level 6);
High-Risk Residential Programs (Level 8); and
Maximum-Risk Residential Programs (Level 10).
In general, higher restrictiveness levels are characterized
by tighter security, closer supervision, more intense
treatment and overlay services such as mental health and
drug treatment, and longer lengths of stay. There are
exceptions to this general pattern, however. Short-term
intensive treatments, for example, which are found in some wilderness experiences and also in
boot camps, are cases in point.
Chapter Organization
The following five sections present data and analyses with regard to the components of the
department commitment continuum: Level 2; Level 4; Level 6; Level 8, 10 and boot camps; and
aftercare programs. Minimum-risk non-residential programs (Level 2) serve offenders who are
committed directly from the court as well as those in aftercare. Some Level 2 programs which are
not designated as aftercare or re-entry programs are also used as "step-down" programs, which
allow the juvenile from a more restrictive setting to demonstrate responsibility and sound judgment
in the community while continuing under the guidance and monitoring of the department. In these
programs, step-down juveniles and juveniles directly committed to Level 2 programs come into
regular contact. Within Level 2 there are also programs designed specifically for aftercare and
supervision of juveniles who have completed their stay at residential programs. Minimum-risk
programs have been divided into two groups which will be discussed in two separate chapters:
Level 2 non-residential programs and aftercare.
During FY 1994-95, maximum-risk residential programs (Level 10) were being established. As a
result, one program was funded, but due to the length of stay for these programs, no juveniles
were released or tracked for recidivism purposes. Several boot camp programs were also in
operation. Although boot camps were designated as both moderate- and high-risk restrictiveness
levels, the programs themselves were almost identical. For these reasons, maximum-risk programs
Section 39.054(1)(c), Fla. Stat.
Powers of disposition.--The court that
has jurisdiction of an adjudicated
delinquent child may, by an order
stating the facts upon which a
determination of a sanction and
rehabilitative program was made at
the disposition hearing . . .(c)ommit
the child to the Department of
Juvenile Justice. Such commitment
must be for the purpose of exercising
active control over the child,
including, but not limited to, custody,
care, training, urine monitoring, and
treatment of the child and furlough of
the child into the community.
Notwithstanding s. 743.07 and
subsection (4), and except as
provided in s. 39.058, the term of the
commitment must be until the child
is discharged by the department or
until he or she reaches the age of 21.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
CommitmentPage 49
and boot camps are included as separate program types within the chapter discussing high-risk
residential programs (Level 8). Future recidivism studies will consider Level 10 programs
separately when there are sufficient numbers of juveniles processed. Researchers within the
Bureau of Data and Research are conducting in-depth evaluations of boot camps beyond the
scope of this evaluation. These studies have been reviewed by the Evaluation and Research staff
of the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board, and have been found to be valid and reliable analyses of
these programs.
Grouping of Program Models
Within all restrictiveness levels, a concerted effort has been made to group programs according to
similarity of function. Some programs which were administratively classified as group treatment
homes, for example, function according to the family group home model, and are grouped with
them. When programs are classified out of their traditional groupings, it is done in an attempt to
ensure that comparisons between and among program types are done in a fair and valid manner.
At various levels, several program models are grouped and discussed. Tables are included to
provide details about program performance within the larger groupings.
Two groups of programs which are found at several restrictiveness levels require additional
comment. Local non-residential programs and local residential programs are an assortment of
treatment programs, usually small and specialized, which are utilized by the court and the
department. They permit a reasonable amount of flexibility in tailoring treatment to the individual
needs of the juvenile. Funding for these programs may come from sources other than the DJJ, but
because of the number of delinquency clients served by these programs, and the amount of DJJ
resources allocated to them, their outputs and outcomes are included within this evaluation.
A second group of programs, special needs programs, may also require some explanation. Special
needs programs, programs for sexual offenders, developmentally disabled offenders, or other
types of offenders with special requirements for treatment or secure environments are found at
several restrictiveness levels. Because of their unique nature, they are difficult to group.
Therefore they are set apart, and their performance as a group is not compared with other
program models. Sub-totals for special needs groups are not computed. Instead, data for each
program is reported and allowed to stand alone.
The inappropriate grouping of programs can have a profound effect on program and client
outcomes. Some of the programs that DJJ considers group treatment programs function according
to the family group home model. This is an important issue because family group homes are based
on the premise that a true family environment is an effective treatment strategy for delinquent
juveniles. In contrast, group treatment homes are dormitory settings that are staffed in 8-hour
shifts. These two programs may be considered to have different treatment environments.
Therefore, the inappropriate grouping of data on these programs will yield unreliable and
inaccurate outcomes.
Assignment of Commitment Restrictiveness Level
During the intake phase of case processing, the case manager or contracted staff gathers
information from the arresting officer, the victim, the youth and the youth's parent or guardian.
This information is compiled in a Pre-Disposition Report (PDR) that is presented to the court at
the time of the disposition hearing. The case manager scores the data on the department's
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 50Commitment
Supervision Risk Classification Instrument (SRCI) which is used to determine which
restrictiveness level should be recommended to the court.
The Supervision Risk Classification
Instrument
The SRCI is an index which is the summation of the characteristics
of the offense and the offender along two dimensions: risk to public
safety and the needs of the juvenile offender.
Risk Assessment
Risk to public safety is assessed in four areas:
Risk IndicatorsMaximum Points
Seriousness of Current Offense32
Prior Offense History7
Other FactorsNo Ceiling
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
5
Seriousness of Current Offense. The case manager assigns maximum points for capital or
life felonies, and then graduates the score downward from 20 points for first, second and third
degree felonies and then misdemeanors. Because a case involves all the charges made on one
day, an unintended consequence of this method is that a youth charged with five burglaries is
scored similarly to a youth who incurs one burglary, in spite of possible differences in the risk each
represents.
Prior Offense History. Scoring for prior offense history is based on the classification of the
offender with regard to Level 10 commitment, commitment to serious habitual offender programs,
and the number of previous adjudicated felonies or misdemeanors. Categories do not include
sexual offender status, which may be an important factor with regard to the risk of recurring
offenses. In addition, the index fails take into account pending offenses, which may influence the
juvenile to abscond or represent an increased risk to the community.
Other Scoring Factors. This includes points for the current legal status of the juvenile; number
of previous commitments; previous diversions, intervention efforts or alternative sanctions;
violations of supervision; escapes or absconds; domestic violence offenses and gang involvement.
Most of these items are allowed a maximum of one point; others, including violations of
supervision and previous diversion or intervention efforts, are allowed two points per occurrence.
This makes it possible for a juvenile to score as many points for these infractions and previous
treatment efforts as he or she would for committing a capital or life felony.
Mitigating or Aggravating Factors. The case manager is allowed to add or deduct up to five
points for factors which either increase or decrease the seriousness of the offense, providing a
written explanation in support of their action.
Needs Assessment
The needs of the individual are indexed in a similar fashion:
The SRCI should not be
confused with the Detention
Risk Assessment Instrument
(DRAI). The DRAI is used to
screen youth for detention
eligibility and placement.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
CommitmentPage 51
Indicator of NeedMaximum Points
Family Relationships18-20
Peer Relationships7
Significant Adult Relationships2
Educational Needs12-14
Employment4-5
Developmental Disabilities3
Physical Health and Hygiene5
Mental Health5-9
Substance Abuse7-13
The case manager develops a score for the needs of the juvenile based on these nine categories.
Needs are assessed in two areas: family and social relationships; and physical, mental, educational
and vocational needs. Because the categories may or may not be mutually exclusive, maximum
scores for each of these categories are given in ranges to account for different interpretations of
the instrument. No evaluation of the consistency in scoring by case managers has been conducted,
introducing an important source of potentially unreliable scores.
Family Relationships. The family relationships category includes the willingness or ability of the
parents to exert control over the juvenile. The history of the family with regard to incidence of
domestic violence, abuse or neglect or allegations of abuse or neglect are also scored.
Characteristics of the parent are assessed, including mental illness, drug abuse, or criminal history.
The living arrangements of the juvenile as a parent or within an "unstable independent living
situation" is also included.
Social Relationships. Social relationships with parents, peers and other authority figures are
also assessed. The case manager scores the juvenile on his or her social maturity, quality of
relationship with peers, level of aggression, and the delinquency backgrounds of the peers.
Relationships with authority figures are also assessed, including whether the juvenile has the
willingness or availability to develop consistent relationships with authority figures.
Physical and Mental Health. The case manager scores these needs by determining whether,
in the manager's opinion, medical, dental, developmental disability or mental health problems exist
or assessment is needed. In addition, case managers award points when they believe the juvenile
needs drug assessment, and award higher points if the juvenile is abusing "frequently" rather than
"occasionally."
Educational and Vocational Needs. Case managers are asked to assess juveniles younger
than 16 years for educational needs in reference to school enrollment status, attendance, literacy,
academic performance, learning disabilities and disruptive behavior in school. If the juvenile is 16
years or older and is not in school or has financial obligations, the case manager awards points if
the juvenile is unemployed and also if the juvenile is making progress toward developing
marketable job skills. Problems arise in assessing educational need, however. The juvenile who
has dropped out or been expelled is scored with 3 points, whereas the juvenile who is actually
enrolled but is experiencing difficulty may score as high as 13 points.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 52Commitment
Developing the Index Score
To develop a score for the index, the case manager sums the point values for each of the two
sections. The scores for risk and for needs are plotted on a "classification matrix" to determine
which level of supervision is appropriate to the youth's risk and needs.
Supervision Risk Classification Matrix
Risk Score
Needs
Score
Low-Risk
0to10
Medium Risk
11to17
High Risk
18to24
Very High Risk
25to 32
0
Low
15
Diversion
Minimum
Supervision
General
Supervision
Minimum
Supervision
Intensive
Supervision
Level 4
Level 6
Level 8/10
16
Medium
30
Diversion
Minimum
Supervision
General
Supervision
Intensive
Supervision
Level 2
Level 4
Level 6
Level 8/10
31
High
45
Diversion
Minimum
Supervision
General
Supervision
Intensive
Supervision
Level 2
Level 4
Level 6
Level 8/10
46
Very High
77
Diversion
Minimum
Supervision
General
Supervision
Intensive
Supervision
Level 2
Level 4
Level 6
Level 8/10
The matrix is used to recommend the level of supervision the youth requires. The level of
supervision ranges from diversion through three levels of community control supervision
(minimum, general and intensive) and through the restrictiveness levels of the commitment
program continuum. For example, a Level 2 commitment should be recommended for a juvenile
whose risk score was 20 and whose needs score was 37 (the high range).
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
CommitmentPage 53
An exception to the utilization of the matrix allows the intake worker, the intake supervisor and in
some cases the commitment manager, to use professional discretion concerning mitigating and
aggravating circumstances to override the classification matrix.
The decision to depart from the matrix must be justified in
writing and the state attorney recommendation and pre-
disposition report must reflect the justification and alternative
recommendation. It should be noted that the use of such
discretion is common.
Youth are re-classified every 60 days or when non-law
violations or new law violations occur. Re-classification allows
for re-assessment of the youth's current and future level of
supervision needs based on mitigating and aggravating factors, which includes consideration of law
violations and the completion of treatment goals. For example, youth who are compliant with
community control sanctions may require less supervision and may be appropriate to "drop" to
minimum supervision by the case manager, while youth who are violating the conditions of
community control may require more intensive supervision.
Discussion
Florida's development and implementation of the restrictiveness levels was originally designed to
maximize public safety while at the same time making services available to juveniles appropriate to
their level of need. Although the SRCI has been in use for several years, its usefulness and
validity has yet to be properly evaluated. Several issues must be raised with regard to whether or
not the index is an adequate measure of risk and need.
Issues with Regard to Risk Assessment
Offense Seriousness. The summation of scores with regard to risk gives a rough estimation of
the risk which a juvenile presents to public safety. Research in the area of offense seriousness,
however, suggests that additive indexes may sometime be contradictory or may neglect important
factors which diminish their usefulness. The number of offenses the juvenile committed in the
presenting case, when left out of the index, may contribute to the under- or over-estimation of the
risk presented by some offenders. In addition, the artificial reduction of hundreds of criminal
statutes into 49 offense codes reduces the reliability of the index.
Prior History. Sexual offenders are not represented in the prior history area of the index.
Recent legislation has defined this offender category, and in view of the unique nature of these
offenders and the continuing risk they pose to themselves or others, it should be included.
Other Scoring Factors. Present age of the offender is an important factor left out of the index.
Whether there were co-defendants, gang involvement, weapons or drugs involved add to
detectable differences between offenders, and may contribute to our ability to discriminate among
juveniles more effectively.
Issues with Regard to Needs Assessment
Family and Peer Social Relationships. While it may be logical to assess a juvenile's family
setting in order to determine his or her needs, it is less clear whether these factors should tip the
scale toward a residential commitment away from home and family. The use of such factors in
this index raises important issues about family preservation and treatment of the juvenile within a
DJJ policy states youth will be
re-classified every 60 days.
Compliance with this policy
has not been measured. It is
unknown whether re-
classifications get the same
amount of attention that the
original classification received.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 54Commitment
family context. Most of the family factors mentioned are deficit-oriented. Scores are not reduced
for factors which may contribute to resilience on the part of the juvenile, such as community
resources which include support of family through church, friends and extended family are not
considered.
Another issue may be raised with regard to who measures relationship quality. Are all case
managers qualified to do so? Are these factors measured in the case manager's office, the JAC
center, the juvenile's home or school? Are they measured based on self-report or by observation?
Have case managers been shown to be consistent in their assessments of such factors? Are they
obtained from the juvenile, the parent, or both? Family research has shown that the source of such
reports is very important. School teachers reports of child characteristics and behaviors, for
example, have been shown to be more valid measures than those obtained from mothers and
fathers. Especially in cases in which there is alienation between parent and child or between
parent and parent, outside information is essential to valid assessment.
No mention is made of whether continuous monitoring is available for the juvenile after school until
the time the youth returns home and is under the roof of the parent or guardian. Supervision during
these hours is an important factor in reducing the likelihood of subsequent or continued patterns of
offending. The availability and reliability of such care, especially in the case of juveniles who have
demonstrated their inability to control their own behavior or exercise sound judgment appropriate
to their age level, would seem to be a critical factor in determining whether a juvenile should be
allowed to participate in some day treatment programs.
Physical and Mental Health. Similar issues with regard to the source of information regarding
drug involvement must be raised. Self-reports of drug usage are notoriously inaccurate. The
practice of scoring "frequent use" of illicit drugs higher than "occasional use" as an indicator of
need seems a tacit approval of occasional or recreational drug abuse. Drug use, without regard to
frequency or the drug of choice, is an indicator of serious need.
Whereas physical and mental health scores may be rough indicators of the juvenile's level of need,
they make little or no contribution toward the determination of what kind of need is the most
urgent or would make the most difference in the juvenile's delinquent behavior. In the SRCI
process, needs are viewed as a quantitative rather than qualitative issue. Minimum-risk non-
residential programs and low-risk residential programs are designed for juveniles with minimal
needs for mental health and drug treatments. It is entirely possible and likely that a large number
of juveniles with these problems do not score high enough to be committed to levels which supply
these services. A qualitative assessment, rather than a quantitative assessment, is needed to
classify such juveniles correctly in order to ensure that they receive appropriate treatment. Such a
change in the approach to assessment may also require changes in the restrictiveness level
system, by highlighting the need for these services in less restrictive settings: a need currently
served through the creative use of local non-residential programs.
Following completion of the Supervision Risk Classification Instrument, a
recommendation is submitted to the state attorney's office for either non-judicial or judicial
handling of the case, or transfer, waiver or indictment to the adult system.
Pre-Disposition Report
Once the youth has been found guilty of an offense, based on either a plea or a trial, a
disposition hearing is scheduled by the court. The case manager is required to complete a
Pre-Disposition Report (PDR) that is available to the court and others. Additional
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
CommitmentPage 55
screening instruments may be completed prior to the completion of the PDR. The
Substance Abuse Mental Health Screening (SAMH-1) screens for issues relating to
mental health and substance abuse, and determines whether further evaluation is required.
In addition, a Serious or Habitual Offender (SHO) worksheet is completed by the case
manager. This document assesses the seriousness of a youth's current offense and prior
record to determine eligibility for a SHO Level 8 commitment program. The results of
both of these documents are included in the PDR.
Information is gathered from a variety of sources including the youth, parents or
guardians, school officials, and other individuals who have information about the youth
and family. The areas addressed in the PDR include:
Offense/Violation Data. This includes a statement by the juvenile regarding the
offense.
Needs Assessment: This includes information pertaining to family relationships;
community influences; school or employment history; physical, psychological and
psychiatric history; victim information concerning restitution and community service; and
other agencies involved with the youth and family.
Risk Assessment: This includes information pertaining to the prior delinquency
history, serious habitual offender (SHO) eligibility, interim intake placement, adjustment
to prior or current supervision by the department, such as community control or
commitment.
Summary, Recommendation, Intervention Plan: This includes a
recommendation and plan that addresses sanctions within the juvenile justice continuum.
The plan should also address:
Public safety issues such as curfew;
Undesirable relationships with other individuals such as co-defendants and the
victim;
Accountability of the youth, including restitution and community service hours;
and
Competency development which may include general goals, such as school or
work and treatment recommendations for the youth or family.
The results of the SRCI must be used when recommending supervision by the
department, including community control or commitment.
Multi-Disciplinary Commitment Staffing
When a case manager suggests the need for a commitment to the department, the case is
reviewed with a supervisor. If a mutual decision is reached to recommend commitment, a
multi-disciplinary commitment staffing is scheduled. The district commitment manager
usually chairs the staffing. Others invited may include the youth, parents or guardians, the
youth's attorney, a representative of the state attorney's office, school officials, mental
health and substance abuse professionals and other individuals with knowledge of the
youth. The purpose of the staffing is to decide whether the youth's risk factors and service
needs can best be addressed by remaining in the home and community or placement in a
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 56Commitment
program outside the home. A written summary is completed by the commitment manager
and the recommendation and rationale is included in the PDR.
Summary
The investigation and interviews conducted by the case manager, and the results of the
various screening instruments and assessments, are critical components of case
processing. It is not clear is if there is consistency between policy and practice among
case managers statewide. The policy sets up a variety of steps that a case manager should
take in order to provide a recommendation to the court that incorporates a multiple
systems approach to address the needs of the youth and family while ensuring community
safety.
The SRCI was designed to make commitment and supervision decisions more objective and
consistent. Although the SRCI has been modified by the department since the period covered by
this report, an evaluation of its reliability and usefulness is essential if the restrictiveness level
system is to function as it was designed.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Explanation of TablesPage 57
Explanation of Tables
The four commitment level sections and the aftercare section each contain a series of six different
tables. The following highlighted terms and phrases are the column headings for the tables.
Definitions of the terms and phrases are provided, but the importance of the data contained in the
tables is discussed more fully in the text.
Program Information Table
These tables contain identifying information for the programs and the providers, as well as basic
information about the gender served, number of clients, and their average length of stay. Some
programs are listed which indicate that no individuals were served. These programs are included
for a number of reasons. Some programs were funded, but either were not opened to clients or
were not open long enough during the fiscal year to release any clients. In a few cases, clients
were assigned to a program in error, which would be reflected on the program outputs table, but
necessitated the entry of the program on the other tables as well. Presence on the output table
was also due to programs which closed or cleared a backlog of juveniles who were temporarily
released, but either reached the age of majority or the maximum term. These programs had to be
included, even though these juveniles may not have spent any actual time at the program, and are
therefore not counted as individuals on this table.
Program Type and Name. The programs were divided into categories. Programs were
grouped by program model for comparison purposes. Local non-residential programs, special
intensive groups, re-entry programs and local residential programs are designated by district, and
units within districts.
District and County. The district and county in which the program is located.
Contracted Provider. The name of the provider which operates the program. If the program is
operated by the state, the line is blank.
Individual Clients. The number of youth (unduplicated) released from the program during FY
1994-95. Youth may be admitted to a program more than once but are counted only once.
Individuals who went to more than one resource were counted as individuals each time they were
admitted to a new resource.
Resident Days. The total number of days from admission to release for all individuals served by
the program. This does not include temporary absences, escapes or absconds.
Average Length of Stay. Calculated by dividing the total number of resident days by the total
number of individual clients.
Quality Assurance Rating. The program rating from the DJJ 1995 Quality Assurance
Report.
Program Outputs Table
Program outputs include the number of admissions and their dispositions upon release. Total
placements equal the total number released from each program. Blank entries are found on this
table when the program was funded or open, but released no juveniles.
Total Placements. The total number of youth placed and released from a commitment program
during FY 1994-95. This number contains individuals counted more than one time. Youth may
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 58Explanation of Tables
have more than one admission to the same program during the year and are counted for each
admission and release.
Program Completion. Refers to the youth released from programs who have completed the
treatment goals or other objectives of the program. Individual programs may define program
completion differently.
Release Categories.
Released from care and custody - Those youth who are released from supervision
by the department and jurisdiction of the court. Reasons for this type of release may
include program completion, the youth has reached the age of 19 years, the maximum
legal term for the commitment has expired or the youth does not require additional
supervision by the department.
Furlough - The status of a youth who has been released from a commitment program,
and is supervised in the community by a DJJ case manager. The department has
jurisdiction over youth on furlough. Termination and revocation of furlough is at the
discretion of the department.
Post-Commitment Community Control (PCCC) - Departmental supervision of a
youth who has completed a commitment program and is no longer on committed status.
The committing court retains jurisdiction over the youth's release. The youth is supervised
in the community under the terms of a post-commitment community control order entered
by a judge. Revocation or termination are at the discretion of the court.
Released to Step-down or Aftercare - Applies to youth who complete a
commitment program and are transferred, with the approval of the committing court, to a
lower restrictiveness level or to a Level 2 aftercare program.
Judicial Changes - Re-commitment by the court to a different commitment program.
Transfer Up - A judicially approved transfer of a committed youth to a higher
restrictiveness level for reasons that may include new law or non-law violations while in a
commitment program.
Lateral Transfer - A judicially approved transfer of a committed youth to a program
within the same restrictiveness level. These youth may be transferred for a new law or
non-law violation; they may be inappropriate for continued placement; or they may be
served better by another equally restrictive program.
Adult Prison or Probation - Transfer of youth who are sentenced in adult court to
adult probation, or to prison or a youthful offender program.
Total Releases - Same as total placements. The total number of youth placed and
released from a commitment program during FY 1994-95. This number is duplicated, in
that youth may experience more than one admission to the same program during the year
and is counted for each admission.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Explanation of TablesPage 59
Client Demographics Table
Client demographics include basic information about the youth in a program, including their age,
gender and race. Blank entries are found on this table when the program was funded or open, but
released no juveniles.
Average Age at Entry. The average age of youth served by a program at the time of
admission to the program. Because of the rapid physical, cognitive and psycho-social development
of adolescents, age at admission has implications for treatment and recidivism. The range of ages
of youth at admission to the program is important for the same reason, given the contact between
youth in programs. It is not clear what effects placement with older or younger offenders may
have. Juveniles six years of age and younger were coded as age six years.
Average Age at First Referral. The average age at which youth who have been admitted to
the program committed their first offense. The age at onset gives important information with
regard to difficulty of treatment, time in the system, and probable outcomes. The range of ages is
important for the same reason, and may have important implications for treatment. Juveniles six
years of age and younger were coded as age six years.
Distribution by Gender and Race. The percentage of youth released from the program, by
gender and race, including white, black, Native American, Asian, and unreported, which is either
unavailable or unknown. Hispanic origin is not consistently reported in the client information
system.
Client Referral History Table
Referral histories give some idea of the seriousness and nature of the delinquent careers of youth
served by each program. Blank entries are found on this table when the program was funded or
open, but released no juveniles.
Average Number of Cases. The average number of prior juvenile cases of the youth released
from the commitment program. A case is all the referrals or arrests occurring on the same day.
Average Number of Referrals. The average number of prior referrals of the youth released
from the commitment program. Average number of cases and referrals, along with age at first
referral, give a rough estimation of the frequency and chronicity of the delinquents in a program.
Average Number of Sanctioned Offenses, Violent, Property, and Minor. Referral
reasons were grouped into six qualitative categories. The purpose of these categories is to give
some idea of the type of offenders in programs; whether they were violent, engaged in property
crimes or had extended histories of minor offenses. These six categories included violent offenses,
weapons offenses, property offenses, drug offenses, sexual offenses, and minor offenses. A
referral was considered sanctioned if there was some evidence that a consequence was imposed
as the result of behavior which did in fact occur. The frequency of three of the categories (violent,
property and minor offenses) was high enough to merit inclusion in this report. These three
categories give an estimation of how violent the offenders released from a program were, with
implications for classification and treatment. Because some referral reasons are actually
aggregations of violations of statute, and some are by nature related to property and person
offenses, some cross-over between the categories was permitted.
Sanctioned Violent Offenses - Include the following types of offenses against
persons: murder or manslaughter; attempted murder or manslaughter; sexual battery;
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 60Explanation of Tables
armed robbery; other robbery; aggravated assault or battery; resisting arrest with
violence; shooting or throwing a deadly missile into an occupied dwelling or vehicle;
assault or battery; and other felony.
Sanctioned Property Offenses - Include the following types of offenses: armed
robbery; other robbery; arson; burglary; auto theft; grand theft; receiving stolen property
in excess of $100; forgery and uttering; other felony; petit theft; retail theft; and receiving
stolen property under $100.
Sanctioned Minor Offenses - Include the following types of offenses: disorderly
conduct; criminal mischief (vandalism); trespassing; contempt of court; violation of a
county or municipal ordinance; various traffic offenses; non-law violation of community
control; and non-law violation of furlough.
Average Number of Sanctioned Offenses. The average of all sanctioned offenses,
including non-judicial diversions, for youth released from a program.
Average Number of Adjudicated Felonies. The average number of prior felony referrals
for the youth released from a program that were adjudicated or for which the court withheld
adjudication.
Client Treatment History
Client treatment history is important because it may indicate a lack of response to previous
treatment and the level at which delinquent behavior has become entrenched in the individual.
Blank entries are found on this table when the program was funded or open, but released no
juveniles.
Average Time in Months from First Referral to Present Commitment. The average
number of months from the date of the youth's first referral to the current commitment.
Average Number of Prior Diversions. The average number of prior referrals diverted, or
handled non-judicially, in the juvenile system.
Average Number of Prior Resources. The average number of commitment programs a
youth has been admitted to and released from, prior to admission to the current commitment
program.
Average Number of Months Previously in DJJ Programs. The average number of
months a youth has been in commitment status, prior to admission to the current commitment
program.
Program Recidivism Rates Table
The tables report recidivism based on the following definitions. Blank entries are found on this
table when the program was funded or open, but released no juveniles.
Juveniles in Recidivism Sample. Youth released from commitment programs during
FY 1994-95 who are residing in the community and therefore have the potential to re-offend
within one year following release from a commitment program.
Juvenile System Recidivism Indicators. Subsequent referrals, adjudications, community
control and re-commitment in the juvenile system within one year of release from the program.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Explanation of TablesPage 61
Adult System Recidivism Indicators. Adult arrests and prosecutions, adjudications, or a
sentencing in adult court for adult probation and adult prison within one year of release from the
program.
Overall Rate of Recidivism. The overall rate of recidivism was the percentage of youth from
the cohort who were re-committed to the department, placed on adult probation, or incarcerated in
Department of Corrections facilities.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 62Level 2
Minimum-Risk Non-Residential Programs
(Level 2)
Level 2 non-residential programs serve youth who represent a minimum risk to themselves or
public safety and do not require placement in a residential program. Although committed, these
youth reside in their homes and participate in program services during the day and sometimes into
the evening.
There are three types of youth served by
Level 2 day treatment programs. Some youth
are directly committed to Level 2. Other youth
served include those who have been
transferred from a higher level commitment
program. Those youth who have been
"stepped-down" from a higher commitment
level will be discussed in greater detail later in
the aftercare section of this report. Based on
file reviews, it was found that occasionally
Level 2 programs serve non-committed youth
on community control or at the request of the
court. These youth are not reported in the
FACTS data system, and therefore are not in
this report.
Program Descriptions
Program models within this restrictiveness level include local non-residential programs, special
intensive groups, day treatment programs, intensive work programs and special needs programs.
Local Non-Residential Programs. Local non-residential programs provide flexible alternatives
for delinquent youth who have mental health or substance abuse problems that require specialized
treatment. Other treatment may include counseling, education and drug abuse screening. Local
non-residential programs vary throughout the state with regard to the ages and gender of youth
and the length of time services are provided. These programs serve clients of both DJJ and the
Department of Children and Family Services.
It should be noted that the Broward Halfway House non-residential program was previously a
state-operated Level 6 residential halfway house that was destroyed in a fire. The program was
converted to a non-residential day treatment program after the fire and remained a day treatment
program during FY 1994-95.
Special Intensive Groups (SIG). Special intensive group
programs were originally designed to focus on individual, family
and small group counseling in the juvenile's normal community
setting. Program employees maintain small caseloads of 8 to 10
juveniles and make from one to seven contacts per week in the
community at school, work, or in the youth's home and
neighborhood. Special intensive groups are designed to serve
juveniles and their families for a period of three to six months.
These programs are located in almost every DJJ service district
Section 39.01(59)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996).
Minimum-risk non-residential.--Youth
assessed and classified for placement in
programs at this restrictiveness level
represent a minimum risk to themselves and
public safety and do not require placement
and services in residential settings.
Programs or program models in this
restrictiveness level include: community
counselor supervision programs, special
intensive group programs, non-residential
marine programs, non-residential training and
rehabilitation centers, and other local
community non-residential programs.
Many SIG programs no
longer utilize group
counseling. Counseling
services are mostly
directed toward problem
solving, and frequently are
conducted by non-
specialized employees.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 63
in the state. During the period covered by this report, there were 15 contracted and 43 state-
operated SIG programs. For comparison purposes these programs were analyzed separately and
as a whole.
Day Treatment Programs. Day treatment programs are designed to serve both males and
females between the ages of 12 and 18 years. Services are provided during the day, evening, or
both at least five days per week. Youth participate in the programs during scheduled hours and
return to their homes each night. In addition, special weekend activities are periodically conducted.
Individual and group counseling, recreation, education, and
vocational training are typical services of these programs.
The designed length of stay for these programs is three to
six months.
For the purpose of this report, two categories of day
treatment programs are described. There were 19 day
treatment programs operated by the Associated Marine
Institute (AMI) which utilize a similar model throughout
the state. The remaining ten programs are contracted by
a variety of other providers throughout the state. This report compares differences between these
two categories of programs, and together as a group with other Level 2 program models.
Intensive Work Programs. Intensive work programs are designed to serve up to ten juveniles
between the ages of 15 and 18 years for a period of three to six months. The primary goal is for
the youth to obtain and maintain employment. The program provides juveniles with counseling and
various social skills that focus on responsible behavior and the creation of a positive work ethic.
Education includes interviewing skills and completing employment applications. An example of this
model is the Intensive Work Program located in Lake City.
Special Needs Programs. Special needs programs provide day treatment services and
counseling services for delinquent youth who have mental health or substance abuse problems.
These programs vary throughout the state with regard to the ages and gender of youth served and
the length of services.
Population Profile
This section includes an examination of the demographic characteristics of juveniles released from
minimum-risk non-residential programs during Fiscal Year (FY) 1994-95, which is the period from
July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995.
The five program models released a total of 2,628 individual juveniles as follows: local non-
residential programs, 124; contracted and state-operated special intensive groups, 1,324; AMI and
other contracted day treatment programs 1,085; intensive work programs, 58; and special needs
programs, 37.
While some program
descriptions include vocational
training as a part of the services
provided, it is not clear whether
this means actual training toward
a trade or training in the art of
filling out applications and
interviewing for jobs.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 64Level 2
Gender and Race
Of the 2,628 individual juveniles released
during the 1994-95 fiscal year, 83.8% were
male and 16.1% were female. SIG
programs released the largest percentage,
18.9%, of females of all Level 2 programs.
The racial distribution of youth released
from minimum-risk non-residential programs
was 48.2% white, 51.2% black and less
than one percent other minorities. Black
youth made up 66.7% of the youth released
from other contracted day treatment
programs, but only 37.8% of the youth
released from special needs programs, Black youth comprised 21.7% of Florida's population in the
10 to 17 year age group, but made up more than 50% of all the youth released from Level 2. This
representation in Level 2 programs is more than double that of the representation of black youth in
the state's general population.
Age at Admission
The average age of the youth at admission to Level 2 commitment programs was 15.4 years.
Youth released from special needs programs had the highest average age (16.1 years) of all Level
2 programs, while youth released from other contracted day treatment programs had the youngest
(14.9 years).
Releases by Gender
Male83.8%
Female16.1%
Level 2 Releases
Other0.6%
White48.2%
Black51.2%
Racial Composition
Florida's Population Ages 10 - 17
White76.1%
Black21.7%
Asian2.2%
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 65
Client History
This section includes data regarding the age at
first referral, the average number of prior
referrals, prior sanctions, and prior
commitments of the youth released from
minimum-risk non-residential programs. An
examination of the delinquency careers of these
youth is also included in this section.
Age at Onset
The age at which juveniles officially enter the
juvenile justice system through a documented delinquency referral may be an important factor in
developing treatment strategies. Prior research has indicated that when delinquent behaviors are
identified and addressed early, the interventions are more likely to be effective at reducing or
eliminating these behaviors. The average age at first referral for youth released from all Level 2
programs was 12.9 years. The average age at
first referral for youth released from AMI day
treatment programs and special needs programs
was 13.0 years, the highest of all the Level 2
programs. Other contracted day treatment
programs had an average age of 12.7 years at
first referral, which was the lowest of all the
Level 2 programs. The range of ages at onset is
displayed below.
Delinquency Referral History
The youth released from Level 2 commitment programs had an average of 6.8 prior cases and
10.4 prior delinquency referrals. A case is defined as all arrests and charges occurring on one
day. Youth released from special needs programs had the highest average number of prior
delinquency cases and referrals among all Level 2 programs (10.1 cases and 16.4 referrals), and
intensive work programs had the lowest (5.6 cases and 9.2 referrals).
The average age of juveniles committed to
intensive work programs was 15.3 years. More
than 50% of the juveniles released from these
programs were 15 years of age or younger at
admission, the youngest being 10 years. This
is in conflict with the model's stated target
group of juveniles between the ages of 15 and
18. In view of the difficulty of obtaining even
part-time employment for juveniles younger
than 16, the usefulness of treatment aimed at
obtaining and maintaining meaningful
employment is questionable.
Ages of these juveniles at their admission to
these programs ranges from 6 to 19 in SIG
Programs, and from 12 to 19 in AMI and
other treatment programs. These findings
are disturbing because the physical,
emotional and cognitive differences across
these age spans require different treatment
goals and strategies.
Age at First Referral
(Average)
1717171717
12.812.813.012.913.0
766
87
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Commitment Programs
Oldest
Average
Youngest
Age at Admission
(Average)
1819191818
15.615.315.415.216.1
11
6
12
10
13
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Commitment Programs
Oldest
Average
Youngest
Juveniles committed
directly to Level 2
programs averaged 6.1
cases and 9.4 referrals.
Juvenile who had been
stepped-down average
8.2 cases and 12.4
referrals.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 66Level 2
Youth released from AMI day treatment programs had a
lower average number of prior delinquency referrals (10.1)
than youth released from other contracted day
treatment programs (15.2). State-operated and
contracted SIG programs were more similar with an
average of 10.3 and 9.2 respectively.
Youth released from Level 2 programs as a whole
had an average of 1.2 diverted referrals. Youth
released from local non-residential programs had the
highest average (3.4) of diverted referrals. In
contrast, youth released from intensive work
programs had the lowest average of diverted referrals (0.6) among all Level 2 programs.
Prior Sanctioned Offenses
The prior sanctioned offense history of a youth may be the most informative record of a youth's
delinquent behavior pattern because it indicates whether the offense was against persons or
property, or represents any number of minor offenses. A referral was considered sanctioned if
there was some evidence that a consequence was imposed as the result of behavior which did in
fact occur. Youth released from minimum-risk non-residential programs had an average of 7.9
sanctioned offenses. This included an average of 3.7 sanctioned property offenses, 1.4 sanctioned
violent offenses and 2.3 sanctioned minor offenses. Youth released from local non-residential
programs had the highest rate of sanctioned property offenses (5.7), while youth released from
SIG programs and intensive work programs had the lowest rate of sanctioned property offenses
(3.4). Youth released from local non-residential programs had the highest average of sanctioned
violent offenses (1.9), while youth released from intensive work programs had the lowest average
(1.1) of sanctioned violent offenses. Youth released from AMI day treatment programs had fewer
sanctioned property offenses (3.8) than youth released from other contracted day treatment
programs (5.5).
Many of the youth released by these programs in this level also had prior minor offense sanctions.
Youth released from other contracted day treatment programs had the highest average of
The average time from first referral to
present commitment for these juveniles is
more than 2.5 years. The average number
of cases indicates that they have been
taken into custody an average of 7 times.
These findings indicate that by the time
these juveniles reach Level 2 commitment,
they are quite familiar with law enforcement
procedures and the juvenile court.
14.2
9.910.69.2
16.4
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Commitment Programs
Prior Delinquency Referrals
(Average)
As the average number of prior
sanctioned offenses increases,
there is no apparent
corresponding increase in the
number of prior commitments.
This also holds true for the
average number of sanctioned
violent offenses.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 67
sanctioned minor offenses (3.6), while youth released from intensive work programs had the
lowest average (2.0). Level 2 youth as a whole had an average of 2.4 felony adjudications, and
youth released from local non-residential programs had the highest average (3.8), while special
intensive groups and intensive work programs had the lowest (2.3).
Prior Commitments
Many of the youth released from Level 2 programs had a prior commitment, and had an average
of 1.0 prior delinquency commitment. Youth released from special needs programs had the highest
average of prior delinquency commitments (1.3), while other contracted day treatment programs
had the lowest (0.8).
Time From First Referral to Present Commitment
There was an average of 30 months from
first referral to present commitment for
the youth released from Level 2
programs. Youth released from special
needs programs had an average of 37.1
months from first referral to the first FY
1994-95 commitment, and other
contracted day treatment programs had
an average of 25.5 months. These
programs had the highest and lowest
averages for all Level 2 programs.
Program Outputs
This section includes an examination of the outputs of the program models included in Level 2
including completion rates, release types, and average length of stay.
5.7
1.9
3.4
1.4
4.0
1.3
3.4
1.1
4.5
1.5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Commitment Programs
Previously Sanctioned Offenses
Property Offenses
Violent Offenses
Considering the fact that 50% of Level 2 youth were
admitted at or below age 15, a 2.5 year delinquency
career means that these juveniles could have been
targeted at an early age. Future evaluations should
focus on delinquent behavior of youth immediately
following first referral and the effects of diversion,
intervention or secondary prevention efforts on them.
The JJAB is currently developing such a study of
young chronic offenders.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 68Level 2
Program Completion Rates
There were 2,885 releases from Level 2
programs during FY 1994-95, involving
2,628 individual youth (some of these youth
had multiple admissions and releases).
Almost 50% (1,434) of these youth were
released from state-operated (864) or
contracted (570) SIG programs. The
balance were released from day treatment
programs (1,197 or 41.7%); local non-
residential programs (148 or 5.1%);
intensive work programs (60 or 2.1%); and
special needs programs (46 or 1.6%). Of
the 1,197 juveniles released from day
treatment programs, more than 91% (1,098)
of them were released from AMI day
treatment programs.
Eighty percent (48) of the youth released from intensive work programs completed the treatment
goals of the program. Less than 28% (27) of the youth released from other contracted day
treatment programs completed the treatment goals of the program. AMI day treatment programs
had a completion rate of more than 50%.
Release Categories
Of the 1,553 juveniles released to
PCCC, furlough, or from care and
custody from level 2 programs, 41.8%
were disposed to PCCC or furlough.
This percentage does not reflect the
number who were transferred laterally to
re-entry. Contracted SIG programs,
state-operated SIG programs and AMI
day treatment programs each released
approximately 40% to PCCC or
furlough.
There were 393 judicial changes among
minimum-risk non-residential program youth. A judicial change is a re-commitment to another
program. Other release reasons at this level included 15.4% (444) transferred to a higher
commitment level and 14.4% (415) laterally transferred.
44.6%47.0%50.5%
80.1%
47.8%
0%10%
20%30%40%50%60%70%
80%90%100%
Commitment Programs
Completion Rates
Youth Released
Local Non-Res.4.7%
SIG50.4%
Day Treatment41.3%
Intensive Work Program2.2%
Special1.4%
Although AMI juveniles do not
have significantly different
characteristics from juveniles in
other Level 2 programs, they
have a higher rate of
commitment to the DC.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 69
Average Length of Stay
The average length of stay (ALOS) at
this level may be deceiving because the
programs are non-residential. Youth
attend these programs during the day
and return home at night. Statewide,
the average length of services provided
through Level 2 programs was 129.6
days. Local non-residential programs
had the highest ALOS (155 days), while
special needs programs had the shortest
ALOS (68.5 days) of all Level 2 commitment
programs.
Recidivism to the Juvenile
System
This section includes an analysis of the rates of recidivism to the juvenile system by the youth
included in the Level 2 recidivism cohort. This analysis includes the rates of re-referral, re-
adjudication, subsequent community control, and re-commitment of these youth within one year of
release.
Juvenile Re-Referral Rate
There were 1,570 youth included in the recidivism cohort
for Level 2 commitment programs. Forty-three percent
(680) of the youth released into the recidivism cohort
from Level 2 programs received subsequent delinquency
referrals within one year of release. More than 49%
(330) of the day treatment program sample had
subsequent delinquency referrals within one year of
release from the program, the highest rate among Level 2
programs. Youth from intensive work programs and local
non-residential programs had a subsequent delinquency referral rate of 36.0% within one year of
release. This represented the lowest rate of subsequent referrals among all the Level 2 programs.
Release Types - All Level 2 Programs
Released From Care & Custody31.5%
Released to Furlough or PCCC22.5%
Judicial Change13.6%
Transfers Up15.4%
Lateral Transfers14.5%
Adult Prison or Probation2.5%
155.0
120.7
141.3
99.6
68.5
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
Commitment Programs
Average Length of Stay
Nearly 45% (413) of the youth
committed directly to Level 2
programs received a subsequent
delinquency referral within one
year of release, while 40% (251)
of the youth who were "stepped
down" to a Level 2 program
received subsequent delinquency
referrals.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 70Level 2
Juvenile Re-Adjudication
More than 25% (400) of the youth in the Level 2 recidivism
cohort had a subsequent juvenile adjudication within one
year of release. More than one-third (8 of 23) of the youth
included in special needs programs' recidivism sample
received a subsequent juvenile adjudication within one year
of release. Nearly 10% (7 of 71) of the youth released
from local non-residential programs received a subsequent
juvenile adjudication within one year of release.
Subsequent Juvenile Community Control and Re-Commitments
Ten percent (157) of the youth in the Level 2 recidivism
cohort received subsequent juvenile community control
sanctions within one year of release. Twenty-six percent
(6) of the youth from special needs programs received
subsequent community control sanctions, while less than
4% (1) of the youth released from other contracted day
treatment programs received subsequent community
control sanctions.
More than 15% (248) of these youth were re-
committed within one year of release from the
program. Twenty-one percent (7) of the youth
released from other contracted day treatment
programs were re-committed within one year after
release from the program. More than 14% (93) of the
youth included in AMI day treatment programs
received subsequent commitments within one year of release. Less than 5% (3) of the youth from
local non-residential programs received subsequent commitments within one year of release.
Nearly 27% (248) of the youth
committed directly to Level 2
programs received a subsequent
juvenile adjudication within one
year of release, while 23% (144)
of the youth placed in Level 2
programs as step-down received a
subsequent juvenile adjudication.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Juvenile Referrals and Adjudications
Referrals
Adjudications
0%10%
20%30%
40%50%
60%70%
80%90%
100%
Commitment Program
Community Control and
Re-Commitment
Community Control
Re-Commitment
Ten percent (93) of the youth
committed directly to Level 2
programs received subsequent
community control sanctions within
one year of release, while 9.8% (61)
of step-down youth received
subsequent community control
sanctions.
Seventeen percent (157) of the youth
committed directly to Level 2 program
were re-committed within one year of
release, while only 13.8 (86) of step-
down youth were re-committed within
one year.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 71
Recidivism to the Adult System
This section includes an analysis of the rates of recidivism to the adult system by the youth from
Level 2 programs. This analysis includes the rates of adult arrest and prosecution, conviction,
subsequent adult probation or prison of these youth within one year of release. This section will
include a comparison of the recidivism rates of youth placed directly into one of the program
models contained in Level 2 and those placed in these programs as a step-down resource.
Adult Prosecution
Twenty-eight percent (439) of the youth included in the
Level 2 recidivism cohort were arrested and prosecuted
as adults within one year of release. Thirty-four percent
(17) of the youth in intensive work programs were
arrested and prosecuted as adults within one year of
release from the program, the highest of all Level 2
program models. Less than 18% (4) of the youth in
special needs programs were arrested and prosecuted as
adults within one year of release.
Adult Convictions
Nearly 15% (231) of the youth in the Level 2 recidivism
cohort received subsequent adult convictions. Nearly 16%
(11) of the youth from local non-residential programs
received subsequent adult convictions within one year of
release, while 13.0% (3) of the youth included in special
needs programs' recidivism sample had subsequent adult convictions within one year of release.
Adult Probation and Prison
Thirteen percent (205) of the youth in the Level 2
recidivism cohort had subsequent adult sanctions or
commitments. More than 11% (8) of the youth in local non-
residential programs' recidivism sample were sentenced to
adult probation and 5.6% (4) were sentenced to adult
prison within one year of release from the program.
Fourteen percent (7) of the youth in intensive work
programs' recidivism sample had subsequent adult
probation and prison within one year of release.
Slightly more than 29% (183) of the
youth who were stepped down to a
Level 2 program and 27.1% (250) of
the youth directly committed to Level
2 programs received a subsequent
adult arrest within one year of
release.
Sixteen percent (100) of the youth
who were stepped down to a Level
2 program and 14% (129) of the
youth directly committed to Level 2
programs received a subsequent
adult conviction within one year of
release.
Youth who were stepped down to
Level 2 programs had slightly
higher rates of subsequent adult
probation 10% (63) and prison
3.5% (22) within one year of
release. Similarly, 9.7% (89) of the
youth directly committed to Level 2
programs received subsequent
adult probation and 3.3% (30)
received prison sentences within
one year of release.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 72Level 2
The charts below illustrate the difference between the two population served by Level 2 programs
highlighted in the preceding text boxes.
Discussion
Because of their multiple program designs, local non-residential programs are difficult to evaluate
and compare. Within this restrictiveness level, special intensive groups and day treatment
programs have the largest portion of clients.
Program Performance. Performance across program types for minimum-risk non-residential
programs was fairly consistent. (See table below.) Contracted day treatment programs, which
handled significantly fewer juveniles, had lower rates of completion, and lower rates for provision
of aftercare.2 These programs also had a slightly higher rate of recidivism. Juveniles from
contracted day treatment programs were characterized by a higher average of prior cases and
referrals, indicating that they may have been more difficult to treat. The extent to which this
2 Percentage receiving some provision for post-placement services for Level 2 was computed by
dividing the number of juveniles released to PCCC or furlough by the sum of juveniles released from
care and custody, to PCCC and to furlough.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Adult Probation and Prison
Probation
Prison
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Commitment Programs
Adult Prosecutions and Convictions
Arrests
Convictions
Re-ReferralAdjudicationCommunity
Control
Re-
Committed
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Re-ReferralAdjudicationCommunity
Control
Re-
Committed
Indicators
Juvenile Recidivism Indicators(Direct Commits versus Step-Downs)
Direct
Step-Down
ArrestsConvictionsProbationIncarceration
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ArrestsConvictionsProbationIncarceration
Indicators
Adult Recidivism Indicators(Direct Commits versus Step-Downs)
Direct
Step-Down
Level 2 Direct Commitments v. Step-Down
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 73
finding or other factors contributed to the disparity in program performance can only be
determined by conducting a thorough process evaluation of these programs.
Level 2 Program Performance Indicators and Overall Recidivism Rates
Program TypeJuveniles
Served
Average
Length of
Stay
Rate of
Completion
Rate of
Aftercare
Provision
Rate of
Overall
Recidivism
Contracted SIG534120.049.1%41.0%27.8%
State-operated SIG790121.245.6%41.3%28.8%
AMI Day Treatment989140.652.6%43.1%26.4%
Contracted Day
Treatment
96148.727.3%32.4%33.3%
The overall recidivism rate for this analysis is based on re-commitment to a DJJ program,
placement on adult probation, or adult prison within one year of release. The rate of recidivism
across all Level 2 programs was 26.9%. The rate of recidivism across all restrictiveness levels
was 34.6%, which is 7.7% higher than the recidivism rate for Level 2 programs. Each of the
program models contained in Level 2 had an overall recidivism rate below the average recidivism
rate of all the restrictiveness levels combined.
Within-Group Comparisons. Program performance within each of these groups was less
consistent. Restricting the examination to those programs which had more than 20 releases, wide
differences can be seen within each program type. This holds true for average lengths of stay,
completion rates, and rates of provision for post-placement services. The size of these differences
is of major importance. Is the difference in length of stay between programs a matter of days or
months? Given the absence of benchmarks, differences greater than ten percentage points in
program completion rates, rates of provision for post-placement services, and recidivism among
programs with at least 20 juveniles are worthy of attention. In-depth research will be required in
the future to determine better benchmarks for differences.
While overall performance of these program groups is fairly consistent, the uneven performance
of individual programs within each program type is a cause for concern. Consistency is important
in average lengths of stay, rates of completion, provision for post-placement services and rates of
recidivism for individual programs as an indicator that programs are operating at similar levels of
service.
Step-Down Clients. One possible source for inconsistent performance is the practice of the
placement of "step-down" clients from programs of a higher restrictiveness level into these
programs with the intention of helping them make a gradual re-entry into their communities.
Progressively reducing state supervision and transferring responsibility for the child back to the
family may be sound practice. It is unclear, however, how the presence of these more
experienced juveniles affects their younger counterparts who have been directly committed to a
Level 2 program for the first time. Youth committed directly to Level 2 programs tended to have
higher rates of subsequent involvement in the juvenile system than step-down youth. Youth
committed directly to Level 2 tended to have shorter careers than step-down youth, almost 12
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 74Level 2
months shorter. The rates of recidivism to the adult system by these groups were nearly identical.
The process responsible for these differences bears closer scrutiny, and may have important
implications for treatment design.
Program Strengths. The strength of Level 2 programs lies in the basic design of these
programs. Local non-residential programs should be able to incorporate employment, family,
community, educational, and substance abuse services as major components of their treatment
strategy. Prior research suggests that the integration of these components is vital to the social,
physical, and moral development of healthy and productive youth. Because Level 2 programs are
non-residential, they should be able to address problems such a family and peer-related issues
within a youth's normal social environment. A comprehensive approach to these social domains
may not be feasible in residential settings where youth are removed from their family and
community and placed in a different environment often unrelated to their normal setting. This may
be an important factor in lower rates of recidivism among Level 2 programs in comparison to
other levels.
Questions for Future Research
What are the demographic, offense and commitment history characteristics of youth who profit
most from the services offered by Level 2 programs?
Several of the program models contained within Level 2 had vocational and employment training
components. If these training components are substantive, Level 2 programs should be more
effective in helping youth residing in economically deprived communities with high rates of
unemployment, property offenses and few recreational outlets. The average age at admission for
the youth released from Level 2 programs was 15.4 years. Youth within this age group need
counseling services directed toward the development of a future vocational identity. Do such
services help juveniles develop an idea of what they want to be when they grow up?
An examination of the effects of employment and vocational training components included within
Level 2 programs on future delinquent behavior is needed. What impact do vocational training
efforts of these Level 2 programs have on employment rates, vocational direction, or on reducing
or eliminating future delinquent and criminal behavior?
Research Notes. The chronic lack of comprehensive client data was a major limiting factor for
evaluation. Placement decisions made by DJJ staff may be based on factors that are not captured
in the department's client information system. Because this evaluation depends on the data
contained in CIS, any factors or data elements not collected or provided by this system are
unavailable for this evaluation. The need to have a complete and reliable data base on youth
served by or committed to the DJJ is essential for valid, reliable and useful outcome evaluations.
Data elements not currently contained in the department's CIS, that may be extremely beneficial
for future evaluations, are currently under development for the new DJJ information system.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 75
Level 2 Data Tables
Program Information Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 76Level 2
Level 2 Program Information Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 77
Level 2 Program Information Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 78Level 2
Level 2 Program Information Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 79
Level 2 Program Outputs Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 80Level 2
Level 2 Program Outputs Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 81
Level 2 Program Outputs Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 82Level 2
Level 2 Program Outputs Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 83
Level 2 Client Demographics Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 84Level 2
Level 2 Client Demographics Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 85
Level 2 Client Demographics Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 86Level 2
Level 2 Client Demographics Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 87
Level 2 Client Referral History Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 88Level 2
Level 2 Client Referral History Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 89
Level 2 Client Referral History Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 90Level 2
Level 2 Client Referral History Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 91
Level 2 Client Treatment History Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 92Level 2
Level 2 Client Treatment History Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 93
Level 2 Client Treatment History Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 94Level 2
Level 2 Client Treatment History Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 95
Level 2 Recidivism Rates Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 96Level 2
Level 2 Program Recidivism Rates Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 2Page 97
Level 2 Program Recidivism Rates Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 98Level 2
Level 2 Program Recidivism Rates Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 99
Low-Risk Residential Restrictiveness Level
(Level 4)
Level 4 residential programs serve committed youth
who are considered low-risks to public safety based
on their current dispositions and offense histories.
These programs are designed to be the least
restrictive of the residential programs and feature a
short length of stay for youth with a minimal need for
specialized services such as mental health or
substance abuse counseling.
Program Descriptions
Three basic program models within this
restrictiveness level include group treatment homes,
wilderness camps and family group homes.
Group Treatment Homes
Group treatment homes serve six to nine all male or all female youth ranging in age from 10 to 16
years. The group treatment home operates in a dormitory environment which offers opportunities
for personal growth, social development and responsible behavior. Youth attend school daily and
participate in routine chores and community-
oriented activities. These programs typically
serve younger adolescents who have committed
minor offenses. The length of stay is three to six
months. Examples of this program model include
the Onyx Group Treatment Home in Orlando and
the Broward Group Treatment Home in Ft.
Lauderdale.
Wilderness Camps
Short-Term Wilderness Program. Short-
term wilderness programs serve 15 to 25 all male or all female youth between the ages of 14 and
18 years, who have committed misdemeanor or third degree felony property offenses. These
programs are typically sited in a remote location such as a state park, forest, or wildlife
management area. The program emphasizes
outdoor work projects and experiential education.
The length of stay is 45 to 60 days. The state-
operated Short-Term Offender Programs, such as
Myakka STOP in Myakka City and Blackwater
STOP in Milton, are examples of this program
model.
Short-Term Outdoor Expedition Program.
Short-term outdoor expedition programs serve 10
to 15 all male or all female juveniles between the ages of 14 and 18 years. These youth are
committed for misdemeanors or third degree property felonies. The program emphasizes self-
Section 39.01(59)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp.
1996).
Low-risk residential.--Youth assessed
and classified for placement in programs
at this level represent a low-risk to
themselves and public safety and do
require placement and services in
residential settings. Programs or program
models in this restrictiveness level
include: Short Term Offender Programs
(STOP), group treatment homes, family
group homes, proctor homes, and Short
Term Environmental Programs (STEP).
Although the name "Group Treatment
Home" conjures up a picture of a white
clapboard house behind a picket fence,
these programs generally resemble small
dormitories rather than what one would
generally consider a "home." Although these
homes are staffed 24 hours per day, staff
come and go in shifts, so that the only
consistent presence in these homes over
time is the juveniles.
It should be noted that a number of
wilderness programs will not accept
youth with prior violent offenses.
Therefore, a number of youth are
ineligible for the largest grouping of Level
4 beds. Are such youth committed to
Level 2 or are they "bumped" up to Level
6?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 100Level 4
discipline, team building and problem solving through wilderness expeditions. The length of stay is
30 to 45 days. An example of this model is Outward Bound's Short-Term Environmental Program
(STEP) in Yulee, which involves youth in a month-long canoe expedition.
Family Group Homes
Henry and Rilla White Foundation Homes. Through the Henry and Rilla White Foundation,
the department contracts with families to provide a home environment for up to three committed
males or females between the ages of 10 and 18 years.
These group homes serve youth who have typically
committed minor offenses. The length of stay is three to six
months. Youth placed in these homes attend school or work
during the day and participate in "family" activities in the
evenings and weekends. The married couples in these homes
serve as surrogate parents and positive role models to the
youth who live there. The Watson Home in Jacksonville and
the Phillips Home in Gainesville are examples of this program
model.
Family Enrichment Network. The department contracts
with Family Continuity, Inc. to operate these programs, which
are similar to the Henry and Rilla White Foundation Homes, with an exception. Family Enrichment
Network programs include an assessment center "hub" where youth undergo an initial assessment
for approximately two weeks. Following the assessment, youth are placed in a home and services
are provided to the youth based on the individual assessment and treatment plan.
Contracted Family Group Homes. The department also contracts directly with families to
provide a home environment with programs similar to the White Foundation Homes and the Family
Enrichment Network. The Yount Home in Putnam County and the McWhorter Home in Clay
County are examples of this program model.
Host Homes. Host homes serve one or two male or female youth between the ages of 14 and
18 years. These youth have committed minor offenses and require alternate living arrangements in
order to participate in non-residential day treatment. The length of stay is two to four months. The
Panama City Marine Institute operates three host homes.
Population Profile
Of the three basic program models in Level 4, the nine wilderness camps were by far the largest
group, releasing 1,013 individual juveniles. The 17 group treatment homes released 291; and 30
family group homes released 190 youth. Following are demographics of youth released from Level
4 programs.
Whereas the group treatment
home is dorm-like, family group
homes are typically programs
that serve one or two juveniles in
a nuclear family home. The
Family Enrichment Network and
the Henry and Rilla White
Foundation are two of the larger
contracting providers who recruit
and train the parents in these
homes.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 101
Gender and Race
During the 1994-95 fiscal year, low-risk
commitment programs released 1,494 individual
juveniles. The majority (91.0%) of all the youth
released from low-risk residential programs
were male. However, family group homes
released the largest percentage (22.6%) of
females.
The racial mix of juveniles at this level was not
representative of the general population.
According to the Demographic Estimating
Conference database, Economic and
Demographic Research Division, Florida Legislature, the racial distribution of Florida youth
between the ages of 10 to 17 years as of January 1, 1995, was 76.1% white, 21.7% black and
2.2% other. Approximately 14% of these youth were of Hispanic origin. The percentage of black
youth released at this level (48.2%) is more than twice their representation in the 10 to 17 year old
population in Florida. Group treatment homes served the highest percentage (62.9%) of black
youth.
Releases by Gender
Female
9%
Male
91%
Racial Composition
Florida's Population Ages 10 - 17
White76.1%
Black21.7%
Asian2.2%
Level 4 Releases
Other0.9%
Black48.2%
White50.9%
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 102Level 4
Age at Admission
The average age of the youth
admitted to low-risk residential
programs was 14.9 years. Youth
served by wilderness camps had
the highest average age (15.5
years) of all low-risk residential
programs.
Client History
This section will examine the age at first referral, prior referral, prior sanctions, and commitment
history of the youth released from low-risk residential commitment programs. An examination of
the delinquency careers of these youth is also included.
Age at Onset
The age at which juveniles first begin their delinquent behaviors has been shown to be an indicator
of length of delinquency and difficulty of treatment. The average
age at first referral for these youth was 12.6 years. The average
age at first referral for the youth released from state-operated
STOP camps was 13.1 years, which was the highest of all the
Level 4 commitment programs. Group treatment homes had the
lowest average age at first referral (11.5). However, all three
programs released juveniles that received their first referral at age
six years or younger.
Age at Admission
(Average)
181817
13.815.513.7
10
13
10
5
10
15
20
25
GroupTreatmentHomes
WildernessCampsFamily GroupHomes
Commitment Programs
Oldest
Average
Youngest
Would comprehensive
prevention programs
targeting pre-kindergarten or
elementary aged youth
reduce or help eliminate
delinquency?
Age at First Referral
(Average)
171716
11.513.111.7
666
0
5
10
15
20
25
GroupTreatmentHomes
WildernessCampsFamily GroupHomes
Commitment Programs
Oldest
Average
Youngest
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 103
Delinquency Referral History
Prior delinquency history may be an indicator of how entrenched delinquent behavior has become
in the lives of these youth. The youth released from low-risk residential programs had an average
of 6.7 cases and 10.2 delinquency referrals. Youth released from
the group treatment homes had the highest average number (12.9)
of prior delinquency referrals, and youth released from family
group homes had the lowest (9.4) average number of referrals
among all Level 4 programs.
Youth released from Level 4 programs had an average of 1.2 diverted referrals, with youth
released from group treatment homes having the highest average (1.4). In contrast, youth released
from family group homes had the lowest average (0.9) of diverted referrals among all Level 4
programs.
Prior Sanctioned Offenses
Prior judicial or non-judicial sanctioned offense history provides valuable insight into the population
of youth served. A profile of the average number and type of offenses for which the juveniles in a
program have been held accountable gives a better picture of the program's population. A referral
was considered sanctioned if there was some evidence that a consequence was imposed as the
result of behavior which did in fact occur. Almost all of the youth released from low-risk
residential programs had prior sanctioned offenses, and had an average of 7.8 sanctioned
offenses. For the majority of the youth released from low-risk residential programs, the prior
sanctions history included mostly property and minor offenses. On average these youth had 3.9
sanctioned property offenses, 1.2 sanctioned violent offenses and 2.3
sanctioned minor offenses.
Is the prior referral
history of a youth an
accurate predictor of
difficulty in treatment
or future
delinquency?
Each referral represents a
substantial investment of
resources by law enforcement,
the department and the court
system. Further research is
needed to explain the relatively
high number of dismissed
referrals.
12.9
9.69.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Commitment Programs
Prior Delinquency Referrals
(Average)
5.3
1.9
3.6
1.0
3.6
1.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Commitment Programs
Previously Sanctioned Offenses
(Average)
Property Offenses
Violent Offenses
Is the frequency of
property crimes among
these youth reflective of
environmental and
economic factors?
Do these crimes occur
near home or school?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 104Level 4
Youth released from group treatment homes had the highest rate (5.3) of sanctioned property
offenses, while wilderness camps and family group homes had the lowest rate (3.6) of sanctioned
property offenses. Youth released from group treatment homes had an average of 1.9 sanctioned
violent offenses, and youth released from wilderness camps an average of 1.0 sanctioned violent
offenses. Youth served by group treatment homes had the highest average of sanctioned minor
offenses (3.0), while youth served by family group homes had the lowest average of sanctioned
minor offenses (2.0).
Low-risk residential youth had an average of 2.4 felony adjudications. Youth released from group
treatment homes had an average of 3.4 felony adjudications, while wilderness camps had an
average of 2.2 prior felony adjudications.
Prior Treatment History
Prior commitments may be viewed as failure of prior treatment, resistance to treatment on the
part of the juvenile or failure of the system. System failure may be
associated with inappropriate placement, failure to consolidate the
gains made in treatment, or failure to provide appropriate and
effective aftercare treatment.
Low-risk residential youth had an average of 1.1 prior delinquency
commitments with youth released from wilderness camps
averaging 1.1 prior delinquency commitments, and youth released
from family group homes averaging 0.9.
Delinquency Careers
In combination with age at onset, the length of a delinquency career is an important indicator of a
youth's future criminal behavior into adulthood. There was an average of 28.9 months from first
referral to present commitment for the youth released from Level 4 programs. Youth released
from state-operated STOP camps had an average of 29.6 months from first referral to the first
FY 1994-95 commitment, but family group homes averaged 25.5 months. These programs
represented the highest and lowest averages among low-risk residential programs.
Program Outputs
This section examines the outputs of the three program types included in Level 4. The completion
rates, release types and the average lengths of stay of these programs are presented.
Program Completion Rates
Low-risk residential programs released a total of 1,561 cases
involving 1,494 individual youth during FY 1994-95. Group treatment
homes released 20.9% (327), wilderness camps released 65.9%
(1,028), and family group homes released 13.2% (206) of the youth
released from low-risk residential programs.
Of the youth released from wilderness camps, more than 93% (958)
completed the treatment goals of the program. Slightly less than 60%
(123) of the youth released from family group homes completed the
treatment goals of the program. Sixty-six percent (214) of the
juveniles released from group treatment homes completed the treatment goals of the program.
Group treatment homes
treat juveniles with more
serious and chronic
documented delinquent
histories than other Level
4 programs.
Why is there such a
disparity in the
completion rate of
group treatment homes
and family group
homes in comparison
to wilderness camps?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 105
Youth Released
Wilderness Camps66%
Group
Treatment Homes
21%
Family Group Homes13%
(206)(323)
(1,028)
65%60%
93%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Commitment Program
Completion Rates
Release Categories
Of the 1,311 juveniles released from care and custody, disposed to PCCC or furlough, or released
to aftercare, 47.7% received some kind of post-release services. Wilderness camps and family
group homes both released approximately 40% to post-release services, while group treatment
homes released almost 90% to post-release services.
Juveniles released from low-risk residential programs
experienced various judicial changes and transfers. There were
69 judicial changes with more than 68% (47) involving youth
from group treatment homes. In addition, there were 119 youth
transferred to a higher commitment level, 230 transferred to a lower commitment level or stepped-
down, and 53 transferred to an equivalent commitment level.
Does the high transfer rate
contribute to or explain the
longer average length of stay?
Youth released from the care and
custody of the department includes
primarily those juveniles who have
completed the requirements of the
program and are released; those who
reach the age of majority; and those who
serve the maximum term which would be
imposed on an adult.
Post-release supervision
includes PCCC, furlough, and
step-down or aftercare. A larger
proportion of youth released
from Level 2 programs received
post-release supervision (52%)
than did youth released from
Level 4 programs (40%).
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 106Level 4
Average Length of Stay
Statewide, the average length of stay (ALOS) for Level 4 programs was 62.7 days. Family group
homes had the highest ALOS (122.6 days), while wilderness camps had the shortest ALOS (40.8
days). Of all Level 4 commitment programs, STOP camps, STEP programs and wilderness camps
have specified lengths of stay which range from 28 to 60 days. Therefore, comparisons between
them and group treatment homes or family group homes are not valid.
All Level 4 Programs
Released From
Care & Custody
44%
Transfers Up
8%
Lateral Transfers
3%
Released to
Furlough or
PCCC
26%
Released to Step-
Down or Aftercare
15%
Judicial Change
4%
Group Treatment Homes
Released to Step-
Down or Aftercare
30%
Adult Prison or
Probation
1%
Transfers Up
14%
Judicial Change
14%
Released to
Furlough or
PCCC
30%
Released From
Care & Custody
7%
Lateral
Transfers
4%
Wilderness Camps
Released From
Care & Custody
56%
Adult Prison
or Probation
1%Released to Step-
Down or Aftercare
10%
Released to
Furlough or
PCCC
27%
Judicial
Change
1%
Lateral
Transfers
1%
Transfers
Up
4%
Family Group Homes
Judicial Change
7%
Transfers Up
17%
Released From
Care & Custody
36%
Released to
Furlough or
PCCC
13%
Released to Step-
Down or Aftercare
12%Adult Prison or
Probation
0%
Lateral Transfers
15%
Release Types
GroupTreatmentHomes
WildernessCampsFamilyGroupHomes
99.5
40.8
122.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
GroupTreatmentHomes
WildernessCampsFamilyGroupHomes
Commitment Program
Average Length of Stay
Lengths of stay within
this level vary
considerably. Do
differences in referral and
commitment history, or
other factors, support the
assumption that these
juveniles need less time
in treatment? Do
subsequent recidivism
rates bear out this
assumption?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 107
Recidivism to the Juvenile
System
This section examines the rate of
recidivism to the juvenile system by the
youth included in the Level 4 recidivism
cohort. This analysis includes the rates
of re-referral, re-adjudication,
subsequent community control, and re-
commitment of these youth within one
year of release.
Juvenile Re-Referral Rate
There were 1,304 youth included in the
Level 4 recidivism cohort. Within one year after their release from low-risk residential programs
61.3% (799) youth received subsequent delinquency referrals. Within one year, 68% of the youth
included in both the group treatment home (149 of 219) and family group home (86 of 126)
recidivism samples had subsequent delinquency referrals. Youth in the wilderness camp recidivism
sample had a subsequent delinquency referral rate of 58.8% within one year of release. This was
the lowest rate of subsequent referrals among all the Level 4 programs.
Juvenile Re-Adjudication
Due to the labeling effects of involvement with the juvenile justice system, re-referrals may not
fairly reflect actual re-offending patterns. Re-adjudication may be a more accurate indicator of
continuing delinquent behavior. Forty-four percent of the youth included in the Level 4 recidivism
cohort had subsequent juvenile adjudications within one year of release. More than 50% of the
group treatment and family group home recidivism samples received subsequent juvenile
adjudications within one year of release. Forty-one percent of the youth in the wilderness camp
recidivism sample received subsequent juvenile adjudication within one year of release.
Subsequent Community Control and Re-Commitments
Slightly more than one-third (601) of the
youth included in the Level 4 recidivism
cohort were re-committed within one
year of release from the program.
Fourteen (31) percent of the youth
included in the group treatment home
recidivism sample received subsequent
juvenile community control sanctions,
while 42.5% (93) were re-committed
within one year after release, which
was the highest rate among Level 4
program groups. Nearly twelve percent
(110) of the youth included in the
wilderness camp recidivism sample received subsequent community control sanctions and 31.4%
(301) were re-committed within one year of release.
68.0%
55.3%58.8%
41.0%
68.3%
51.6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Commitment Program
Juvenile Referrals and Adjudications
Referrals
Adjudications
Group
Treatment
Homes
Wilderness
Camps
Family
Group
Homes
14.2%
42.5%
11.5%
31.4%
11.1%
41.3%
0%10%20%
30%40%
50%60%70%
80%90%100%
Group
Treatment
Homes
Wilderness
Camps
Family
Group
Homes
Commitment Program
Community Control and Re-Commitment
Community Control
Re-Commitment
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 108Level 4
Recidivism to the Adult System
This section examines the rate of recidivism to the adult system by the youth included in the Level
4 recidivism cohort. This analysis includes the rates of adult arrest, conviction, probation and
prison of these youth within one year of release.
Adult Prosecution
Some of the youth released from low-risk residential programs were re-arrested, prosecuted as an
adult, and received adult sanctions. More than one-quarter (355) of the youth included in the Level
4 recidivism cohort were arrested and prosecuted as adults within one year of release. Almost
30% (281) of the youth in the wilderness camp recidivism sample and slightly more than 14% (18)
of the youth included in the family group home recidivism sample were arrested and prosecuted as
adults within one year of release.
Adult Convictions
Thirteen percent (166) of the youth in the Level 4 recidivism cohort received subsequent adult
convictions. Fifteen percent (140) of the youth included in the wilderness camp recidivism sample
received subsequent adult convictions within one year of release. Less than 5% (6) of the youth
included in the family group home recidivism sample had subsequent adult convictions within one
year of release.
0%10%
20%
30%
40%50%
60%
70%80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Adult Probation and Prison
Probation
Prison
25.6%
9.1%
29.3%
14.6%14.3%
4.8%
0%10%
20%
30%
40%
50%60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Adult Prosecutions and Convictions
Arrests
Convictions
Adult Probation and Prison
Eight percent (104) of youth received an adult sentence of probation within one year of release,
while 3.1% (41) received an adult prison sentence. Nearly 10% (93) of the youth in the wilderness
camp recidivism sample were sentenced to adult probation and 3.5% (34) were sentenced to adult
prison. Slightly more than 4% (10) of the youth included in the group treatment home recidivism
sample were sentenced to adult probation and 1.8% (4) adult prison within one year of release.
Discussion
Low-risk residential programs fell into three basic groups of programs: Group treatment homes,
wilderness camps and family group homes. Of the three, wilderness camps stand out due to their
unique program design. In contrast to the other two groups, wilderness camps featured short, fixed
stays, often in environments which might be considered environmentally secure. Because of these
differences, care should be exercised when making comparisons among the three program types.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 109
Program Performance. Average lengths of stay in the program groups varied from 41 to 123
days, a difference of 82 days. This difference is related to program design rather than
inconsistency. The difference in average length of stay between group treatment homes and
family group homes was almost three weeks, but program design may also be an important factor
in this difference. Program completion rates ranged from 59.7% to 93.2% among the three
program groups, a difference of more than 33%. The high completion rates for wilderness camps
may be due in part to characteristics of the setting and the requirements for completion.
Completion rates of group treatment and family group homes are fairly similar. Because family
group homes are typically a nuclear family setting, the effects of delinquents on the entire family
may make lateral transfers necessary. Many of the differences in these performance indicators
may be the result of differences in the referral and treatment histories of these juveniles. Group
treatment homes seemed to serve clients with more serious histories (see the table below).
Level 4 Client Characteristics
Program TypeAverage
Age at
Entry
Average
Number of
Cases and
Referrals
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Violent
Offenses
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Property
Offenses
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Minor
Offenses
Average
Number of
Adjudicated
Felonies
Group
Treatment
Homes
13.88.4 Cases
12.9 Referrals1.95.33.03.4
Wilderness
Camps15.56.2 Cases
9.6 Referrals1.03.62.22.2
Family Group
Homes13.76.5 Cases
9.4 Referrals1.33.62.02.4
Overall Recidivism. The overall rate of recidivism for this analysis is defined as re-commitment
to the juvenile system or placed on adult probation or adult incarceration. This rate across all
restrictiveness levels was 34.6%. The overall recidivism rate for Level 4 programs was 42.3%,
ranging from 40.8% to 48.4% (see the following table). The higher rate of recidivism for group
treatment homes is understandable because they serve clients with histories which suggest that
they may be more difficult to treat.
Level 4 Program Performance Indicators and Overall Recidivism Rates
Program TypeJuveniles
Served
Average
Length of
Stay
Rate of
Completion
Rate of
Aftercare
Provision
Rate of
Overall
Recidivism
Group Treatment
Homes
29199.565.4%89.5%48.4%
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 110Level 4
Wilderness Camps1,01340.893.2%39.3%40.8%
Family Group
Homes
193122.659.7%39.7%42.9%
Within-Group Comparisons. The low numbers of clients served by family group homes makes
comparisons between individual programs unreliable. Future evaluations will aggregate these, if
possible, by the larger contracted providers such as the White Foundation and the Family
Enrichment Network. Within the contracted family group treatment homes and the wilderness
camps, populations were large enough to make meaningful comparisons. The greatest consistency
was found in the average lengths of stay and the completion rates among wilderness camps. In
most other categories, performance was inconsistent within both the family group homes and
wilderness camps program types. Although the overall recidivism rate for wilderness camps was
40.8%, the rates for programs ranged from 25.4% to 49.0%. Rather than recommending a
wholesale rush to investment in wilderness camps, it is recommended that the factors contributing
to the differences in rates be identified first.
Relation Between Performance Indicators and Recidivism. Despite obvious and large
differences among the tree program groups in the factors which one would reasonably expect to
make a difference in client outcomes (length of stay, program completion, provision of post--
placement services), the difference in recidivism rates is small and seems unrelated to these
factors. In-depth quasi-experimental research featuring control groups must be conducted on
these programs to determine whether client outcomes are related to treatment designs or a
placebo or "Hawthorne Effects."3 As was the case with JASP and community control, it was
difficult to detect a clear relationship between performance indicators and recidivism. Although
the difference in average length of stay between group treatment homes and family group homes
was almost 100 days, the difference in their overall rates of recidivism was only 7.6%. Wilderness
camps had the highest rate of completion (93.2%) and family group homes had the lowest
(59.7%), but the difference in rates of recidivism was 2.1%. Similarly, group treatment homes
made provisions for post-placement services for 89.5% of juveniles, while wilderness camps and
family group homes had rates of 39.3% and 39.7%, respectively.4 The difference in overall rates
of recidivism among these programs was only 7.6%.
Based on this data, there seems to be little or no discernible relation between these performance
indicators and the overall rate of recidivism. Further research utilizing multivariate techniques to
control for offender seriousness or other factors will be necessary, however, before drawing firm
conclusions.
Such research is especially important. If there is no relation between average lengths of stay,
completion rates, rates of provision for post-placement services and recidivism rates, the next
3 Researchers investigating employee satisfaction in a Chicago factory discovered that employee
satisfaction improved each time levels of lighting increased. To confirm their hypothesis, they
lowered the lighting level, which also increased employee satisfaction. The lesson learned is that
any change can make a difference, although a temporary one. This phenomenon is referred to by
many as the Hawthorne Effect.4 The percentage who received post-placement services was computed by dividing the number of
juveniles who received aftercare, PCCC, or furlough services by the sum of juveniles released from
care and custody, PCCC, furlough, and aftercare.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 111
logical step would be to examine the money being spent on the services provided by low-risk
residential programs. The per diem rate for low-risk residential programs ranges from $58 to $85.
Group treatment homes have an average per diem rate of $80, family group homes $75 and
wilderness camps $65. Given that the average lengths of stay for group treatment homes and
family group homes are 2.5 to 3 times longer than wilderness camps, the funding implications of
these findings are obvious. If it is the case that shortening the length of stay in those programs will
have an effect on rates of recidivism, the economic advantages of such a strategy are obvious.
Multivariate analysis and process evaluation are needed to test such a possibility.
If recidivism rates higher than 40% over twelve months are unacceptable, then the proper course
of action would be to conduct in-depth process evaluations of these programs to determine
whether differences in outcomes can be attributed to differences in clients, in models or in
implementation.
Minority Over-Representation. The inability to detect Hispanic background severely
compromises our ability to reliably evaluate the effects of client or staff race on the outcomes of
programs. Black youth are over-represented in the DJJ commitment population. In Level 4 they
represent almost half the commitment population, compared to less than 22% of the Florida
population in these age groups.
Drug and Alcohol Abuse in the Level 4 Population. According to the DJJ, Level 4
programs are designed to treat juveniles with a minimal need for specialized services such as
mental health or substance abuse counseling. There is no reliable data within the Florida
Assessment, Classification and Tracking System (FACTS) that would enable us to determine
whether the juveniles within these programs do in fact present "minimal need" for such services.
Reports from juvenile assessment centers in Florida suggest that juveniles themselves under-report
usage of drugs and alcohol, and that when actually tested, up to 80% of juveniles taken into
custody evidence traces of illicit drug abuse. The results of substance abuse testing should be
mandatory for all youth eligible for commitment, and a required data element in the new Juvenile
Justice Information System.
Questions for Further Research.
Family Group Homes. The design of family group homes may have an effect on
lengths of stay and program completion rates. Even with high rates of transfers out of
these programs, their recidivism rates do not differ significantly from either of the
other Level 4 program models. Some researchers have suggested that therapeutic
foster family treatment may be more effective than other forms of treatment. Does
the performance of DJJ family group homes match these expectations? If so, are they
as cost-effective as short-term treatments? If family group homes do not perform as
well as expected, why not? What "treatment" actually occurs in these homes? Are the
home environments demonstrably more functional than those these juveniles have
left?
Age at Onset. Conceding that delinquent behavior cannot be completely controlled,
if it were possible to delay the onset of delinquent behavior through secondary
prevention efforts, would that have an effect on the life trajectory of these juveniles?
That is, would "buying time" for a juvenile to mature (and thereby to make gains in
ability and experience with impulse control) have an effect on those whose life course
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 112Level 4
would have been headed toward adult incarceration? How much late adolescent
delinquent behavior could be eliminated that way?
Research Notes. Important data elements were left out of the old client information system,
including the designation of Hispanic within the race/ethnicity category. The new information
system under development by the department will include this data, but the current inability to
aggregate Hispanics into a separate racial/ethnic category confounds attempts to detect disparate
treatment among these groups, and among the CIS categories provided as well.
For lack of better data, this analysis relies on surrogate variables such as age at onset, the
nature of previous sanctioned offenses, prior treatment history and delinquency "career" as
indicators of offender seriousness and difficulty of treatment. Data relating to the nature of
aftercare requirements, as well as the family, neighborhood, and educational environments to
which these juveniles return, play an important role in success after release. Unfortunately,
this data is unavailable. More reliable and valid indicators for seriousness of offense, difficulty
of treatment and availability of appropriate aftercare are essential for further evaluation of
delinquency treatment programs.
Future studies should examine the quality of available psychological, sociological, and biological
information on the youth served by the DJJ commitment levels to better identify factors that may
contribute to the differences in the recidivism rates between levels.
The advice of experienced treatment providers and leaders in the field of adolescent behavior
problems and criminology should be consulted in the development of a system for assessing
and classifying juveniles for evaluation purposes.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 113
Level 4 Data Tables
Program Information Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 114Level 4
Level 4 Program Information Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 115
Level 4 Program Outputs Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 116Level 4
Level 4 Program Outputs Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 117
Level 4 Client Demographics Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 118Level 4
Level 4 Client Demographics Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 119
Level 4 Client Referral History Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 120Level 4
Level 4 Client Referral History Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 121
Level 4 Client Treatment History Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 122Level 4
Level 4 Client Treatment History Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 4Page 123
Level 4 Recidivism Rates Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 124Level 4
Level 4 Program Recidivism Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 125
Moderate-Risk Residential Restrictiveness Level
(Level 6)
Level 6 residential programs serve committed youth who represent a moderate risk to themselves
and public safety and require residential placement. These programs are designed to provide a
more structured setting with a longer length of stay and more specialized services than the
minimum and low-risk programs (Levels 2 and 4).
Program Descriptions
Program models within this restrictiveness level include:
Local Residential Programs
Local residential programs provide a placement
alternative for youth who have mental health or
substance abuse problems that require specialized
treatment. These programs vary throughout the
state in regard to the ages and gender of youth
served and the program length of stay. These
programs are not primarily funded by DJJ.
Examples of these programs are local juvenile
substance abuse and mental health residential
programs.
Halfway Houses
Halfway houses serve a population of
approximately 15 to 30 all male or all female
youth between the ages of 14 and 18 years. The
treatment techniques incorporate structured
learning theory, which consists of teaching skills
through modeling, role playing, providing
feedback and encouragement to youth to exhibit
newly learned behavior. Also, behavior
management techniques are utilized which
emphasize social skills, academics, pre-vocational
or vocational training and life skills. The length of
stay is four to six months. Examples of halfway
houses are Volusia Halfway House in Daytona
Beach and the RAFT program near Tallahassee.
Wilderness and Work Programs
Long-Term Therapeutic Wilderness Camps. Long-term therapeutic wilderness camps
serve a population of approximately 30 to 50 emotionally disturbed all male or all female youth,
generally ages 11 to 16 years. The program is designed to provide a camp environment which
emphasizes outdoor experiential learning, structured peer interaction, teamwork and personal
accountability. The length of stay is 12 to 18 months. Eckerd wilderness camps, such as Camp E-
Nini-Hassee in Inverness, are examples of this program model.
Section 39.01(59)(c), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996).
Moderate-risk residential.--Youth assessed
and classified for placement in programs in
this restrictiveness level represent a
moderate risk to public safety. Programs are
designed for children who require close
supervision but do not need placement in
facilities that are physically secure.
Programs in the moderate-risk residential
restrictiveness level provide 24-hour awake
supervision, custody, care, and treatment.
Upon specific appropriation, a facility at this
restrictiveness level may have a security
fence around the perimeter of the grounds of
the facility and may be hardware-secure or
staff-secure. The staff at a facility at this
restrictiveness level may seclude a child who
is a physical threat to himself or others.
Mechanical restraint may also be used when
necessary. Programs or program models in
this restrictiveness level include: halfway
houses, START Centers, the Dade Intensive
Control Program, licensed substance abuse
residential programs, and moderate-term
wilderness programs designed for committed
delinquent youth that are operated or
contracted by the Department of Juvenile
Justice. Section 39.061 applies to children in
moderate-risk residential programs.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 126Level 6
Wilderness Camps. Wilderness camps serve a
population of approximately 30 all male or all female
youth, typically between the ages of 13 and 19 years.
Because these programs are usually sited in isolated rural
areas making an escape difficult to achieve, they are referred to as being environmentally secure.
The program provides treatment that is similar to that offered in a halfway house environment, but
places more emphasis on outdoor work projects, physical exercise and experiential learning. The
length of stay is three to six months. Eckerd Challenge North in Brooksville is an example of this
program model.
Intensive Vocational Work Programs. Intensive vocational work programs will serve a
population of approximately 15 to 30 all male or all female youth, generally aged 14 to 18 years.
The program is designed for youth committed for a felony or first degree misdemeanor and who
often have a prior commitment placement. The program will emphasize vocational and aptitude
assessment, employability skills, vocational training culminating in a trade certificate, and
academics. One of the goals of the program is a certification in a trade. The length of stay is four
to six months. To date, no programs of this type are currently operational.
Short-Term Adolescent Rehabilitative Treatment Center (START Center). Short-term
adolescent rehabilitative treatment centers serve a population of up to 24 all male or all female
youth, generally 13 years of age or younger, but occasionally serve youth up to 16 years of age.
This model is similar to a halfway house in provision of services, but generally targets a younger
population. The length of stay is four to six months. Duval START Center in Jacksonville is the
last remaining example of this program model.
Special Needs Programs
Dual diagnosis programs serve a population of approximately 10 to 30 all male or all female youth
between the ages of 14 and 18 years. The program provides specialized clinical treatment services
for youth with secondary problems such as substance abuse, mental health, developmental
disability or sexual behavior dysfunction. The length of stay is four to six months. The Guys Dual
Diagnosis Program in Sanford is an example of this model.
Level 6 Program Grouping
There are four major program models within Level 6: halfway houses, local residential programs,
special needs programs and work and wilderness programs. Halfway houses include 15 state-
operated male halfway house programs, 19 contracted male halfway houses, and seven state-
operated and contracted female programs. There are 29 local residential programs, 11 special
needs programs, and 11 work and wilderness programs.
Gate I and II, Merit I and II, and Seminole Work and Learn I and II are actually three halfway
houses whose beds are allocated to Districts 1 and 2. The youth populations of these three
programs are reported separately and reflect allocation of beds by district. The Hillsborough
Halfway House A and the Hillsborough Halfway House are one state-operated halfway house
program, but the latter serves only District 6 youth for the purpose of providing a vocational auto
body program component.
What are the qualifications of
those employees responsible for
administering theory-based
treatments such as structured
learning theory?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 127
Population Profile
There were 3,382 individual youth released from Level 6 programs during FY 1994-95. State-
operated halfway house programs released 1,031 youth, work and wilderness programs released
721 youth, contracted halfway house programs released 631, general contracted local residential
programs released 431 youth, female halfway house program released 299 youth and special
needs program released 269 youth.
Gender and Race
Of the 3,382 youth released from Level 6
programs 87.6% were male and 12.4%
were female. While most of the Level 6
programs are gender specific, local
residential programs and several of the
special needs programs are co-
educational. Local residential programs
have the highest average of females
served, 18.1% of these two program
models.
The racial distribution of youth released
from Level 6 was 50.1% white and 49.2%
black, 0.3% Asian, 0.1% Native American
and the race was unknown for 0.2% of the youth. This racial mix differs from the racial
distribution of Florida's population between the ages of 10 to 17
years, which is comprised of 76.1% white youth, 21.7% black,
2.2% other youth and less than 1% other. The percentage of
black youth released at this level is more than twice their
representation in the 10 to 17 year old population in Florida.
State-operated halfway houses released the highest percentage
of black youth (58.4%) while the lowest percentage (29.2%)
were released from local residential programs.
Releases by Gender
Male87.6%
Female12.4%
Distribution by gender
was similar among
Levels 2, 4, and 6. This
was true for race as
well.
Level 6 Releases
White
50.2%
Black
49.2%
Asian
0.3%
Unknown
0.2%
Native
American
0.1%
Racial Composition
Florida's Population Ages 10 - 17
White
76.1%
Black
21.7%
Asian
2.2%
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 128Level 6
Age at Admission
The average age of the youth at the time of admission
to a Level 6 program was 15.3. Both contracted and
state-operated halfway house programs had the
highest average age (15.5), while youth in the local
residential and work and wilderness programs had the
lowest (15.1).
Client History
This section includes an examination of the age at first referral, prior referrals, prior sanctions, and
prior commitments of the youth released from aftercare programs. An examination of the
delinquency careers of these youth is also included in this section.
Age at Onset
Prior research has indicated that the earlier delinquent behaviors are identified, the more effective
treatment strategies will be at reducing or eliminating these delinquent behaviors. Consequently,
the age at which juveniles
officially enter the juvenile
justice system through a
documented delinquency
referral may be an important
factor in developing treatment
strategies. The average age at
which juveniles in Level 6
programs received their first
delinquency referral was 12.6
years. The average age at first
referral for the youth released
from both special needs
programs and female halfway
house programs was the
The average age at admission was
similar across Levels 2, 4, and 6,
even when the average age for
offenders directly committed to
Level 2 was considered.
Age at Admission
(Average)
181818181818
15.115.515.515.415.115.4
8
1112121112
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Commitment Programs
Oldest
Average
Youngest
Age at First Referral
(Average)
171717171717
12.712.512.513.012.313.0
666
8
66
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Commitment Programs
Oldest
Average
Youngest
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 129
highest at 13 years, while work and wilderness programs had the lowest average age, 12.3 years
at first referral. Five of the Level 6 programs had youth admitted to their program whose first
referral occurred at age 6 years or younger.
Delinquency Referral History
Youth released from Level 6
programs had an average of 14.1
prior delinquency referrals. Youth
released from state-operated
halfway house programs had the
highest number of prior referrals
(15.3) and youth released from
female halfway house programs
had the lowest (11.6).
Youth released from Level 6
programs had an average of 1.4
prior diverted referrals. Youth
released from local residential
programs had the highest average
of prior diverted referrals (1.9). In
contrast, youth released from
female halfway house programs
had the lowest average of one
prior diverted referrals among the Level 6 programs.
Prior Sanctioned Offenses
Prior judicial or non-judicial
sanctioned offense history
provides valuable insight into the
population of youth served. A
referral was considered
sanctioned if there was some
evidence that a consequence was
imposed as the result of behavior
which did in fact occur. Level 6
programs averaged 10.6 prior
sanctioned offenses during FY
1994-95. Work and wilderness
programs averaged the highest
number of prior sanctioned
offenses (11.4) while female
halfway house programs averaged the lowest (8.9). Property offenses were the most frequent
type of sanctioned offenses. Statewide, these youth averaged 5.0 prior property offenses, 3.2 prior
minor offenses, and 1.9 prior violent offenses. Youth released from work and wilderness
programs had the highest average of prior property offenses (5.9), while female halfway house
programs averaged the lowest (3.2).
12.814.115.3
11.6
14.413.5
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
Commitment Programs
Prior Delinquency Referrals
(Average)
5.2
1.7
4.8
1.9
5.1
1.9
3.2
2.0
5.9
1.9
4.2
1.9
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Commitment Programs
Previously Sanctioned Offenses
Property Offenses
Violent Offenses
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 130Level 6
These programs were fairly consistent in the level of violent and minor offenses. Female halfway
house programs had a slightly higher rate of prior violent offenses (2.0). In contrast, local
residential programs had the lowest average number of violent offenses (1.7).
Level 6 youth averaged 3.6 prior adjudicated felonies. Youth released from work and wilderness
programs had the highest average number of prior adjudicated felonies (4.1) and female halfway
house programs averaged the lowest (2.5).
Prior Treatment History
Most of the youth released from Level 6 programs had prior commitments, and an average of one
prior commitment. The percentage of prior commitments among these programs varied little. The
prior commitment history of the youth released from Level 6 programs was fairly consistent with a
range of 0.9 to 1.1 prior commitments. This is also true for the number of prior resources.
Time from First Referral to Present Commitment
There was a statewide average of 33.6 months from the first referral
to present commitment for the youth released from Level 6 programs.
Contracted halfway house programs accounted for the highest
average of 36.7 months, while special needs, female and local
residential programs averaged approximately 29 months.
Program Outputs
This section includes a review of the outputs of the Level 6 programs.
The completion rates, release types, and average length of stay for these programs are presented
in this section.
Program Completion Rates
There were a total of 3,900 releases from
Level 6 programs during FY 1994-95
involving 3,382 individual youth. Some of
these youth had multiple admission and
releases. State-operated halfway house
programs released 1,243, work and
wilderness programs released 790,
contracted halfway house programs
released 682, local residential programs
released 528, female halfway houses
released 374 cases, and there were 283
releases from special needs programs.
More than 64.5% of the releases from
Level 6 programs occurred upon
completion of the treatment goals of the
program. More than three-fourths of all
releases from work and wilderness programs (618) and special needs programs (218) were
program completions. Slightly more than half (190) of the releases from female halfway house
programs were program completions.
The average time from
first referral to present
commitment among
youth committed to
Level 2 was 26.7
months; Level 4 was
28.9 months and Level
6 was 34.7 months.
54.2%
68.0%59.5%50.8%
78.2%77.0%
0%10%
20%30%40%
50%60%70%80%
90%100%
Commitment Programs
Completion Rates
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 131
Release Categories
State-operated halfway house
programs released 31.9% of
the 3,900 Level 6 cases. Work
and wilderness programs
released 20.3%; contracted
halfway houses released
17.5%; local residential
programs released 13.5%;
female halfway houses
released 9.6%; and special
needs programs released 7.3%
of the total.
Female halfway houses
transferred the highest
percentage of cases to adult
probation or adult incarceration (31.0%). Special needs programs released the lowest percentage
of cases to adult probation or prison (7.8%). The
remainder of Level 6 program groups released
between 9 and 23% to adult probation or prison.
Of the total number of releases from care and
custody to PCCC or furlough and to step-down or
aftercare, special needs released the highest
percentage with provisions for post-release services
(95.5%). Local residential programs released the
lowest percentage (69.8%)
Average
Length of
Stay
Statewide, the
average length
of stay (ALOS)
for Level 6
programs was
121.7 days.
Local residential
programs have
the highest
ALOS (175.6
days), while
female halfway
house programs had the shortest ALOS (83.1 days).
Youth Released
Local Res.
13.5%
Contracted HWH17.5%
State HWH31.9%
Female HWH
9.6%
W & W20.3%
Special7.3%
Only 3.3% of all Level 6 releases were
lateral transfers, compared to 3.4% for
Level 4 programs and 14.4% for Level 2
programs. Level 2 program lateral transfers
may be inflated by the number of transfers
from day treatment programs to re-entry
programs.
Release Types - All Level 6 Programs
Released to
Step-Down or Aftercare
45.0%
Adult Prison
or Probation15.0%
Judicial
Change10.1%
Transfers Up2.8%
Lateral
Transfers3.3%
Released
From Care & Custody
8.8%Released to
Furlough or
PCCC15.0%
175.6
107.1
91.283.1
142.3152.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Commitment Programs
Average Length of Stay
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 132Level 6
Recidivism to the Juvenile System
An examination of the rates of recidivism to the juvenile system by the youth in the Level 6
recidivism cohort is included in this section. This analysis includes the rates of re-referral, re-
adjudication, subsequent community control, and re-commitment of these youth within one year of
release.
Juvenile Re-Referral Rate
There were 2,619 youth included in the recidivism cohort for Level 6 programs. Within one year
of release from Level 6 programs 54.3% of the youth received a subsequent referral. Of the
youth released from work and wilderness programs, 61.4% received a subsequent referral within
one year of release. More than 37% of the youth in the female halfway house programs
recidivism sample had a subsequent delinquency referral within one year of release. These were
the highest and lowest rate of subsequent juvenile referrals among the Level 6 programs.
Juvenile Re-Adjudication
Due to the labeling effects of
involvement with the juvenile
justice system, re-referrals
may not fairly reflect actual
re-offending patterns. Re-
adjudication may be a more
accurate indicator of
continuing delinquent behavior.
More than 32% of the youth in
the Level 6 recidivism cohort
had subsequent juvenile
adjudications within one year
of release. More than 38% of
the recidivism sample from
work and wilderness
programs, and 22.4% from female halfway house programs, received subsequent adjudications
within one year of release. These were the highest and lowest percentages of youth who received
a subsequent juvenile adjudication within one year of release.
Subsequent Community Control and Re-Commitments
Eight percent of the youth included in the recidivism sample received subsequent community
control sanctions within one year of release and 23.9% of the youth were re-committed within one
year of release from the program.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Juvenile Referrals and Adjudications
Referrals
Adjudications
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 133
Almost 11% of the youth included in the female halfway house programs recidivism sample
received subsequent juvenile community control sanctions, while 7.3% of the youth released from
state-operated halfway house programs
received subsequent juvenile community
control sanctions within a year of
release. Thirty percent of the youth
included in the work and wilderness
programs recidivism sample were re-
committed, while 13.6% of the youth
released from female halfway house
programs were re-committed within one
year of release.
Recidivism to the Adult
System
This section examines the rate of recidivism to the adult system by the youth included in the Level
6 recidivism cohort. The rates of adult arrest and prosecution, conviction, probation and
incarceration of these youth within one year of release are included in the analysis.
Adult Prosecution
Within one year of release from Level 6 programs 36.4% of youth in the recidivism cohort were
arrested and prosecuted as adults. Work and wilderness programs had the highest rate of arrest
and prosecution in the adult system, 42.7%, while female halfway house programs had the lowest
rate with 20.1%.
Adult Adjudication
More than 19% of youth in the Level 6
recidivism cohort received a subsequent
adjudication in the adult system within
one year of release. State-operated
halfway house programs had the highest
percentage of youth who received adult
adjudications within one year of release
at 23.4% and female halfway house
programs had the lowest percentage at
7.5%.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Program
Community Control and
Re-Commitment
Community Control
Re-Commitment
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Commitment Programs
Adult Prosecutions and Convictions
Arrests
Convictions
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 134Level 6
Adult Probation and Prison
More than 16% of the youth in
the Level 6 recidivism cohort
received adult court sentences,
including 11.0% to adult probation
and 5.2% to adult prison within
one year of release. State-
operated halfway house
programs had the highest
percentage of youth who were
sentenced to adult probation at
13.5%, and female halfway
house programs had the lowest at
4.2%. State-operated halfway
house programs had the highest
percentage of youth committed to
adult prison at 6.8% while youth released from local residential programs had the lowest
percentage at 1.1%.
Discussion
Because of their multiple program designs, local residential programs and special needs programs
are difficult to evaluate and compare with other program groupings. The other program groups,
contracted halfway houses, state-operated halfway houses, female halfway houses, and work and
wilderness programs are fairly homogeneous in terms of client characteristics and have been
grouped together for comparison purposes (see table below).
Level 6 Client Characteristics
Program TypeAverage
Age at
Entry
Average
Number of
Cases and
Referrals
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Violent
Offenses
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Property
Offenses
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Minor
Offenses
Average
Number of
Adjudicated
Felonies
Contracted
Halfway Houses15.58.7 Cases
14.1 Referrals
1.94.83.23.7
State-operated
Halfway Houses15.59.4 Cases
15.3 Referrals
1.95.13.23.7
Female Halfway
Houses15.48.4 Cases
11.6 Referrals
2.03.23.22.5
Work and
Wilderness
Programs
15.18.8 Cases
14.4 Referrals1.95.93.34.1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Adult Probation and Prison
Probation
Prison
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 135
With the exception of female halfway houses, the average characteristics of the juveniles in these
programs appears to be consistent. Unlike the short-term wilderness programs found in Level 4,
Level 6 work and wilderness programs have a designed length of stay as long or longer that that
of the Level 6 halfway house models. It is important to note that the long-term therapeutic
wilderness camp models have lengths of stay between 12 and 18 months. In FY 1994-95, there
were five such camps operated by Eckerd Family Youth Alternatives. Rather than being identified
by an individual resource code, however, each district has a unique resource code which is used to
represent all five of the camps. There are potentially 15 resource codes which could refer to these
camps, and it is impossible to separate out data on any one of the camps for the purposes of
evaluation.
Program Performance. Despite a fairly homogeneous client population, program performance
among the four major program types was inconsistent. Average lengths of stay for state-operated
halfway houses and female halfway houses were fairly similar. Contracted halfway house
programs and work and wilderness programs had averages of three to eight weeks longer. Even
when the long-term therapeutic camps were excluded, the work and wilderness camps average
length of stay was 132.7 days. Contracted halfway house programs and work and wilderness
programs did have higher rates of completion. The most consistent pattern of performance among
the four programs was their attention to the provision of post-placement services.
Overall Recidivism. Rates for overall recidivism among these programs ranged from 18.2% to
44.0%. Gender differences may account for a large part of this difference. Among the three
predominantly male programs, recidivism ranged from 37.7 to 44.0 percent, a difference of six
percentage points.
Level 6 Program Performance Indicators and Overall Recidivism Rates
Program TypeJuveniles
Served
Average
Length of
Stay
Rate of
Completion
Rate of
Aftercare
Provision
Rate of
Overall
Recidivism
Contracted Halfway
Houses631107.168.0%89.1%37.7%
State-operated
Halfway Houses1,03191.259.5%87.1%38.5%
Female Halfway
Houses29983.150.8%79.8%18.2%
Work and
Wilderness
Programs
721142.378.2%93.8%44.0%
Within-Group Comparisons. The numbers of clients served by programs within these four
groups makes some comparison between individual programs unreliable. Among programs with at
least 20 juveniles released, performance was inconsistent within most categories.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 136Level 6
The range among average lengths of stay within the contracted halfway house group
was 72 days, within the state-operated halfway house group, 66 days, female halfway
houses, 75, and for work and wilderness programs the range was 149 days (not
including the long-term programs).
The range among rates of completion for contracted halfway houses was 34
percentage points; within the state-operated halfway house group, 46 percentage
points; within the female halfway house group, 68 percentage points, and within the
work and wilderness program group, 46 percentage points.
The range among rates for overall recidivism within the contracted halfway house
group was 34 percentage points, within the state-operated halfway house group, 42
percentage points; within the female halfway house group, 25 percentage points, and
within the work and wilderness program group, 34 percentage points.
Viewed as a group, the performance of each of the individual programs using a common model
may seem acceptable, but the inconsistent performance within each group raises serious questions
about their implementation and management. Any attempt to show the relative effectiveness of a
program model is almost impossible.
Relation between Performance Indicators and Overall Recidivism. It was difficult to
detect a clear relationship between performance indicators and recidivism among Level 6
programs. Even with a longer length of stay and higher rate of completion, contracted halfway
houses had no better recidivism rate than state-operated half-way houses. Work and wilderness
programs, whose length of stay and completion rates were significantly higher than all three of the
other program groups, had the highest rate of recidivism.
Minority Over-Representation. The pattern of an equal percentage of black youth and white
youth seen at Levels 2, 4, and 6 has some interesting exceptions. Wilderness programs at Level 4
and Level 6 show slightly higher percentages of white youth participating. In addition, 65.1% of
Level 6 special needs clients and 70.1% of Level 6 local residential programs clients were white.
Special needs programs and local residential programs specialize in treatment of drug and alcohol
additions and mental health problems. Unless it can be demonstrated that these problems are less
prevalent among minorities, these data raise important issues. This is an alarming trend which
merits immediate attention on the part of DJJ managers.
Questions for Further Research.
Local Residential Programs. How similar are the functions of local residential programs
and the Level 6 special needs programs? A process evaluation should be conducted to
determine where provision of services overlap, and to permit comparisons with regard to client
outcomes, costs and recidivism to be made.
Gender Differences in Response to Treatment. In spite of low average lengths of stay
and low rates of completion, female halfway houses have an outstanding low rate of
recidivism (18.2%). Evaluation of the factors which contribute to the lower rate of overall
recidivism among females should be conducted.
Research Notes. Each of the long-term wilderness camps should be given a unique code to be
used by all 15 districts so that their performance can be evaluated.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 137
Level 6 Data Tables
Program Information Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 138Level 6
Level 6 Program Information Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 139
Level 6 Program Information Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 140Level 6
Level 6 Program Information Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 141
Level 6 Program Outputs Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 142Level 6
Level 6 Program Outputs Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 143
Level 6 Program Outputs Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 144Level 6
Level 6 Program Outputs Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 145
Level 6 Client Demographics Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 146Level 6
Level 6 Client Demographics Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 147
Level 6 Client Demographics Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 148Level 6
Level 6 Client Demographics Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 149
Level 6 Client Referral History Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 150Level 6
Level 6 Client Referral History Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 151
Level 6 Client Referral History Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 152Level 6
Level 6 Client Referral History Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 153
Level 6 Client Treatment History Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 154Level 6
Level 6 Client Treatment History Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 155
Level 6 Client Treatment History Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 156Level 6
Level 6 Client Treatment History Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 157
Level 6 Recidivism Rates Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 158Level 6
Level 6 Program Recidivism Rates Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 6Page 159
Level 6 Program Recidivism Rates Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 160Level 6
Level 6 Program Recidivism Rates Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 161
High- and Maximum-Risk Residential Programs
(Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps)
Level 8 programs serve youth who represent a high risk to themselves and public safety and
therefore require residential placement. These programs provide a structured setting with
specialized services to address needs of
youth and a longer length of stay than lower
restrictiveness levels.
During FY 1994-95, the Legislature created
Level 10 programs. The Legislature
reclassified Level 8 serious habitual offender
programs (SHOPs) as Level 10 maximum-
risk residential programs. These programs
operated as maximum-risk residential until
October 1, 1996, when they were
reclassified to Level 8 by changes in law.
Because their operation, with the exception
of length of stay, remained similar to that of
other Level 8 programs during this period,
SHOPs are evaluated alongside Level 8
programs. Though one Level 10 program,
Omega Manatee, was funded and
operational, it released no juveniles during
FY 1994-95 due to the longer mandatory
length of stay.
Level 10 programs serve youth who
represent the most serious risk to themselves
and public safety. These programs also
provide a structured setting with specialized
services to meet the needs of these youth. In
addition, they require the longest length of
stay, 18 to 36 months, within the continuum
of services.
Boot camp programs were also operational
during this period. Although there were
Legislative changes in the ages of the juveniles admitted, and modifications in the restrictiveness
level to which boot camps were assigned, it is difficult to detect any major operational differences
between programs other than the designated restrictiveness level. Therefore, they are grouped
together for the purpose of evaluation.
Program Descriptions
Program models within these restrictiveness levels include contracted intensive halfway house
programs, SHOPs, long-term maximum security programs, training school programs, and boot
camps. Level 8 special needs programs include a developmentally disabled offender program, two
Section 39.01(59)(d), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996).
High-risk residential.--Youth assessed and classified
for this level of placement require close supervision
in a structured residential setting that provides 24-
hour-per-day secure custody, care, and supervision.
Placement in programs in this level is prompted by a
concern for public safety that outweighs placement
in programs at lower restrictiveness levels.
Programs or program models in this level are staff or
physically secure residential commitment facilities
and include: training schools, intensive halfway
houses, residential sex offender programs, long-term
wilderness programs designed exclusively for
committed delinquent youth, boot camps, secure
halfway house programs, and the Broward Control
Treatment Center. Section 39.061 applies to
children placed in programs in this restrictiveness
level.
Maximum-risk residential.--Youth assessed and
classified for this level of placement require close
supervision in a maximum security residential
setting that provides 24-hour-per-day secure
custody, care, and supervision. Placement in a
program in this level is prompted by a demonstrated
need to protect the public. Programs or program
models in this level are maximum-secure-custody,
long-term residential commitment facilities that are
intended to provide a moderate overlay of
educational, vocational, and behavioral-modification
services. Section 39.061 applies to children placed
in programs in this restrictiveness level.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 162Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
sexual offender programs, a long-term environmentally secure program, clinical psychiatric
programs, and an intensive residential treatment program for 10 to 13 year old offenders.
Level 8 Programs
Intensive Halfway Houses. These serve a population of approximately 15 to 30 all male or all
female offenders between the ages of 14 and 18 years. These programs provide services similar
to a halfway house within the moderate-risk level. In addition to more intense physical, staff and
procedural security, there is also increased structure and behavioral management in order to
ensure protection of the public. The length of stay is six to nine months. Examples of this program
model include Greenville Academy in Greenville and Hamilton Intensive Halfway House in
Jasper.
Training schools. These are 100-bed
programs that serve males ranging from 14 to
18 years of age who have committed felonies
or violent misdemeanors. These programs
provide services through a multi-disciplinary
approach within an institutional setting. Services
include behavior management, academics,
vocational training, mental health and substance
abuse treatment, physical fitness activities and
health care. The designed length of stay is nine
months. The Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys
located in Marianna and Eckerd Youth
Development Center in Okeechobee are the
only training schools in the state.
Level 8 High-Risk Special Needs
Programs
Developmentally Disabled Offender Program. The
developmentally disabled offender program serves a
population of approximately 15 to 25 developmentally
disabled all male or all female offenders, ranging in age from
13 to 18 years. The program serves youth who have been
diagnosed by a statutorily authorized diagnostic and
evaluation team as having subnormal IQs not less than 40.
The program employs a therapeutic community environment
based on control theory, structured learning and behavior
management techniques which facilitate positive behavior
change and remedial education. The intended length of stay is six to nine months. The
Hillsborough Alternative Residential Program (HARP) in Seffner is the sole example of this
program model.
Sexual Offender Program. Sexual offender programs serve approximately 20 to 30 male
sexual offenders generally ranging in age from 14 to 18 years. These programs provide a
continuum of treatment services specifically tailored to the needs of sexual offenders, and focus
on overcoming denial, treatment of maladaptive thought patterns, and alleviating or reducing
dysfunctional sexual behaviors. The designed length of stay is six to twelve months. The Elaine
Section 39.01(50)(e), Fla. Stat.
Youth assessed and classified for this level
(Level 10) of placement require close
supervision in a maximum security
residential setting that provides 24-hour-
per-day secure custody, care, and
supervision. Placement in a program in this
level is prompted by a demonstrated need
to protect the public. Programs or program
models in this level are maximum-secure-
custody, long-term residential commitment
facilities that are intended to provide a
moderate overlay of educational,
vocational, and behavioral-modification
services.
Two Level 8 programs,
Inner Harbor Hospital and
BCTC, were special needs
programs designed for
females only. The
department has no specific
program model for these
resources.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 163
Gordon Treatment Center in Hollywood and Manatee Adolescent Treatment Services (MATS) in
Bradenton are the two programs operating under this model.
Long-Term Environmentally Secure Program. These program serve juveniles tried as
adults and sentenced back to the juvenile system. This program serves a population of
approximately 20 to 25 male offenders between the ages of 15 and 18 years. It operates in an
environmentally secure setting in a remote, isolated rural location, and provides academic and
vocational training with moderate overlay services such as mental health and drug abuse
treatment, and emphasizes outdoor activities, labor intensive work projects and behavior
management. The intended length of stay is 12 months. The Florida Environmental Institute in
Venus is the sole example of this program model.
Clinical Psychiatric Programs. Clinical psychiatric programs serve a population of
approximately 20 to 35 all male or all female youth between the ages of 14 and 18 years who have
generally committed serious felony offenses and usually have significant offense histories and
have a diagnosis of mental health or substance abuse problems. In addition to the traditional
services characteristic of a halfway house model, this program provides mental health and
substance abuse treatment services. These services are provided by licensed and certified
therapeutic professionals. The length of stay is six to nine months. The Charter Pinellas Treatment
Center in Largo and the Mandala Adolescent Treatment Center in New Port Richey are
examples of this program model.
Intensive Residential Treatment For 10-13 Year Old
Offenders. This program serves a population of approximately 25 young
male offenders, providing intensive treatment services which address the
areas of education, behavior management, substance abuse, mental
health, sexual behavior dysfunction, life skills, gang-related behavior, and
family issues. The length of stay is nine to twelve months. The sole
example of this program model, informally referred to as a "junior SHOP
program," is the Hillsborough Juvenile Intensive Residential Treatment
Program in Tampa.
Serious Habitual Offender Programs (SHOP)
SHOPs, considered Level 10 programs for this report, serve a population of no more than 25 all
male or all female youth. These programs employ physical security features and procedures to
ensure protection of the public. The services provided by these programs are statutorily mandated
and the length of stay is nine to twelve months. The North American Family Institute in De Funiak
Springs and Hillsborough SHOP in Seffner were examples of this program model. SHOP
Programs reverted to Level 8 high-risk residential restrictiveness on October 1, 1996.
Boot Camps
Level 4 Boot Camps. Boot camps employ a highly structured shock incarceration approach
which emphasizes paramilitary training, physical and mental discipline and prosocial activities.
They serve a population of approximately 30 all male or all female youth between 14 and 18 years
of age at the time of adjudication. This program model generally serves youth who have
committed second or third degree felonies with mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense.
Florida law requires a minimum length of stay in the residential component of two months,
followed by a minimum of two months of aftercare services. To date, no programs of this type are
currently operational, but are under development.
During this reporting
period, two
programs in this
section served
delinquent female
youth - a boot camp
in Polk County and
Inner Harbour in
Franklin County.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 164Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
Level 6 Boot Camp. Boot camps serve approximately 30 all male or all female youth between
14 and 18 years of age at the time of adjudication. The program generally serves youth who have
committed felony offenses other than capital, life or violent first degree felonies. The program
employs a highly structured shock incarceration approach which emphasizes paramilitary training,
physical and mental discipline and prosocial activities. Florida law requires a minimum length of
stay in the residential component of four months, followed by a minimum of four months of
aftercare services.
Level 8 Boot Camp. Level 8 boot camps serve a population of approximately 30 all male or all
female youth between 14 and 18 years of age at the time of adjudication. This program employs a
highly structured shock incarceration approach which emphasizes paramilitary training, physical
and mental discipline and prosocial activities. Florida law requires a minimum length of stay in the
residential component of four months, followed by a minimum of four months of aftercare
services. The typical length of stay is six to eight months in the residential component.
Level 10 Programs
Long-Term Maximum Security Program. The long-term maximum security program is
designed to serve a population of 25 or more all male or all female youth who have been classified
as the most serious juvenile offenders. The program serves youth ages 15 to 19 years with
provisions in statute to retain them in the program until 21 years of age when necessary. This
program emphasizes protection of the public by employing maximum physical security features
and procedures. It provides a moderate overlay of educational, vocational, and behavioral
modification services. Florida law requires a minimum length of stay of 18 to 36 months. Because
these programs were relatively new, no juveniles completed the minimum length of stay. Omega
Manatee, located in Palmetto, was the sole example of this program model during 1994-95.
Population Profile
This section includes an examination of the demographic characteristics of juveniles released from
Level 8, 10 and boot camp programs during the period from July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995.
The five program models released a total of 1,119 individual juveniles: contracted intensive
halfway house programs, 201; serious habitual offender programs, 124; training schools, 254; boot
camps, 450; and high-risk special needs programs, 90.
Gender and Race
Of the 1,119 individual juveniles released during
FY 1994-95, 96.4% were male and 3.6% were
female. High-risk special needs programs released
the largest percentage of females of all Level 8,
10 and boot camp programs (42.2%).
The racial distribution of youth released from high-
and maximum-risk non-residential programs was
41.0% white, 58.4% black and less than one
percent other minorities. Black youth made up
almost 65% of the youth released from training
schools. The racial composition of the youth
released at these levels is at variance with the racial distribution of
Releases by Gender
Male96.4%
Female3.6%
Nearly three out of
every five juveniles
released from Level
8, 10 and boot camp
programs were
black.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 165
Florida's population between the ages of 10 and 17 years. Whereas black youth comprised 21.7%
of Florida's juvenile population, they comprised 58.4% of all the youth released from Level 8, 10
and boot camp programs. Their representation in these programs is nearly three times the
representation of black youth in the state's general population.
Age at Admission
The average age of the youth at
admission to these programs was 15.5
years. This age range was consistent
across all of the programs with the
exception of high-risk special needs
programs which had an average age of
15.2 years.
Client History
This section includes data regarding the
age at first referral, the average number
of prior referrals, prior sanctions, and prior commitments of the youth released from high- and
maximum-risk residential programs and boot camps. An
examination of the delinquency careers of these youth is also
included in this section.
Racial Composition
Level 8, 10 & Boot Camp Releases
White41.0%
Black58.4%
Asian0.4%Unknown0.1%Native American0.1%
Florida's Population Ages 10 - 17
White76.1%
Black21.7%
Asian2.2%
Age at Admission
(Average)
181818
19
18
15.615.215.615.415.6
13
12
13
14
13
10
12
14
16
18
20
Commitment Programs
Oldest
Average
Youngest
The age at onset for youth
released from these
programs did not differ from
youth released from lower
restrictiveness levels.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 166Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
Age at Onset
The age at which juveniles officially enter the juvenile justice system through a documented
delinquency referral may be an important factor in developing treatment strategies. Prior research
has indicated that when delinquent behaviors are identified and addressed early, the interventions
are more likely to be effective at reducing or eliminating these behaviors. The average age at first
referral for youth released from these programs was 12.2 years. The average age at first referral
for youth released from high-risk special needs programs was 12.7 years, which was the highest
of all the Level 8, 10 and boot camp programs. Training schools had an average age of 11.8 years
at first referral, which was the
lowest. The range of ages at onset
is displayed below.
Delinquency Referral History
The youth released from these
commitment programs had an
average of 11.9 cases and 20.3
prior delinquency referrals. A case
is defined as all arrests and charges
occurring on one day. Youth released from
training schools had the highest average
number of prior delinquency cases and
referrals among all the programs included in
this section (14.0 cases and 23.7 referrals),
and boot camps had the lowest (10.5 cases
and 18.6 referrals).
Youth released from these programs had an
average of 1.6 diverted referrals. Youth
released from training schools had the
highest average (2.4) of diverted referrals. In contrast, youth released from boot camp programs
had the lowest average (1.1) of diverted referrals.
Prior Sanctioned Offenses
Age at First Referral
(Average)
1716171617
12.112.711.81212.5
7
9
666
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Commitment Programs
Oldest
Average
Youngest
19.618.6
23.721.9
18.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
Commitment Programs
Prior Delinquency Referrals
(Average)
Youth released from Eckerd
Training School had more
extensive delinquency histories
than youth released from Dozier
Training School. Eckerd youth
had an average of 23.4
sanctioned offenses, while
Dozier youth averaged 14.1.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 167
The prior sanctioned offense history of a
youth may be the most informative record of
a youth's delinquent behavior. It indicates
whether the offense was against persons or
property, or represents any number of minor
offenses. A referral was considered
sanctioned if there was some evidence that a
consequence was imposed as the result of
behavior which did in fact occur. Youth
released from these programs had an average
of 15.4 sanctioned offenses. This included an
average of 8.2 sanctioned property offenses,
2.8 sanctioned violent offenses and 4.0
sanctioned minor offenses. Youth released
from serious habitual offender programs had
the highest rate of sanctioned property offenses (9.7), while youth released from high-risk special
needs programs had the lowest rate of sanctioned property offenses (6.8). Youth released from
high-risk special needs programs had the highest average of sanctioned violent offenses (4.0),
while youth released from boot camps had the lowest (2.1).
Many of the youth released by the programs at these levels also had prior minor sanctions. Youth
released from training schools had the highest average of sanctioned minor offenses (5.0), while
youth released from high-risk special needs programs had the lowest average of sanctioned minor
offenses (3.3).
These youth had an average of 6.5 felony adjudications. Youth released from training schools and
serious habitual offender programs had the highest rate of felony adjudications (7.6), while high-
risk special needs programs had the lowest (5.6).
Prior Commitments
Many of the youth released from Level 8, 10 and boot camp
programs had prior juvenile commitments. These youth had an
average of 1.2 prior delinquency commitments. Youth released
from training schools and serious habitual offender programs
had the highest average number of prior delinquency
commitments (1.6), while youth released from boot camps had
the lowest (0.9).
Time From First Referral to Present Commitment
There was an average of 40.1 months from first referral to present
commitment for the youth released from these programs. Youth
released from training schools averaged 45.4 months from first
referral to the first FY 1994-95 commitment, whereas youth from
high-risk special needs programs averaged 30.9 months. These
programs had the highest and lowest averages among all the
programs included in this section.
IHWHSpecialTrainingSchoolsSHOPsBootCamps
7.6
2.7
6.8
4.0
9.0
3.4
9.7
3.4
7.8
2.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
IHWHSpecialTrainingSchoolsSHOPsBootCamps
Commitment Programs
Previously Sanctioned Offenses
Property Offenses
Violent Offenses
As would be expected, the
juveniles served by Level 8, 10
and boot camp programs had
more extensive delinquency
histories than juvenile served
by lower restrictiveness levels.
The juveniles released
from these programs had
delinquency careers
spanning more than 3
years which is higher
than all the other levels.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 168Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
Program Outputs
This section includes an examination of the outputs of the program models included in Level 8, 10
and boot camp in regard to their completion rates, release types, and average length of stay.
Program Completion Rates
There were 1,238 releases from these programs during
FY 1994-95, involving 1,119 individual youth. Some of these
youth had multiple admissions and releases. More than 40%
(505) of the total releases were from boot camps. The
remainder were released from training schools (267 or
21.6%); contracted intensive halfway house programs (227 or
18.3%); serious habitual offender programs (142 or 11.5%);
and high-risk special needs programs (97 or 7.8%).
Nearly 90% (238) of the releases from
training schools completed the
treatment goals of the program. Nearly
81% (182) of the releases from
contracted intensive halfway house
programs were made upon completion
of the treatment goals of the program.
These were the high and low
completion rates among all programs in
Level 8, 10 and boot camps.
Release Categories
Of the 1,238 releases,78.3% were
released to step-down or aftercare,
3.1% (38) of all releases were to post-
commitment community control (PCCC) or furlough and 5.8% (72)
were released to the Department of Corrections (DC). Less than 5%
(54) were without arrangements for post-release supervision.
A higher percentage of youth
served by these higher
restrictiveness levels had
higher completion rates than
those youth served by lower
restrictiveness levels.
Release Types - Level 8 & 10 and Boot
Camp Programs
Released to Step-Down or Aftercare78.3%
TransfersUp4%
Adult Prison or Probation5.6%
Released to Furlough or PCCC3.1%
Released From Care & Custody4.4%
Lateral Transfers1.1%Judicial Change3.4%
Only a small percentage
(4.4%) of the youth
served by these
programs are released
without some type of
post-release supervision.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 169
Average Length of Stay
Statewide, the average length of services
provided through Level 8, 10 and boot
camp programs was 172.6 days. Special
needs programs had the highest ALOS
(294.7 days), while boot camps had the
shortest ALOS (113.6 days) of all Level
8, 10 and boot camp commitment
programs. It should be noted that boot
camp programs have mandatory lengths
of stay.
Recidivism to the Juvenile
System
This section includes an analysis of the
rates of recidivism to the juvenile system by the youth included in the Level 8, 10 and boot camp
commitment programs recidivism cohort. Note that no Eckerd Youth Development Center data is
reported due to its practice of releasing youth through the transitional cottage only. This analysis
includes the rates of re-referral, re-adjudication, subsequent community control, and re-
commitment of these youth within one year of release.
Juvenile Re-Referral Rate
There were 929 youth included in the recidivism cohort for
Level 8, 10 and boot camp commitment programs. More than
57% of the youth released into the recidivism cohort from these
programs received subsequent referrals within one year of
release. Fifty-nine percent of the youth released from both boot
camps and contracted intensive halfway house programs had
subsequent delinquency referrals within one year of release,
which was the highest rate among all these programs. Youth released from high-risk special needs
programs had the lowest subsequent delinquency referral rate 38.3% within one year.
Juvenile Re-Adjudication
Twenty percent of the youth in the recidivism
cohort had subsequent juvenile adjudications
within one year of release. Of the youth
included in the contracted intensive halfway
house recidivism sample, 17.0% received
subsequent juvenile adjudications within one
year of release. Less than 16% of the youth
released from training schools received
subsequent juvenile adjudications within one
year of release.
159.2
294.7
192.4
279.3
113.6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Commitment Programs
Average Length of Stay
The 57% subsequent
delinquency referral rate for
the youth released from
Level 8, 10 and boot camp
programs was lower than
that of youth released from
Level 4 and 6 commitment
programs.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Juvenile Referrals and Adjudications
Referrals
Adjudications
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 170Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
Subsequent Juvenile Community Control and Re-Commitments
Less than 4% of the youth in the recidivism
cohort received subsequent community
control sanctions. Four percent of the youth
released from boot camps received
subsequent juvenile community control
sanctions within one year of release, while
less than 3% of the youth released from the
remaining programs received subsequent
community control sanctions.
More than 16% of these youth
were re-committed within one
year of release from the program.
Nearly 22% of the youth released
from boot camps were re-
committed within one year after
from the program. Slightly less
than 13% of the youth released
from training schools received
subsequent juvenile commitments
within one year of release. These
represented the highest and lowest
rates among all Level 8, 10 and
boot camp programs.
Recidivism to the Adult System
This section includes an analysis of the rates of
recidivism to the adult system by the youth included in the
recidivism cohort for Level 8, 10 and boot camp
programs. This analysis includes the rates of adult arrest,
conviction, subsequent adult probation or incarceration of
these youth within one year of release.
Adult Prosecution
Nearly one half of the youth included in the recidivism
cohort were arrested and prosecuted as adults within one
year of release. Slightly more than 60% (141) of the
youth released from training schools were arrested and
prosecuted as adults within one year of release from the
program, the highest of all the program models. Serious habitual offender programs had a
subsequent adult arrest rate of almost 43% (44) which was the lowest. Youth released from these
programs had the highest rate of subsequent adult arrest and prosecution within one year of
release across all restrictiveness levels.
The rate of subsequent juvenile community
control (3.2%) for these youth was the
lowest of all the department's programs
regardless of restrictiveness level. The may
be due to the fact that many of the youth
released from Level 8, 10 and boot camp
programs have exhausted all of the
resources in the juvenile justice system and
are therefore processed as adults for
subsequent offenses.
0%
10%
20%
30%40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Program
Community Control and
Re-Commitment
Community Control
Re-Commitment
Youth released from Level 8, 10
and boot camp programs had
higher rates of subsequent
involvement in the adult system
compared to the other
restrictiveness levels. This finding
should be expected given that
these youth tend to have longer
and more extensive delinquency
histories which makes them more
likely to be processed as an adult
for new violations.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 171
Adult Convictions
Thirty-five percent of the youth
in the recidivism cohort received
subsequent adult convictions.
More than 41% of the youth
from training schools had
subsequent adult convictions
within one year of release, while
33.3% of the youth included in
boot camp recidivism sample had
subsequent adult convictions
within one year of release. These
programs had the highest and
lowest rates.
Adult Probation and Prison
More than 30% of the youth in the recidivism cohort had subsequent adult sanctions or
commitments. Seventeen percent of the youth in were sentenced to adult probation and 13.8%
were sentenced to adult prison within one year of release from the program. Thirty-eight percent
of the youth in training schools' recidivism sample had subsequent adult sanctions or commitments
within one year of release. Fewer than 26% of the youth in contracted intensive halfway house
programs received subsequent adult adjudications within one year of release.
The overall recidivism rate for
these youth was 47.7 %. The
overall recidivism rate was
based on those youth who
received subsequent juvenile
re-commitment, adult probation,
or adult prison within one year
of release. Serious habitual
offender programs, training
schools, and boot camps had an
overall recidivism rate higher
than 51%. High-risk special
needs programs had an overall
recidivism rate of 28.3% which
was the lowest among these
programs.
Discussion
Because of the unique nature of special needs programs, they will not be compared as a group to
the four program models found at these levels. Boot camp programs contained youth classified at
both moderate- and high-risk restrictiveness level. Because the programs are so similar, they are
included together here.
Juveniles from these programs were fairly similar in age. Both the serious habitual offender
(SHOP) programs and the training schools had youth who seemed to have more serious and
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Adult Prosecutions and Convictions
Arrests
Convictions
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Adult Probation and Prison
Probation
Prison
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 172Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
violent referral histories. It should be noted that these four program groups were almost entirely
male. Black youth made up more than one-half of the population, and in the case of SHOP
programs and the training schools, black youth made up two-thirds of the clients served.
Level 8, 10 and Boot Camp Client Characteristics
Program TypeAverage
Age at
Entry
Average
Number of
Cases and
Referrals
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Violent
Offenses
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Property
Offenses
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Minor
Offenses
Average
Number of
Adjudicated
Felonies
Intensive
Halfway House
Programs
15.611.8 Cases
19.6 Referrals
2.77.64.16.0
Training School
Programs15.614.0 Cases
23.7 Referrals
3.49.05.07.6
Serious Habitual
Offender
Programs
15.412.9 Cases
21.9 Referrals
3.49.74.17.6
Boot Camp
Programs15.610.5 Cases
18.6 Referrals2.17.83.65.8
Program Performance. Youth released from Level 8, 10 and boot camp programs had the
longest average length of stay (ALOS) across all restrictiveness levels. These programs serve
youth with more entrenched delinquent behavior patterns which may require longer and more
extensive treatment periods than youth served by programs at lower restrictiveness levels. The
minimum designed length of stay for these programs ranged from four months for boot camps, to
nine months for SHOP programs and training schools. Boot camp programs include some of the
step-down units and short lengths of stay for those who cannot complete the rigors of the
program, which artificially lower the overall average length of stay reported here. Average lengths
of stay for intensive halfway houses and training school programs seem shorter than expected.
Completion rates for these programs were high and fairly consistent, as were the rates for the
provision of post-placement services.
Overall Recidivism. The overall recidivism rate for all commitment programs was 34.6%. The
programs at this level were slightly above the state-wide average, which is to be expected. These
youth have extensive referral histories, a history of multiple commitments and resources, and have
been in the juvenile justice system, on average, for more than three years.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 173
Level 8, 10 and Boot Camp Program Performance Indicators
and Overall Recidivism Rates
Program TypeJuveniles
Served
Average
Length of
Stay
Rate of
Completion
Rate of
Aftercare
Provision
Rate of
Overall
Recidivism
Intensive Halfway
House Programs201159.280.2%93.1%36.3%
Training School
Programs254192.489.1%98.8%42.5%
Serious Habitual
Offender Programs124279.384.5%95.9%43.7%
Boot Camp
Programs450113.687.1%95.5%43.9%
Within-Group Comparisons. Viewed within their respective groups, rates of completion, for
provision of aftercare and the overall rates of recidivism seem fairly consistent. The numbers of
clients served by programs within these four groups makes some comparisons between individual
programs unreliable. Among programs with at least 20 juveniles released, however, performance
within most categories was inconsistent, although not as dramatically inconsistent as programs at
the lower restrictiveness levels.
The range among average lengths of stay within the intensive halfway house group
was 130 days and within the SHOP group, 112 days. The two training schools had
almost exactly the same average length of stay.
The range among rates of completion for intensive halfway houses was 15
percentage points; between the training schools, 13 percentage points; within the
SHOP program group, 9 percentage points, and within the boot camp program group,
10 percentage points.
The range among rates for overall recidivism within the intensive halfway house
group was 22 percentage points, between the two training schools, 10 percentage
points; within the SHOP program group, 9 percentage points, and within the boot
camp program group, 26 percentage points.
Of the program groups at this level, SHOP programs and the training schools seem to have the
most consistent performance. Although there is variance within one or two of the performance
indicators for these program groups, it may be that differences in client characteristics may
account for most of the differences. The inconsistent performance within the intensive halfway
house group and the boot camp programs raises serious questions about their implementation and
management.
Relation between Performance Indicators and Overall Recidivism. Juveniles at this
restrictiveness level represent the most serious threat to public safety, and also have the greatest
treatment needs. In general, rates of program completion, the percentage of juveniles released
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 174Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
with provisions for post-placement services, and overall rates of recidivism were fairly consistent.
The greatest difference among these performance indicators was the average length of stay.
Even though there was a range of 113.6 to 279.3 days, the other indicators remained fairly stable.
In order to fully understand the relative effectiveness of these programs, an in-depth evaluation,
including a process evaluation is necessary.
Deep-End Client Characteristics. A cursory comparison of the referral and treatment
histories of SHOP clients with those of some of the other programs indicates little apparent
difference between these juveniles and juveniles found in other individual programs. In particular,
the juveniles served by Eckerd Youth Development Center (EYDC) have histories which look
very much like those of the SHOP programs. This is also true of some of the intensive halfway
house programs. Some boot camps, which were not designed for violent offenders, have average
numbers of sanctioned violent offenses which are as high as some SHOP programs. This raises
serious issues about the quality of the assessment, classification and placement of clients at this
level.
Given the almost 3.5 year delinquency career average of the youth released from these programs,
the characteristics and service needs of these youth should be well documented. The degree to
which these records contain useful information that is actually utilized to make treatment and
aftercare decisions should be examined.
Future Research Issues.
It is imperative that research be conducted on time to failure for juveniles released
from these programs. There may be patterns common to these youth which contribute
to recidivism or to resilience which are time-related. If there are "critical periods"
after release, there may be ways to intervene in order to assist these juveniles in
consolidating and applying any gains they have made during treatment. Such an
evaluation should include qualitative methods including interviews or focus groups of
juveniles released from programs at specific periods after their release.
Future research should also focus on individual, family, school or community
characteristics that may offer some insight to the extensive criminal careers of these
youth. Such an in-depth analysis should offer a solid foundation for the enhancement
of treatment strategies used by these programs.
Future research should examine the relative effectiveness of step-down, day
treatment and re-entry aftercare with juveniles from each of the program groups at
this level.
Future evaluation of boot camp programs should be carried out through a meta-
analysis of the series of DJJ boot camp evaluation reports.
Future research should focus on the extent to which the criminal behavior of the youth
released from Level 8, 10 and boot camp programs continues into adulthood. Some
researchers indicate that youth tend to mature out of their criminal behavior. Is this
true for youth served by these programs?
Research Notes. It has been noted that wilderness programs and programs which are either
environmentally secure or "high fence" programs tend to have higher rates of completion. The
criteria for program completion, and the factors which contribute to these high rates should be
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 175
examined closely for possible extension to other program models, provided that a connection
between program completion and lower recidivism rates can be established.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 176Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camps Data Tables
Program Information Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 177
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Program Information Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 178Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Program Outputs Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 179
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Program Outputs Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 180Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Client Demographics Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 181
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Client Demographics Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 182Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Client Referral History Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 183
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Client Referral History Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 184Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Client Treatment History Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 185
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Client Treatment History Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 186Levels 8, 10 and Boot Camps
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Recidivism Rates Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Level 8, 10 and Boot CampsPage 187
Levels 8 and 10 and Boot Camp Program Recidivism Rates Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 188Aftercare
Aftercare
Aftercare services are to be provided
to assist juveniles and their families in
the adjustment of the youth returning to
the community from residential
commitment programs. Even though
the department does not provide
aftercare to all youth leaving residential
programs, it does provide aftercare to
22% of youth leaving non-residential
programs. Aftercare services consist
of a continuation of services, social
controls, and support in the community.
The number of face-to-face contacts
and the intensity of supervision varies
among the types of aftercare services.
The type of aftercare service or
program is determined by assessing the
youth's needs and public safety risk
through the use of
the Supervision
Risk Classification
Instrument (SRCI).
The instrument
was developed by
the department and
is described on
page 52.
Program Descriptions
The five types of aftercare program
models are furlough, post commitment
community control, re-entry, intensive
day treatment, and maximum
supervision. These program models
vary with regard to whether or not the
court retains jurisdiction over the
juvenile and whether the department,
parents or guardians have legal custody
of the youth. These distinctions will be
more fully discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Furlough. Furlough is a temporary
release from the care of the program to
which the juvenile was committed. While the parent or guardian has physical custody of the youth,
the department maintains legal custody. The conditions of furlough are determined before the
Section 39.067, Fla. Stat.
Furlough and intensive aftercare. --
(1) With regard to children referred or committed to the
department, the function of the department may
include, but shall not be limited to, supervising the
child when furloughed into the community from a
facility of the department, including providing such
counseling and other services as may be necessary
for the families and assisting their preparations for the
return of the child.
(2) Whenever a delinquent child is committed to a
residential program operated by a private vendor under
contract, the department may negotiate with such
vendor to provide intensive aftercare for the child in the
home community following successful completion of
the residential program. Intensive aftercare shall involve
regular contact between the child and the staff of the
vendor with whom the child has developed a
relationship during the course of the commitment
program. Contingent upon specific appropriation, a
contract for intensive aftercare provided by the
residential commitment program vendor shall provide
for caseloads of 10 or fewer children, intensive
aftercare for 1 year, and a transfer of the ongoing case
management and reentry responsibilities from the
department to the vendor at the time the vendor admits
the child into the commitment program. The
department shall annually seek the necessary
resources to provide intensive aftercare.
(3) Subject to specific appropriation, the department
shall provide or contract for outpatient sexual offender
counseling for any juvenile sexual offender furloughed
from a commitment program, as a component of
aftercare services.
(4) Upon a recommendation that a child committed to
the department have his or her furlough revoked, the
department shall, within 30 days after the date the
recommendation is made, hold an administrative
hearing pursuant to chapter 120.
(5) It is the legislative intent that, to prevent recidivism
of juvenile offenders, reentry and aftercare services be
provided statewide to each juvenile who returns to his
or her community from a residential commitment
program. Accordingly, the Legislature further intends
that reentry and aftercare services be included in the
continuum of care.
What is the role
of the youth's
family in relation
to the
programming of
aftercare
services?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 189
youth is released from the commitment program. Should the juvenile prove unable to abide by the
conditions of furlough, the youth may be returned to the program. The DJJ case manager
completes the SRCI to determine the frequency of supervision contacts that will be required
during the furlough supervision. The average length of stay is up to 120 days.
Post Commitment Community Control (PCCC). The committing court retains jurisdiction
and sets the conditions for continued supervision of the juvenile through PCCC. Supervisory
services are provided by case managers. The frequency of supervision contacts is determined
through the application of the supervision risk classification instrument, and the average length of
stay ranges from 90 to 180 days. If a youth violates
PCCC, the case manager may file an affidavit for
violation of PCCC with the state attorney who will
consider filing a petition before the court. If a petition is
filed, the court will consider the allegations contained in
the petition, and an adjudicatory hearing may be held. If
the allegations are founded, the court will consider
continued placement on PCCC or consider more
restrictive sanctions, such as re-commitment.
Re-Entry Programs. Placement in a re-entry program
occurs upon transfer from a residential commitment
program. Youth placed in a re-entry program remain in committed status under the supervision
and custody of the department, but live at home under the care of their parents or guardians. It is
not clear, however, how responsibilities for supervision are
shared. A re-entry counselor maintains a small caseload of
youth and provides multiple weekly contacts with the youth,
parent and other appropriate individuals, and develops a
supervision plan that meets the needs of the youth and
family. The frequency of contacts for youth who are
supervised on re-entry by a DJJ case manager is
determined by completion of the supervision risk
classification instrument. The department contracts with a
variety of providers for re-entry services and the frequency
of contacts is determined in the contract language. The
average length of stay is between 90 and 120 days. Case
staffings are held for youth who violate the conditions of
re-entry. The aftercare provider, the DJJ case manager, a
DJJ staff who serves as the district transfer administrator,
the youth and the parent participate. The case staffing can
result in a recommendation to the court that the youth be transferred to a more restrictive
commitment program. This report examines three different re-entry programs including 40
contracted re-entry programs, of which 28 are operated by Eckerd Youth and Family Alternatives,
and 45 are state-operated.
Intensive Day Treatment Programs. Juveniles committed to intensive day treatment
programs continue under the supervision and custody of the department, but live at home under
the care and supervision of parents or guardians. These programs provide day treatment services
and more intensive supervision than re-entry programs, which seems a broader exercise of care
and custody. As is the case with re-entry programs, however, it is not clear how responsibilities
The supervision risk assessment
instrument is re-administered when
a youth is released to re-entry,
PCCC and furlough to determine the
level of supervision the youth
requires. The level of supervision for
youth released to day treatment
programs is determined by the
executed contract between DJJ and
the provider.
The issue of supervisory
responsibility when a juvenile is
under the legal custody of the
department, but in the physical
custody of the family was illustrated
by an incident which occurred
several years ago. A 12-year-old
boy committed to a day treatment
program assaulted and raped an
elderly woman in her home. The
incident occurred after midnight.
Who bears the ultimate
responsibility, and possible
culpability for failure to supervise
this juvenile?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 190Aftercare
for supervision and custody are delegated or shared. Planning for services includes completion of
a needs assessment and development of an individualized plan that addresses educational goals,
community service projects, and recreational programs. The average length of stay for these
programs is six to nine months.
The court is advised of a youth's pending release from an intensive day treatment program and
will determine whether a less intensive aftercare program is necessary or whether termination of
jurisdiction by the court and the termination of supervision and custody of the department is
appropriate.
Maximum Supervision. Youth who are released from maximum-risk residential restrictiveness
programs (Level 10) will receive aftercare based on this
new risk classification. This aftercare model was not
utilized or funded during FY 1994-95.
Grouping of Aftercare Programs
For the purpose of this report the analysis will be restricted
to the aftercare program models that are contained within
the continuum of commitment programs: day-treatment and
re-entry programs. The minimum-risk non-residential
restrictive level consists of two components. This report
has already assessed in an earlier section the direct
commitments to Level 2. The other component of Level 2
consists of two step-down or aftercare programs - re-entry
and intensive day treatment. The important distinction
between these two components is that youth are not committed directly to re-entry or intensive
day treatment programs. The youth are transferred into the program from a Level 4, 6, 8 or 10
commitment program. Re-entry programs are placed within other contracted re-entry, Eckerd re-
entry, and state-operated re-entry program groups. Day treatment programs are placed within
boot camp aftercare, AMI SAFE programs, and other
contracted aftercare program groups.
Population Profile
There were a total of 2,219 youth released from the two
aftercare program groups reported here, re-entry and day
treatment programs. The re-entry program group released 1,498
individual youth, including 64 from other contracted re-entry
programs, 485 from Eckerd re-entry programs and 949 from
state-operated re-entry programs. Day treatment programs
released a total of 721 juveniles: boot camp aftercare programs
released 164 youth; AMI SAFE programs released 474 youth
and other contracted aftercare programs released 83 youth.
Transition planning is defined as
the coordination and planning that
occurs between the aftercare
program, DJJ case manager,
residential commitment program
staff, the youth and their parents,
while the youth is still in the
residential program. Does
transition planning occur for all
youth released to aftercare? How
does aftercare transition planning
compare among residential
commitment programs?
It is important to note that not
all boot camp graduates go
into exclusively boot camp
aftercare programs. Also, not
all boot camp aftercare
programs serve exclusively
boot camp graduates. AMI
SAFE programs provided
aftercare to many boot camp
graduates during this
reporting period
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 191
Gender and Race
Of the 2,219 youth released from aftercare
programs, 91.8% were male and 8.1% were
female. Boot camp aftercare programs
released the largest percentage of females
(11.6%). None of the females released from
the boot camp aftercare programs
participated in boot camps.
The racial distribution of youth released
from aftercare programs was 44.4% white,
54.8% black, and 0.6% Asian. The race of
0.2% of the youth was unreported. The
racial composition of the youth released
from aftercare programs differs from the racial distribution of Florida's population between the
ages of 10 and 17 years. According to the Demographic Estimating Conference database,
Economic and Demographic Research Division, Florida Legislature, the racial distribution of
Florida youth between the ages of 10 to 17 years as of January 1, 1995, was 76.1% white, 21.7%
black and 2.2% other. The percentages of Native Americans and Asian in the aftercare
population were low (less than 1%), while the percentages of black youth (54.8%) and white
youth (44.4%) were much higher. The percentage of black youth released at this level is more
than twice their representation in the 10 to 17 year old population in Florida. Other contracted re-
entry programs released the highest percentage of black youth (75%), while the lowest
percentage (37.8%) of black youth were released from boot camp aftercare programs.
Age at Admission
The average age of the youth at the time of admission to
aftercare was 15.8. Youth from other contacted re-entry
programs had the highest average age (16.3), while youth in the
boot camp aftercare programs had the lowest (15.6).
Releases by Gender
Male
91.8%
Female8.1%
Unknown0.1%
Aftercare Releases
Black54.8%
White44.4%
Asian0.6%
Unknown0.2%
Racial Composition
Florida's Population Ages 10 - 17
White76.1%
Black21.7%
Asian2.2%
The average age at
admission to aftercare
programs was 15.8, while the
average age of admission to
the other commitment levels
varied from 14.9 to 15.5.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 192Aftercare
Client History
This section includes an examination of the age at first referral, prior referrals, prior sanctions, and
prior commitments of the youth released from aftercare programs. An examination of the
delinquency careers of these youth is also included in this section.
Age at Onset
The age at which juveniles officially
enter the juvenile justice system
through a documented delinquency
referral may be an important factor in
developing aftercare programming
strategies. Prior research has indicated
that when delinquent behaviors are
identified and addressed early, the
interventions are more likely to be
effective at reducing or eliminating
these behaviors. The average age at
which juveniles in aftercare programs
received their first delinquency referral
was 12.4 years. The average age at
first referral for the youth released from state-operated re-entry programs was the highest at 12.6
years, while boot camp aftercare programs had the lowest average age, 12.1 years at first
referral. Five of the six aftercare programs had youth admitted to their program whose first
referral occurred at the age of six years or younger.
Delinquency Referral History
Youth released from aftercare programs had an average of 16.6 prior delinquency referrals.
Youth released from Eckerd re-entry programs had the highest number of prior referrals (21) and
youth released from other contracted aftercare programs had the lowest (13.3).
Age at Admission
(Average)
18191818
20
18
15.916.315.815.615.815.7
121111121313
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Commitment Programs
Oldest
Average
Youngest
Age at First Referral
(Average)
1716171717
12.212.112.612.112.2
666667
13
12.4
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Commitment Programs
Oldest
Average
Youngest
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 193
Youth released from aftercare programs had an
average of 1.5 prior diverted referrals. Youth
released from other contracted re-entry programs
had the highest average of prior diverted referrals
(2). In contrast, youth released from boot camp
aftercare programs had the lowest average of
diverted referrals (0.9) among the aftercare
programs.
Prior Sanctioned Offenses
Prior judicial or non-judicial sanctioned offense
history provides valuable insight into the population
of youth served by aftercare programs. A referral was considered sanctioned if there was some
evidence that a consequence was imposed as the result of behavior which did in fact occur. Youth
released from Level 6 programs averaged 12.5 prior sanctioned offenses. Eckerd re-entry
programs averaged the highest number of prior sanctioned offenses (15.0) while other contracted
aftercare programs averaged the lowest (10.0). The most frequent type of sanctioned offenses
were property offenses. Statewide, these aftercare youth averaged 6.4 prior property offenses,
3.3 prior minor offenses, and 2.3 prior violent offenses. Youth released from AMI SAFE
programs had the highest average of prior property offenses (7.6), while other contracted
aftercare programs averaged the lowest (5.0).
Youth served by Eckerd re-entry programs had the highest average
number of minor (4.1) and violent offenses (2.8). In contrast, other
contracted aftercare programs had the lowest average number of
minor offenses (2.6). Boot camp aftercare programs and other
contracted aftercare programs had the lowest rate of violent offenses
(2.0).
Most of the youth released from aftercare programs had prior felony
adjudications. These youth averaged 4.9 prior adjudicated felonies. Youth released from AMI
SAFE programs had the highest average number of prior adjudicated felonies (6.0) and state-
operated re-entry programs had the lowest (3.9).
Prior Treatment History
Most of the youth released from aftercare had prior commitments. These youth averaged 1.4 prior
commitments. Youth released from Eckerd re-entry and other contracted re-entry programs had
an average of 1.6 prior commitments and youth released from state-operated re-entry programs
had an average of 1.3 prior commitments.
A possible explanation for youth in Eckerd
re-entry programs averaging a higher
number of prior referrals (21) may be that
many youth released from the Eckerd
Youth Development Center (EYDC), a
Level 8 program, are served by Eckerd re-
entry programs. Therefore, these EYDC
graduates may increase the average while
other aftercare programs may serve
delinquent youth with a less severe prior
offense history.
Youth released
from aftercare
programs had an
average
delinquency
career of 3.5
years.
21.0
17.4
14.314.3
18.1
13.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Commitment Programs
Prior Delinquency Referrals(Average)
7.5
2.8
7.2
2.6
5.3
2.1
6.3
2.0
7.6
2.4
5.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Commitment Programs
Previously Sanctioned Offenses
Property Offenses
Violent Offenses
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 194Aftercare
Time from First Referral to Present Commitment
There was a statewide average of 41.2 months, or 3.4 years, from the first referral to present
commitment for youth released from aftercare programs. Other contracted re-entry programs
accounted for the highest average of 49.6 months. In contrast, state-operated re-entry programs
had the lowest average of 37.5 months.
Program Outputs
This section reviews the outputs of the
aftercare programs, including
completion rates, release types, and
average length of stay. There were
2,427 releases from aftercare
programs during FY 1994-95 involving
2,219 individual youth. Some of these
youth had multiple admissions and
releases.
Program Completion
Rates
These aftercare programs
processed a total of 2,427
cases during FY 1994-95.
State-operated re-entry
programs processed 1,056
cases, Eckerd re-entry programs processed
520 cases, AMI SAFE programs processed
512 cases, boot camp aftercare processed
179 cases, other contracted aftercare
programs processed 84 cases, and 76 cases
were processed by general contracted
re-entry programs.
More than 50% (1,230) of the releases
from these aftercare programs were made
upon completion of the treatment goals of
the program. Of the youth released from state-operated re-entry programs, 60.2% (636)
completed the goals of the program while 38.3% (199) from Eckerd re-entry programs completed
the goals of the programs. This represents the highest and lowest percentages of youth who
completed the program treatment goals among the aftercare programs.
Youth Released
EckerdRe-entry21.5%
OtherRe-entry3.1%
StateRe-entry43.7%
Boot Camp AC7.4%
AMI SAFE AC21.2%
Other AC3.0%
Almost 42% of the releases from
aftercare were re-committed,
transferred to higher commitment
levels, laterally transferred to another
aftercare program or were sentenced to
adult probation or prison.
38.3%
52.7%60.2%
46.4%44.3%
58.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Completion Rates
Eckerd re-entry had
the lowest rate of
completion. It also
had one of the lowest
rates of recidivism.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 195
Release Categories
Of the 2,427 releases from aftercare programs, 878 were released without arrangements for
further post-release supervision and 533 were released to PCCC or furlough. Of the total of these
two categories, 37.8% received post-release supervision. Among program types, other contracted
aftercare programs released 92.5% of these categories to PCCC or furlough, while Eckerd re-
entry programs released the smallest percentage (10.1%). These figures do not include lateral
transfers, which may include juveniles transferred from day treatment to re-entry programs.
More than thirteen percent (331) of all aftercare releases were transferred to higher commitment
levels, 10.8% (262) were due to
judicial changes (re-commitment
to another program), 10.2% (248)
laterally transferred, and 7.2%
(175) due to a sentencing of adult
probation or prison.
General contracted aftercare
programs had the highest
percentage 20.2% (17) of
releases due to judicial changes,
while boot camp aftercare
programs released the lowest
percentage 4.5% (8). AMI SAFE
programs transferred 26.7%
(137) to a higher commitment
level and general contracted
aftercare programs transferred 4.8% (4). This represents the
highest and lowest percentage among the aftercare programs. Boot camp aftercare programs
laterally transferred the highest percentage of releases 21.8% (36), while 7.8% of the releases
from AMI SAFE programs (40) had the lowest percentage.
The highest percentage of releases due to sentencing in adult court, which includes probation or
prison, came from Eckerd re-entry programs 12.7% (65) and the lowest from general contracted
aftercare programs 3.6% (3).
Aftercare Program Releases
ReleasedFrom Care& Custody36.2%
Releasedto Furloughor PCCC22.0%
JudicialChange10.8%
TransferUp13.6%
LateralTransfer10.2%
Adult Prisonor Probation7.2%
Lateral transfers among
aftercare programs may
occur when the youth
requires less intensive
aftercare supervision,
such as a lateral transfer
from a day treatment
program to a re-entry
program.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 196Aftercare
Average Length of Stay
Statewide, the average length of stay (ALOS)
for aftercare programs was 156.2 days.
Eckerd re-entry programs had the highest
ALOS (225.4 days), while state-operated re-
entry programs had the shortest ALOS (124.6
days). Youth in day treatment programs who
complete the program or are released to re-
entry, PCCC or furlough, averaged 178.7
days in the program. This was not true for re-
entry programs, whose ALOS remained
below 150 days.
Recidivism to the Juvenile
System
An examination of the rates of recidivism to
the juvenile system by the youth in the aftercare
recidivism cohort is included in this section. This
analysis includes the rates of re-referral, re-adjudication,
subsequent community control, and re-commitment of
these youth within one year of release.
Juvenile Re-Referral Rate
There were 1,376 youth included in the
recidivism cohort for aftercare programs.
Within one year of release from aftercare
programs 38.2% (526) of the youth received
subsequent referrals. Of the youth released
from the general contracted aftercare
programs recidivism sample 45.3% had a
subsequent referral within a year of release.
More than 26% of the youth in the general
contracted re-entry programs recidivism
sample had a subsequent delinquency
referral. These represented the highest and
lowest rates of subsequent juvenile referrals
among the aftercare programs.
225.4
163.6
124.6
168.4
143.2156.6
0
50
100
150
200
250
Commitment Programs
Average Length of Stay
What role does the completion of
community service hours and
restitution play in the supervision of
youth in aftercare? It is not included
as a factor on the supervision risk
classification instrument.
Although the goal of aftercare is the reduction of
recidivism, the strategies that best contribute to
that goal have not been clearly articulated by the
DJJ in program model descriptions or contracts.
Consequently, there is ambiguity about how to
measure the performance of aftercare programs.
Are aftercare programs intended as treatments or
as tools to monitor the behavior of delinquent
juveniles? Does recidivism represent their failure
as treatment programs or their success as
monitors of delinquent behavior? Are aftercare
programs intended as treatments or as
surveillance to monitor the behavior of delinquent
juveniles?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 197
Juvenile Re-Adjudication
Due to the labeling effects of involvement with the juvenile justice system, re-referrals may not
fairly reflect actual re-offending patterns. Re-adjudication may be a more accurate indicator of
continuing delinquent behavior. More
than 17% of the youth in the aftercare
recidivism cohort had subsequent juvenile
adjudications within one year of release.
More than 26% of the recidivism sample
from general contracted aftercare
programs received subsequent
adjudications within one year of release.
Almost 6% of the youth in the contracted
re-entry programs recidivism sample
received subsequent adjudications within
one year of release.
Subsequent Community
Control and Re-Commitments
More than 7% of the youth included
in the aftercare recidivism cohort
received subsequent community
control sanctions and 10.6% were
re-committed within one year of
release from the program.
More than 8% of the youth included
in the boot camp aftercare program
recidivism sample received
subsequent juvenile community
control sanctions, while 1.9% of the
youth released from general contracted aftercare programs received subsequent juvenile
community control sanctions within a year of release. Almost 25% of the youth included in the
general contracted aftercare programs recidivism sample were re-committed while none of the
youth released from general contracted re-entry programs were re-committed within one year of
release.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Commitment Programs
Juvenile Referrals and Adjudications
Referrals
Adjudications
6.0%8.5%5.9%0.0%8.1%11.1%8.6%15.1%5.9%8.7%1.9%
24.5%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Commitment Program
Community Control and
Re-Commitment
Community Control
Re-Commitment
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 198Aftercare
Recidivism to the Adult System
This section includes an analysis of
the rates of recidivism to the adult
system by the youth from aftercare
programs. This analysis includes the
rates of adult arrest, conviction,
Department of Corrections (DC)
probation or incarceration of these
youth within one year of release.
Adult Prosecution
Within one year of release from
aftercare programs 42.2% of youth
in the aftercare recidivism cohort
had been arrested and prosecuted as
adults. The highest rates of adult arrest and prosecution, more than 47%, were found in other
contracted aftercare programs and other contracted re-entry programs. Boot camp aftercare
programs had the lowest rate of arrest and prosecution in the adult system with 29.0%.
Adult Adjudication
Slightly less than twenty-four percent of youth in the aftercare recidivism cohort received an
adjudication in the adult system within one year of release. Other contracted re-entry programs
had the highest percentage at 29.4% and Eckerd re-entry programs had the lowest at 17.3% of
youth who received adult adjudications within one year of release.
Adult Probation and Prison
Almost 14% of the youth in the aftercare
recidivism cohort received adult probation, while
6.0% were sentenced to adult prison within one
year of release. General contracted re-entry
programs had the highest percentage of youth
sentenced to adult probation, 17.6%; and
Eckerd re-entry programs had the lowest
percentage, 10.6%. More than 8% of AMI
SAFE youth received adult prison while general
contracted aftercare programs had the lowest
percentage at 1.9%.
Discussion
The major distinction among aftercare programs is whether they provided monitoring and
supervision through re-entry services, or treatment services within day-treatment programs.
Within these two categories the programs are grouped largely by provider. Eckerd Youth and
Family Alternatives, with 28 programs, a group of miscellaneous providers of re-entry services
with 12 programs, and the department, with 45 units throughout the state are the three groups of
re-entry programs. Boot camp aftercare programs and AMI SAFE day-treatment programs are
the other two major aftercare groups.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Commitment Programs
Adult Prosecutions and Convictions
ArrestsConvictions
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Commitment Programs
Adult Probation and Incarceration
Probation
Prison
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 199
Juveniles from these programs were fairly similar in age. Juveniles in state-operated re-entry and
boot camp aftercare programs seemed to have less serious and violent referral histories. In
general, between five and ten percent of the juveniles in these programs were female. Black
youth made up more than one-half of the population, and in the case of contracted re-entry
programs, black youth made up 75% of the clients served.
Aftercare Program Client Characteristics
Program Type
Average
Age at
Entry
Average
Number of
Cases and
Referrals
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Violent
Offenses
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Property
Offenses
Average
Number of
Sanctioned
Minor
Offenses
Average
Number of
Adjudicated
Felonies
Eckerd Re-Entry15.912.1 Cases
21.0 Referrals
2.87.54.15.8
Contracted Re-
Entry16.310.6 Cases
17.4 Referrals
2.67.22.84.9
State-operated
Re-Entry15.88.7 Cases
14.3 Referrals
2.15.32.93.9
Boot Camp
Aftercare15.69.8 Cases
14.3 Referrals
2.06.33.15.0
AMI SAFE Day
Treatment
Aftercare
15.811.0 Cases
18.1 Referrals2.47.63.56.0
Program Performance. The minimum designed length of stay for these programs ranged from
three months for re-entry, to six months for day treatment. Both Eckerd and state-operated re-
entry programs had average lengths of stay one to three months longer than their design.
Completion rates ranged from 38.3% to 60.2%.
Overall Recidivism. The overall rate of recidivism rate among the restrictiveness levels was
34.6% during FY 1994-95. The recidivism rate for aftercare programs was 27.8%. The range
varied from a low of 20.4% to a high of 40.6%, a difference of more than 20 percentage points.
Because the mission of aftercare programs is not clearly articulated, understanding the meaning of
recidivism from these programs is difficult. Are aftercare programs intended as treatments or as
tools to monitor the behavior of delinquent juveniles? Does recidivism represent failure as
treatment programs or success as monitors of delinquent behavior? Are aftercare programs
intended as treatments or as surveillance to monitor the behavior of delinquent juveniles?
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 200Aftercare
Aftercare Program Performance Indicators and Overall Recidivism Rates
Program TypeJuveniles
Served
Average
Length of
Stay
Rate of
Completion
Rate of
Overall
Recidivism
Eckerd Re-Entry485225.438.3%20.4%
Contracted Re-
Entry64163.652.7%20.6%
State-operated Re-
Entry949124.660.2%29.5%
Boot Camp
Aftercare164168.446.4%30.1%
AMI SAFE Day
Treatment
Aftercare
474143.244.3%40.6%
Within-Group Comparisons. Viewed within their respective groups, average lengths of stay,
rates of completion and the overall rates of recidivism seem inconsistent. The numbers of clients
served by programs within these five groups makes some comparison between individual
programs unreliable. Among programs with at least 20 juveniles released, however, performance
within most categories was inconsistent, although not as dramatically inconsistent as commitment
programs.
The range among average lengths of stay within the Eckerd re-entry group was 190
days and within the state-operated re-entry group, 100 days. The range among AMI
day treatment programs was 113 days.
The range among rates of completion for Eckerd re-entry programs, state-operated
re-entry programs and AMI day treatment programs was more than 50 percentage
points in each case.
The range among rates for overall recidivism within the state-operated re-entry group
was 40 percentage points, and among the AMI day treatment programs, 37
percentage points.
Relation Between Performance Indicators and Recidivism. As was the case with
treatment programs, it was difficult to detect a clear relation between performance indicators and
recidivism.
Comparisons to the two contracted re-entry programs (general contracted re-entry and
Eckerd re-entry programs) and the state-operated re-entry programs show marked
differences in completion rates, average length of stay, and recidivism rates. Although
state-operated re-entry programs showed the highest completion rates (60.2%) of all
aftercare programs, their recidivism rates were much higher (31.7%) and their average
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 201
length of stay was much lower (124.6 days) than the general contracted and Eckerd re-
entry programs.
Average lengths of stay in aftercare programs varied from 124.6 to 225.4 days, a
difference of 100.8 days (more than three months). The difference in recidivism rates
between these two programs was 9.2%. The program with the lowest average length of
stay had one of the higher recidivism rates, whereas the program with the highest average
length of stay had the lowest recidivism rate among the aftercare programs.
Based on this data, there seems to be little or no discernible relation between these performance
indicators and the overall rate of recidivism. Further research utilizing multivariate techniques to
control for offender seriousness or other factors will be necessary, however, before drawing firm
conclusions. Apparent contradictions may not be an indicator of poor performance.
Eckerd programs deserve a closer look in future research aimed at determining benchmarks for
performance and clarification of the optimum relationship among performance indicators for
aftercare programs. The Eckerd re-entry programs had a much higher average length of stay,
225.4 days, than the other aftercare programs and had the lowest recidivism rate of the aftercare
programs (22.5%). Although their average length of stay is higher and the completion rate is the
lowest, this program had the lowest recidivism rates among aftercare programs.
Mission of Aftercare. The mission of aftercare, its purposes and goals, must be clarified.
There may in fact be two types of aftercare with different purposes. Day treatment programs
may be intended as the continuation of treatment and support for the juvenile within the
community. Those cases in which changes in the home, such as increased parental supervision
and improvements in guidance techniques are necessary, are especially appropriate for day
treatment programs. Those juveniles who struggle with drug or alcohol addiction, or others who
need the support of self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous and
Alateen, may also need the help offered by day treatment to establish their membership and use of
these resources.
Re-entry programs, on the other hand, may be intended as an effort to monitor the progress of
juveniles who do not need such services. Cases which indicate the need for changes in the level
and method of parental supervision would seem to be appropriate for this class of aftercare. In
addition, providing assistance in obtaining and maintaining either full or part-time employment,
monitoring school attendance and academic progress, guidance toward establishing vocational
goals and the establishment of a network of potentially helpful adults might also be appropriate to
these services.
Evaluation and improvement of aftercare programs cannot proceed until after the establishment of
a clear mission and purpose with measurable goals and objectives.
Transition of Physical Custody. The Department of Juvenile Justice should make efforts to
clarify the process of transition of physical custody from the department to the youth's parents or
guardians. It is fairly clear that the department is not fully responsible for the care of such
juveniles in such matters as clothing, food and a place to sleep. What is less clear, however, is the
responsibility for an appropriate level of supervision. Although juveniles who are released may
have completed the requirements of the program, care must be taken to avoid the impression that
their commitment was compensation for the social debt they incurred through their offenses.
Rather, it should be made clear to them that the treatment they received was for the purpose of
the development of self-control, an awareness of how their behavior has hurt others, and the
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 202Aftercare
determination to make amends through restitution or continuing respect for social boundaries.
From this perspective, aftercare is a critical period in which the juvenile has a chance to
demonstrate and practice his or her mastery of these skills. Both the juvenile and his parents or
guardians should understand this message and what it means for the level of supervision provided.
Day treatment programs or public schools provide supervision during their normal hours of
operation, but research has shown that the lack of supervision for adolescents between the end of
school and the time they are at home with their parents or guardians is one which is characterized
by high rates of juvenile crime. A telephone call or face-to-face contact with the juvenile by a
case manger several times weekly cannot be considered adequate supervision for juveniles at this
critical stage. If parents, guardians or other responsible caregivers, in cooperation with DJJ case
managers, are not exercising continual monitoring and guidance of these juveniles during this
critical transitional phase, it may be difficult for the youth to succeed.
The department must set clear standards and provide support for parents or guardians regarding
the supervision of their youth during the aftercare period, or provide such supervision. The goal
should be that the juvenile demonstrates consistent self-control and respect for social boundaries
and has earned the right to independence within his or her home and community.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 203
Aftercare Data Tables
Program Information Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 204Aftercare
Aftercare Program Information Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 205
Aftercare Program Information Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 206Aftercare
Aftercare Program Information Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 207
Aftercare Program Outputs Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 208Aftercare
Aftercare Program Outputs Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 209
Aftercare Program Outputs Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 210Aftercare
Aftercare Program Outputs Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 211
Aftercare Client Demographics Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 212Aftercare
Aftercare Client Demographics Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 213
Aftercare Client Demographics Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 214Aftercare
Aftercare Client Demographics Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 215
Aftercare Client Referral History Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 216Aftercare
Aftercare Client Referral History Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 217
Aftercare Client Referral History Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 218Aftercare
Aftercare Client Referral History Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 219
Aftercare Client Treatment History Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 220Aftercare
Aftercare Client Treatment History Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 221
Aftercare Client Treatment History Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 222Aftercare
Aftercare Client Treatment History Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 223
Aftercare Recidivism Rates Table
Page 1
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 224Aftercare
Aftercare Program Recidivism Rates Table
Page 2
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
AftercarePage 225
Aftercare Program Recidivism Rates Table
Page 3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 226Aftercare
Aftercare Program Recidivism Rates Table
Page 4
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Summary and Discussion of System Issues Page 227
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF SYSTEM ISSUES
The analysis of program output and client outcome data from the juvenile justice continuum of
services has raised issues for program models, individual programs, the restrictiveness level
system and the management of the system. While there are numerous issues discussed in each of
the previous chapters, several issues seem to deserve higher priority, including:
Continued research-based development of the continuum of prevention services;
Classification and placement of youth within the restrictiveness level system;
Consistency in program performance among the various models for intervention,
commitment and aftercare programs;
Increased accountability among aftercare programs; and
The continuing need for reliable and comprehensive data.
There are a number of factors that have the potential to impact the relative success of a program.
Prevention, intervention and commitment programs do not always have control over all of these
elements.
Relation Between Client Characteristics,
Program Models and Restrictiveness Levels
One factor that many contend has a great deal to do with a program success is consistency, or
lack of it, between the type of youth the program is designed to treat and the type of youth
assigned to the program. One recent study indicated that there is not a great deal of difference in
the youth committed to the five restrictiveness levels. Upon further analysis of the data, those
youth released from
commitment programs
in FY 1994-95 indicate
that the youth with
more significant,
violent and habitual
delinquency histories
are found in the
deeper-end programs
that feature more
security. This is
significant in that
public safety is
maintained and less
violent or delinquent
youth are not always
commingled with more
delinquent populations.
The following two
Relation Between
Commitment Levels and Client Characteristics
Offense History
(Avg. # of Referrals & Violent, Property & Minor Sanctioned Offenses)
Level 2
Level 4
Level 6
Level 8/
Boot Camps
Ref. Viol. Prop. Min. 10.4 1.4 3.7 2.3
Ref. Viol. Prop. Min.
20.3 2.8 8.2 4.0
Ref. Viol. Prop. Min.
14.1 1.9 5.0 3.2
Ref. Viol. Prop. Min.
10.2 1.2 3.9 2.3
Aftercare
Ref. Viol. Prop. Min.
16.6 2.3 6.4 3.3
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 228Summary and Discussion of System Issues
charts illustrate how the commitment levels serve increasingly serious juvenile offenders, based on
their offense and treatment history.
Despite the difference
in populations served in
the different
restrictiveness levels,
the age of these
juvenile offenders does
not differ greatly by
level. In fact, at each
level, the average age
of these youth when
they were first referred
to the delinquency
system is within three
months of each other.
Research has indicated
that those youth who
begin their delinquent
behavior before or in
the first years of adolescence will maintain their delinquent behavior for many years. Youth who
come into the system in later years do not seem to maintain the delinquent pattern of behavior for
very long.
These figures illustrate the real differences in the populations being served at the different
restrictiveness levels of the commitment continuum. However, within each level, and within
program models at each level, there is much inconsistency that may undermine effective
treatment.
It is also important to understand that the finding of significant differences in the populations at the
various levels of the commitment continuum does not mean that the levels themselves are
different. The finding is merely a reflection of the systems ability to sort children based on factors
relating to age, and referral and treatment history. It does not tell us whether programs at the
different restrictiveness levels actually use such information to fashion treatment or rehabilitation
strategies that work best with the types of offenders they receive.
An effective juvenile justice system of graduated sanctions must have three basic attributes:
The ability to differentiate among offender types;
The knowledge necessary to decide which types of intervention or treatment strategies
work best with various offender types; and
An array of treatment resources that can actually deliver the treatment strategies that will
respond best to the risks and needs posed by each offender type.
Florida's juvenile justice system seems to have only the first attribute. Whether the second
attribute exists can only be determined by a process evaluation of what actually goes on within a
program on a daily basis. The existence of the waiting list is persuasive evidence that the third
attribute is completely missing.
Relation Between
Commitment Levels and Client Characteristics
Treatment History
(1st Referral to Present Commitment, Number of Commtments,
and Months in Commitment)
Level 2
Level 4
Level 6
Career Prior Months in
45.4 1.6 26.9
Aftercare
Career Prior Months in 33.6 1.0 12.8
Career Prior Months in
28.9 1.2 6.0
Career Prior Months in 30.0 1.0 9.2Career Prior Months in 41.2 1.4 19.4
Level 8/
Boot Camps
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Summary and Discussion of System Issues Page 229
Length of Stay
Another factor believed to contribute to program success is the average length of time a youth
stays in a program. A commitment program may be designed to last for six months or a year. If
the length of stay in a program is
curtailed, the impact of programming
methods may be diminished, and the
youth may not realize the full benefit of
what the program has to offer. The chart
illustrates the fact that as one progresses
deeper into the residential programs, the
average length of stay increases. Longer
lengths of stay in secure programs can
also help contribute to public safety. The
relation between average length of stay
and recidivism is not clear, however.
Completion Rates
If a youth spends a significant length of time in a program, it is believed that the youth will benefit
and that upon the youth's release, the youth will be deemed to have successfully completed the
program. Criteria for successful completion of a program are not consistent, even among
programs operating under the same model. What those criteria are, and to what degree each
juvenile completing the program has met those criteria, are data which are not readily available for
analysis. The relation between program completion and fulfillment of the treatment plan developed
for each juvenile has not been established. Performance with regard to program completion has
not been consistent, even within restrictiveness levels.
The data seems to indicate that
programs that are environmentally
secure, such as Level 4 wilderness-
type camps, and physically secure
programs, such as boot camps and
training schools, have better
completion rates. As was the case
with length of stay, however, the
relation between program completion
and rates of recidivism or subsequent
involvement in the system is not
entirely clear. For prevention programs
and JASP, completions are
complicated by the voluntary nature of
participation, and the effects of parental interruptions of the program. Eckerd aftercare programs
have longer lengths of stay and lower rates of completion, yet their rates of recidivism are lower
than those of other aftercare providers, perhaps because they are reluctant to release juveniles
whom they fear are not ready to enter the community again.
Level 2Level 4Level 6Level 8Aftercare
129.6
62.7
121.7
172.6156.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Level 2Level 4Level 6Level 8Aftercare
Average Length of Stay in Days
& Boot Camp
Level 2Level 4Level 6Level 8Aftercare
49.0%
83.0%
64.5%
83.7%
50.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Level 2Level 4Level 6Level 8Aftercare
Completion Rates
& Boot Camp
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 230Summary and Discussion of System Issues
Aftercare
The presence of services
and support in the
community where a youth
is released can also
contribute to maintaining
the changes in behavior and
attitude a youth may have
established in a
commitment program.
These services are called
aftercare. It is the intent of
the Legislature that all
youth returning home from
a commitment program
receive post-placement
services that help prevent
the youth from committing
a new offense. However, not all youth receive aftercare. The chart illustrates that more youth
receive aftercare when released from deeper-end commitment programs.
Recidivism
For the purpose of this report, the definition for recidivism counts only those youth who, within one
year of release, were::
Re-committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice;
Sentenced as an adult to probation; or
Sentenced to Department of Corrections custody.
Those youth given community
control or sentenced to adult jail are
not included in this definition. The
statewide recidivism rates for all
juvenile justice programs is 34.6%.
In other words, of the 7,798 youth
committed to the Department of
Juvenile Justice in FY 1994-95,
some 2,695 youth recidivated within
one year of release from the
commitment program. The Level 2
recidivism percentage reflected in
the chart above counts in its cohort
both youth who were directly
committed to Level 2 and those who were transferred down to a Level 2 program from a program
of a higher level.
Level 4Level 6Level 8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Level 4Level 6Level 8
Residential Commitment
Release Types and Aftercare
Aftercare
Streets
Other
& Boot Camp
Level 2Level 4Level 6Level 8Aftercare
26.9%
42.3%47.0%40.9%
27.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Level 2Level 4Level 6Level 8Aftercare
Overall Recidivism
(Juveniles recommited to DJJ, received adult probation, or
incarcerated in DC within one year of release)
& Boot Camp
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Summary and Discussion of System Issues Page 231
What Impacts Recidivism?
It is important to determine
what and how certain factors
impact client outcomes. With
a better understanding of the
methods used to change
delinquent and anti-social
behavior and the follow-up
services that best maintain the
change, client outcomes can
be improved. Unfortunately,
at this time there does not
appear to be a relationship
between lengths of stay,
completion rates or the
receipt of aftercare. The
relation between length of
stay, program completion, and
provision of aftercare to
recidivism and other client
outcome indicators deserves
further in-depth study.
Based on the findings in the
individual chapters and
summarized here, the Juvenile
Justice Advisory Board has
made the recommendations
which follow.
Completion Rates and Recidivism
49.0%
83.0%
64.5%
83.7%
50.7%
26.9%
42.3%47.0%
40.9%
27.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Level 2Level 4Level 6Level 8Aftercare
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Completion
Rates
Overall
Recidivism
& Boot Camp
Length of Stay and Recidivism
129.6
62.7
121.7
172.6
156.2
26.9%
47.0%
40.9%
27.8%
42.3%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Level 2Level 4Level 6Level 8Aftercare
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Avg.
Length
of Stay
Overall
Recidivism
& Boot Camp
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 232Major Findings and Recommendations
MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As a part of the evaluation of each component of the juvenile justice continuum, a number of
issues were identified that impact the performance of programs or the evaluation of their
performance during the period covered by this report. This section identifies major issues that
have an overarching impact on the juvenile justice system and which deserve the special attention
of the Legislature, officials of the Department of Juvenile Justice, the providers, and the multitude
of groups and individuals at the community level who care about the system. These major issues
fall into four broad categories: prevention, the commitment continuum, aftercare, and the need for
better data to support decision-making at every level of the system. The major recommendations
that follow are not rank ordered, but instead are grouped into the four categories mentioned.
Prevention
Recommendation
The Legislature must give the highest priority to the development and enhancement
of a coordinated and comprehensive continuum of prevention programs to serve
youth and families of youth at risk of involvement in the juvenile justice system.
Years of research have established a base of knowledge about the factors that put youth at risk of
delinquency as well as the protective or resiliency factors that help them become lawful and
productive citizens. Both risk and protective factors function within the four dominant areas, or
domains, of a child's life: the individual and his or her peers; the family; the school setting; and
community environment. Because risk and protective factors usually occur in combination rather
than in isolation, the most effective prevention strategies will involve two or more factors. We also
know that exposure to risk factors does not inevitably lead to delinquency because successful
prevention efforts can interrupt the processes that otherwise produce delinquent behavior. Many
youth who are exposed to multiple risk factors never become involved in the juvenile justice
system.
In the long term, public safety can only be achieved if our youth are prevented from becoming
involved in crime and violence, and the research indicates that prevention efforts must begin
before a child is born and continue throughout the early years of a child's development. Until the
Legislature finds a way to fund prevention services for every child at risk, those services will need
to be rationed. Therefore, it will be vitally important for the department to draw upon the most
recent knowledge about prevention theory to plan and target delinquency prevention services to
the youth and families most at risk of involvement in the juvenile justice system. In order to reach
some children and families at highest risk, special outreach efforts that are culturally appropriate
will be required within minority communities. Furthermore, as delinquency prevention services are
designed and implemented by the department and others, there must be awareness of and
attention to the prevention efforts of other state and local agencies. The delinquency prevention
services of the juvenile justice system must be complimentary to and coordinated with prevention
services delivered by the education system, the health care system, and the child and family
services system if they are to achieve their maximum potential.
Recommendation
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Major Findings and RecommendationsPage 233
The Legislature must ensure that there is a coherent research-based framework for
prevention in statute, and should insist that this framework become the organizing
principles for a substantial and coordinated prevention effort among the Department
of Children and Family Services, the Department of Education, the Department of
Health and the Department Juvenile Justice.
Each year the Legislature appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars for prevention services to
the Departments of Children and Family Services, Education, Health, Juvenile Justice, and others.
In order to maximize the effectiveness of these dollars, prevention services must be driven by a
comprehensive, research-based prevention policy. Without such a comprehensive policy
framework, it is likely that prevention services delivered by various state agencies, not to mention
public and private efforts at the community level, could be duplicative, uncoordinated and even
counter-productive.
Based on the research sponsored, endorsed or collected by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, the most effective prevention and early intervention efforts:
Address identified priority risk factors and protective factors, which will vary among
individuals and communities;
Focus on populations exposed to the greatest number of risk factors;
Address multiple risk factors within the four domains: individual and peer, family, school
and community;
Offer comprehensive and coordinated interventions across the education, health, family
services and juvenile justice systems; and
Relate to juveniles within the context of their relationships with others instead of focusing
solely on the juvenile.
Effective delinquency prevention requires an interdisciplinary approach that begins even before a
child's birth and continues throughout adolescence.
Achieving the goal of a coordinated comprehensive prevention policy must begin with a
coordination of the laws that govern efforts of state agencies. Next, the rules, regulations,
strategic plans, and performance-based program budgeting outcomes will need to be brought into
alignment with the Legislature's coordinated prevention policy framework. Finally, the day-to-day
operations of agencies involved in prevention will need to be adjusted. Shaping a comprehensive
prevention policy framework will require a major effort on the part of the Legislature, the
Governor, some Cabinet officers, executive agencies, local communities, providers, the business
community, and advocates for the consumers of prevention services.
The achievement and maintenance of the coordination that is recommended will require a great
deal of leadership from the Legislature. Within each body periodic joint meetings of the
substantive and appropriations committees with jurisdiction over agencies with prevention funding
should be held routinely so that the level of inter-agency coordination and its efficacy can be
discussed and assessed. Future Legislative oversight activities should include a regular review of
the level of coordination among state agencies in planning and delivering prevention services.
Recommendation
Any future delinquency prevention programs funded by the Legislature through the
appropriations process, or by the Department of Juvenile Justice through contracts
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 234Major Findings and Recommendations
or grants, should include clearly defined and measurable goals and outcomes. These
goals and outcomes should be focused on minimizing the risk factors or
strengthening the resiliency factors that operate within the individual, home, school,
and community domains of a child's life. The level of cooperation and coordination
with other prevention programs should weigh heavily in the evaluation of the
performance of delinquency prevention programs.
In order to maximize the benefits of prevention funding and eliminate wasteful duplication of
services, every prevention program needs clearly articulated outcomes that are:
Measurable;
Directly related to the reduction of risk factors or the enhancement of resiliency factors
across the four domains of a child's life; and
Coordinated with the prevention services of other agencies that are also operating with
the same four domains of the child.
Clear and measurable goals will also allow Legislators and concerned citizens to make better
comparisons of the results that are being achieved among the great variety of prevention
programs.
Delinquency prevention programs cannot produce good outcomes unless they utilize strategies that
help eliminate or ameliorate the risk factors that most contribute to a youth's involvement in the
juvenile justice system. They must also use strategies that help strengthen a youth's resiliency to
those risks. Very often the achievement of good outcomes for youth at risk of delinquency will
depend on access to prevention services outside the delinquency continuum. If all agencies
providing prevention services are guided by the same policy and strategies, they will also share
common outcomes and will find it mutually beneficial to cooperate and coordinate their efforts.
For example, a truant child who is referred for delinquency prevention services may also need and
be eligible for drop-out prevention services from the education system, family preservation
services from the Department of Children and Families, and childhood immunizations from the
Department of Health. If the outcomes that each agency is seeking for that child are client
focused, and if the strategies that each agency employs are based on the four domains of the
child's life, it will be far more likely that their strategies and their actual efforts will be
complementary, coordinated, and successful.
The Commitment Continuum
Recommendation
The Department of Juvenile Justice should evaluate, revise and validate its risk
classification instrument which is the cornerstone to decision-making with regard to
the restrictiveness level of each committed youth, the type of aftercare to be
provided, and to funding and resource allocation decisions as well. The service or
treatment needs of youth, and the ability to effectively address the assessed needs
of each youth must play an appropriate role in the choice of both the commitment
restrictiveness level and aftercare services.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditures by the Department of Juvenile Justice each year
are influenced by, if not dictated by, the Supervision Risk Classification Instrument for Case
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Major Findings and RecommendationsPage 235
Management (SRCI). The instrument was developed by the department in 1990 and revised in
1996 by a group of experienced staff in the department for the purpose of guiding disposition
recommendations and to assist in making decisions concerning diversion, the placement of
juveniles within the commitment continuum, and the level of aftercare supervision that is
necessary. The allocation of resources to the various levels of the commitment and aftercare
continuum are presumably influenced by the SRCI, as are the department's projections of future
need for commitment and aftercare resources.
The reliability and validity of the SRCI has never been empirically tested by research. The results
produced by the SRCI are regularly overridden by case managers even though doing so requires
written justification. Although the SRCI appears to be based on a combination of risk and need
factors, in practice the risk score seems to dominate the process, and the risk is measured in
quantitative rather than qualitative terms. A valid and reliable risk classification instrument and
process will be an essential tool for the juvenile justice system that is just as important to the
department as a sound revenue estimating methodology is to the Legislature.
The integrity of the current incremental system of levels within the DJJ commitment continuum
has been questioned recently. Although the Advisory Board's analysis of the data in this report
clearly reveals significant differences in the youth committed to the various commitment levels, it
is not clear whether those differences are produced by the current risk classification instrument or
by the frequent override of the instrument by experienced case managers. In view of what is at
stake in terms of human lives and enormous resources, the development and implementation of a
scientifically validated risk classification instrument should be a top priority of the department.
Recommendation
Each program in the DJJ continuum of services must have a clearly articulated
philosophical or theoretical framework. While no one such framework will be
adequate for all offender types, programs should be encouraged to go beyond
behavioral frameworks, integrating developmental theory and implementing
research-based practice within programs. Through links to aftercare, programs
should be encouraged to communicate treatment philosophy into the communities of
the youth served.
Although program designs generated by the department may be theory-based or based on
programs which have shown to be effective, program providers negotiate contracts which may or
may not implement the intended design completely or effectively. Providers are now being held to
stricter scrutiny with regard to the articulation of their treatment plans and the theoretical or
philosophical underpinnings for it. An analysis of recent research literature conducted on behalf of
the department revealed that two types of programs have been shown to be more effective: those
which are characterized by charismatic leadership, and those which are theory-based. Because
providers cannot always guarantee charismatic leadership, theory-based programming provides a
more predictable basis for success, and have been shown to be up to five times more effective.5
Most program descriptions feature problem-focused treatment programs which approach each
juvenile as a bundle of problems to be "fixed" prior to release from care and custody. Based on
5 Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Bureau of Quality Assurance (1994). Review of the
Literature on Characteristics of Effective Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Tallahassee, Florida:
Author.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 236Major Findings and Recommendations
provider contract, few programs articulate a systematic understanding of what drives delinquent
behavior as the underpinnings of the treatment they offer. Fewer still are able to communicate just
how the treatment is expected to have an effect, or show any evidence that it actually does.
For most programs, the unit of treatment is the juvenile alone, who has been taken from his or her
natural and enduring environment to be placed in the "laboratory" of the program. Few programs
demonstrate an understanding of each juvenile as a micro-system embedded within a larger
system or ecology: Each individual is a system of inter-related parts (physical body, intelligence,
personality) within a family system which exists within an even larger system of neighborhood,
school and community. Although programs can have an effect on juveniles while they are within
the walls of their facility, few programs are designed or are capable of either making beneficial
changes in the juvenile's enduring environment, or of arranging for the juvenile to move to a
healthier one.
Most program descriptions offer "Reality Therapy," "Rational Emotive Therapy" or behavior
management techniques in discussions of the treatments offered. Few programs approach
juveniles from a developmental perspective, and therefore run the risk of viewing juveniles as
"mini adults" rather than developing human beings. In so doing, they may fail to utilize what is
currently known about child and adolescent development, child guidance techniques and how
beliefs, values and behaviors are internalized in healthy individuals. Adolescents are in critical
periods of rapid physical, cognitive, identity and moral development. The application of existing
knowledge of the psycho-social dynamics of adolescents into DJJ program designs could open
new possibilities for delinquency treatment programs.
Aftercare
Recommendation
Although the Legislature has declared in statute its belief that aftercare services
can reduce recidivism, the Department of Juvenile Justice must take responsibility
to determine the most effective strategies for achieving that goal. The department
must clarify its expectations and its performance measures for aftercare services.
The strategies will dictate how the performance of aftercare programs and services
should be measured. At issue is whether the goal of no recidivism for youth who are
leaving residential commitment can best be achieved through a treatment strategy
that involves the delivery of services to assist the transition of a juvenile back into
the home and community, or through a law enforcement approach that involves
surveillance and the swift detection of violations of aftercare rules before they
escalate into new crimes.
The Department of Juvenile Justice provides an array of aftercare services that are either state-
operated, contracted to private providers, or some combination. For a number of years there has
been a great deal of interest about which aftercare models can best reduce or prevent recidivism,
and about who can deliver the services in the most cost-effective manner. But before the
outcomes being achieved by the various models of aftercare can be measured or compared in a
meaningful way, DJJ must resolve the ambiguity that exists as to the best strategy for achieving
the primary goal of aftercare because the confusion impacts the assessment of performance.
There is a spectrum of alternatives. On one end is a pure treatment approach where aftercare is
so interwoven with the fabric and philosophy of the commitment program that the seam is virtually
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Major Findings and RecommendationsPage 237
invisible. On the other is a public safety or zero-tolerance approach involving surveillance and the
swift detection of violations which are followed by swift but graduated sanctions based on the
severity of the violation. These choices are not mutually exclusive, and the current research seems
to support use of a range of strategies for the best results.
It is clear that the outcomes and the staffing for treatment-oriented aftercare will differ from those
that emphasize other strategies. In a model that concentrates on surveillance and detection, for
instance, a high number of referrals or technical violations might be an indication of success, and
the aftercare provider might employ workers with training or experience in public safety but with
no relationship or allegiance to the commitment program that served a youth before his release to
aftercare. Accountability for recidivism would rest with the commitment program that
"graduated" the recidivist. At the other extreme is the model where a single provider has
responsibility for the treatment and rehabilitative services in the commitment program and in the
aftercare component as well. Such a treatment or rehabilitative aftercare model might require
staff with social services or clinical experience, and have performance measures that are less
tolerant of subsequent contact with the juvenile or criminal justice system. The accountability for
recidivism of program graduates is much less ambiguous in this model.
The choice of strategy for aftercare services can have a profound affect on their cost. Because
of the important cost, staffing and public safety implications of the policy choices regarding
aftercare services, the DJJ should support and help implement the Advisory Board's
recommendation for a vigorous research program to test and evaluate aftercare models that seem
to have the greatest prospect for preventing recidivism.
Recommendation
The Legislature should earmark a portion of any new funding for aftercare services
for research that can test the usefulness and effectiveness of aftercare, and assess
the strengths and weaknesses of the various aftercare models now provided or
proposed by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The use of these research
funds should be linked to the development of an inter-agency agreement between
the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board (JJAB)
that would specify: (1) the aftercare models to be tested, (2) a comprehensive
experimental research design that apportions responsibilities for carrying out the
research design and related data collection procedures among the Department, the
Advisory Board, third party consultants, and providers; and (3) a time table for
completion of the project and reporting results to the Legislature.
There is a good deal of literature suggesting theoretical models for aftercare, but little research
has been conducted to actually test the effectiveness of these various models of aftercare when
implemented as recommended in the literature. To date, the research by the JJAB and OPPAGA
on aftercare in Florida cannot answer the ultimate question of what works best. The limited
research that has been done nationally on the effectiveness of aftercare for juvenile offenders has
been inconclusive.
Florida-specific research is needed to rigorously test the various models of aftercare services
currently used or proposed by the department, as well as the alternative methods of funding and
delivering aftercare services, including state and privately delivered services. The proposed
research should also test varying lengths of aftercare services paired with varying lengths of stay
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 238Major Findings and Recommendations
in commitment programs, as well as the appropriate pairing of program treatment model with
aftercare model, in order to determine the most cost-effective combination.
The Legislature currently provides the department $25 million for aftercare, and the Governor is
recommending an additional amount that would bring total annualized funding for aftercare
services to more than $30 million. The department had requested new aftercare funding of over
$22 million annualized. The sum of $250,000 in each of two fiscal years should be earmarked from
aftercare funding for the Department of Juvenile Justice to fund this research. This amount is less
than one percent of the projected $30 million annual expenditure by the department for aftercare
services. An investment of $500,000 over a period of two years is a small price for obtaining
empirical research that can help the Legislature decide how to best utilize its $30 million in
aftercare funding each year.
Data
Recommendation
The availability of timely and accurate data affects funding decisions by the
Legislature, management decisions by DJJ, and outcome evaluation by the JJAB.
The Department of Juvenile Justice must begin an aggressive program of training
and quality control now, so that when its new JJIS becomes operational, the data
that is produced will be valid and reliable.
The JJAB has consistently supported continued funding of a new Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) because its mission depends on the availability of timely and accurate data.
Outcome evaluations and other types of essential client- and program-focused research are
excessively time consuming and costly because the current Client Information System (CIS) is
antiquated and not designed to support this type of research. However, many of the problems that
the JJAB and other researchers have experienced with CIS are based on an undisciplined use of
the system by poorly trained and supervised staff.
Currently, the costs associated with serving very different populations of juveniles are mixed in a
single budget code, and data for certain types of programs is simply not available from certain
districts in an automated form. Client characteristics and program specific information are
fundamental to an accurate and fair evaluation system. Without uniformity in the way such data
are coded and entered into an information system, even the most expensive and sophisticated new
system cannot reliably support and inform critical decision making by the Legislature and others.
The Department of Juvenile Justice must begin an aggressive program of training and quality
control now, so that when its new JJIS becomes operational the data that is produced will be valid
and reliable. Otherwise, the millions of dollars that are being invested will not bring the dividends
that they should.
Recommendation
The DJJ must complete the process of properly apportioning the costs associated
with different programs and services within the SAMAS system. Likewise, DJJ
must find a means of differentiating in CIS the clients who receive varying types of
services from a single provider at a single location, and the costs associated with
serving them. Without client and program specific information, neither the outcomes
of clients served nor the cost effectiveness of programs can be determined.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Major Findings and RecommendationsPage 239
Until the Department of Juvenile Justice delivers on its prior commitment to segregate
expenditures on its various programs and services, whether contracted or state-operated, it will be
impossible to compare their cost-effectiveness. For example, the salaries, benefits and expense
costs associated with furlough, post commitment community control, re-entry and other types of
aftercare services are often commingled with a much broader case management category within
a district operating budget. The costs associated with many Level 2 day treatment programs are
commingled with the costs of step-down day treatment, and the lengths of stay in each type of
services are not segregated, making it difficult to know the actual cost of each service or the cost
per youth served by each.
The Juvenile Justice Advisory Board believes that action on these recommendations will produce
important improvements to public safety, positive effects on the lives of juvenile delinquents and
their families, and much greater accountability for the $500 million that are annually invested in the
juvenile justice system.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Page 240Major Findings and Recommendations
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Department of Juvenile Justice Staff
Headquarters
Susan Bisbee
Julie Blankenship
Elizabeth Cass
Sam Clunan
Diane Crompton
Debbie Danker
Abbas Darabi
Vicki Dritsos
Mike Dunn
Nathan Epps
Carolyn Freeman
Greg Hand
Monica Herz
Neil Hibbert
George Hinchliffe
Cassandra Jenkens
Paula Polhill
Nivea Pugh
Kenny Steve
Ted Tollett
John Trott
Districts
Dwight Reightnour, D2
Marcia Reightnour, D2
Stuart Wolcott, D2
Ernie Adkins, D3
Phil Kabler, D3
Clark Powers, D3
George Katsikas, D4
Ann Pillsbury, D4
Marina Pilcher, D6
George Allen, D7
Janet Burga, D7
Marlene Hendrix, D7
Don Whittall, D7
Providers
Barney Bishop
Earnest Cantley
Dianne Clark
Tony Deweese
Mark Fontaine
Frank Francisco
Nancy Hamilton
Kale Kritch
Nick Millar
Mike Muley
Richard Nedelkoff
Bonnie Rose
Fred Sanguiliano
William Schossler
Larry Visser
Carol Wells
Family Enrichment Program, St. Petersburg
St. Petersburg Panama Key Island Program,
St. Petersburg
Economic and Demographic Research Division, Florida Legislature
Kathy McCharen
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board Staff
Henry George White, Esq.,
Executive Director
Steven F. Chapman, Ph.D.,
Director of Evaluation and Research
Timothy J. Center, Esq.
Kimberly K. Fields
Jennifer R. Gallman
Jill Kuhlman
Randy B. Nelson
Mark Peach
Maleather Y. Ross
Marianna Tutwiler
Gerald E. Wescott
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Appendix A - 1
APPENDIX A: RECIDIVISM METHODOLOGY
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Appendix A - 2
Recidivism Methodology
From the first outcome evaluation reports produced by the Children, Youth and Family Services
division of the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in 1987, a
recidivism report has been produced in conjunction with data analysis regarding juvenile justice
program outputs. Recidivism reports were based on the juveniles released from commitment
programs during a six-month period. Juveniles eligible for these studies were a subset of those
released: juveniles who were released by transfer to another HRS commitment program, juveniles
on temporary release (for example, medical or psychological treatment or evaluation), juveniles
who were released for prison within the Department of Corrections, and juveniles on other
specific types of releases which did not place the youth at-large in the community for any time
were necessarily excluded from the pool of potential recidivists.
Although the rationale for this sampling method was sound, there were limitations due to the small
numbers of juveniles studied. The 1987 report, for example, included recidivism data on nine
program types with a total of 987 individuals released over a three-month period. These figures
were not broken out by district, nor were individual programs identified.6 Sample sizes ranged
from 19 to 284 youth. Because samples smaller than 30 individuals cannot be used reliably as the
basis of statistical inferences about the performance of these program types, comparisons within
and between program types could have been quite misleading.
The 1993-94 Outcome Evaluation Report produced by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
also employed a six-month cohort of juveniles released from commitment programs. The analysis
performed, however, was much more detailed. Residential commitment programs, for example,
were broken out by restrictiveness levels and individual program. A total of 45 programs were
broken out within the moderate-risk (Level 6) commitment programs, with a total of 925 juveniles
released in a six-month period. Sample sizes in this case ranged from 1 to 65 juveniles.7 Even with
the increase in the number of individuals qualified for the recidivism cohort, the higher number of
programs and the demand for information concerning the performance of individual programs
often resulted in inadequate sample sizes to support reliable inferences.
In an effort to supply reliable and useful information to decision makers, subsequent studies will
feature a recidivism sample drawn from the entire fiscal year, rather than a six-month period.
Whereas this did have the effect of increasing the sample sizes, careful attention has been given
to grouping programs in order to produce sample sizes large enough to support valid comparisons.
In some cases, individual programs have sufficient samples to support inferences. In other cases,
data was aggregated in the way which seemed to be the most useful. For local non-residential
programs, for example, resources were aggregated by program type within each district in view of
the fact that these programs are not regular contracted providers, but typically small and are
tailored to the special needs of individual offenders.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 1994-95, the period between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1995, there were more
than 12,000 admissions to DJJ commitment programs for a total of more than 8,600 individual
juveniles. The recidivism sample, or cohort, for the present study includes 7,798 individual juveniles
6 Children, Youth and Family Services (1987). Outcome Evaluation Report: A First Step Toward
Accountability (p.394). Tallahassee, Florida: Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.7 Bureau of Research and Data, 1995. Juvenile Justice Outcome Evaluation Report, 1993-94.
Tallahassee, Florida: Department of Juvenile Justice.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Appendix A - 3
who were placed one or more times within one or more DJJ programs. These numbers are based
on the September, 1996 extract, or snapshot of data in time, from the Florida Assessment,
Classification and Tracking System (FACTS).
For the first time, the production of the recidivism sample, as well as matches with data from the
Department of Corrections, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the US Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Florida Office of Compliance Monitoring jail monitoring data
were conducted under an inter-agency agreement between the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board
and the Department of Juvenile Justice. This was done in order to minimize duplication of effort,
to standardize definitions, and eliminate discrepancies between data presented by either agency to
decision makers and stakeholders.
Preparation of the Recidivism Cohort
Data with regard to placements and changes in status of juveniles in DJJ commitment programs is
maintained within FACTS. Upon the first commitment for a juvenile, a record is entered into
FACTS with identifying data for the juvenile and the program to which he or she is admitted. This
record also contains the date of entry, the reason for the record (new admission, transfer in,
inactive return) and any change of the status of the juvenile during the term of stay. Each time the
status of the client changes, whether the client completes the program, is transferred out, escapes,
dies, or has any one of a number of temporary absences from the program, a record of the change
of status is placed within this file. While the juvenile is committed to one resource, records related
to escapes, trips to detention, medical or mental health facilities, or the courtroom are entered.
Upon the return of the client, a subsequent record is entered indicating an "inactive return." One
stay in a resource may result in several records for an individual juvenile. During the 1994-95
fiscal year, there were 17,318 such transactions.
Data Assembly and Cleaning
The Client Information System (CIS) was originally designed to facilitate the management and
tracking of juvenile justice clients, rather than program evaluation. It is difficult to obtain an
accurate picture of the number of individual (unduplicated) juveniles, the beginning and end of their
stays at any one resource, the number of programs in which they have stayed during a period of
commitment, or the length of time they have been under the custody of the department. If a
juvenile is transferred out of a program, but the data entry for the subsequent program is incorrect,
the data base can only be corrected by transferring the youth out of the incorrect program into the
correct one. The resulting entry makes it look as if a juvenile was admitted to a program for the
period of one day, when in fact the youth was never there.
The process of correcting such mistaken entries or other data problems, commonly referred to as
"cleaning" the data, reduces not only the number of transactions which must be considered, but in
some cases, the number of individual juveniles or placements in resources. Because of re-
commitments of individuals previously released who were sent back to their last resource, the
number of placements will always be the same or higher than the number of individual juveniles
served in a program. Both of these numbers, the total number of placements (including duplicate
stays), as well as individual juveniles who have been served are important data in the consideration
of program outputs as opposed to client outcomes.
The collation and cleaning of data for this recidivism study was a labor-intensive task undertaken
by the DJJ Bureau of Data and Research, and audited by the JJAB research staff. Miscoded
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Appendix A - 4
data, missing data, and routine situations in which a juvenile was "placed administratively" in a
program for one day in order to maintain accurate tracking, or other indicators of data error, such
as unreasonably short stays or a confused sequencing of events, were individually corrected. In all
cases, cleaning the data was a matter of knowing the data and procedures by which it was
entered. In some cases, programs were contacted in order to clarify data entry errors.
Eligibility for Recidivism
Whereas the unduplicated number of individual juveniles released from programs exceeded 8,600,
the recidivism sample, or cohort, for this study is 7,798 youth. The guiding principle for inclusion in
the sample was whether the individual was released from the program and was at-large in the
community during some period between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1995. Those juveniles released
from a program on a temporary basis were not included. Neither were those juveniles included
who were sent to the Department of Corrections, who had died, or who were transferred or re-
committed for any purpose other than a Level 2 step-down or other aftercare arrangement. The
following release reasons qualified the juvenile for inclusion in the sample:
Program Completion;
Furlough;
Post-Commitment Community Control;
Maximum Term Served;
Reaching Age of Majority;
Other Release (Released and at-large); and
Transfer to Level 2 for Step Down or Aftercare.
Released fromCare and Custody*Completed the program*Reached the maximum age*Served the maximum time*Other
Aftercare*Reentry*Furlough*PCCC
Level 2 Stepdown*Day Treatment*SIG*Others
Released - but not included in recidivism samplebecause was not at-large to commit a new offense
*Sentenced or transferred to adult jail or DC*Transferred or recommitted to a commitment program of a higher level*Transferred or recommitted to a commitment program of the same level*Transferred to a commitment program of a lower level (but not Level 2)*Temporarily released for medical treatment or court appearances*While escaped or absconded youth are at-large, they are not released
Youth in the recidivism sample have been released from a programto the community. Some youth are placed in aftercare. Some youthare not under any type of additional supervision or surveillance. Ineither case, these youth have the opportunity to commit a newoffense.
How the Recidivism Sample Was Developed
Recidivism Sample
YouthReleased
Commitment
Program
SchoolHome
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Appendix A - 5
Selection criteria seem fairly straight forward, however, data entry errors, the structure of the data
system and program innovations were factors which had to be dealt with in analyzing the data.
Defining what constituted a genuine stay in a resource, when the stay began and ended and in
what manner was therefore done very carefully.
Defining a "Stay"
With the increase in the number of programs which have in-house step-down units or which are
experimenting with trial furloughs and "re-cycling" juveniles, defining when a stay begins and ends
has become more complex.
In-house step-down units utilized by such programs as Eckerd Youth Development Center
(EYDC), and Dozier Training School, feature transitional cottages to which juveniles are
transferred before release. EYDC often places youth who have completed the transitional cottage
regimen on furlough for a trial period. At the end of this period, the juvenile is administratively re-
admitted and then transferred to a non-residential commitment program (day-treatment) as a step-
down or aftercare arrangement. Having completed a Level 2 stay, these youth are often placed in
a re-entry program, on post-commitment community control, or on furlough. A stay was defined
as the period of time from first admission until the release of the juvenile to a Level 2 step-down
or other aftercare arrangement. At this point, the juvenile was considered eligible for the
recidivism sample.
The practice of "recycling" juveniles back to a boot camp or other program is used when, after
being released to aftercare, adjustment problems -- not necessarily new offenses--indicate that
the juvenile is not ready to assume the responsibilities involved in returning to the community. Such
recycling stays were ordinarily short, but these individuals were not considered released until the
"recycling" phase was completed. In this way, the program was allowed to complete treatment to
the provider's satisfaction before the juvenile was qualified for entry into the recidivism pool.
Other problems with regard to defining a program stay were encountered as juveniles were
transferred or re-committed, yet remained within the same program. There were other instances
when youth were out of the program on a temporary release, and returned to a different resource.
Juveniles sometimes escaped from a facility and reached the age of majority before they were
apprehended and no longer subject to the custody of the department.
The DJJ Bureau of Data and Research staff created computer programming to select the sample
based on this criteria, accounting for the problems present in the data. As a result, the
programming was more than 95% accurate in identifying juveniles eligible for the recidivism
sample, and assigning them to the appropriate program for the proper length of time. DJJ analysts
extracted the remaining questionable data and resolved the problems on a case-by-case basis,
often by calling the programs and asking about the disposition of specific individuals.
Working from the same data, JJAB researchers computed demographic data, offense histories
and commitment histories on each individual within the sample in order to provide a basis for the
estimation of the effect of offender characteristics on rates of recidivism. JJAB staff also
computed resident days and average lengths of stay for each program. Using the same definition
of the beginning and end of the client's stay, resident days were computed for time actually spent
in the program, not including the time during which the individual was temporarily out or had
escaped.
Juvenile Justice Advisory Board 1997 Outcome Evaluation Report
Appendix A - 6
Collating Recidivism Data
The process of determining recidivism rates included with requests for statewide data on arrests
from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and on probation and commitments
from the Florida Department of Corrections (DC). Data was also obtained from the US Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Florida Office of Compliance Monitoring, housed within the
DJJ Bureau of Prevention, which monitors the conditions under which juveniles are placed in
county jails and lock-ups. Together with information derived from the Delinquency and
Dependency Referral file (DDR) within the DJJ Client Information System, data was assembled
and matched against the recidivism sample by DJJ Data and Research staff.
Utilizing the data files provided by DJJ Data and Research analysts, JJAB researchers also
replicated the DJJ analysis and compared it with their own, verifying the results. The rationale and
programming for cleaning the data and obtaining the recidivism sample was done in consultation
with Juvenile Justice Advisory Board research staff, and the programming was audited. The JJAB
staff have certified both the rationale and the programming as representative of the highest quality
and standards for producing reliable and valid data.
FDLE Data
To acquire FDLE arrest data, DJJ analysts submitted names and identifying information to the
Criminal History Public Records Section of the FDLE User Services Bureau. Using a computer
program called the Automated Record Check System (ARCS), FDLE analysts returned criminal
history face sheets rather than automated files on those juveniles who met the criteria for the
matching program. DJJ analysts then determined:
Which criminal histories in fact belonged to juveniles in question;
Whether or not any arrests occurred within one year;
The nature of the offense (felony or misdemeanor);
Whether any of these arrests resulted in convictions; and
The most serious sanction received for any of these arrests.
Despite limitations of the FDLE data system, the Criminal History Public Records Section of the
FDLE User Services Bureau was timely, thorough and cooperative. They are also currently
working to produce an automated file which will eliminate the labor-intensive data collection
process.
Department of Corrections
The DJJ Bureau of Data and Research analysts annually submit a request for data to the DC.
The data sought for this analysis contains the records of any inmates or probationers 23 years of
age or younger, who were admitted from the beginning of the release period to date.