RFI 10812_Addendum1_Final.pdf

RFI #10812

Addendum #1

INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE (ITN)

ADDENDUM #1

June 9, 2023

RFI Number: 10812

RFI Services: The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ or department) seeks information from potential providers and subject matter experts in establishing the Florida Scholars Academy (FSA) and the development of a unified school district to serve youth committed to DJJ residential commitment programs statewide. Information sought by the department includes, but is not limited to, the establishment of the Academy, development of an education delivery system; implementation of an accountability system approved by the State Board of Education; administration of the educational programs of the Academy;

management of the day-to-day operations of the Academy; oversight of administrative and instructional personnel; maintenance of financial records and accounts of the Academy; maintenance of the custody and content of student records; and the ability to provide students with greater access to secondary and postsecondary educational opportunities. Historically, 44 residential sites for FY 2021-22 and 38 sites for 2022-23 were in operation.

UNSPSC Code: 86111801 Educational exchanges between universities 86111802 Educational exchanges between schools 86132000 Management education and training services 86132200 Educational support services 86141501 Educational advisory services 94101607 Educational or teacher associations

Subject: This Addendum contains questions received from potential Respondents, and the Department’s answers to the questions.

Return of this Addendum is not mandatory; however, the Vendor is responsible for its contents and is requested to sign and submit this Addendum with its response to the RFI. Protests must be filed with the General Counsel’s Office, Department of Juvenile Justice, 2737 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100, within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and chapter 28-110, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Notices delivered by hand delivery or delivery service shall be to the Agency Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2737 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100, with a copy to the Department’s Procurement Manager responsible for this solicitation. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section

120.57 (3), F.S., or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, F.S. Written notices, formal requests and proceedings must conform to the requirements set forth in chapter 28-110, F.A.C.

Any person who files an action protesting a decision or intended decision pertaining to contracts administered by the department or agency pursuant to section 120.57(3), F.S., shall post with the department or the agency at the time of filing the formal written protest a bond payable to the department or agency in an amount equal to 1 percent (1%) of the estimated contract amount. The estimated contract amount shall be based upon the contract price submitted by the protestor or, if no contract price was submitted, the department or agency shall estimate the contract amount based on factors including, but not limited to, the price of previous or existing contracts for similar commodities or contractual services, the amount appropriated by the Legislature for the contract, or the fair market value of similar commodities or contractual services. The agency shall provide the estimated contract amount to the Respondent within seventy-two (72) hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, after the filing of the notice of protest by the Respondent. The estimated contract amount is not subject to protest pursuant to section 120.57(3), F.S. The bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs and charges that are adjudged against the protestor in the administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent appellate court proceeding. In lieu of a bond, the department or agency may, in either case, accept a cashier's check, official bank check, or money order in the amount of the bond. If, after completion of the administrative hearing process and any appellate court proceedings, the department or agency prevails, it shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the final order or judgment, excluding attorney's fees. This section shall not apply to protests filed by the Office of Supplier Diversity. Upon payment of such costs and charges by the protestor, the bond, cashier's check, official bank check, or money order shall be returned to the protestor. If, after the completion of the administrative hearing process and any appellate court proceedings, the protestor prevails, it shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the final order or judgment, excluding attorney's fees.

SIGNED BY: _______________________________________________________________________

NAME: ____________________________________________________________________________

COMPANY: ________________________________________________________________________

TITLE: ____________________________________________________________________________

DATE:_____________________________________________________________________________

REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Questions are presented in the exact manner they were received.

AMIkids, Inc. – Received 05/31/2023

Question #1 How many students are served per residential location?

Answer #1 Attached is the most recent slot report which shows the maximum number of youth at each program. Please note bed adjustments can be made at any program based on department need via a contract amendment, while also recognizing that new programs may commence operations during the course of the year.

Question #2 What is the current school district relationship for each residential location?

Answer #2 School districts are currently responsible for providing the education at each DJJ residential facility. DJJ has a cooperative agreement with each school district that has a DJJ program.

These agreements outline the specific responsibilities of each party and can be found here.

https://www.djj.state.fl.us/partners-providers-staff/policies-resources/interagency-agreements-memoranda-of-understanding/level-5-agreements-with-school-boards Additionally, the DJJ regional education coordinators maintain frequent communication with each district’s Juvenile Justice Education Manager to solve issues as needed.

Question #3 What academic and CTE offerings are currently being provided by program location?

Answer #3 Education providers are required to offer all academic courses needed for student progression in a K-12 program as well as youth that are high school graduates at any given time. The educational services are based on each student’s individualized transition plan. Please see the CTE Listing of Residential Programs and Certifications.

Question #4 The RFI indicates that the respondent will provide school counseling services. Is it expected that the respondent will provide mental health services? Or is the expectation that mental health services will continue to be provided by the residential provider?

Answer #4 The counseling services referenced in the RFI are specifically targeted to student services for the FSA. Many duties of a guidance counselor, assessment coordinator, and college and career coach in a traditional district setting would apply here. Mental health services currently provided by a residential provider will not change or be impacted by the requested FSA counseling services.

Question #5 The RFI indicates that the respondent collaborate with the residential providers to develop a unified behavioral response system. Is the intent that there would be one unified response system across all residential providers or is the unification within each residential facility (i.e., unified with provider and FSA team)?

Answer #5 The FSA is to develop a unified behavior response system that is consistent across the district but also aligned with the particular needs of the facilities and student population at each residential program.

Question #6 Is the expectation that the FSA will contract with local school districts for any services? If so, please outline the expectation.

Answer #6 It’s not an expectation; however, if the education provider believes subcontracting will benefit the FSA and meet the needs of the students, they may bring such recommendations to the department for consideration.

Question #7 Will a cooperative agreement exist between the education provider and each local school district OR directly between the Academy and the local school district?

https://www.djj.state.fl.us/partners-providers-staff/policies-resources/interagency-agreements-memoranda-of-understanding/level-5-agreements-with-school-boards https://www.djj.state.fl.us/partners-providers-staff/policies-resources/interagency-agreements-memoranda-of-understanding/level-5-agreements-with-school-boards

Answer #7 The department will explore the need and requirements for cooperative agreements in alignment with state law, department policies and rules, which will be developed in coordination with the FSA provider.

Question #8 What are plans for DJJ Accountability ratings for the 2023-2024 school year? 2024-2025 school year?

Answer #8 DJJ accountability ratings remain unchanged for the 2023-2024 school year. DJJ will work with the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) to update the accountability system for the Florida Scholars Academy.

Question #9 Will salaries of teachers/staff of the unified school district be comparable to statewide salary averages for teachers/staff and include raises, and incentives as traditional school district teachers?

Answer #9 Yes, we expect teacher salaries and benefits to be extremely competitive and attractive to recruit and retain top teaching talent.

Question #10 Is the education provider responsible for providing access to professional development that leads to certification?

Answer #10 Yes, the education provider is to ensure there are adequate opportunities to obtain or expand teacher certifications and credentials.

Question #11 Would the unified school district be able to submit inservice reports to the state for certification renewal?

Answer #11 Yes, the FSA will create a professional learning catalog as described in Rule 6A-5.071 for teachers to earn inservice points and submit Survey 5 reports to FLDOE for recertification.

Question #12 Does the department have a preferred appropriate and highly regarded school accreditation?

Answer #12 The department does not have a preferred accreditor; however, the accrediting entity must provide a clear set of performance standards and criteria, and the accreditation earned is seen as an indicator of excellence. The accreditor must be recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Florida Department of Education, and in alignment with all state laws and policies.

Question #13 Is the expectation that the teachers and instructors are employees of FSA or will they be employed by the residential provider?

Answer #13 Teachers will be employees of the FSA or subcontracted providers under the FSA, as approved by the department.

Question #14 Can the respondent subcontract with the residential provider or the local school district to provide the educational services or must the respondent employ all staff and be the direct education service provider?

Answer #14 It’s the intent of the FSA to operate as a unified school district with continuity and consistency across the residential education programs. With that goal in mind, the expectation is for the education provider to direct the instructional programming. If the education provider believes subcontracting will benefit the FSA and meet the needs of the students, they may bring recommendations to the department for consideration and approval.

Question #15 Are we able to have the current educational budget/expenses for all of the program locations?

Answer #15 DOE’s annual report includes data on costs spent for each district and education program on pages 10-12. https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/18801/urlt/DJJAnnualReport21- 22.pdf Because the FSA will not be funded through the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) FTE count, this report does not accurately reflect expenses beginning July 1, 2024.

Question #16 Will all of the funds $12M for 2023-2024 and recurring $24M for 2024-2025 be allocated to the education provider or a percentage? If percentage, what will the percentage be?

Answer #16 Funding will flow through the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice to the FSA provider pursuant to the terms of the contract.

Question #17 If there is a disaster/catastrophe, will this unified school district be able to receive access to additional funds made available to school districts?

Answer #17 The department will work with the FSA provider to ensure continuity of operations in the event of a disaster/catastrophe.

Question #18 Is the required robust technology infrastructure separately funded or included in the funding outlined ($12M/$24M)?

Answer #18 The technology infrastructure is included within the allocated funding for the FSA as part of the appropriation. The FSA provider will work with the department to support and manage all necessary technology infrastructure needs.

Question #19 Are the facility updates and renovations ensuring FSA’s classrooms are safe, functional, and conducive to learning separately funded or included in the funding outlined ($12M/$24M)? If included, can the Department indicate an estimated portion of the budget that should be set aside for such upgrades and renovations?

Answer #19 Funding for the FSA classrooms and learning environments are incorporated into the funding allocation and appropriation, with the opportunity to work directly with the department on additional needs at each site to address any potential needs or improvements.

Question #20 Can the Department share the budget that informed the request for the $12M establishment of the FSA and the recurring sum of $24M?

Answer #20 Services Year 1 Cost (July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024)

Year 2 Cost (July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025)

Education Management & Support Services

$3,842,606.00 $15,944,175.00

Staff Development, Travel, and Contracted Services

$465,000.00 $865,000.00

School Operations $7,021,961.00 $7,997,118.00

Unanticipated Year 1 Expenses $670,433.00 N/A

The department will evaluate its funding needs for the FSA on an annual basis, in alignment with enrollment and department projections.

Question #21 Can the Department confirm whether the $24M recurring budget is to cover the expanded oversight provided by the academy to all residential facilities or is the expectation that this will fund the entire cost of education service delivery?

Answer #21 It is expected that the allocated and appropriated funding will ensure the delivery of educational services across the department’s residential commitment program portfolio.

https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/18801/urlt/DJJAnnualReport21-22.pdf https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/18801/urlt/DJJAnnualReport21-22.pdf

Question #22 Will the FTE funding associated with the student be in addition to the $24M funding or is the $24M instead of any FTE allocation? Will the education provider have access to Title 1 and/or other federal funding in addition to the $24M?

Answer #22 No, the the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) determined from FTE counts has been replaced with a general appropriations allocation by the Florida Legislature. DJJ will work with FDOE regarding access to federal grant funding, such as Title I and other entitlement grants to support educational services.

Question #23 Based on the responses to this RFI, when does the department plan to issue the RFP?

Answer #23 The department intends to have the education provider selected and in place for the FSA’s preoperational year within the next few months.

Question #24 Can the department define the term “unified school district”?

Answer #24 The FSA will be a unified school district, meaning it will be a single administrative Local Education Agency with approximately 40 campuses at residential programs across the state.

Question #25 What is the anticipated date of when the selection of education provider will be made?

Answer #25 The department intends to have the education provider selected and in place for the FSA’s preoperational year within the next few months.

Question #26 As a unified school district, will the Academy have it's own school/state code and access to state system to report data?

Answer #26 The FSA will be a unified district and will have individual school numbers associated with each residential site. These school numbers will be used for data reporting.

Question #27 Has a Board of Trustees been identified? If so, please provide their names.

Answer #27 No, the board has not been selected as of the response to this RFI.

Question #28 Does the department expect a single respondent for the entire state or would they consider multiple respondents for various regions across the state?

Answer #28 DJJ aims to secure a single provider to oversee and operate the FSA in it’s entirety, with options to subcontract for some services as approved by the department.

MLMPI Prep Academy School System – Received 05/31/2023

Question #29 Do we have to be a charter or can we be a private school district?

Answer #29 A private school district can be considered to operate the FSA; however, the FSA unified school district is a Local Education Agency (LEA) and will therefore operate as a public entity.

Question #30 Do we still need state testing or can we do iReady as it is a national norm comparison which is an equivalent to state testing for assessments providing the same data and we can do it up to 3 times per year.

Answer #30 The FSA will administer all required Florida assessments.

https://flfast.org/

Question #31 For the Board of Trustees, is it our current school system Board or is it a Board that the state chooses/DJJ?

Answer #31 The board of trustees with be comprised of the Secretary of DJJ and four other members appointed by the Governor.

https://flfast.org/

Question #32 As a private school district, can we still apply for FES-UA/Gardner, FES-EO or income-based scholarships in addition to the FSA allocation?

Answer #32 No, the Florida Scholars Academy will be a unified school district, meaning it will be a single administrative Local Education Agency (LEA) and therefore a public entity.

Question #33 In section V, letter K, you mention subcontractors. What subcontractors are you referring to that we might need or are these anyone we need to contract with?

Answer #33 Section V, letter K, allows for the FSA provider to utilize subcontractors, if needed or desired, to ensure the delivery of services.

Question #34 Can we do a 2- or 3-year rollout or does this have to be in the 24-25 school year?

Answer #34 No, pursuant to SB 7014 (2023), the intent is that the FSA will be operational in the 2024-2025 school year.

Question #35 How often would we send a report to DJJ?

Answer #35 The department will establish criteria and deadlines for all reporting with the contracted FSA provider.

Question #36 When the students are leaving their commitment and going back home, would they be allowed to keep the students in our district schools post-release if they have not graduated to make sure they graduate High School?

Answer #36 This option is not contemplated in the current FSA model.

Question #37 As a private school, do we need to supply food or any other programs to be in compliance under Title I?

Answer #37 Meals are provided by the residential provider of each residential facility by contract with the department.

Bright Thinker – Received 05/31/2023

Question #38 Since this is a statewide proposal. How many students can be in your program at any given time? Is it K-12 plus 18-25 yr olds?

Answer #38 Yes, K-12 plus youth 18-21 years old who may have a high school diploma or GED.

Question #39 My team is filling it out. Does one need to be filled out even if the curriculum will be a supplement?

Answer #39 This question is unclear.

Global Solutions Enterprise – Received 05/30/2023

Question #40 Is the program model design for a virtual setting or in classroom setting?

Answer #40 The program model design is intended to provide direct instruction in a classroom setting, with options to supplement learning using instructional software or other appropriate virtual offerings that enhance the learning experience and provide access otherwise not afforded to the students.

Question #41 Has this model been developed in other states or internationally?

Answer #41 While there are other states that operate a district for their juvenile justice programs, the FSA structure and expectations are vastly different from anything in operation currently.

Question #42 Have a listening project been conducted with students,parents, and families to determine the need for this program?

Answer #42 A survey/study was conducted by the University of South Florida and the results of that study were considered when crafting this legislative proposal.

Question #43 What data supports the need for the program?

Answer #43 Students within department residential settings are arguably some of the most vulnerable students in the state and must be prioritized. Students often come into the juvenile justice system at different points in their educational career and the services they require and receive vary greatly throughout the state due to the current decentralized and fragmented educational framework in place. Due to the small number of juveniles in a facility, the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) funding generated during FTE counts for these programs rarely covers the actual cost of providing educational services. The current system also unintentionally results in frequent educational disruptions to students that further inhibits their education. Please see the Predicting Reoffending and Infoming Treatment for Florida Residential Youth Project Report.

https://www.djj.state.fl.us/content/download/433973/file/Predicting%20Reoffending%20and%2 0Informing%20Treatment%20for%20Florida%20Residential%20Youth.pdf

Question #44 What is the curriculum or is the provider responsible for designing the curriculum?

Answer #44 Curriculum will be selected in consultation with the department. All curriculum must properly align to Florida Standards, State Board of Education Rule, and pertinent statutes for age and grade appropriateness.

Question #45 Should the model include a Family and Engagement Coordinator to work with families?

Answer #45 Positions will be considered in consultation with the department.

Question #46 What provisions are being considered for ongoing funding and for how long?

Answer #46 The Florida Legislature has allocated a recurring appropriation of $24M. The department will evaluate its funding needs for the FSA on an annual basis, in alignment with enrollment and department projections.

Deltak – Received 05/23/2023

Question #47 Does the department have an estimated solicitation timeframe in place?

Answer #47 The department intends to have the education provider selected and in place for the FSA’s preoperational year within the next few months.

K12 Prep Academy – Received 05/22/2023

Question #48 I wanted to inquire on what are the qualifications to offer our services to your students?

Answer #48 The education provider is expected to have a proven track record of success and meet the deliverables outlined in the scope of services found in the RFI.

Teach 360 Consulting – Received 05/22/2023

Question #49 Is it permissible to submit a proposal that only addresses FSA's curriculum and instructional needs?

Answer #49 Providers are welcome to submit responses to any of the deliverables included but the RFI is intended to elicit responses from entities interested in the operation of the FSA.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.djj.state.fl.us%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F433973%2Ffile%2FPredicting%2520Reoffending%2520and%2520Informing%2520Treatment%2520for%2520Florida%2520Residential%2520Youth.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CAshley.Bridges%40fldjj.gov%7C1f8f822706074434273d08db690606bc%7C446f3eb4b3de4f0492ea54497eaca292%7C0%7C0%7C638219246837700479%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0Ur6oO3vagXj20MCUlspOAkNzGAB%2FLdFBBw%2FcWT%2FUY4%3D&reserved=0 https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.djj.state.fl.us%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F433973%2Ffile%2FPredicting%2520Reoffending%2520and%2520Informing%2520Treatment%2520for%2520Florida%2520Residential%2520Youth.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CAshley.Bridges%40fldjj.gov%7C1f8f822706074434273d08db690606bc%7C446f3eb4b3de4f0492ea54497eaca292%7C0%7C0%7C638219246837700479%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0Ur6oO3vagXj20MCUlspOAkNzGAB%2FLdFBBw%2FcWT%2FUY4%3D&reserved=0

College Thriver – Received 05/19/2023

Question #50 My team and I are interested in student recruitment and tech support. I wanted to know if we could still send a budget for a portion of the bid or are you looking for a company who can fulfill the entire proposal?

Answer #50 Providers are welcome to submit responses to any of the deliverables included but the RFI is intended to elicit responses from entities interested in the operation of the FSA.

PROGRAM AND SITE COUNT

This document is used by Residential Services to identify the number of programs for various purposes and delineate number of data collection points.

Site Count

Program Count

Program Components

Judicial Circuit

Contract Number Provider Name Program

Code Site Level Budgeted Capacity

SPEP

& Phy

Int Rate

Data Sheets

Sets of MQI Reports TRACE CAR Classification Type

WALTON ACADEMY FOR GROWTH AND CHANGE SA 8406 High High Risk Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

WALTON ACADEMY FOR GROWTH AND CHANGE 8405 High High Risk Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay) - Male

1 CRESTVIEW YOUTH ACADEMY SA 8596 High 30 1 1 1 High Risk Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

1 CRESTVIEW YOUTH ACADEMY BDD/DD 8417 Non-secure 24 1 1 1 Non-Secure Borderline and Developmentally Disabled - Male

OKALOOSA YOUTH ACADEMY 7298 Non-secure 36 Non-Secure Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay)

- Male

OKALOOSA YOUTH ACADEMY SA 7881 Non-secure 19 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

1 CRESTVIEW SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM 7294 Non-secure 20 1 1 1 Non-Secure Sex Offender (Intensive) - Male

1 1 1 1st 10079 AMI ESCAMBIA BOYS BASE 7267 Non-secure 24 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay)

- Male

1 JUVENILE UNIT FOR SPECIALIZED TREATMENT 7295 Non-secure 32 1 1 1 Non-Secure Intensive Mental Health - Male

1 TWIN OAKS ACADEMY II 7296 Non-secure 12 1 1 1 Non-Secure Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay)

- Male

1 1 1 3rd 10361 ROP JOANN BRIDGES ACADEMY 8312 Non-secure 28 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay)

- Female

1 1 1 3rd 10590 ROP OAK GROVE ACADEMY 8787 Non-secure 40 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

1 1 1 4th 10094 WHWH DUVAL ACADEMY - WHWH 9192 Non-secure 28 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

1 1 1 4th 10138 TrueCore JACKSONVILLE YOUTH ACADEMY 7278 Non-secure 24 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

CENTER FOR SUCCESS AND INDEPENDENCE - OCALA 8779 Non-secure 36 Non-Secure Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay)

- Male

CENTER FOR SUCCESS AND INDEPENDENCE - OCALA SA 8788 Non-secure 36 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

1 CYPRESS CREEK TREATMENT CENTER 7932 High 32 1 1 High Risk Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay) - Male

1 CYPRESS CREEK JUVENILE OFFENDER CC 3997 Maximum 64 1 1 Max Risk Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay) - Male

1 1 1 5th 10556 ROP HOPE FOREST ACADEMY BDD/DD 8714 Non-secure 36 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Borderline and Developmentally Disabled - Male

1 1 1 7th 10693 ROP DAYTONA JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY 9063 High 33 1 1 1 1 High Risk Sex Offender (Intensive) - Male

DEEP CREEK YOUTH ACADEMY BDD/DD 9040 Non-secure 12 1 Non-Secure Borderline and Developmentally

Disabled - Male

DEEP CREEK YOUTH ACADEMY COMPREHENSIVE MENTAL HEALTH 9041 Non-secure 37 1 Non-Secure Major Disorder (Comprehensive) - Male

DEEP CREEK YOUTH ACADEMY 9039 Non-secure 33 Non-Secure Intensive Mental Health - Male DEEP CREEK YOUTH ACADEMY MEDICALLY COMPLEX 9043 Non-secure 4 Non-Secure Intensive Medical - Male

1 1 1 8th 10189 WHWH ALACHUA ACADEMY - WHWH 9194 Non-secure 28 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Female

7th YOI

10210

1 1 2 1st ROP

5th TrueCore

2nd

10575

10207

5th

10288

10696

1 2 1st YOI

10358

1 1 1st Gulf3

2 Twin Oaks

1 1 2 YOI

1 1

10677

1 1

1 11

1 Revised 02.03.2023

This document is used by Residential Services to identify the number of programs for various purposes and delineate number of data collection points.

Site Count

Program Count

Program Components

Judicial Circuit

Contract Number Provider Name Program

Code Site Level Budgeted Capacity

SPEP

& Phy

Int Rate

Data Sheets

Sets of MQI Reports TRACE CAR Classification Type

KISSIMMEE YOUTH ACADEMY SA 8274 High 15 High Risk Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

KISSIMMEE YOUTH ACADEMY 8275 High 32 High Risk Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay) -

Male

KISSIMMEE YOUTH ACADEMY 9074 Max 16 1 Max Risk Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay) -

Male

1 KISSIMMEE YOUTH ACADEMY BDD/DD 8328 High 32 1 1 1 High Risk Borderline and Developmentally

Disabled - Male

ORANGE YOUTH ACADEMY 7322 Non-secure 24 Non-Secure Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay)

- Male

ORANGE YOUTH ACADEMY SA 7884 Non-secure 16 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

1 ORLANDO INTENSIVE YOUTH ACADEMY 7281 Non-secure 16 1 1 1 Non-Secure Intensive Mental Health - Male

1 1 1 10th 10359 TrueCore POLK HALFWAY HOUSE 7270 Non-secure 24 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay)

- Male

1 1 1 11th 10000 TrueCore MIAMI YOUTH ACADEMY 7265 Non-secure 24 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

TAMPA RESIDENTIAL FACILITY 6778 High 32 High Risk Major Disorder (Comprehensive) - Male

TAMPA RESIDENTIAL FACILITY SA 7254 High 40 High Risk Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

1 1 1 13th 10476 TrueCore COLUMBUS YOUTH ACADEMY - TRUECORE 9190 Non-secure 50 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Sex Offender (Intensive) - Male

HILLSBOROUGH GIRLS ACADEMY 5807 High 1 High Risk Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay) - Female

HILLSBOROUGH GIRLS ACADEMY 5808 Maximum 1 Max Risk Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay) - Female

LAKE ACADEMY 9134 High 1 High Risk Intensive Mental Health - Female LAKE ACADEMY 9135 Max 1 Max Risk Intensive Mental Health - Female LAKE ACADEMY MEDICALLY COMPLEX 9137 Non-Secure Non-Secure Intensive Mental Health - Female LAKE ACADEMY 9136 Non-Secure Non-Secure Intensive Mental Health - Female

1 1 1 13th 10098 TrueCore LES PETERS ACADEMY 8804 Non-secure 24 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Intensive Mental Health - Female

1 1 1 13th 10172 AMI YOUTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 7279 Non-secure 32 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay)

- Male

DOVE ACADEMY 7306 Non-secure 14 Non-Secure Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay)

- Female

DOVE ACADEMY SA 7307 Non-secure 22 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Female

PALM BEACH YOUTH ACADEMY 9181 High High Risk Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay) - Male

PALM BEACH YOUTH ACADEMY SA 9182 High High Risk Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

9th

1 1 13th

R2111

101451

10098

1 1 2 14th

10341 78

Twin OaksR2113

1 1 2 15th ROP

10287

1 1 1

TrueCore 1 1

1 1 2 13th TrueCore

YOI

1 1 4 13th 10714 TrueCore

9th TrueCore

2 Revised 02.03.2023

This document is used by Residential Services to identify the number of programs for various purposes and delineate number of data collection points.

Site Count

Program Count

Program Components

Judicial Circuit

Contract Number Provider Name Program

Code Site Level Budgeted Capacity

SPEP

& Phy

Int Rate

Data Sheets

Sets of MQI Reports TRACE CAR Classification Type

1 1 1 17th 10553 YOI BROWARD YOUTH TREATMENT CENTER 8310 Non-secure 40 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

1 1 1 18th R2119 AMI MELBOURNE CENTER FOR PERSONAL GROWTH 7309 Non-secure 32 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Substance Abuse (Overlay) - Male

1 1 EVERGLADES YOUTH ACADEMY 8996 Maximum 64 1 1 1 Max Risk Behavioral/Mental Health (Overlay) - Male

EVERGLADES YOUTH ACADEMY SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM 8998 High 1 High Risk Sex Offender (Intensive) - Male EVERGLADES YOUTH ACADEMY SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM 8997 Maximum 1 Max Risk Sex Offender (Intensive) - Male

1 1 1 20th 10694 TrueCore FORT MYERS ACADEMY - TRUECORE 9193 Non-secure 28 1 1 1 1 Non-Secure Intensive Mental Health - Female

Provider Abbreviations 31 AMI = AMIKids, Inc.

38 Gulf = Gulf Coast Youth Svs 53 ROP = Rite of Passage, Inc.

39 Sequel = Sequel TSI of Florida, LLC 45 TrueCore = TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC 32 Twin Oaks = Twin Oaks, Inc.

38 YOI = Youth Opportunity Investments, LLC

1464 WHWH = Wayne Halfway House

Budgeted Slots:

1 19th

Total Program Sites:

Total Program Count:

Number of Components:

SPEP & Physical Int. Data Sets:

Residential Data Sheets:

Sets of MQI Reports:

TRACE:

YOI

1 1

10289

3 Revised 02.03.2023

Revised 6/05/2023

PROGRAMS AND INDUSTRY CERTIFICATIONS NON-SECURE / SECURE

Non-Secure Secure

DOVE - Female Daytona JRF Culinary Arts (Certified Food Protection Manager ServSafe) (Certified Food Safety Manager)

Entrepreneurship and Small Business(ESB)

Business Microsoft Office Specialist (MOS) Crestview Youth Academy Substance Abuse JUST (Juvenile Unit for Specialized Treatment) Proposed - Principles of Entrepreneurship (ESB) IT

Computer Fundamentals (CompTIA IT Fundamentals) (Certified Food Safety Manager)

Agriscience - Ecology Conservation and Management Certification (Ducks Unlimited) – Proposed.

Construction Technology (NCCER Core) (NCCER Construction L1) Welding (NCCER Core) (NCCER Welding L1)

Palm Beach Youth Academy

Lake Academy - Female ESB Proposed Digital and Information Technology (DIT) Lake Academy - Female

DIT

Crestview Youth Academy BDD/DD Walton Academy for Growth and Change Principles of Entrepreneurship (ESB) IT Computer Fundamentals (CompTIA IT Fundamentals) (Certified Food Safety Manager)

HBI – PACT, Certified Food Protection Manager ServSafe) (Certified Food Safety Manager) Project Anchor Pilot Site – Hospitality and Restaurant Management

Okaloosa Youth Academy /Crestview Sex Offender Program

Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center

(Certified Food Safety Manager) Forklift (Forklift Operator) (MSSC Logistics 1 and 2) (Food Handlers) (DIT/MOS) HBI PACT

Polk Halfway House Cypress Creek Treatment Center Agriculture Forklift (Forklift Operator) (MSSC Logistics 1 and 2)

(Food Handlers) (DIT/MOS) HBI – PACT Alachua Academy Kissimmee Youth Academy Marketing Essentials (ESB) Agriscience Foundations

(Animal Science Associate) Animal Science Specialist) Duval Youth Academy Kissimmee Youth Academy BDD/DD Forklift (Forklift Operator)(Certified Food Protection Manager ServSafe)MOS Project Anchor Pilot

Marketing Essentials (ESB) Agriscience Foundations (Agriculture Associate Certificate) (Animal Science Associate) (Animal Science Specialist)

CSI (Center for Success and Independence)-Ocala Tampa Residential Facility Equine(Grooming)(Certified Food Protection Manager ServSafe) (DIT/MOS)

Forklift (Forklift Operator) (MSSC Logistics 1 and 2) (DIT/ESB) (Certified Food Safety Manager)

Youth Environmental Services Hillsborough Girls Academy - Female (NCCER Core) DIT Columbus Youth Academy Everglades Youth Academy Culinary Arts(Certified Food Safety Manager) (DIT/MOS) (Certified Food Protection Manager

ServSafe) (Certified Food Safety Manager) CTECH Telecommunications (Fiber Optics) (Data Cabling) HBI

PACT

Project Anchor Pilot Construction/Manufacturing

Les Peters – Female

Everglades Youth Academy Sex Offenders

Revised 6/05/2023

PROGRAMS AND INDUSTRY CERTIFICATIONS NON-SECURE / SECURE

Orlando Intensive YA/Orange Youth Academy (DIT/MOS) (Certified Food Protection Manager ServSafe) (Certified Food Safety Manager) CTECH Telecommunications (Fiber Optics) (Data Cabling) HBI

PACT

(DIT/MOS)

Broward Youth Treatment Center

Telecommunications (Fiber Optics) Culinary Arts (Certified Food Protection Manager ServSafe) (Certified Food Safety Manager) Forklift (Forklift Operator) Twin Oaks *Intro to Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources

Miami Youth Academy Culinary Arts (Certified Food Protection Manager ServSafe) (Certified Food Safety Manager) Hope Forest Equine(Grooming) Melbourne Center for Personal Growth (NCCER Core, NCCER Construction Tech L1 (MOS) (Certified Food Safety Manager) Forklift (Forklift Operator) Fort Myers Academy - Female

Orlando Intensive Youth Academy

(DIT/MOS)

Deep Creek CTECH (Fiber Optics)(Grounding and Bonding) Deep Creek YA Comprehensive Intensive Mental Health CTECH (Fiber Optics)(Grounding and Bonding) Jacksonville Youth Academy (Certified Food Safety Manager) Jo Ann Bridges Academy - Female (Certified Food Safety Manager)(CNA in contract) Oak Grove Academy (Certified Food Safety Manager)(NCCER CORE)Masonry Escambia Boys Base Forklift (Forklift Operator)(Certified Food Safety Manager)

Predicting Reoffending and Informing Treatment for Florida Residential Youth

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

June 30, 2020

Carter Hay Brian Stults Jennifer Copp Brae Young Emily Hargrove

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report describes analyses and results from this investigation of reoffending among youth released from residential placements. The goal of the project was to use risk assessment data provided by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) to identify key dynamic predictors of reoffending. The key question was this:

Which protective factors help prevent reoffending among residential youth?

Answering that question can inform decisions about which protective factors are the most fruitful targets for intervention.

With this Executive Summary, we describe the key features of our approach, the specific analyses that we conducted, major findings, and key implications of these results for treatment and intervention. Each of these issues is described in greater detail in subsequent sections of the report.

The key features of our approach

Sample: We analyzed 10,396 cases that completed residential placements during fiscal years 2013-18.

The measure of reoffending: Reoffending was defined in terms of adjudications, adjudications withheld, and convictions for any new violation of law that occurred within twelve months of completion; 45.7% of youth were reoffenders.

Data source for measuring protective1 factors: We assessed protective factors using data from the Residential Positive Achievement Change Tool (RPACT). (This tool has since been revised and renamed the Residential Assessment of Youth [RAY]).

Specific measures of protective factors: We created multiple-item scales that captured key youth qualities related to such things as school commitment, attachment to prosocial peers, prosocial attitudes, and current social skills (among other things). Our scales correspond to different RPACT domains, so we often reference domain numbers (e.g., the School commitment scale comes from domain 3C). However, these scales generally did not make use of all RPACT items on these constructs—items were excluded when they detracted from the scale’s predictive power. (Appendix 1 provides all measures.)

1 We measured all dynamic predictors such that high values on a variable should predict lower reoffending. Thus, we refer to these variables as “protective” factors (rather than “risk” factors).

Considering change: All included cases had RPACT data available for both an

Initial administration (near the point of admission) and an Exit administration (near the point of release).

Categorizing protective factors in terms of the evidence: We categorized the protective factors as fitting into groups marked by strongest evidence, strong evidence, moderate evidence, and no evidence. These classifications derived from how well a significant effect of a protective factor was maintained across the analyses when statistically controlling for other static and dynamic predictors of reoffending.

The types of analyses we conducted

In trying to identify the protective factors that matter most, we looked at this with three different analyses:

Exit analysis: This analysis examined predictors of reoffending using measures of protective factors from the Exit data, which captures staff’s current assessments of youth on dynamic “malleable” qualities.

Change analysis: This analysis explicitly examined the effects of improvement during the residential stay. Change was measured with residual change scores; high scorers were those whose Exit protective value on a variable was higher than expected given their Initial protective value on the same variable.

o The extent of change: As part of the change analysis, we examined which types of youth were most likely to change and whether the improvements experienced in one realm of life (e.g., School commitment) tended to be correlated with improvements in other areas of life (e.g., Current social skills).

Unexpected non-reoffenders analysis: This analysis used static/history variables such as prior offending to make predictions about which youth were predicted to reoffend. We then identified cases that were predicted to reoffend but did not reoffend. These cases represent unexpected non-reoffenders. We then used the residual change scores to identify which protective factors were significantly associated with being this kind of youth.

Key findings

In the Analyses and Findings section below, we fully describe the protective factors that emerged as most consequential in each individual analysis (Exit, Change, and

Unexpected non-reoffenders). However, in this Executive Summary, we emphasize the conclusions that emerge when drawing from the totality of analyses.

Finding 1: The three most impactful protective factors were Prosocial peers (6B), Employment-vocational commitment (5C), and School commitment (3C).

Prosocial peers and Employment-vocational commitment achieved strongest evidence in all three analyses (Change, Exit, and Unexpected non-reoffenders), whereas School commitment had strongest evidence in 2 of the 3 (with strong evidence in the 3rd).

Appendix 1 provides the complete measures for each of these variables, but briefly:

Youth who were high on Prosocial peers were those rated inside the facility as associating with prosocial peers, admiring youth who were more prosocial, and resisting the influence of antisocial peers.

Youth who were high on Employment-vocational commitment were rated as understanding what is needed to maintain a job, having strong employment aspirations and plans, and acquiring vocational and academic skills while in the facility.

Youth who were high in School commitment see school as encouraging and believe in the value of an education, get good grades, behave well in school, and have a high likelihood of ultimately graduating.

Finding 2: Prosocial attitudes (10) and Current social skills (12 and 12A-E) were the next two most impactful protective factors.

Prosocial attitudes and Current social skills had at least strong evidence in all analyses and occasionally achieved strongest evidence.2

Youth who were high in Prosocial attitudes exercised self-control, possessed empathy for others, and showed respect for the property of others, among other things.

Youth who were high in Current social skills consistently used strong skills when it comes to such things as consequential thinking, goal-setting, problem-solving, and dealing with difficult situations.

2 For Current social skills, this was true for both the shortened Domain 12 measure and a full measure that combined all items from the RPACT’s Domains 12A-12E

Finding 3: Other protective factors showed much less promise in predicting reoffending.

Protective factors such as Avoiding aggression (11), Prosocial views of substances (8B), Prosocial use of time (4B), and Performance of supervised tasks (5D) had inconsistent or less pronounced effects on reoffending. For these variables, effects mostly were limited to bivariate effects, with only occasional multivariate effects.

On the other hand, Family support (7B) and Mental health (9B) generally had insignificant effects or significant effects in the wrong direction. We believe that this reflects a complicated relationship between these protective factors and reoffending. We return to this issue below when discussing treatment implications.

***Key theme from Findings 1-3***

The five protective factors found to be consistently impactful in predicting reoffending were:

1. Prosocial peers

2. Employment-vocational commitment

3. Academic commitment

4. Current social skills

5. Prosocial attitudes

Finding 4: Those who experienced higher than expected improvements on protective factors tended to do so across multiple protective factors.

We found that the residual change scores for the different protective factors often were highly correlated with one another. For example, improvement on School commitment (on the list of top-5 predictors noted above) was associated with improvements on Employment-vocational commitment, Prosocial peers, Current social skills, and Prosocial attitudes (with respective correlations of .36, .41, .37, and .31).

Finding 5: Those who experienced higher than expected improvements on protective factors were higher in age at release.

We examined whether several key static factors were associated with improvements on the protective factors. The analysis considered age, gender, race and ethnicity, and prior referrals for felonies and misdemeanors. Although several variables had significant correlations with improvement, the correlations were generally low (< .10). The exception was for age at release—its correlation of .19 points to a pattern of moderate intensity in which older youth experienced improvement to a greater degree.

***Key theme from Findings 4-5***

Protective factor improvement does not occur in isolated ways— improvement in one area often co-occurs with improvement in other areas.

Also, improvement was more common among older youth. This suggests the key gains already being made with older youth. However, it also points to potential challenges involved with promoting improvement among younger youth.

Finding 6: The unexpected non-reoffender analysis indicated that roughly 18% of the sample fit into a group that was predicted to reoffend but did not reoffend.

The prediction to reoffend was based on static predictors. Thus, in a non-trivial portion of cases, youth will overcome a disadvantaged static history to unexpectedly avoid reoffending.

We found that variables such as age at release, gender, race and ethnicity, and prior offending were not very helpful in discriminating those who were predicted to reoffend and did reoffend from those who were predicted to reoffend and did not reoffend. However, as included in the summary above, various protective factors (especially Prosocial peers and Employment-vocational commitment) were helpful for discriminating between these two groups.

***Key theme from Finding 6***

Unexpected non-reoffenders represent nearly 1 out of every 5 youth, and improvements that occur on protective factors during the residential stay “foreshadow” that favorable outcome.

Treatment implications

With results indicating that Prosocial peers (6B), Employment-vocational commitment (5B), School commitment (3C), Current social skills (12 and 12A-E), and Prosocial attitudes (10) are the most consequential protective factors, one broad implication is that further investment in interventions that promote improvement in these areas will be beneficial.

Beyond this, we see four specific treatment implications of these findings.

Treatment implication 1: Priority should be given to further investment in cognitive behavioral therapies (CBT) that are well suited for targeting this set of protective factors.

CBT already is widely used in juvenile facilities in Florida (FDJJ, 2017)3, and that use likely contributed to the observed improvement in protective factors. CBT has been found to significantly reduce reoffending (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005) as part of its emphasis on training youth to reflect on impulsive cognitions and values and replace them with prosocial thoughts and actions.

A key benefit of CBT is its generality—it is relevant to a wide array of protective factors. It was explicitly designed to improve protective factors such as Current social skills and Prosocial attitudes, and improvements in those areas often are the catalyst for improvements in other realms of life, including school, employment-vocational efforts, and interactions with peers.

FDJJ is in the best position to assess the strengths and weaknesses of its CBT programming, but in general, giving further priority to CBT likely would involve:

(1) expanded use of the most empirically supported variations of CBT, and

(2) attention to improving the treatment quality of CBT programming. This could be done in correspondence with efforts to further implement FDJJ’s Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP).

Treatment implication 2: Priority should be given to further investment in the school, employment, and vocational services that youth receive in residential placements.

Many youth clearly have benefitted from the improvements experienced in these protective areas. Thus, enhanced investment could extend those gains to a greater number of youth. This, in turn, could lead to lower levels of reoffending.

This priority is consistent with prior research indicating that educational and labor market achievement are key contributors to desistance from crime (Blomberg, Bales, and Piquero, 2012; Sampson and Laub, 1993).

3 Common programs include Thinking for a Change (T4C) and Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS).

Treatment implication 3: Priority should be given to understanding and attending to the peer dynamics inside of facilities. Those dynamics can discourage—or encourage—reoffending.

The finding that association…