Department of Juvenile Justice

Seven Steps for Saving Kids While Saving Money: Prevention, Intervention and
Diversion within the Department of Juvenile Justice

1. Thinking in “silos,” of departments of juvenile justice, children and families,

education and health is counterproductive to the needs of “at risk” youth
and economically inefficient. Let’s face it: it’s the 6% of “at risk” youth who
can and should be targeted as 94% of Florida youth never break the law.
Technology allows us to break down “silos” and asses and manage “at risk”
youth in a wrap-around, individualized, case management style, but DJJ has
largely failed to do that. Therefore, the new Secretary of the Department
of Juvenile Justice should immediately replace the existing chief deputy
position with an Assistant Secretary of Service Coordination to move in this
direction. We know what works with kids; we certainly know what doesn’t
work. We need a coordinated response to address the significant
delinquency problems caused by a very small percentage of Florida youth
who cost the taxpayers an excessive amount of money.
Key elements:
 Recruit a well-respected, highly motivated person with broad
experience across the continuum of services in Florida. ( Judy L. Estren,
Esq., Vice-President of Support Services at AMI kids, Inc., has the
necessary experience, energy, insight and political skills as well as
national recognition. There are other capable people for this position,
second only in importance to the Secretary.)
 Appoint that person to the Children’s Cabinet and other inter-agency
forums and give that person great autonomy to develop an action plan
to integrate services across agencies.
 Require that person to target duplication of services, provider contracts
and personnel within agencies and to recommend technology that
would improve communication and cut costs significantly, within the
first year.
 Fiscal Impact: None initially as the new position would replace the
current Deputy Secretary position. After a year, if the right person is
chosen, I believe significant savings across agencies will be achieved.
Legislative Requirements: None, I believe.
Legislative Opposition: None, I believe
Pros: Efficiency, improved and more immediate services for kids,
taxpayer savings.
Cons: None, I believe, except for a change within the DJJ structure.
Future Research: The Blueprint Commission Report, Recommendations
46, 28, 28, 30 and 7, January 2008; “Community-Based Solutions for
Delinquent Youth: A guide of Advocates”, by Judy L. Estren, Esq. with
Kristin Winokur, Ph d., found in the ABA Child Law Practice, Vol.29, No.
4, June 2010, page49; “Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Two Sides of
the Same Coin, Parts I and II,” published in the fall 2008 and winter 2009
issues of Juvenile and Family Justice Today, a quarterly magazine
published by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges;
Chapter 22, “Crossover Kids: Fewer Silos, More Legal Representation,” in
Raised by the Courts: One Judge’s Insight into Juvenile Justice by Judge
Irene Sullivan.

2. Prevention, Intervention and Diversion represent a continuum of services

for needy youth that precede juvenile court, probation and incarceration
but belong under the same umbrella of juvenile justice. Evidence-based
outcomes are critically important for each area. We have the research
capability in Tallahassee to determine the cost effectiveness of each area,
and the value to the taxpayer. A long-range cost effectiveness study of the
programs in those categories should be undertaken, preferably by a highly
qualified, private research firm, such as The Justice Research Center in
Tallahassee in partnership with OPAGA. Only then can we determine which
programs really work in the long term to turn “at risk” kids into productive
citizens, thus allowing Florida to close prisons and save substantial taxpayer
money while increasing revenues.
 Washington State undertook such a study a decade ago with terrific
economic results. “We find that if Washington successfully implements a
moderate-to-aggressive portfolio of evidence-based options, a
significant level of future prison construction can be avoided, taxpayers
can save about two billion dollars and crime rates can be reduced.”
(Presentation made to the Blueprint Commission in 2008, contemplated
in the commission’s Recommendation 45, and further described in
Chapter 19, Raised by the Courts: One Judge’s Insight into Juvenile
Justice by Judge Irene Sullivan.)
 The goal and scope of such a study obviously should be tailored to 2011
Florida, rather than following the Washing State model. The Assistant
Secretary for Coordination should work closely with the research team
to assure that programs from all agencies that serve children are
included in the study as well as considering privatizing the work of the
Departments in research and planning, at an estimated savings of
$150,000 annual, according to the Justice Research Center.
 While the Washington State study emphasizes long-term taxpayer
savings, the Florida research team should be charged with identifying
immediate, mid and long term savings, bearing in mind that cutting
costs and increasing the productivity of youth are equally important if
achievable. For example, in the 6th Circuit, our Juvenile Arrest Avoidance
Project, less than two years old, has saved over 1500 kids from having
an arrest record and court involvement. Taking DJJ’s average cost per
youth of $5,500, and cutting that in half, conservatively we have saved
over $1.3 million in county/DJJ costs.
Fiscal Impact: Competitive bidding will determine the cost of the study,
which will be recovered in short and long-term savings to the taxpayer.
Operational Impact: Out of my area of expertise
Legislative Requirements: Legislation authorizing the study and
allocating the funds to pay for it.
Legislative Opposition: From those who are short-sighted and regard it
as too expensive, instead of seeing it as an incredible tool to reduce
 delinquency, increase productivity in youth and young adults, while
saving taxpayer dollars.
Pros and Cons: Summarized above.
Future Research: “General Ideas from the Justice Research Center” and
JRC Cost Savings Plan,” available from the Justice Research Center in
Tallahassee. Otherwise, beyond my expertise, other than the
Washington State study. However, bidders should be required to list all
current research that supports the study and their method of achieving
similar results.
3. The most effective way to reduce delinquency is to prevent child abuse,
abandonment and neglect, as statistics show that most serious delinquents
are themselves victims of childhood trauma. Instead of competing for
funding, DJJ and DCF should join in supporting programs like Healthy
Families, a proven success in reducing child abuse and thus reducing the
costs of juvenile delinquency. The $11 million reduction in Healthy Families
funding in 2010 is a glaring, shameful, foolish example of “penny wise,
pound foolish,” as juvenile delinquency will increase following a certain
increase in child abuse due to those spending cuts. The Healthy Families
funding should be restored and if necessary paid for by savings identified by
the Assistant Secretary for Service Coordination in eliminating duplication
in employees and services.
 DJJ has already recognized the proven connection between child abuse
and delinquency by beginning “trauma informed care” training in
community and residential programs. That training needs to be
continued and expanded to all detention staff, juvenile probation
officers and aftercare workers, perhaps on a circuit-wide basis.
Prosecutors, public defenders and juvenile judges can be added to the
training to provide funding and/or encourage the financial support of
the Florida Bar and local non-profit foundations.
 Again and again, the Blueprint Commission recommended coordination,
cooperation and revised inter-agency agreements for dually-served
youth as well as increased emphasis on the mental health needs of
delinquent children. This would be a key role for the Assistant Secretary
 for Service Coordination. Dr. Shairee Turner was a vigorous advocate for
better mental health services for DJJ youth. Bringing her back from the
Department of Health, to work with the Assistant Secretary for Service
Coordination would be invaluable.
 Healthy Families Florida is a well-established, proven program
administered by the Ounce of Prevention Fund of Florida, Inc.—in fact, a
leader in the nation in the area of in-home services for at-risk children.
DJJ should be required to support and work with this program to reduce
the delinquency that research has proven results from abuse,
abandonment and neglect. According to national studies, 27% of
abused or neglected children become delinquent. Flipping the statistic,
in my experience in court and what the research would support, is that
over 50% of delinquents have been abused, abandoned or neglected in
some manner. In 2008, the average cost to the state for a delinquent
child was $5,200. An independent study of Healthy Families found a
58% reduction in child abuse some two years after services. Therefore,
the costs of delinquency could be cut in half if proven programs like
Health Families were expanded. It makes absolute sense.
Fiscal Impact: $11to $13 million initially to restore and expand Healthy
Families services. In the long term, a major reduction in delinquency
costs by reducing child abuse in Florida.
Operational Impact: Outside my area of expertise
Legislative Requirements: Legislation to restore and expand funds to
Healthy Families.
Legislative Opposition: From those ignorant of the proven connection
between child abuse and delinquency, and those focused on short term
budget reductions.
Pros and Cons: Stated above.
Future Research: We have a wealth of experts in this area in Florida
who can provide up-to-date research and evidence of what works:
Doug Sessions and Carole McNally from the Ounce of Prevention Fund
of Florida, Inc.; Mimi Graham from Florida State University, Lynne Katz
from the University of Miami; Judge Cindy Lederman from Miami-Dade
 County, as well as Harvard Professor Jack Shonkoff, M.D., in his report:
“From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood
Development,” and Chapter 13 in Raised by the Courts: One Judge’s
Insight into Juvenile Justice, by Judge Irene Sullivan. To detail all this
research is beyond the scope of this report. However, those experts
have the facts to back up their advocacy and proof of significant savings
to taxpayers and should be involved in this discussion.

4. Florida is becoming a national leader in gender specific services for girls,

such as PACE; in creative, cost-effective alternatives to prosecution, such as
civil citations and other arrest-avoidance diversion programs that reduce
detention costs; in JADAI’s successful detention reform efforts and success
in cities such as Ft. Lauderdale; in CINS/FINS services provided by the
Network; in offering Redirections, an in-home family counseling program
designed to keep kids out of residential commitment; in alternative schools
for kids on probation or post-commitment probation, such as the 26
Associated Marine Industries centers; in leadership, crime prevention and
youth programs run by the sheriffs statewide, in teen courts that divert
from prosecution while preventing a second crime and providing a civics
education and, finally and way too long in coming, in providing transitional
living services for foster kids with delinquency involvement, the “crossover
kids.” DJJ must fully support and expand these programs as they are
proven to save substantial taxpayer dollars and should be, for the most
part, a statewide, DJJ responsibility. On the other hand, a fresh look at all
DJJ programs will identify those that don’t work and aren’t cost effective.
By now, we know “what works,” and we certainly know what doesn’t work.
 Every middle manager at DJJ should be required to identify financially
ineffective programs without regard to turf battles and they should be
eliminated or phased out as practical. Likewise, the successful, evidence-
based, money savings programs listed above should be put on the “A”
list of DJJ prevention services and given recognition, support and
applause for saving taxpayer dollars. A portion of the savings from
eliminating ineffective programs should be allocated to the programs
 mentioned above that do provide good outcomes and save back-end
prison costs. A highly-skilled, cost-motivated, outcome- oriented
Assistant Secretary for Prevention should be appointed to oversee this
important task.
 A number of long-standing DJJ programs will undergo this scrutiny. Two
that come to mind for re-evaluation are the following: DJJ’s efforts at
reducing the number of minority youth in the delinquency system—the
DMC issue- and low risk residential programs. Consideration should be
given to outsourcing the entire DMC effort, which is critical as such a
large proportion of the department’s budget is spent on minority youth
on probation and in commitment programs. Recidivism is high, the
numbers aren’t improving, what’s been done to date hasn’t worked. The
project should be outsourced via competitive bidding from well-
recognized diversity training experts in Florida. We have the talent, we
lack the will. Low-risk residential programs should be analyzed in terms
of per child costs, recidivism and alternatives in the community. Some
juvenile judges and child psychologists regard them as a poor substitute
for intensive family therapy in the community, such as with Re-
Directions.
 It is beyond the scope of this report to describe in depth all of the
successful programs referred to above, where Florida is a leader in the
nation. Transition team members and/or DJJ employees or consultants
should divide the work, thoughtfully interview the CEOs or EDs, gather
the statistics and be prepared to prove to the legislature that these
programs save substantial taxpayer dollars while keeping kids safe and
from DJJ involvement.
Fiscal Impact: Unknown at this time. Will require more analysis
depending on the cost savings from eliminating ineffective programs.
Operational Impact: Beyond my expertise.
Legislative Requirements: A full-blown, evidence-based, success-story-
laden presentation to the legislature to convince them of the
importance of front-end prevention and intervention to reducing the
high costs of probation and commitment throughout DJJ.
 Legislative Opposition: From those who apply “tough on crime” to
juveniles, and those fiscally short-sighted lawmakers; however, this
should be minimized by a dramatic, evidence-based presentation by the
key players in Florida, who are nationally known for the efforts.
Pros and Cons: Stated above
Future Research: I have detailed research on all the successful
programs. However, I suggest the transition team contact these folks
directly, for up to date research and evidence: Mary Marx at PACE; Joe
Clark at the Eckerd Family Foundation for civil citation information;
Judge Frank Orlando for JADAI/Annie E. Casey detention reform
information, as well as team member Wansley Walters for her
internationally-recognized Juvenile Services Department in Miami-Dade
County; Stacey Gromatski and Jane Harper for Cins/Fins Network
information; Dan Edwards at Evidence-Based Associates and Kristin
Winokur at the Justice Research Institute for Re-Directions information;
Jack Levine and Katie Self and information on the National Association of
Youth Courts and the Florida Association of Teen Courts; the various
sheriffs for information about their diversion and prevention programs;
Judy Estren for Associated Marine Industries information, and the
organizations Connected by 25 in Tampa and Ready for Life in St.
Petersburg for information about transitioning successfully out of foster
care. That’s just a sample! Furthermore, diverting youth from detention
and commitment and strengthening and supporting evidence-based,
successfully programs in the community was a key goal of the Blueprint
Commission’s many recommendations.
5. Prevention includes prevention of recidivism. “You can’t fix the child until
you fix the family.” Florida’s recidivism from a juvenile commitment
program is discouraging: 39% of the youth released from a commitment
program recidivate within one year. However, Florida is fortunate here in
that it has a nationally-recognized leader in Scott Sells, Ph d., creator of
Parenting with Love and Limits (PLL), paid through Redirections dollars to
pilot a number of very effective family-involvement/aftercare programs for
committed youth that will dramatically shorten the length of stay in a
residential program while protecting public safety and reducing recidivism.
The program has saved other states such as Indiana millions of dollars in
residential costs while increasing bed capacity by shortening stays. More
youth are served at reduced costs. Instead of a few pilots, the PLL program
should be expanded statewide. It would pay for itself and generate
additional savings, if just one large residential facility could be closed. The
very capable Assistant Secretary Rex Uberman recognizes the potential of
this program, in terms of huge taxpayer savings and better outcomes for
kids. This should be a priority of the new Secretary of Juvenile Justice.
 Mark A. Greenwald, DJJ’s Chief of Research and Planning, has compiled
“Time to Failure” data and a chart that shows that 59% of those getting
re-arrested do some within 120 days of being released. This is obviously
a critical transition period that Scott Sells and PLL address in their pilot
programs.
 By beginning re-entry planning and preparation at the time of the
disposition and actively engaging the parents or caregiver and other
stakeholders, PLL shortens the length of stay and thus increases bed
capacity by a third for the same cost, thus allowing faster closure of
residential programs and significant cost savings.
 PLL can demonstrate a potential cost savings of $2.12 million in
residential care in Florida through comparisons in Indiana and in the
positive results beginning to come out of its pilot programs at
Falkenberg in Tampa and Britt House in St. Petersburg. PLL’s costs are
lower than multi-systemic family therapy or functional family therapy.
Fiscal impact: $2.2 million in savings within DJJ, and potential for more.
Operational Impact: Works best if residential facilities are closer to
home; will require closing of some facilities.
Legislative Requirements: Adjustment in residential dollar allocations
Legislative Opposition: Should be none if fully informed and a statistical
presentation is made.
Pros, stated above. Cons, none.
 Future Research: Scott Sells is a very research minded person and has
documented his success in readily-understandable, graphic format. He
is an incredible asset to the state in this area of reducing recidivism.

6. Children with mental health needs should be treated in mental health

facilities and not in juvenile jails. Those juveniles who receive criminal
charges while in residential care are those most in need of mental health
treatment. Without treatment, they dramatically drive up the cost of
juvenile justice. Community based mental health treatment must be
increased by DJJ and DCF working jointly to use therapeutic residential care
for these children instead of a more expensive, locked-down delinquency
commitment. Again, if the silos are broken down and coordination occurs,
the savings to the taxpayer will be significant. Blueprint commissioners
considered this to be an urgent need in many of the recommendations
made.
 The Assistant Secretary for Coordination should work with DCF to
identify un-used therapeutic foster beds, for potential placement for
delinquent kids in need of intensive mental health treatment outside of
an expensive, hard- to- come- by residential psychiatric (SIPPS)
placement. Both DJJ and DCF would be maximizing capacity and
lowering costs, if this was successful.
 Child psychologists working with juvenile judges in the Sixth Circuit
recommend “community support teams,” consisting of a mental health
provider, DJJ representative, school social worker and family therapist to
solve difficult mental health issues together in a way that makes the
child and family feel supported. Some feel that this would be more
effective and should take the place of low risk residential programs
which are located away from the community.
 Services that begin in detention and that rapidly connect the youth and
family to community-based mental health services upon leaving
detention are proven to be valuable. One example is the Sixth Circuit’s
 PEMHS Post Detention program, initiated by Public Defender Bob
Dillinger.
Fiscal impact: Unknown, but expected to come from reduced recidivism
and fewer commitments.
Operational Impact: Beyond my expertise
Legislative Requirements: Beyond my expertise
Legislative Opposition: Other than to any up-front funding, none
imaginable as the savings are inherent in reduced need for residential
facilities, psychiatric and criminal.
Pros and cons: Stated above.
Future research: Drs. Cindy Zarling, Christine Jaggi and Adele Solazzo
are the three child psychologists who work with the juvenile judges in
the 6th Circuit, providing behavioral evaluations, making
recommendations for dispositions, and connecting the families to
services. That is unique in Florida, and the 6th Circuit is well-known and
envied for such a resource. They themselves know the literature and
research in the area and would be an invaluable contact for the
transition team or DJJ. Their work is detailed somewhat in Chapter 5,
“Juvenile Judges and Mental Health Issues,” in Raised by the Courts: One
Judge’s Insight into Juvenile Justice by Judge Irene Sullivan.
7. Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) is the biggest problem in juvenile
justice in Florida and the most difficult to frankly address. DJJ has made
statewide efforts to bring recognition to the problem, but little or nothing
has changed or occurred. Shockingly, according to DJJ consultant Randy
Nelson, Ph d, president of 21st Century Research and Evaluations, Inc., 40%
of present DJJ costs in Florida are attributed to young black males. Even
worse, as Dr. Nelson states, “Black males mature onto corrections,” driving
the costs immensely. The schools, communities, law enforcement and the
courts are affected. Frankly, Florida is far behind other states and national
initiatives. This is a very, very difficult problem, without an easy solution.
One positive note, however, is that under DJJ’s Andy Hindman, Director,
Faith and Community Based Partnerships, a network of 1200 congregations
statewide has been developed to provide mentoring, tutoring, GED
programs in the neighborhoods using their own money and resources, with
guidance from DJJ. That should provide a good base to include in a DMC
action plan and Mr. Hindman deserves continued support for his effort.
 First, we have to be honest and identify the significance of the DMC
problem is in terms of DJJ dollars, loss of a productive citizen to prison,
prison costs, etc. The whole pipeline. This task could be outsourced to
the Justice Research Institute or another bidder, for greater honesty,
accuracy and less bias that might occur within the department. We have
to know the extent of the problem before we can move the state and
communities into action. In bold, brash, often frightening statistics.
 Next, consider outsourcing the development of a bold, evidence-based,
outcome-oriented response and action plan to a private provider with
proven experience who will then be responsible for presenting the
response and action plan to the Secretary, key legislators, members of
law enforcement and the Children’s Cabinet. The provider should have a
track record of success or potential for successful in training law
enforcement, school resource officers and behavior specialists, juvenile
probation officers and court personnel, including judges, prosecutors
and public defenders. Something needs to happen quickly and
effectively in this area, as Florida is bleeding. If we know the actual cost
of the problem, and see proven results, the savings could be the largest
ever realized in a juvenile justice program.
 Barbara Cheives, the owner of Converge & Associates Consulting, an
expert in race and human relations consulting, cultural competency and
diversity training, and well-regarded member of the Blueprint
Commission, is someone with the personality, experience, connections
and energy for this task. She is the chair of the Palm Beach County
Criminal Justice Commission and has provided diversity training for over
25 years. She, along with Dr. Nelson, should be offered an opportunity
to bid for the project, taking it out of the department for greater
effectiveness. She or someone with her expertise would take us from
over and over again asking “why?” we have the problem, to what we
can do to dramatically reduce it. It’s possible that payment could be
tied to success, as it’s easy to measure the DMC numbers within juvenile
justice.
Fiscal impact: None or little, if DJJ’s DMC budget reduced by the cost of
the outsourced provider. Potential for huge positive savings if the DMC
problem is resolved, even partially.
Operational impact: Outside my area of expertise.
Legislative Requirements: Adjustments in DJJ functions and allocations
Legislative Opposition: None anticipated, except from opponents of
outsourcing.
Pros and Cons: Stated above
Research: Ms. Chieves, Dr. Nelson and Kristin Winokur of the Justice
Research Institute have abundant research. Also, see the annual report
of the W. Haywood Burns Institute, as well as its paper on the DMC
issue. www.burnsinstitute.org . Also, chapters 1, 8, 11 and 28 in Raised
by the Courts: One Judge’s Insight into Juvenile Justice, by Judge Irene
Sullivan.