EVALUATION OF THE

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT (DMC) INITIATIVE

Florida Final Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

May 8, 1996
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... iv

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. I-1

1. BACKGROUND ........................................... I-1

1.1 Summary of DMC Literature ............................ I-1

1.2 OJJDP's DMC Initiative ............................... I-2

2. FLORIDA DMC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT .................. I-3

2.1 Phase I Research .................................... I-3

2.2 Phase II Plans and Activities ........................... I-4

3. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE EVALUATION REPORT .... I-5

II. METHODOLOGY ................................................. II-1

1. EVALUATION DESIGN ..................................... II-1

2. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES ................ II-2

2.1 State-level Data Collection ............................. II-5

2.2 Hillsborough County Data Collection .................... II-5

3. DATA ANALYSIS ......................................... II-6

III. RESEARCH AND PLANNING FOR FLORIDA'S DMC INITIATIVE .......... III-1

1. THE STATUS OF MINORITIES IN FLORIDA'S JUVENILE JUSTICE

SYSTEM ............................................... III-1

1.1 Phase I Research Activities and Findings ................ III-1

1.2 Follow-up Research on Hillsborough County .............. III-5

2. PLANNING FOR FLORIDA'S DMC PHASE II INITIATIVE ......... III-6

2.1 Drafting the Application—State and Local Involvement ..... III-6

2.2 The Phase II Contract .............................. III-11

3. SUMMARY OF THE DMC PHASE I PLANNING PROCESS ...... III-12
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

iii

IV. IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES OF FLORIDA'S DMC INITIATIVE ...... IV-1

1. PHASE II DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW ......... IV-1

1.1 Overview of the Florida DMC Phase II Design ............ IV-1

1.2 Overview of the DMC Phase II Implementation Timeline and

Milestones ....................................... IV-3

2. FLORIDA DMC PHASE II PROJECT ORGANIZATION 

AND STAFFING ......................................... IV-6

2.1 Project Organization and Staffing ....................... IV-6

2.2 Status of Project Staff Hiring .......................... IV-9

3. PHASE II PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ..................... IV-10

3.1 Core Planning Group ............................... IV-10

3.2 Coalition of Service Providers ........................ IV-13

3.3 Civil Citation Program .............................. IV-14

3.4 Assessment and Diversion System .................... IV-17

3.5 Cultural Competency Training ........................ IV-25

4. STATE-LEVEL SUPPORT OF THE DMC PHASE II PROJECT .... IV-26

V. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ........................... V-1

1. CONCLUSIONS ......................................... V-1

1.1 Overall Conclusions ................................. V-1

1.2 Project Accomplishments ............................. V-2

2. SPECIFICATION OF LESSONS LEARNED .................... V-4

2.1 Defining the DMC Problem ............................ V-4

2.2 Designing an Approach .............................. V-6

2.3 Monitor Progress and Recognize the System 

Effects of DMC Activity ............................... V-8

APPENDIX A ...................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B ...................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C ...................................................... C-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) mandate of the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act requires states to develop and

implement strategies to address and reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in

secure facilities. In an effort to facilitate compliance with the mandate, the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored demonstration

projects in five pilot states. In Phase I of OJJDP's DMC Initiative, each pilot state

assessed the extent of DMC in its juvenile justice system. In Phase II, each state

designed and implemented strategies to address the disproportionate representation

identified in Phase I. The Initiative also included a National Evaluation to document the

lessons learned, identify key factors in the success of state and local efforts, and

determine the efficacy of different interventions in reducing DMC. At the request of

OJJDP, Caliber Associates, in conjunction with state representatives and Portland

State University, conducted the National Evaluation, consisting of separate evaluations

of each pilot state and one non-pilot state. This report presents findings from the

evaluation of the Florida DMC demonstration project that began in October 1991 and

concluded in February 1995.

METHODOLOGY

Florida's DMC Initiative, focusing on the development and implementation of a

pilot project in Hillsborough County, lent itself to a formative, or process, evaluation

design. The evaluation consisted of qualitative analysis of state, county, and local

project documents and interviews with key state, county, and local DMC stakeholders.

FLORIDA'S DMC INITIATIVE

Florida's Phase I activities included a three-pronged research effort to examine

racial bias in the juvenile justice system state-wide. The major findings of the analysis

were that African American youth were over-represented at every stage of the juvenile

justice process, beginning at intake, leading to disproportionate confinement. The

Phase I research also found that the potential existed for differential treatment of

minority youth by juvenile justice intake personnel and members of law enforcement. 

Hillsborough County was selected as the Phase II pilot site, primarily based on the

severity of minority youth overrepresentation within the county's juvenile justice system

and the manifest capacity and willingness of the county to address the issue. 
vi

Florida's Phase II intervention strategy focused on the initial decision point in

juvenile justice processing, intake assessment. Reducing the disproportionate

representation of minority juveniles at this early stage was expected to have effects on

disproportionality that would ripple throughout the system. The design for the Minority

Overrepresentation Initiative (MORI) in Hillsborough County included the following

components: (1) development of a Core Group; (2) development of a Coalition of

Service Providers; (3) development of a system for diverting non-serious, minority

youth brought to the Juvenile Assessment Center; (4) provision of cultural sensitivity

training for juvenile justice professionals; and (5) establishment of a civil citation

program as an alternative to intake at the Juvenile Assessment Center. These plans

were collaboratively developed by the Tampa-Hillsborough Urban League, Inc., the

Agency for Community Treatment Services, Inc., the Children's Board of Hillsborough

County, the Juvenile Assessment Center, and State and local Department of Human

Resources staff. 

All of the pilot project objectives, except for providing cultural sensitivity training,

were accomplished during Phase II. The Florida DMC Initiative was an attempt to

create a replicable model for a community-based program to reduce the high level of

contact between minority youth and the juvenile justice system. Aspects of the project,

including the Core Group, far exceeded expectations of interagency dialogue and

efficiency. For example, in the course of Core Group meetings, involving members of

the State's Attorneys' Office and other juvenile justice agencies, several procedures

were streamlined, such as eliminating the need for police officers to bring the criminal

report affidavit to the Clerk of the Court.

LESSONS LEARNED

A primary objective of the DMC Initiative was to provide opportunities for the

states and locales to learn from the pilot state experiences. The Florida DMC Initiative

demonstrated the potential and the range of impacts possible with a strategy based on

a wide spectrum of community involvement. The investment in rigorous data collection

and structured problem definition helped the stakeholders to generate consensus that

system changes were needed to address DMC. Educating stakeholders about

alternatives to confinement available in the community persuaded them to develop a

diversion program for minority youth already involved in the juvenile justice system. 

Allowing for local planning in the context of state and federal planning resulted in local

processes and system reforms that continued after the completion of Phase II. 

Significant actors from the minority community and the juvenile justice system were
vii

involved in addressing DMC; this group was able to work together to achieve system

reforms to benefit minority youth. Understanding and respecting local power and

influence structures was key to the implementation of the Phase II intervention. Each

locality should strive to select DMC intervention strategies that respond to community

and system needs. 

FUTURE PLANS

The real evidence of success for the Florida DMC Initiative is the extent to which

DMC monitoring and interventions will continue into the future. At the state level, a fulltime data analyst has been hired to continue to collect data about the characteristics

and demographics of juveniles in the justice system. In addition, a state-wide DMC

coordinator promotes DMC reduction in all Florida jurisdictions. The State Advisory

Group (SAG), known as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Advisory

Committee, which allocated $400,000 each year on DMC projects during the

demonstration period, recently approved five new DMC projects with a total annual

budget of $600,000.
I. INTRODUCTION
I-1

I. INTRODUCTION

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored,

in five states, demonstration projects that were designed to address problems of

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) within the juvenile justice system. This

report presents findings from the evaluation of the Florida DMC project. This chapter

presents relevant background information, an overview of the Florida demonstration

project and the purpose and organization of the report.

1. BACKGROUND

Findings from a large body of literature suggest that disproportionate minority

confinement occurs within many juvenile justice systems across the nation. Recent

congressional legislation requires states to assess the extent of DMC in their juvenile

justice systems and to develop and implement strategies to address DMC problems

that are found. OJJDP's DMC Initiative seeks to assist states to comply with the

mandate. The Initiative includes support for the development and implementation of

DMC projects in five pilot states, including Florida. The DMC Initiative also calls for

evaluation of pilot state projects to help OJJDP determine the best methods for

assisting states to comply with the mandates as well as to suggest strategies and

provide useful lessons to non-pilot states that are developing and implementing DMC

projects of their own. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the DMC

literature followed by a more detailed description of the OJJDP DMC Initiative.

1.1 Summary of DMC Literature

Disproportionate minority confinement is defined by OJJDP as a ratio of "the

share of the juvenile justice population that is minority relative to the share of the at-risk

population that is minority." Since the late 1960s, scores of researchers have

published studies assessing the extent to which DMC exists within the juvenile justice

system. Approximately two thirds of all published studies found evidence of DMC

(Pope and Feyerherm, 1992). One third of the studies, however, did not find evidence

of DMC. Researchers note that inherent methodological difficulties contributed to the

inconsistent findings. Another factor contributing to the inconsistent findings may be

that most DMC studies were restricted to one stage in system processing (Bishop and

Frazier, 1988). Such an approach, several authors contend, fails to measure the

"cumulative disadvantage" to minority youth within a juvenile justice system. Although
I-2

race may have a small, statistically insignificant effect on decision-making at particular

stages, race may still have a significant, cumulative effect on the juvenile justice system

outcomes overall (Zatz, 1987).

Approximately one third of all DMC studies found an overall pattern of DMC

while an equal proportion of studies found DMC only at particular points within the

juvenile justice system (Pope and Feyerherm, 1992). Many researchers believe that

DMC is most pronounced at the "front end" of the juvenile justice system, yet few DMC

studies have focused on the front end (Conley, 1994). Measuring the racial bias that

occurs when police officers decide which juveniles to question—or when citizens, social

workers and school officials decide to alert authorities to delinquent behavior—is

fraught with methodological challenges (Sampson, 1986).

Studies finding evidence of DMC typically ascribed its causes to either: 

(1) systematic racial bias against minority youth within the juvenile justice system; or

(2) more serious and/or more frequent offenses being committed by minority youth. 

Both explanations were considered legitimate in the Federal DMC legislation which was

developed, in large part, to answer the research findings summarized above.

1.2 OJJDP's DMC Initiative

The 1988 amendments to the OJJDP Act included a requirement to states

participating in the OJJDP Formula Grants Program to address the growing problem of

the disproportionate of minority youth in secure facilities. The 1992 amendments to the

JJDP Act included mandates requiring the states to assess the level of minority youth

confinement in their juvenile justice system and to implement strategies to reduce

disproportionate representation. To facilitate the state's ability to comply with the

mandates of the JJDP Act, OJJDP established the Disproportionate Minority

Confinement Initiative. Through a competitive process, OJJDP selected five

states—Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Oregon, and North Carolina—to receive training,

technical, and financial assistance.

The DMC Initiative was designed to include two 18-month phases. During

Phase I, each of the five pilot states assessed the extent of disproportionate

representation in its juvenile justice system and reported the findings to OJJDP. During

Phase II, the pilot states designed strategies to address the disproportionate

representation problems identified during their Phase I assessments. 
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. (1993). The Minority 1

Overrepresentation Initiative for Florida: Phase I Report. p. 10.

I-3

Phase II included a National Evaluation of the DMC initiative. At OJJDP’s

request Caliber Associates designed and conducted the evaluation in collaboration

with pilot state representatives and with the national technical assistance providers

from Portland State University. The National Evaluation included separate evaluation

reports on each pilot state and one non-pilot state. 

To complement the pilot states, the National Evaluation eventually will include

the State of Michigan, which developed and implemented a DMC plan without OJJDP

support. The inclusion of Michigan, will provide a more robust picture of state efforts to

reduce minority overrepresentation.

The objectives for the National Evaluation are to document the lessons learned

and factors key to the success of state and local efforts, as well as to determine the

efficacy of different types of interventions in reducing the degree of disproportionate

representation. The evaluation findings will be incorporated with training and technical

assistance manuals or other publications that OJJDP will disseminate to all states as a

resource to assist states and localities in planning and implementing approaches to

reduce disproportionate representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system.

2. FLORIDA DMC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

The Florida DMC activities, conducted under the OJJDP Special Emphasis

Grant, included the Phase I research activities followed by the Phase II DMC

intervention planning and implementation. To provide a context for the evaluation, the

Florida Phase I and Phase II activities are summarized below.

2.1 Phase I Research

Under Phase I of OJJDP's Disproportionate Minority Confinement Initiative,

Florida's project team conducted a three-pronged research effort to examine racial bias

in juvenile justice decision-making within their state. Florida's project team articulated

the following primary objectives for the Phase I research efforts. 1

• To describe the youth processed through Florida's juvenile justice system,

by race and county
Ibid. p. iii. 2

I-4

• Examine the decision by law enforcement officers to arrest or release

youth with whom they come into contact, and the effect of the interaction

of race.

• To learn how juvenile justice case managers' perception of the relative

seriousness of the offense impacts their referral recommendations and

the eventual distribution of disposition outcomes.

To meet the first objective, Florida's project team undertook a major quantitative

analysis of juvenile data collected from three large public agencies, including the

Florida Departments of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Labor, and Education. One

of the key state-wide findings was that African American youth were referred to the

juvenile justice system at rates disproportionately higher than those of other ethnic

groups.2

To meet their second research objective, the Florida team developed a

standardized survey which was completed for a sample of 497 juveniles based on

information contained in formal police reports and other field reports used by law

enforcement agencies in their decision-making. Researchers found that the youth's

race did seem correlated with processing decisions at every stage. This influence was

even more evident when examined in association with seriousness of offense, prior

offenses, family structure, and urbanicity.

The third research objective was met through a mail survey of 258 delinquency

intake workers and case managers. The survey showed that for referral categories, in

general, females tended to give higher seriousness rating than did males. For many of

the referral categories, the greatest divergence was found between African American

males and African American females, with the latter often rating offense categories as

significantly "more serious" than the former.

During Phase II, Florida's research team has been working to conduct a more

rigorous trend analysis through the application of multivariate regression techniques. 

The research team is controlling for variables representing youth demographics, legal

characteristics, family economic well-being and social context. The team began this

effort by refining their combined database and updating the records.

2.2 Phase II Plans and Activities
I-5

Given the findings of their Phase I research, Florida's DMC project team elected

to concentrate their Phase II efforts on the initial assessment decision point in juvenile

justice processing. The research team theorized that reducing the disproportionate

representation of minority juveniles at this early stage would have effects that would

ripple throughout the system.

The project team selected Hillsborough County as the Phase II demonstration

site. Local service providers and community representatives designed the intervention

strategy basing it on effective and innovative programs already operating in the county.

The DMC Phase II plan was designed to achieve the following objectives:

• Establish a Core Group of community members to meet regularly to set

the local agenda and identify community resources

• Provide diversion advocacy and planning for African American youth

admitted to the Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) in Hillsborough County

• Organize a coalition of existing service providers each with their own

program capacity, dedicating slots to African American youth diverted

from the justice system during assessment

• Establish a civil citation program for non-serious juvenile offenders

• Provide cultural competency training to staff in the juvenile justice system.

Florida's success in achieving these objective is discussed, in detail, in subsequent

chapters of this report.

3. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE EVALUATION REPORT

The purpose of this document is to present Caliber Associates' evaluation

findings on the DMC initiative in Florida. Chapter I provided an overview of the DMC

literature, OJJDP's DMC initiative, and Florida's approach to addressing the DMC

problem. Chapter II describes Caliber's objectives and methodology for conducting the

evaluation. Chapter III presents evaluation findings from the Phase I research and the

Phase II planning component of Florida's DMC initiative and Chapter IV presents

evaluation findings on the Florida DMC Phase II project implementation. Finally,

Chapter V summarizes the evaluation's conclusions and key lessons learned from

Florida's experience which may be applicable to states that are developing their own
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

I-6

DMC initiatives. Throughout the report, specific agencies or organizations are

introduced by name and (in parentheses) by acronym; thereafter they are referred to

only by acronym. To assist the reader, Appendix A provides an alphabetical list of

organizations and their acronyms.
I-7

REFERENCES

Bishop, D.M. and C. Frazier. "The Influence of Race in Juvenile Justice Processing"

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25(3) 1988.

Conley, D.J. "Adding Color to a Black and White Picture: Using Qualitative Data to

Explain Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice System ." Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency 31(2) 1994.

Feyerherm, W. Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Lessons Learned from the Pilot

State Experiences. Prepared for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. Portland State University. 1995.

Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Minority

Overrepresentation Initiative for Florida: Phase I Report. 1993.

Pope, C. and W. Feyerherm. Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System. Rockville,

MD: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. 1992.

Sampson, R.J. "Effects of Socialeconomic Context on Official Reaction to Juvenile

Delinquency." American Sociological Review 51 1986.

Zatz, M.S., "The Changing Forms of Racial/Ethnic Biases in Sentencing." Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency 24(1). 1987.
II. METHODOLOGY
II-1

II. METHODOLOGY

While similar to evaluations of other DMC pilot sites, the evaluation of the

Florida DMC Initiative also had some important differences. This chapter describes the

purpose and scope of the evaluation, the data collection methods and sources, and

how the data were analyzed. 

1. EVALUATION DESIGN

OJJDP requested an evaluation of the DMC pilot project in Florida to help guide

future efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement of juveniles nationwide. 

This evaluation supports OJJDP's National Evaluation objectives—to document

lessons learned, identify factors facilitating or hindering success, and determine the

efficacy of the chosen type of intervention. 

While fulfilling the National Evaluation objectives, the evaluation design for the

Florida DMC Initiative was also tailored to respond to the unique aspects of Florida's

project. The Initiative in Florida differed from the other pilot states in its extensive

involvement of a community-based coalition of juvenile justice service providers and

stakeholders to plan and implement the DMC Initiative, in hopes of enabling the

community to "own" the DMC issue while empowering the community to address it. 

The activities that took place to organize the Coalition of Service Providers also

resulted in unintended benefits for both the juvenile justice system and Coalition

members representing minority communities.

Involving stakeholders with potentially competing interests, however, can also

slow a project. The Coalition in Hillsborough County used various organizing methods

as members worked to stay focused and minimize internal conflict. Therefore, Florida's

demonstration project offers invaluable lessons to other states and counties that

similarly wish to apply DMC resources to community organizing and bridging gaps

between traditional and non-traditional youth serving agencies.

To best capture the lessons learned from this Initiative, a "process evaluation"

design was selected to develop a comprehensive account of what happened in

Florida—and why. This descriptive, qualitative methodology was used to capture the

critical elements of the processes of the Florida Initiative including to:
During Phase I, the Department of Juvenile Justice was created, when the State of Florida re- 3

organized its Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). DJJ became the lead

state agency for the DMC Initiative.

II-2

• Document the process of developing an intervention design for the pilot

site

• Document the process of organizing the community coalition to

understand, refine, and implement the intervention

• Identify the benefits and the draw backs of broad-based involvement by

the community and the justice system

• Document project outcomes, both the attainment of project objectives (see

Exhibit II-1) and unintended benefits.

In order to satisfy the National Evaluation objectives, the Florida DMC evaluation

focuses on the interests of stakeholders and the lessons learned that can be

transferred to other DMC sites.

2. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES

Data collection for the evaluation was separated into two areas: (1) the state

level—where the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) administered Phase I of

the project and then provided technical assistance to the local grantee during Phase II, 3

and (2) Hillsborough County—where Phase II planning and implementation took place. 

The foundation of the evaluation was the set of research questions to be

addressed. The evaluation questions assisted in identifying the elements required, the

data sources from which to obtain the data elements, and the most appropriate data

collection methods. Florida evaluation questions were based on a model process for 

DMC Initiative planning that examines the connections between data gathering,

problem identification, intervention planning, and implementation.
II-3

EXHIBIT II-1

OBJECTIVES OF FLORIDA'S DMC INITIATIVE

Phase I Phase II 

• Assess the extent of minority youth • Establish a coalition of concerned citizens

overrepresentation at each point in the to identify community resources and

juvenile justice system including law advocate for systems change

enforcement contact, case management

recommendation, and judicial disposition • Provide diversion advocacy for minority

• Build an information system that reports

the status of juveniles by race in the • Establish a civil citation alternative to divert

education and juvenile justice systems non-serious youth away from the system

• Report the results of Phase I research • Train juvenile justice and law enforcement

statewide and promote efforts to respond personnel to promote the diversion of

to the research. minority youth.

youth entering the system

This model process was modified to allow for specific aspects of the Florida Initiative

including the reliance on community-based planning and implementation (see Exhibit II2). Using this model, process evaluators identified the following major evaluation

questions for the Florida DMC Initiative:

• What were the sources of Phase I data, and how were they collected and

disseminated?

• What was the process for designing the Phase II initiative, how were

stakeholders involved, what was the extent of state and local

collaboration, and what was the level of community ownership?

• What was the process for implementing the Initiative, how were

community organizations involved, what factors facilitated or hindered

effective implementation, and what was the role of the state agency?

• What were the outcomes of the first year, what is the implementation

status of program components, and what unanticipated benefits

occurred?

Methods for obtaining information to answer these questions on the state-level are

described below followed by a description of how county-level information was

collected.
EXHIBIT II-2

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR FLORIDA DMC PROJECT

MODEL PROCESS FLORIDA DMC PROCESS EVALUATION FOCUS

Analysis of 

JJS Data

Assess Areas of

Disproportionality

Identify

Sources/Causes

Plan

Interventions

Implement

Interventions

Monitor JJS

Data

Collect Phase I Data

Disseminate data at state and local levels

Select Hillsborough County as Phase II

demonstration site

Design Phase II initiative with local

stakeholders, state DMC staff, consultants

Implement Phase II demonstration project,

recruit community board members, marshall

resources, refine design, operations

Track clients, monitor operations

• Phase I data sources, data

collection, data dissemination

• Process of designing Phase II

initiative

- Involvement of stakeholders

- State and local collaboration

- Community ownership

• Process of implementing

initiative

- Community involvement

- Factors facilitating and

blocking effective

implementation

- State assistance

• Outcomes

- Implementation status

- Unanticipated benefits

II-4
II-5

2.1 State-Level Data Collection

Data sources for the state-level component included project documents and

interviews with key DMC participants representing the Florida Department of Juvenile

Justice and the Governor's Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Advisory

Committee (the State Advisory Group or SAG). Documents reviewed during the

evaluation included: 

• Minority Overrepresentation Initiative for Florida: Phase I Report

• "Minority Overrepresentation Initiative for Florida: Phase II Continuation

Application," January 29, 1993 

• Florida's Minority Overrepresentation Initiative: Update , April 1993

• Minority Overrepresentation Initiative for Florida: Hillsborough County

Report, August 1993

• Minority Overrepresentation Research Prospectus , July 1994.

These documents were used by the evaluation team to asses the Phase I state-wide

data collection effort. The team also received documents from state-level sources

pertaining to Phase II of the Initiative, including the contract for services between the

Department of Juvenile Justice and Hillsborough County, and the Management Plan for

Phase II activities. These documents were used to assess the planning of the Phase II

project and helped the team to refine the state-level interview guide.

Two evaluators conducted on-site interviews with key state-level personnel from

the Department of Juvenile Justice in March 1995. They interviewed the Chief of the

Bureau of Research and Data, the State Juvenile Justice Specialist, the State DMC

Specialist, and the Evaluator of the Pilot Project. These interviews collected

information about research questions concerning Phase I and Phase II. The interviews

were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide tailored for these individuals. 

A copy of the interview guide is presented in Appendix B.

2.2 Hillsborough County Data Collection

Data collection from sources in Hillsborough County took place at two times. 

First, in July 1994, telephone interviews were conducted with the newly hired project

staff concerning the planning processes that were underway. These conversations
II-6

were supported by answers to written questions. The second period for data collection

was March 1995, when two evaluators made a site visit to conduct interviews with

project staff and members of the community coalition concerning the process of

implementing the project. They interviewed the Project Director, the Training

Specialist, and the Community Services Specialist. They also interviewed the Contract

Manager from the Hillsborough County Children's Board, the Chairman of the Core

Group, the District Manager for the Department of Juvenile Justice, and other Coalition

members. Again, a semi-structured interview guide was used for these county-level

interviews. The guide is presented in Appendix C.

Evaluators also observed a meeting of the Core Group during the site visit. 

Their observations helped provide a context for describing the process of community

involvement in the project.

During the March 1995 site visit, evaluators also collected project documentation

including the minutes from 22 meetings of the Core Group and its subcommittees, "A

Blueprint for Action" and other documents describing and assessing the Hillsborough

County juvenile justice system. These documents were used, together with the

interview data, to construct a timeline for the process of planning, revising, and

implementing the Phase II project.

3. DATA ANALYSES

The types of analyses conducted were driven by the evaluation objectives. For

both the state- and county-level components, project documents were analyzed in timeorder sequence to reveal process dynamics, such as changes in program design or

implementation plans. 

To compare and summarize interview data, the evaluation team applied matrix

analysis techniques. These techniques take advantage of the structure provided by the

interview guides by recording responses from individual interviews into similarly

structured matrices. The evaluator then compares interviewee responses

horizontally—in the context of the interview—and vertically, among respondents. 

Comparison of data within a matrix structure develops a complete and accurate picture

of project events as well as an assessment of what did and did not work. 

Using this construct for evaluation analysis, the individual responses of various

stakeholders were compared to build a critical description of the planning and
II-7

implementation process. The data relating to the Phase I information gathering and

dissemination are presented in the following chapter along with an analysis of the

Phase II planning process. Chapter IV discusses the implementation of Phase II based

on a comparison of project documents and interview data. Chapter V discusses project

outcomes and recommendations.
III. RESEARCH AND PLANNING FOR

FLORIDA’S DMC INITIATIVE
 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. (1993). The Minority 

4

 Overrepresentative Initiative for Florida: Phase I Report. p.10.

III-1

III. RESEARCH AND PLANNING FOR FLORIDA'S 

DMC INITIATIVE

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP)

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) Initiative included two phases of activity: 

Phase I—researching the DMC problem and Phase II—implementing the DMC

interventions. The purpose of this chapter is to describe that the Florida Phase I DMC

research and the planning process preceded Florida's Phase II, DMC program

implementation.

1. THE STATUS OF MINORITIES IN FLORIDA'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

During Phase I of OJJDP's DMC Initiative, Florida's project team conducted a

three-pronged research effort to examine racial bias in juvenile justice decision-making

within their state. The results of this research led to the selection of Hillsborough

County as the site of Florida's DMC demonstration intervention and also indicated that

the intervention strategy should focus on the juvenile justice intake processes. The

following paragraphs provide an overview of Florida's Phase I research activities and a

summary of their findings state-wide and for Hillsborough County.

1.1 Phase I Research Activities and Findings

Florida's DMC project team articulated the following primary objectives for its

Phase I research efforts:

• Describe the youth processed through Florida's juvenile justice system, by

race and county

• Examine the decision by law enforcement officers to arrest or release

youth with whom they come into contact and the effect on the interaction

of race

• Learn how juvenile justice case managers' perception of the relative

seriousness of the offense impacts their referral recommendations and

the eventual distribution of disposition outcomes. 4
III-2

To meet the first objective, Florida's DMC project team undertook a major

quantitative analysis of data collected from three large public agencies: the Florida

Departments of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Labor, and Education. The

research team developed a database composed of approximately 62,000 records for

individual youth, aged 10-17 years, who entered the juvenile justice system during a

16-month period (April 1991-August 1992), and cross-referenced the youth with their

public school records (1.3 million children in Florida public schools). School records

supplemented the delinquency-related data by identifying Hispanic youth (whose

ethnicity was not uniquely identified in the other data sets) and providing information

about school performance, behavior, and special academic needs. These data were

further supplemented with county-level data from the 1990 Census. Exhibit III-1

presents a summary of the data collected from these sources for arrests by race during

the study period.

EXHIBIT III-1

REFERRALS OF JUVENILES TO FLORIDA HRS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY*

Caucasian American Hispanic Islander American

African- Pacific Native

Asian and

Number

Referred 31,518 22,681 6,450 424 117

Percentage of

Total 52% 37% 11% 1% 0.2%

Percentage

referred by 4% 8% 4% 2% 5%

race

* April 1, 1991, to August 13, 1992

Using the database, Florida's DMC research team analyzed all cases with

complete justice and demographic data. Their general state-wide findings are given

below:

• State-wide, African American juveniles were referred to the justice system

at rates disproportionately higher than those of other ethnic groups

(excluding Native Americans, whose sample size was too small to yield

significant results)

• Hispanic juveniles referred to the justice system generally received

treatment equal to Caucasian youth; Asian-Pacific Islanders were

generally under-represented 
 Ibid. p. B-5. 5

III-3

• African American juveniles were two to three times more likely to receive

more serious actions from State's Attorneys, including filing petitions with

the courts and petitions to transfer their cases to adult court

• African American juveniles received more serious dispositions from the

court; the percentage of African Americans who were committed or

transferred to adult court was two to three time higher than the

percentage of Caucasians or Hispanics. 5

These patterns of overrepresentation were also found after controlling for the

seriousness of the offense and prior juvenile justice records. 

The second major research objective was to find out if law enforcement officers

are more or less likely to arrest or release a youth based on his or her race. To meet

this objective the Florida team developed a standardized survey using police records

for a sample of 491 juveniles who had contact with law enforcement officers. The

sample design included comparable representation by race and locality. The agency

survey asked for responses in the following categories:

• Demographic information about the juvenile encountered

• Reason police contact was made (i.e., the charge against the youth)

• Action taken by law enforcement.

The study found that Caucasian youth were most often released to their parents, while

African American youth were released to their parents and taken to the HRS in equal

proportions (see Exhibit III-2).

To meet the third research objective of examining the role played by Department

of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) case managers, Florida's research team

conducted a mail survey of 258 delinquency intake workers and case managers. The

survey asked respondents to provide their own ratings for the relative seriousness of

the following offense and disposition categories:

• "Reason for referral" (49 categories)

• "Case disposition" (44 categories)

• "Case manager recommendation to State's Attorney" (5 categories).
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

III-4

The survey also recorded demographic information about the respondent (e.g., age,

race, gender, length of service). Based on 151 responses, researchers reported the

following key findings:
 Ibid. p. B-4. 6

 Ibid. p. B-5. 7

III-5

EXHIBIT III-2

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTACT SURVEY:

LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION BY RACE OF JUVENILE

Action Caucasian African American Hispanic

N % N % N %

No Action 49 16 21 15 10 29

Citation or Warning 32 10 17 12 1 3

Released to Custody of

Parents 138 44 41 29 15 44

Released to HRS 65 20 42 30 6 18

Other (release to other

agency, jail, no info.) 32 10 20 14 2 6

TOTAL (N=491) 316 100 141 100 34 100

• For referral categories in general, female case managers tended to give

higher seriousness ratings than did males

• African American female case managers tended to rate referral categories

more seriously than all others

• For many of the referral category analyses, the greatest divergence in

seriousness ratings was found between African American males and

African American females, with the latter often rating offense categories

as significantly "more serious" than the former

• For disposition category ratings, differential ratings tended to be a

function of race and length of service. 6

The study concluded that "the difference of seriousness ratings by race for different

categories of disposition might be taken to suggest that frontline workers perceive that

certain disposition categories have more serious ramifications for some than for

others. " In other words, there is a range of sensitivity among some case managers to 7

the impact of a disposition on a youth; a feeling that certain referrals present an undue

hardship to certain youth and families. To the extent that these judgements influence 
III-6

the ultimate referral and are based on the race of the youth, these differences in case

managers' perceptions could be a contributing factor to higher rates of minority

confinement.

In summary, the primary focus of Florida's Phase I research found that African

American youth are more likely to receive more serious treatment at every stage of the

juvenile justice process leading to disproportionate confinement. Supplemental

research efforts included a survey of juvenile justice case managers in Florida to

determine how their perceptions of "seriousness of offense" may influence intake and

disposition decisions, finding that the potential for differential treatment did exist. In

addition, Florida's research team worked to identify which factors contribute to the

initial contact between law enforcement and youth and found that African American

youth are much less likely to be released to their parents. 

1.2 Follow-up Research on Hillsborough County

Hillsborough County was selected as the most appropriate site for Florida's DMC

demonstration. The selection was based on the severity of minority youth

overrepresentation throughout the county's justice system, the advocacy of a State

Advisory Group (SAG) member from Hillsborough County, as well as the existence of

capacity and willingness of the community to address the issue. In response to the

findings of the Phase I research, Florida's DMC project team elected to concentrate the

Phase II efforts on the initial assessment decision point in juvenile justice processing. 

Reducing the disproportionate penetration of minority juveniles at this early stage

would have effects that would ripple throughout the system. 

Findings from Florida's Phase I research show that the odds in Hillsborough

County of African American youth being involved in the juvenile justice system were the

same or higher than those of the state as a whole at almost every decision point in the

process. African American youth in the county were more than twice as likely as

Caucasians to have an initial referral to the juvenile justice system (11 percent of

Hillsborough County's 19,000 African Americans ages 10 through 17 were referred to

the system during the 16-month study period of the Phase I research, compared to 5

percent of the Caucasian juvenile population). African American youth, who were 22

percent of the Phase I study population, were 39 percent of the youth referred to the

system and 63 percent of the youth eventually committed. Once referred, African

American youth were twice as likely to be detained. Of those not detained, a

Caucasian youth would more often receive a "no petition" intake recommendation while
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. (1993). Minority Overrepresentation 8

Initiative for Florida: Hillsborough County Report.

III-7

an African American would more often receive a "petition" recommendation. Statistics

for Hispanics (15% of the study population) showed a pattern of referrals and

dispositions very similar to those for Caucasians. 8

According to Phase I researchers, the data show higher proportions for African

American youth even when the seriousness of the offense and the youth's prior record

are taken into account. Exhibit III-3 provides one example of this observation. The

table shows that for youth with no prior referrals, charged with the same offense,

Caucasian youth are significantly more likely to receive a recommendation not to be

"petitioned" to court. The effect is even more pronounced for youth with prior records. 

EXHIBIT III-3

ODDS RATIOS FOR A HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY JUVENILE CHARGED WITH A FELONY

AGAINST PERSONS RECEIVING A "NO PETITION" RECOMMENDATION

Caucasian (N=145) All Others (N=240)

% Odds Ratio % Odds Ratio

No Prior Referrals 42% 15:36 31% 19:61

Prior Referrals 9% 8:86 2% 3:157

2. PLANNING FOR FLORIDA'S DMC PHASE II INITIATIVE

This section describes the process of drafting the application for the Phase II

project and the resulting DMC Initiative design for Hillsborough County. The following

paragraphs provide a description of the institutions represented in the planning process

as well as a discussion of their interests and influence in designing the Phase II

program. This section concludes with a description of the contract for services to the

Florida HRS that resulted from the application. 

2.1 Drafting the Application—State and Local Involvement

The Phase I research (discussed above) indicated that Hillsborough County had

a significant DMC problem. This factor, as well as the advocacy by an influential SAG

member from Hillsborough County and the County's capacity to serve as the

demonstration site, led to the proposed selection of Hillsborough County as the Phase

II demonstration site. 
III-8

The Hillsborough County SAG member was involved with the DMC issue both at

the state-level, as chairman of the Minority Issues Subcommittee of the State Advisory

Group, and locally, as a member of the Hillsborough County Juvenile Justice Work

Group. He/she organized local stakeholders from the City of Tampa and Hillsborough

County to apply for the DMC Phase II demonstration site funds. (The Work Group was

in the process of examining current issues, such as DMC, in the county's justice

system.) 

Hillsborough County, but specifically its major urban center, Tampa, was well

suited to serve as the Phase II demonstration site because local agencies had already

developed a comprehensive set of unique institutions that served youth needs. Among

them were the Children's Board of Hillsborough County, an independent government

agency founded as a special taxing district to combine and coordinate funds for

children's services. Another was the recently created Juvenile Assessment Center

(JAC), a centralized receiving facility for youth taken into custody by law enforcement. 

The facility provided detoxification, emergency medical assistance, mental health and

family needs assessment, case management, and temporary holding facilities, while

allowing law enforcement officers to return to other duties more quickly.

In June 1993, a small group of representatives from these and other community

and juvenile justice stakeholders in Tampa joined with staff members from the HRS and

expert consultants (provided by the OJJDP) to draft the Hillsborough County

application to the Florida SAG for DMC Phase II funds. 

Hillsborough County Stakeholders

The stakeholders involved in the DMC pilot project reported that the

Hillsborough County juvenile justice and youth-serving community had been pursuing

the issue of DMC and juvenile justice reform for several years. The Phase II grant

application represented a specific avenue and source of funds to further address this

problem. 

The Juvenile Justice Work Group provided evidence of the local community's

interest in DMC. Formed in 1992, the Work Group was created to facilitate

communication among the 16 local committees, councils, task forces, and boards that

deal with different aspects of juvenile justice. Representatives of these groups,

including public agencies, such as the City of Tampa Police Department and HRS,
 Juvenile Justice Work Group. (1993). “Hillsborough County Juvenile Justice: Recreating a 9

 system that is upside-down, confusing and broken.” Children’s Board of Hillsborough County,

 Tampa, FL.

III-9

alongside community-based groups, such as the Tampa-Hillsborough Urban League,

Inc., staffed the Work Group. After six months of research and subcommittee meetings

involving over 100 persons, their first product, published in the Summer of 1993, was a

report addressing gaps in services and problems with existing programs that deal with

youth who violate criminal laws in Hillsborough County. The report identified 37 goals

(each with four to six practical strategies) to improve the juvenile justice system through

various tasks, including: 

• Creation of a unified juvenile justice body with planning and oversight

responsibilities

• Development of resources to empower parents and communities to help

solve juvenile delinquency problems

• Commitment to a multi-faceted approach to reduce disproportionate

confinement of African American males.9

The plan included these and many other specific recommendations to involve the

community in the reworking of existing components into a true system for juvenile

justice, examining and reallocating system resources where necessary.

The commitment and mobilization of the Juvenile Justice Work Group helped

lead to Hillsborough County's application for DMC Phase II funds that also occurred in

Summer 1993. The subcommittee that drafted the Work Group's objectives concerning

minorities in the juvenile justice system included individuals who would draft the

application for the DMC demonstration project: representatives of the University of

South Florida, the Director of the Tampa-Hillsborough Urban League, the Tampa office

of the HRS staff, and members of the Children's Board of Hillsborough County. 

It is not clear how much of the Phase II program was designed by local

stakeholders. The source of the project design and the role of local stakeholders in the

application process is not merely an academic question, but is important because

increased community involvement is a primary expectation of the project. It is also

crucial as a means of achieving the other project outcomes since the design relies on

significant volunteer (i.e., uncompensated) involvement of local government and nonprofit agencies.
 Acting Assistant Secretary for Health and Rehabilitative Services (correspondence with the 10

 Director of the Children's Board of Hillsborough County), June 1993.

III-10

In a June 1993 letter, the Acting Assistant Secretary for HRS informed the

Director of the Children's Board that the agency hoped to select Hillsborough County

as the Phase II demonstration site. The letter invited the Children's Board to

participate in a meeting in Tampa with the HRS project team from Tallahassee and

DMC consultants provided through OJJDP, where they would "complete the Phase II

design." The letter also stated that the SAG was funding Phase II at an amount of

$77,000 for the program year, and it mentioned the possibility of the Children's Board

providing a 100 percent local match. The letter also stated that the "HRS would

administer the pilot project though a contract with the Children's Board. The

development of the contract would be completed jointly by HRS and the Children's

Board."10

June 1993 Planning Meeting

The meeting between HRS, the Children's Board, and DMC consultants took

place as planned. The head of Juvenile Justice Planning for the HRS attended. The

State Juvenile Justice Specialist and Hillsborough Work Group, including minority

community stakeholders, also attended the meeting.

The group agreed that the planning activities would have the following guiding

principles: 

• The program would be a collaboration between the SAG, HRS, and the

Children's Board

• The program would involve the Tampa minority community in the solution

to DMC

• The program would take advantage of certain under-utilized resources

that were available, including the new Juvenile Assessment Center and a

statutory diversion option called civil citation.

Civil citation was an option created by the Florida legislature that allows law

enforcement officers to "sentence" a juvenile to a sanction of up to 40 hours of

community service without taking the youth into custody (analogous to writing a ticket

for a traffic violation).
III-11

According to meeting participants, the first principle of the group was to create a

program that would be a true collaboration between the SAG, HRS, and the Children's

Board. A collaboration, as opposed to a more traditional contract for services, would

make the Children's Board joint manager of the project rather than a service provider to

HRS. Having local contract management, the planning group believed, would extend

the potential for community planning (one of the principles of the Federal DMC

Initiative) by means of easier access and familiarity between the project and the

Children's Board.

The final contract, based on the application drafted by the group, however, did

not develop the principle of collaboration. The Children's Board is named the

"provider" rather than the "joint manager." Despite their designated title, the Children's

Board, as co-funder of the project, expected to retain control over project aspects that

were strictly local. Furthermore, these expectations were not resolved before the

beginning of the project. The Children's Board application, in an appendix to the

contract, describes the project as a "joint venture" between the Children's Board and

the HRS.

A contract manager at the Children's Board cites this issue as a major weakness

of the contract, one that hindered the project. HRS reportedly viewed the Children's

Board more as a contractor and less as a partner. Meanwhile, the Children's Board 

remained in the background during the program year and did not insist on its role as an

equal partner. The Children's Board could have provided more training and assistance

to the project, especially to document outcomes, and also to use its influence to set up

systems and relationships in the community. 

Besides collaboration, the participants in the June planning meeting agreed that

the project should foster the involvement of the minority community as much as

possible. A Core Group of concerned citizens and minority groups and a Coalition of

Service Providers among the minority communities was planned. These groups would

guide the project to local problem areas that outside actors might not recognize,

simultaneously increasing local ownership of the program and further empowering 

minority groups to address systemic change in the justice system.

The first evidence of community ownership was the inclusion of members of the

Juvenile Justice Work Group in the program design and the selection of the TampaHillsborough Urban League, Inc., as a subcontractor to the Children's Board to recruit
III-12

and support the Core Group. Furthermore, the Core Group was responsible for

planning the implementation of the project components described in the contract,

including choosing—given certain contract limits (such as deadlines and measurable

outcome goals)—how to implement the strategies in the contract. 

By many standards of grant contracts, the plan allowed for a high degree of

community ownership. The issue of ownership was one of the continuing problems

during the first year of the Initiative, however. The staff of the project, who were hired

after the grant application was written, said that the lack of continuity between the

application and the project itself put them at a disadvantage relative to the contract

managers. Conversely, the HRS contract managers felt that there were times that the

staff of the project lost sight of the original intent of the project design. 

Following the June 1993 meeting, an application for Phase II funds was

developed by the Children's Board with input from a group of Hillsborough County

stakeholders: the Urban League, the Juvenile Assessment Center, the Sheriff's Office,

the School Board, and the local office of HRS. The application incorporated all of the

principles developed and documented during the planning process. The Florida HRS

drafted a contract based on that application. The next section describes that contract.

2.2 The Phase II Contract

This section describes the design of the Phase II program that was developed in

the application and the subsequent contract between the Florida HRS and the

Hillsborough County Children's Board. This initial design evolved during the program

year through discussions by local stakeholders that included the delineation of program

methods and other details. The second year contract has been changed to reflect

these modifications.

The contract that went into effect on December 1, 1993, called for a program to

"develop and document an effective approach for reducing the disproportionate number

of minority youth processed by the juvenile justice system." It specifically stated:

 

The Children's Board will contract with the Greater Tampa Urban League to

establish a coalition of concerned groups and citizens who will work to reduce

the disproportionate number of African American youth in the county's juvenile

justice system through (1) advocacy and systems change, (2) the development

of alternative programs and services, and (3) training for juvenile justice and
 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, contract for services with the 11

 Children's Board of Hillsborough County: Minority Overrepresentation Initiative, 1993.

III-13

related social service personnel. In addition, the Urban League will work with

the Agency for Community Treatment Services to develop diversion plans and

advocate for the diversion of minority youth. 11

These services were intended to address the problem of disproportionate confinement

on several different levels concurrently. 

The contract established the following five objectives outlining this approach:

• Develop a coalition of concerned citizens and a core planning group

• Develop a system for diverting non-serious youth brought to the JAC

• Provide cultural sensitivity training for professionals in the system 

• Establish a civil citation as an alternative to intake at the JAC

• Track the number of youth diverted.

Although these objectives constituted Florida's DMC Phase II agenda for the first

program year, planning the methods to carry out these objectives led to the

development of new targets and emphases of the program. The process of involving

community stakeholders in program planning and implementation directly influenced

this development.

3. SUMMARY OF THE DMC PHASE I PLANNING PROCESS

The DMC Phase I research documented a pattern of disproportionate

involvement of African American youth within Florida's juvenile justice system, at every

stage of the juvenile justice process. Hillsborough County was selected as the site for

Florida's DMC Phase II interventions due to the severity of overrepresentation

throughout the county's justice system, the advocacy of a Hillsborough County SAG

member, and the level of interest within the county in addressing the DMC issue.

During the same time period as the DMC Phase I research, a broad-based

coalition of state, county and local organizations was working toward improving

Hillsborough County's juvenile justice system. In fact, planning the DMC Phase II

intervention coincided with another Hillsborough County Initiative—the Hillsborough

County Juvenile Justice Work Group. This group published a report that addressed

gaps in services and problems with existing juvenile justice programs. Subsequently,
III-14

members of the Juvenile Justice Work Group provided leadership in developing

Hillsborough County's application for DMC Phase II funds.

Representatives from the following organizations worked on the DMC Phase II

plan: a Hillsborough County SAG representative, the Juvenile Justice Work Group

(including the Tampa-Hillsborough Urban League, Inc., and the Agency for Community

Treatment Services, Inc.), the Children's Board, the Juvenile Assessment Center staff,

and local HRS representatives. The DMC Phase II plan included the following

components:

• Develop a coalition of concerned citizens and a core planning group

• Develop a system for diverting non-serious youth brought to the JAC

• Provide cultural sensitivity training for professionals in the system
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

III-15

• Establish a civil citation as an alternative to intake at the JAC

• Track the number of youth diverted.

Despite the guiding principles of community collaboration and representation, it

is not clear how much of the Phase II program was designed by local stakeholders. 

Also, the lack of clear ownership at the local-level, as evidenced by the lack of

continuity between the DMC Phase II application and Phase II project itself, was a

persistent problem during the first year of the project and may have contributed to

project staff losing sight of the original intent of the DMC intervention.

Chapter IV describes the process of implementing the DMC project during its

first year of operation and the evolution of changes to the original design. Included in

Chapter IV are discussions of such issues as local ownership, local collaboration and

the extent to which these issues were impediments to the project's full implementation.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE OF

FLORIDA’S DMC INITIATIVE
Children's Board of Hillsborough County/Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative 12

 Services. (1993). "Management Plan" p. 2.

IV-1

IV. IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES OF 

FLORIDA'S DMC INITIATIVE

This chapter describes the process of implementing Phase II of Florida's DMC

Initiative named the Minority Overrepresentation Initiative (MORI). The chapter

provides an overview of the Phase II design and implementation process and describes

MORI staffing, the implementation of the five project objectives, and the assistance

provided to the project by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice contract

managers.

1. PHASE II DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW

The purpose of this section is to provide a context for understanding the Florida

DMC Phase II implementation experiences. The section begins with an overview of the

DMC Phase II initiative design. A summary of the implementation timeline and project

milestones is then presented.

1.1 Overview of the Florida DMC Phase II Design 

As previously described, Florida's Department of Human and Rehabilitative

Services provided oversight to the collaboration among Hillsborough County

organizations to develop the DMC Phase II design. Participants included the Juvenile

Justice Work Group (including the Tampa-Hillsborough Urban League, Inc., the

Agency for Community Treatment Services, Inc., and others), the Children's Board of

Hillsborough County and Hillsborough County SAG representatives. Together these

agencies designed a program that focused on the initial contact of youth taken into

custody by the juvenile justice system. The Phase I analysis shows that significant

disparities by race occur in the early stages of the system. 12

The Florida DMC Phase II intervention design for Hillsborough County called for:

• Establishing a Core Group of community members and juvenile justice

professionals to set the local agenda and identify community resources
IV-2

• Organizing a coalition of existing service providers, each with their own

program capacity, to dedicate slots to minority youth diverted from the justice

system during assessment

• Establishing a civil citation program for non-serious juvenile offenders

• Providing diversion advocacy for minority youth charged with serious crimes

and admitted to the Juvenile Assessment Center in Hillsborough County

• Training juvenile justice and related social service personnel to promote the

diversion of minority youth.

The DMC Phase II intervention was designed to use elements that were already in

place, some of which, such as the Juvenile Assessment Center, were innovative in their

own right. As a community-based design, it utilized the experience of providers who

functioned effectively in Hillsborough County by relying on the basic structure of

services as they were.

The various elements of the Phase II design had three areas of emphasis. The

first emphasis was on more effectively matching minority youth—even those who have

been arrested for serious crimes—with community services at the earliest possible

stage based on intake assessment of risk. Using early referrals to community service

providers, it was planned that each young person might learn to cope in the community

without becoming more deeply involved with the juvenile justice system.

The second emphasis was on involving the minority community in the solution to

the problem of minority youth confinement. The Core Group of community

representatives was to reach out to include non-traditional institutions within the

Coalition of Service Providers such as churches and spiritually based treatment

programs and an association of African American mental health clinicians. 

Hillsborough's grass-roots planners believed that community service sentences should

be performed in the service of the youth's own community. If these hours were

supervised by neighborhood institutions, the neighborhood would become involved in

the treatment of the youth while the youth became involved in the neighborhood. 

Institutions that provided "structured time" would also be partly responsible for the rest

of the youth's treatment. The Phase II design also called for Volunteer Monitors who

would be recruited from the community to supervise the youth as they performed

community service. These monitors would be the source of community feedback to the

professionals in the juvenile justice system as they reported back on the progress of

their client's treatment plans.
IV-3

The third emphasis was on raising the level of awareness among juvenile justice

professionals of the racial differentials in the system. Formal training was planned for

juvenile justice professionals as part of the DMC Initiative (HRS and court personnel

would receive cultural awareness training while service providers would undergo

cultural competency certification and remediation). At the same time, the Initiative also

planned to increase the exposure of case managers to community-based alternative

treatment programs. For example, part of the diversion advocates's job was to alert

HRS case workers to the capacity and availability of little-used, minority-run treatment

programs.

These three areas of emphasis—more effective diversion and treatment,

increased involvement of the minority community and increased cultural awareness of

professionals in the system—formed the foundation of the Florida DMC Phase II

design. The extent to which these guiding principles and the specific DMC Initiative

components were realized is discussed in subsequent sections of this report.

1.2 Overview of the DMC Phase II Implementation Timeline and Milestones 

The implementation of the Florida DMC Phase II Initiative began with the

selection of Hillsborough County as the demonstration site in September 1993. The

Year 1 implementation timeline is depicted in Exhibit IV-1 and briefly summarized

below.

The DMC Phase II project officially began in January 1994 with the contract

between HRS and the Hillsborough County Children's Board and the hiring of a MORI

Project Director. Between January and April 1994, project activities focused on refining

the implementation plan and enlisting community support and participation.

Additional project staff were hired in May and June 1994, months that also

marked the official beginning of the project activities including the first Core Group

meeting, the first Task Force meeting, and the beginning of the project services.

In July 1994, three major milestones occurred. The civil citation program

component was created. The project shifted its focus for services from African

American to all minority youth, and the first meeting of the Coalition of Service

Providers was held. August 1994 brought additional progress, including the completion

of six assessments for Coalition organizations and the first Core Group/Coalition

meeting.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

IV-4

During Fall 1994, the remainder of the MORI project components were

implemented including the development of training manuals and training guides. The

Core Group, Task Force, and Core/Coalition meetings continued.
September-December

1993 1994

Hillsborough Co.

Selected as

Phase II Site

Hillsborough Co.

Application for

Phase II Program

Contract

Period

Begins

Project

Director

Hired

Project

Director/

Grant

Agencies

Meeting

Plan of

Action

Developed

Major

Stakeholders

Contacted

Information

Disseminated

to Key

Civic/Community

Leaders

Training

Specialist,

Admin.

Assistant

Hired

Core

Group

Officers

Elected

Coalition

Members

Identified

1st Time

Misdemeanants

Targeted

First Core

Group Meeting

Second Core 

Group Meeting

First Task

Force Meeting

Community

Services

Specialist

Hired

OJJDP

Mgt.

Plan

Amended

EXHIBIT IV-1

FLORIDIA DMC INITIATIVE — IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE

January February March April May June

IV-4
EXHIBIT IV-1 (Continued)

FLORIDIA DMC INITIATIVE — IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE

January-February

1995

Modified

Civil Citation

Created

Focus Changed

From African

American

to All Minority

Youth

Core Group

Meeting

Task Force

Meeting

First Coalition

Meeting

July August September October November December

Task Force

Meeting

Joint Core/

Coalition Meeting

Core Group

Meeting

Task Force

Meeting

Coalition Meeting

Advisory Council

Meeting

Core Group

Meeting

Task Force

Meeting

Coalition Meeting

Core/Coalition

Meeting

Core/Coalition

Meeting

Task Force

Meeting

Core/Coalition

Meeting

Advisory Council

Meeting (3)

Blueprint

Committee

Meeting

Six Program

Assessments

Conducted for

Coalition

Organizations

Prototype

Training

Guide

Completed

Project

Evaluator

Hired

Contract

Extended

Through

2/95

Mentors

Recruited

Modified

Civil Citation

Implemented

Training

Manuals

Research

Initiated

Juvenile

Justice

Council

Meeting

Juvenile

Justice

Council

Meeting

Training

Manuals

Revised

Florida

Sentinel

News

Release

PSA Video

Prepared

Core Planning

Group - 

A Blueprint

For Action

End of

Year 1

Contract

IV-5
Information reported in this section was obtained from the evaluation interviews as well as from 13

 HRS project documents, most prominently: Children's Board of Hillsborough County/Florida

 Department of Human Rehabilitative Services "Management Plan." (1993).

IV-7

Also between Fall 1994 and Winter 1995, the Florida DMC Phase II contract

between HRS and the Children's Board was extended to February 1995. Publicity for

the project was also generated in this time period through news announcements. The

Core Planning Group's "A Blueprint for Action" was provided in December 1994.

In summary, with the completion of the contract between the Children's Board of

Hillsborough County and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,

the implementation of Phase II of the Florida DMC Project began. The process of

implementing the Initiative continued throughout the year as the Core Group and the

MORI staff worked to refine and begin operation of five initiative objectives. Over the

course of the year the program design evolved and developed due to the development

of community leaders and juvenile justice professionals in Hillsborough County. The

program expanded to include reforms of the existing juvenile justice system that were

thought to be beyond the original scope of the project.

Project successes were made possible by the level of involvement among

juvenile justice stakeholders in the community. The MORI project held dozens of

meetings of members such as the Core Group, the Diversion Working Group, and the

Coalition of Services Providers. These meetings involved participation by

representatives of public agencies and private and non-profit groups, including the

Urban League, the Children's Board, and churches. The MORI project did not mobilize

the community—interest in DMC already existed—but it gave shape to the potential

energies of the community and provided an environment to actualize these resources.

2. FLORIDA DMC PHASE II PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING13

The Florida DMC Phase II project includes a complex interagency organization

with staff responsibilities spread across two Tampa agencies. An organizational and

functional chart is presented in Exhibit IV-2. The following paragraphs describe the

project’s organization and staffing, followed by a status report of the project staff.

2.1 Project Organization and Staffing

The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is the OJJDP

grant recipient for the Phase I and Phase II DMC funds. Florida HRS provides the 
EXHIBIT IV-2

FLORIDA DMC PHASE II INITIATIVE

PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION CHART

Project

 Director

Florida Department

of Health and

Rehabilitative

Services

 

T.A. Provider

The Tampa-Hillsborough

Urban League, Inc.

 

Project Operations

and Coordination

Agency for

Community Treatment

Services, Inc.

(Juvenile Assessment

Center)

Community

Services

Specialist

Administrative

Assistant

Training

Specialist

Coalition of

Providers

Core Planning

Group

KEY 

= Funding Agencies

= Contract Recipients

= Paid Project Staff

= Formal Organizational

Relationship

= Advisory Relationships

The Children's Board of

Hillsborough County

 

Contract 

Administration

 

1SOURCE: Florida HRS. Management Plan. December 1993.

IV-8
IV-9

Phase II DMC Federal funds to Hillsborough County and is responsible for providing

technical assistance to the project.

The Children's Board of Hillsborough County, as previously mentioned, is an

independent public agency established by the Florida legislature, the Board of

Commissioners in Hillsborough County, and Hillsborough County voters in 1988. The

purpose of the Children's Board is to plan, fund, facilitate, coordinate, and evaluate the

county's children's services. For the DMC Phase II project, the Children's Board is

providing funds, equally matched to HRS, and administering the contract with the

Urban League.

The Tampa-Hillsborough Urban League, Inc., is a non-project agency that

provides programs and services in the areas of education, employment and training,

youth development, and family and community support. For the Phase II project, the

Urban League has overall responsibility for project operations including:

• Hiring, training, and managing three project staff including the Project Director,

Training Specialist, and Administrative Assistant

• Establishing a Coalition of Service Providers who will provide diversion and

other project services to minority youth

• Establishing a Core Group of community representatives to guide the project

• Administering a subcontract with the Agency for Community Treatment

Services, Inc.

The staff hired by the Urban League and their responsibilities include the following:

• Project Director is responsible for administration and coordination of the

Phase II project

• Training Specialist is responsible for assessing the training needs as well as

developing and conducting cultural competency training throughout

Hillsborough County

• Administrative Assistant is responsible for providing clerical support to the

Phase II Project.

The Coalition of Service Providers is the group of community agencies who

will receive referrals from the Juvenile Assessment Center and provide services to
IV-10

these minority youth. They will meet monthly with the Project Director. The Core

Group is a group of Hillsborough County residents who will assist the Project Director

by meeting monthly and functioning in an advisory capacity.

The Agency for Community Treatment Services, Inc., operates the Juvenile

Assessment Center (JAC), and through a sub-contract with the Tampa-Hillsborough

Urban League, Inc., will hire the following staff person and provide the following staff:

• Community Services Specialist reports to the director of JAC and is

responsible for creating diversion plans for minority youth at JAC, as part of

the DMC Phase II project

• JAC Systems Analyst will provide monthly JAC information on minority youth

who pass through the center.

In addition, the Agency for Community Treatment Services, Inc., is responsible for

minority youth advocacy.

2.2 Status of Project Staff Hiring

As stated above, funds to hire four project staff were included in the terms of the

Phase II contract. The Urban League filled three of these positions: the Project

Director (hired in January 1994), the Training Specialist (May 1994) and the

Administrative Assistant (May 1994). In addition, the Agency for Community Treatment

Services, Inc. hired the Community Services Specialist in June 1994.

Each of the staff positions was filled by local residents, known in the minority

communities. The Project Director is a former school principal who has experience in

community organizing. The Training Specialist is a former parole officer familiar with

the local justice system. The Community Services Specialist has been working at the

Juvenile Assessment Center and has worked with the full range of available youth

services.

MORI staff mentioned two aspects of the staffing process that contributed to

weaknesses in the project. One was the lack of continuity between the Phase II

application process and the project itself. None of the people who worked on the

Phase II application were on the MORI staff. Once the MORI staff were hired they

became largely independent from the Urban League, losing that opportunity to carry

over knowledge from the application process. Consequently, the staff of the project
IV-11

had a vague grasp of the original intent of the project designers that put them at a

disadvantage when responding to DJJ contract managers. The other problem with

staffing was that the positions were not filled when the project period began (the

Community Services Specialist was hired during the fifth month) which had the effect of

shortening project deadlines.

3. PHASE II PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

As previously stated, the Florida DMC Phase II intervention design included five

components:

• Core Planning Group

• Coalition of Service Providers

• Civil Citation Program

• Assessment and Diversion System

• Cultural Competency Training.

The following paragraphs describe in more detail each of these components. Each of

the five project components is discussed including what was planned, how the plan was

modified and how the objective was implemented.

3.1 Core Planning Group

The Phase II plan and contract calls for a Core Planning Group to be recruited

and convened by the Project Director to set policy and recruit organizations for the

Coalition of Service Providers. By design, Group members are representative of the

community at-large, the minority community, private and governmental service

providers, law enforcement, and the justice system. Therefore, in their discussions and

planning, the Core Group members were required to weigh diverse political and other

interests held by members of the Group. Even though this group brought together

potentially competing views and interests, by structuring the planning process to allow

for consensus decision-making, the Group was able to make progress through

compromise.

As planned, the Core Group reflects the on-going, community-based nature of

the DMC Phase II initiative. According to the management plan, "the search for

solutions will begin with a strong and influential group of concerned citizens." The

Group was intended to coordinate the planning and implementation of efforts to reduce

DMC through:
IV-12

• Advocacy for minority juveniles and reforming the juvenile justice system

• Development of alternative services to treat juveniles for mental health, family,

and other problems that lead to delinquency

• Training for juvenile justice personnel.

In addition to these project objectives, the Core Group also, according to the plan, has

responsibility for the planning and implementation of the project with assistance from

the full time project staff. Among the project responsibilities of the Core Group found in

the management plan are:

• Reach consensus on the primary issues to be addressed

• Develop a plan for involving the minority community in resolving the DMC

problem

• Build community interest in action by involving key neighborhood leaders and

utilizing the media

• Reach a consensus on goals and methods with a Coalition of Service

Providers and develop "A Blueprint for Action"

• Implement the plan and evaluate progress.

This aspect of the Florida DMC Phase II project was successfully implemented. 

The Project Director successfully recruited a wide range of members for the Core

Group that represented key decision makers in the juvenile justice system, as well as

leaders from minority neighborhoods. A list of Core Planning Group members is

presented in Exhibit IV-3. In fact, project observers rated the members of the Core

Group and their level of commitment to DMC reduction as the greatest resource of the

project. Florida DJJ staff said that they learned the value of achieving a "broad

spectrum" of involvement on the community board. The Project Director said that the

accomplishments of the Initiative could not have occurred without the involvement of

key justice system individuals, such as the Hillsborough County State's Attorney.

These same observers also commented that the Phase I research results were

very valuable in organizing the Core Group. All of the stakeholders arrived at the first

meeting with their individual understanding of the status and causes of DMC, but the

detailed research on the local-level illustrating the extent of the discrepancy by race at
IV-13

each decision point helped to break through resistance and denial. DJJ staff said that

the results themselves were important, but that finding a way to present them to the

Core Group audience without accusation was equally important. DJJ staff used the

research findings to demonstrate that the local justice system decision-making was

resulting in DMC and that each component of the system had room to improve. Law

enforcement, case management, treatment services, prosecutors, and the courts were

informed that they were all part of a system that was treating minority juveniles more

harshly than Caucasian juveniles for the same offenses.

EXHIBIT IV-3

MEMBERS OF THE CORE PLANNING GROUP

Juvenile Justice Community-Based Service Providers

Staff of State's Attorneys' Office (including the State's Prison Crusade

Attorney for Hillsborough County) Shared Service Network

Public Defender's Office THAP

Mediation and Diversion Services HOPE

Juvenile Arbitration COACH

Bay Area Youth Services PAL

Department of Corrections NU Alliance

Tampa Police Department WISP Mental Health Center

Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office African American Association Mental Health

Tampa Marine Institute (Boot Camp) Program

Lee Davis Neighborhood Service Center

Community Action and Planning

The Children's Home Inc.

Boys and Girls Club

Men II Boys

Civic Churches

City of Tampa Blessed Hope Ministries

City of Tampa Recreation United Methodist Church

Tampa Community Relations 34th Street Church of God

Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation True Faith Inspirational Baptist Church

Everyday Faith

Education and Juvenile Services Community Groups

Hillsborough County Schools (including the Children's Board of Hillsborough County

Superintendent of Schools) The Tampa-Hillsborough Urban League, Inc.

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

Agency for Community Treatment Services, Inc.

Universities and Research Institutions Individuals

University of South Florida Concerned parents

Florida Mental Health Institute Young adults

Hillsborough Community College

The Core Group was able to achieve the management plan objectives during the

first year. Members of the Group participated in over twenty formal meetings over a

nine month period beginning May 23, 1994. They developed "A Blueprint for Action"
IV-14

that was delivered at the end of 1994. They also went beyond their original scope by

negotiating and implementing interagency reforms to the juvenile justice system that

streamlined referrals, arraignment and paperwork. As a result of Core Group meetings,

several juvenile justice system changes were made: (1) the need for police officers to

drop off the criminal report affidavit (the record of arrest) at the Clerk of the Court was

eliminated; (2) a uniform case number for detained minority juveniles was immediately

assigned (eliminating three days of paperwork); and (3) arrangements were made for

youth to be arraigned at their detention hearing, resolving a procedure that had

resulted in a high rate of re-arrest for minority juveniles.

3.2 Coalition of Service Providers

The 32 agencies represented on the Coalition of Service Providers were

recruited by the Core Group from among public and neighborhood non-profit agencies

already serving Hillsborough County. The reason for recruiting service providers to

participate in the DMC Initiative was to develop a comprehensive set of proven

providers able to serve the needs of minority juveniles and reverse the high rate of

recidivism for youth who are re-arrested after receiving treatment. The Florida DMC

Phase II plan especially sought to broaden the base of providers from Hillsborough's

minority community by involving providers not traditionally utilized by the juvenile

justice system.

The Coalition is comprised of a diverse group of service providers, each with

their own area of specialization, which enables a unique contribution to the treatment

and care of MORI-referred youth. For example, Coalition providers include traditional

services such as educational assistance, job training and placement, mental health,

substance abuse, crisis management, and juvenile arbitration. Coalition providers also

provide a culturally sensitive environment for treatment programs, supervise community

service hours, and simply provide a structured setting for youth. 

All Coalition members made a special commitment to the DMC Initiative. They

are required to provide their services free of charge or on sliding scale to MORIreferred youth. Coalition members do not, however, receive any new program funds

from the Phase II project. Membership in the Coalition, however, does provide a

channel for input to juvenile justice system policy makers and networking opportunities

with other providers. Membership also increases efficiency by speeding the referral

process. The DMC Initiative also offers technical assistance to the Coalition members

in grant writing, client tracking, and developing uniform record keeping systems.
IV-15

All Coalition members undergo a cultural/program competency assessment. 

DMC Initiative planners believe that cultural competency embodied in specific

programs is necessary to helping youth learn to deal with the elements of their

environment that put them at-risk. This cultural competency assessment was planned

to be conducted using an instrument designed by a cultural competency expert and

administered to senior program staff by outside technical assistance personnel. The

instrument asks a series of questions about staff capabilities and racial attitudes, about

program goals and methods, and about outreach, intake and networking. Using the

results of the questionnaire, areas in the program with weak performance or

racial/cultural barriers are identified. At that point, a remediation plan may be

developed to improve performance in that area.

3.3 Civil Citation Program 

Juvenile civil citation is a law enforcement option in Florida which allows a police

officer to issue a sanction of up to 40 hours of community service to a juvenile for a

non-serious offense without taking the youth into custody. The Phase II grant

application proposed to adopt this option, which had not been previously used in

Hillsborough County, as a way to divert youth away from the justice system at the point

of initial contact. 

This diversion away from the "front door" of the justice system was developed in

response to the data collected in Phase I which showed that African American youths

were over-represented at the initial point of contact and that the overrepresentation

gradually increased at later points in the juvenile justice system. Civil citation was

intended to have a "ripple effect" by reducing the percentage of African American

youths at subsequent stages of the system.

The Hillsborough Phase II DMC application stated that, in this instance, the

community service sanction would be broadly interpreted to include "sentences"

referring the youth to treatment providers if needed. The DMC project would use the

civil citation to divert minority youth from the justice system by referring them directly to

needed treatment services and eliminating the need for processing by the State's

Attorneys' Office.

The Phase II contract directed that the MORI Program Director would meet with

the Chief Judge of the circuit, the State's Attorney, Public Defender and the heads of
IV-16

Hillsborough law enforcement agencies to develop, implement, and monitor the impact

of a civil citation option. Each of the named agencies had committed to participate in

the DMC Initiative and were represented on the Core Planning Group. In compliance

with the contract, the Core Group formed a Civil Citation Task Force with

representatives of those agencies.

Planning and implementing the civil citation was a main focus of the Phase II

DMC project in the months following the first meeting of the Core Planning Group. The

Civil Citation Task Force met five times (June-September 1994), achieving an unusual

level of interagency communication that resulted in significant unintended benefits such

as reforms to the juvenile justice system which reduced the average amount of time a

youth spends in detention awaiting arraignment by more than one-half. The Civil

Citation Task Force decisions concerning the target population, sanctions, and

tracking/supervision are summarized in Exhibit IV-4 and described below.

Initially the Task Force identified the target population for the civil citation

(according to the contract) to be non-serious, minority juveniles. They defined "nonserious" as youth charged with misdemeanors for the first time, and "minority" as

African-American males. At the June 13, 1994 Task Force meeting, the Hillsborough

County State's Attorney expressed his concern that the civil citation option should also

be made available to youth who are not brought to the JAC and he questioned the

legality of a diversion option that was targeted by race.

A second concern was raised by the Hillsborough County State's Attorney, who

had been elected to head the Core Planning Group. The State's Attorney was aware of

rural Florida counties' experiences with civil citation alternatives and the fact that these

counties had adopted programs that assigned law enforcement personnel the job of

monitoring the juvenile's compliance with sanctions. Consequently, the State's

Attorney was adamantly opposed to the adoption of a standard civil citation because

the size and population density of the City of Tampa might make following up on

compliance with the sanctions excessively difficult for law enforcement officers. 

In July 1994, the Task Force therefore modified the civil citation design in

response to the Hillsborough County State's Attorneys' concerns. It was decided to

offer civil citation to all youth brought to the JAC or directly referred to the State's

Attorneys' Office. The necessary case processing capability would be provided

through the JAC.
IV-17

EXHIBIT VI-4

JUVENILE CIVIL CITATION MODIFICATIONS DURING PLANNING

DATE TARGET POPULATION SANCTIONS SUPERVISION

TRACKING/

June 1994 African American Referral by JAC to Undecided

Male provided by the Coalition of

First or second misdemeanor

offense

Brought to the JAC

Residing in one of two

targeted zip codes

treatment programs

Service Providers

July 1994 Any minority race Referral by JAC to Undecided

Male or female provided by the Coalition of

First time misdemeanor

offense

Brought to the JAC or

referred directly to the State's

Attorneys' Office

Residing in one of two

targeted zip codes

treatment programs

Service Providers

Sept 1994 Any race Referral by Juvenile Juvenile Arbitration reports

Male or female programs provided by the completion of sanctions

First time misdemeanor Providers

offense

Brought to the JAC or

referred directly to the State's

Attorneys' Office

Resident of Hillsborough

County

Arbitration to treatment to the JAC on the

Coalition of Service

At the September 22, 1994 meeting of the Task Force, civil citation for juveniles

of all races was established, throughout the county. Records of juveniles

recommended for civil citation would be routed through the State's Attorneys' Office (for

record-keeping purposes). 
IV-18

From there, sanctions would be determined through the Juvenile Arbitration

Program, one of the diversion alternatives for non-serious offenders. Juvenile

Arbitration Staff would not only determine sanctions for civil citation cases but also

monitor compliance and report back to the JAC.

At this point in the planning process several members of the Core Planning

Group experienced confusion over the target population and diversion methods. The

Florida DJJ contract managers also sensed that communication among the

stakeholders had become a problem and that the diversion plan was being aimed

primarily at non-serious offenders. In planning for a civil citation, the DMC project was

focusing its attention on youth who were unlikely to be sentenced to secure

confinement. DJJ staff attempted to communicate the original intent of the diversion to

address youth who were likely to be confined (a more serious or "at-risk" population)

and to provide assistance to the project to meet the goals of the contract, if needed.

The Core Group members who had been planning for several months to

implement the civil citation program reported frustration in light of the DJJ staff

concerns. Since the contract required a civil citation program and civil citation is

inherently a diversion method for non-serious offenders, the Core Group members

believed they were in compliance with the Phase II plan.

In implementing the civil citation program, members of the Task Force and the

Core Planning Group eventually drew a distinction between civil citation and other

DMC diversion activities that would be exclusively targeted to minority juveniles.

Introducing civil citation would help keep many first-time offenders from coming into

contact with the system, but the Task Force agreed that 1) non-minority youth should

not be excluded from the civil citation option, and 2) the spirit of the DMC program

called for the further development of special programs to divert minority youth by

specifically addressing their needs. The Task Force adopted civil citation in

accordance with the terms of the contract, but only after some confusion and miscommunication, internally and with the DJJ, on the role it would play in addressing

DMC.

3.4 Assessment and Diversion System

As the civil citation alternative evolved and was implemented, members of the

Core Group—including the Chairman—initially thought of the "civil citation" and

"minority diversion" as conceptually interchangeable. As the DMC project matured,
 Dembo, Richard, et al. (1994). “Predictors of Recidivism to a Juvenile Assessment Center, 14

 “Department of Criminology, University of South Florida.

IV-19

however, the Core Planning Group recognized that the needs of minority youth

required the separate development and implementation of an assessment and

diversion system. The DMC-related assessment and diversion system is described

below including a description of the original system and changes which occurred as the

MORI project was more fully implemented.

Original Diversion Design

A keystone of the DMC Phase II Plan is the provision of assessment and

diversion advocacy for minority youth at the Juvenile Assessment Center, the primary

entry point to the juvenile justice system in Tampa. A brief description of the Juvenile

Assessment Center and the planned services is presented below.

The Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) is a 24-hour centralized receiving,

processing, and intervention facility for adolescents taken into custody by law

enforcement officers." The JAC is operated by the Agency for Community Treatment

Services, Inc., and began operating in May 1993, accepting juveniles arrested for

serious crimes (all felonies and weapons-related misdemeanors). In May 1994, the

JAC phased in treatment for juveniles arrested for all misdemeanors.

During the first eight months of operation, over 2,000 youth were brought to the

JAC (mostly on felony charges). Most of these were male (83%), a majority were

African American (54%); their median age was 15 years; and while the ages ranged

from 8 to 20, all but 7 percent were between the ages of 13 and 18. 14

Juveniles brought to the JAC are given a series of standardized tests to assess

individual treatment needs. Meanwhile, the youth's prior justice and education records

are obtained and reviewed and an intake assessment is make by county Health and

Rehabilitative Service staff, and an HRS case worker is assigned. The youth may be

detained in a secure facility or released to the custody of a family member or to a

program to await his/her court date. The JAC follows up on referrals by tracking

whether the youth secured the recommended services, but detailed monitoring is left to

the HRS case manager. This process is graphically depicted in Exhibit IV-5.

DMC Initiative Services—Assessment and Diversion Advocacy
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

IV-20

Based on the Phase I finding that African American youth are over-represented

among youth who receive intake recommendations for court petitions, the intake

assessment process was addressed by the MORI project. Phase II designers believed
EXHIBIT IV-5

ORIGINAL DIVERSION SYSTEM DESIGN

Needs

assessment, case

manager assigned

Release

Diverted to

JASP

?

Completed

sanctions

?

 Accumulated

12 Points

Referral

?

Detained

?

Juvenile

apprehended

Law enforcement

takes juvenile to

JAC

Secured until

intake arraignment

State’s

Attorneys’

Office

Petition to

court

Points added to

record

Released

Released

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No No

Yes

No

IV-21
IV-22

that African American youth could have more successful treatment experiences in

programs that are located in their communities and run by African American staff.

The diversion design begins with the Community Services Specialist who was

hired by the MORI project and located at the JAC. When a minority youth was brought

to the JAC and the assessment is underway, the Specialist was notified. The Specialist

enters the process after the normal assessment is completed and the HRS caseworker

has developed a treatment plan and made a referral recommendation. The Specialist

reviewed the assessment instrument results and met with the youth to discuss

treatment and special needs. At this point, the Specialist's role was that of an advocate

for the youth to attempt to find the most appropriate service and provider possible,

taking race and community explicitly into account.

The Specialist would then recommend to the HRS caseworker a service provider

from the Coalition of Service Providers based on the individual needs of the youth. 

This component of the Initiative was designed to improve upon prior referral matches

by taking cultural differences and needs into account. Before the DMC Initiative, the

JAC tended to make quick turnaround or emergency referrals to a short list of large,

publicly-funded providers who may not have been able to serve the culturally-specific

needs of minority youth.

Changes to the Diversion System Design 

No other aspect of the DMC project has changed more than the role of the

Community Services Specialist at the JAC. The duties, methods, and target population

for the Specialist's diversion planning have been subject to change both from MORI

project direction and/or from DJJ grant monitoring staff.

Initially, the Specialist would go in the morning to the secure area of the JAC to

review the case worker recommendations on all of the youth processed for

misdemeanors since the last shift. Scrutiny was directed to incidences of mis-assigned

minority youth, both in terms of the recommended legal action and treatment

assignments to the Coalition of Service Providers. Between September and December

1994, the Community Services Specialist had approved treatment plans for

approximately 300 youth. Twice he challenged a case worker's recommendation to

petition a youth to court, and both times the recommendation was reduced. This

process is summarized in Exhibit IV-6.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

IV-23

In a November 1994 project update meeting in Tampa, DJJ expressed concern

that the diversion objective of the program was not being met because the youth 
States

Attorney's

Office

Nolle

Prosequi Release

No

Diverted to

JASP

?

Accumulated

12 Points

Referral

?

Detained

?

Juvenile

apprehended

Law enforcement

takes juvenile to

JAC

Civil 

Citation

?

EXHIBIT IV-6

YEAR 1 CHANGES TO THE DIVERSION SYSTEM DESIGN

Diversion planning

and advocacy

Completed

Sanctions

?

JAC 

services

Held until

arraignment

Petition to

court

Civil citation

recommendation

reviewed by

State’s Attorneys’

Office

No

Yes No

No

No

No

no

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

KEY

= Year 1

Changes

Points added to

record

IV-24
IV-25

receiving services would have avoided court anyway. State staff perceived that the

Community Services Specialist was only reviewing and approving treatment plans, and

not providing enough direct services to clients. MORI was requested to revise the

Specialist's role and expand the target population to include youth who were headed

for confinement.

In response to the DJJ concerns that the diversion method was not helping

youth who were at-risk of confinement, the Core Group and the State's Attorneys' Office

revised the process to target youth whose offense and prior record were more serious.

The State's Attorneys' Office will now identify youth who, by virtue of his/her offenses

and prior record, are qualified to go to court. Many of these cases will be youth who

had been previously diverted to the Juvenile Alternative Sanctions Program (JASP) or

the Juvenile Arbitration Program but had not completed their sanctions, and are subject

to re-arrest. (MORI research found that 20 to 30 percent of youth are failing to

complete their diversion program, and two-thirds of those are minority youth). In cases

of minority youth meeting certain eligibility requirements, the State's Attorneys' Office,

instead of petitioning the court, will make an exception and divert the youth to the

minority diversion program. 

For a youth your diverted to the minority diverson program, a JAC Specialist will

draft a diversion plan that focuses on treating individual and family functioning issues,

and arrange for appropriate treatment providers. Then the Specialist and a case

manager on loan from the DJJ will closely supervise the youth as they complete their

treatment and other sanctions. The maximum case load for the diversion program has

been set at fifty. The first youth were referred in June 1995. Exhibit IV-7 provides a

diagram of the revised diversion process.

For this minority diversion program, the Core Group and the State's Attorneys'

Office identified a group of youth in the juvenile justice system who, under previous

procedures, would be eligible for a judicial sanction. Utilizing the prosecutorial

discretion of the State’s Attorneys’ Office, eligible youth are targeted for a second

chance to complete their diversion program. The collaboration of the MORI staff, the

Core Group, and the State’s Attorneys' Office resulted in a tangible change for youth

who would have otherwise further penetrated the juvenile justice system.

According to the evaluation interviews, communications between DJJ and

Hillsborough County DMC staff were most difficult and strained, beginning in November

1994, concerning the design and implementation of the minority division program. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

IV-26

While local staff reported high levels of commitment to resolving the tensions with DJJ

staff, there was a local perception that the revisions to the diversion design represented 
Completed

Sanctions

?

Yes

DMC

diversion

?

Coalition provides

treatment

Close supervision

Points added

to record

Petition to

court

State’s

Attorney's

Office

Nolle

Prosequi Release

No

JASP

?

Accumulated

12 Points

?

Referral

?

Detained

?

Juvenile

apprehended

Law enforcement

takes juvenile to

JAC

Civil 

Citation

?

JAC 

services

Community Services

Specialist

Held until

arraignment

Civil citation

recommendation

reviewed by

State’s Attorneys’

Office

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

EXHIBIT IV-7

YEAR 2 CHANGES TO THE DIVERSION SYSTEM DESIGN

Minority Treatment

Plan

=Year 1

Changes

=Year 2

Changes

KEY

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

IV-27
IV-28

a significant adjustment to the contract and a distraction to the DMC Phase II project

implementation.

Volunteer Monitors

A final component of the diversion design was the use of Volunteer Monitors as

part of the diversion system. During assessment, the Community Services Specialist

would also assign some youth as needed to a Volunteer Monitor. These Monitors

would be recruited from the minority community by the Core Group to help the youth

navigate their treatment, community service obligation, and other everyday issues. 

They would be in contact with the youth for 6 to 12 weeks and help get the youth to the

provider and make sure the program is having the expected effect. The Initiative

design sees the Monitor as an important role model as well. 

According to the DMC Phase II design, the Monitors are managed by the

Community Services Specialist. There is an initial meeting in which the Specialist uses

the youth's assessment results to tell the Monitor about the case-specific expectations

and how to meet them. The Monitor also makes progress reports back to the

Specialist. The Monitor supplements the role performed by the HRS case manager by

spending more individual time with the youth and by being a person from the

community who "leads by example" demonstrating the importance of day-to-day

responsibility.

In August 1994, the Core Group began planning to recruit the Volunteer

Monitors to help supervise diverted youth. The plan to recruit monitors was suspended

in November, however, as the MORI worked to redress the DJJ issues and concerns

related to the more central diversion system design.

Tracking the Youth Diverted

Tracking the number of youth diverted by the DMC Phase II project was a

related objective Initiative. Tracking the number and progress of youth would provide

information about the effectiveness of program practices in diverting youth and aid

evaluation of the outcomes of the project. It would also serve as a way to keep case

managers in touch with youth as they were shifted away from the formal system.

Project planners intended tracking to fill an information gap between the Juvenile

Assessment Center and community-based service providers who receive minority youth
IV-29

referrals. The JAC has a well developed information system with the ability to call up

the juvenile's justice history, assessment record, and a record of referrals for services. 

Once the youth is referred to a service provider, however, the JAC information system

does not collect any data about the performance or completion of treatment. Thus

MORI was directed to collect information and report on the progress of youth in

treatment programs recommended during diversion planning.

At the end of the first program year, the MORI Community Service Specialist was

able to report that 306 minority youth whose intake records he reviewed were handled

non-judicially by Juvenile Arbitration. The ongoing evolution of the meaning of

diversion and the design of a diversion process however has meant that devising a

comprehensive tracking method has been delayed. During the first year of the program

there was no system for tracking the progress of these youth, therefore no way of

knowing if they benefitted from non-judicial sanctions.

In the second year of the program, MORI will need to close the information gaps

between JAC and Juvenile Arbitration and eventually include service providers as well. 

The Community Services Specialist has recently established a new method for alerting

Juvenile Arbitration that a particular case is a MORI diversion, enabling them to report

back the youth's sanctions and recommended service provider. MORI currently lacks

staff and case management expertise to follow up on with youth on a face-to-face

basis, but they plan to institute such a method by means of limiting the case load to no

more than 50 in the next program year and taking advantage of a case worker detailed

to the project by the Regional Director of HRS.

3.5 Cultural Competency Training

Based on the Phase I findings indicating that intake workers and members of law

enforcement may have biases that contribute to DMC, another focus of the Phase II

activities was cultural competency training. The contract and management plan

directed the Urban League to hire a full-time Training Specialist to "design, develop,

and implement research-based curricula for training juvenile justice and social service

personnel in strategies for working with troubled minority youth." To develop the

training plan, the Training Specialist was to follow African American youth through the

system and into the community, experiencing first-hand the situations and problems

which these youth face as they move through the juvenile justice system. The

emphasis of the training is to help professionals recognize and overcome behaviors

that act as barriers to minority diversion and result in the higher ratios of minority youth
IV-30

in the system. The contract called for the training to be targeted to law enforcement

personnel, JAC and DJJ staff, and social service agencies.

The Training Specialist was hired in May 1994. Since that time the role and

responsibilities of the position have expanded to include: assisting with cultural

competency assessment and training for organizations belonging to the Coalition,

giving presentations about MORI objectives and programs in the community, and

recruiting and training mentors for existing youth-related programs. In addition to these

new responsibilities, the Training Specialist has been working to accomplish the

original tasks assigned in the contract and assisting with staffing the Core Group and

Coalition.

The Training Specialist's primary role is still to develop a cultural awareness

curriculum for juvenile justice and law enforcement personnel and to provide them with

training. To fulfill this role the Training Specialist has himself received cultural

awareness training (in August 1994 at the Florida Detention Initiative and September

1994 at the University of South Florida). He also completed research for the training

curriculum development (in September and October 1994), supplementing his prior

knowledge gained as a Hillsborough County parole officer. 

The Training Specialist received technical assistance from researchers at the

University of South Florida to ensure that the training manuals included the best

available methods for cultural sensitivity training. The manuals were revised and drafts

were delivered in March 1995. MORI has been arranging a training schedule with the

Tampa Police Department to begin during the second program year. The Specialist

gave four sensitivity training workshops during the first program year to groups such as

the "Great American Teach In" and Pinellas County law enforcement personnel. 

During his nine months with MORI, the Training Specialist also performed his

expanded secondary responsibilities. He helped assess 11 out of 36 Coalition

members with respect to their organizational cultural competency and programmatic

capacity. After reporting the assessment results, he outlined areas of need and offered

appropriate assistance and training to the organization. The Specialist has also

spoken about MORI and the issues of overrepresentation and cultural awareness at

school meetings and other community events. Moreover, he has had primary

responsibility for a mentor recruiting effort that has received and begun to train 30 to 40

volunteers.
IV-31

4. STATE-LEVEL SUPPORT OF THE DMC PHASE II PROJECT

The Florida DJJ in Tallahassee provided support to the MORI throughout the

planning and implementation stages to help them to meet the objectives of the contract. 

This assistance sometimes took the form of technical assistance from outside

consultants with issues such as developing a work plan and developing training

curricula. At other times the technical assistance was provided by DJJ staff who

managed the contract.

In their role as project managers, the DJJ chose to use a "team" approach with

the MORI. All members of the DJJ state-level DMC staff were available to assist MORI

with issues relating to the project. The DJJ staff, who had helped draft the initial project

design, were very involved in the project and made eight to ten visits to the project

during the year. The MORI Project Director said that the assistance received from DJJ

was excellent. "State representatives came down to Tampa whenever we asked them

to."

Although there was overall satisfaction with the state-local relationships, both

the DJJ staff and the staff of the MORI identified some problems with the management

of the contract. DJJ staff said that they eventually had to change their team

management style because the loose accountability was confusing. Instead of having

completely open access with MORI staff, the DJJ assigned one person as a formal

contract manager whose role was to ensure compliance with the contract. A second

staff member was assigned as the main technical assistance contact. According to DJJ

staff, "the role of the state manager is a balance between guidance and dictatorship." 

State-level staff learned that it was important not to be perceived as standing in the way

of the community-based planners.

The DJJ also felt that it took a long time for some of the members of the Core

Group to learn the intentions of the Initiative, resulting in some breakdowns in

communication between the DJJ and the MORI. DJJ staff would visit the site to explain

options and check on progress and leave feeling that the project was operating

according to the management plan. But concepts such as "target population," and

"case load" would be misunderstood and require another visit. The DJJ felt that one

problem was the lack of a strong central figure to keep the Core Group focused on the

objectives of the contract.
IV-32

At the same time, the staff of the MORI wanted the DJJ managers to understand

that they were not in a position to force members of the Core Group or the Coalition to

comply with the terms of the contract. The contract environment was one of

volunteerism—the Core Group had volunteered to serve and were not compensated for

their time. "We could not create new duties or responsibilities for Coalition members." 

In a community planning context, the local staff of the Initiative felt that they need more

leeway to make adjustments to the details of the plan because key participants did not

experience the same obligation to fulfill the terms of the contract. Eventually local staff

were frustrated by what was perceived as an unrealistic expectation that the community

could be organized according to schedule. The county DMC staff ultimately recognized

their professional priorities, however. One staff member stated, “We needed to honor

the contract whether it was realistic or not.”
V. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
V-1

V. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

This chapter discusses the accomplishments of the Florida DMC Initiative and

identifies "lessons learned" from the Florida project which may usefully inform other

states and localities as they work to overcome DMC. The chapter is organized in two

sections: (1) conclusions and (2) lessons learned.

1. CONCLUSIONS

The following paragraphs present the overall conclusions, drawn by the

evaluation of the Florida DMC Initiative followed by a more detailed discussion of

accomplishments.

1.1 Overall Conclusions

The demonstration phase of the Florida DMC Initiative was an attempt to create

a replicable model for a community-based program to reduce the high level of contact

between minority youth and the courts. The project used the Tampa-Hillsborough 

Urban League, Inc. as a conduit for the involvement of minority leaders in the

community. These leaders were formed into a Core Group who set up and oversaw

aspects of the project (cultural sensitivity training for juvenile justice professionals,

alternative treatment for minority youth diverted from the courts), and advocated for the

benefit of minority youth in the juvenile justice system.

As advocates, the Core Group far exceeded expectations. The presence of the

group, where none had existed before, brought together the different agencies in the

juvenile justice system, creating an unprecedented high level of dialogue. This

communication led to gains in interagency efficiency that not only benefited minority

youth but reduced the average days in pre-arraignment detention for all youth.

In their role as a steering committee, the Core Group was ultimately successful

in meeting the objectives of the program contract to design a system for diverting

minority youth, and a curriculum for training juvenile justice professionals. With the

assistance of the contract managers from the State Department of Juvenile Justice, the

first year of the project has been devoted to defining and setting up the system that will

provide intensive supervision to minority youth who have failed to benefit from

minimally intrusive measures. While both the DJJ contract managers and the Core

Group had hoped to fully implement diversion during the first year of the contract, they
V-2

agree now that they are "on the right track" toward implementing services in the second

year.

This project demonstrated the high potential and the range of impacts possible

with a wide spectrum of community involvement. The quality of communication was the

key to success. When communication was frequent, as it normally was (the project

averaged three formal meetings per month and an average of about twenty attendees)

benefits flowed in many different directions. When communications broke down (as

they did between the committee and the DJJ contract managers around the question of

the target population for the diversion program) progress slowed.

1.2 Project Accomplishments

During the program year and through all of the negotiations and modifications to

the program design, the MORI, with help from the DJJ, remained focused on fulfilling

the terms of the contract. The DJJ contract managers and their counterpart at the

Children's Board agree that the MORI made every effort to achieve the outcome goals

detailed in the contract despite the delay before implementing services to clients. DJJ

reported concern that very few clients were receiving services; after a period of

miscommunication, DJJ discovered, however, that youth were being served but that the

MORI staff were not sufficiently documenting their measurable impacts. DJJ staff

assured the MORI that they "weren't looking for massive numbers" and provided

assistance in documenting outcomes, by sending the state-level project evaluator to

meet with them several times toward the end of the program year.

The five program objectives outlined in the contract and discussed in the

preceding chapters were supplemented by five program outcome measures which are

presented in Exhibit V-1. Essentially, the Florida DMC project satisfied all but one of

the five program outcome measures.

All of the reports and other deliverable products required by the measurable

outcome objectives were delivered to the DJJ. Objective one, the civil citation program,

was established and is a fully functioning diversion alternative for all youth in

Hillsborough County. The satisfaction of objective two, the diversion planning and

advocacy program, was dependant on the definition of "non-serious" and the

specification of a target group. Until November 1994, MORI defined "non-serious" as

first time misdemeanants; under this definition, the objective of diverting one-half of all 
V-3

EXHIBIT V-1

PROGRAM OUTCOME MEASURES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

OUTCOME MEASURE TIMEFRAME ACHIEVED? COMMENTS

Develop and operationalize a civil 2nd quarter Yes Program fully functioning

citation program

50% minority youth referred for Project end Yes Dependent on definition of

non-serious delinquent acts to "non-serious"

receive case staffing, diversion

planning, and advocacy

Compile monthly report of Project end Yes Dependent on definition of

minority youth diverted away from "diverted"

juvenile justice system

Organize and provide support to 1st Quarter Yes Core Planning Group and

Core Planning Group of Coalition of Service

concerned citizens; document Providers

progress in monthly report

Design, develop and implement Manuals are still under

research-based curricula for review

training—specifically to work with

troubled youth:

• Prototype trainers guide 3rd Quarter Yes

• Training Participant Guide 3rd Quarter Yes

• Minimum four training 4th Quarter No

sessions

eligible youth was met. Similarly, objective three was dependant on the definition of

"diverted." MORI did submit monthly reports on the number of youth referred and

diverted by race, where "diverted" meant that their intake materials were reviewed by

the Community Services Specialist and their case was handled non-judicially. 

Objective four, organizing a community planning board, was successfully accomplished

although completed behind schedule. The Core and Coalition groups convened more

than the required number of times, provided minutes of their meetings, and produced

"A Blueprint for Action." Objective five, to develop prototype training manuals, was

accomplished with help from researchers at the University of South Florida. Since the

manuals are still under review, the four minimum training sessions have not yet been

provided.

Another program benefit, identified by all project participants, was that the MORI

was able to continue to operate for the program year despite periodic tensions with
Feyerhem, W. (1995). Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Lessons Learned From the Pilot 15

State Experiences. Prepared for: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

V-4

DJJ. The benefits of the project were evident enough to local project staff that it had to

be sustained through any difficulty. The staff of the MORI said that the community itself

provided the strongest support for the project. One member stated: "The community

needed to express themselves about this. We could have lost the local support during

the year. The fact that we haven't proves they are thirsty."

The real evidence of success for the Florida DMC Initiative is the extent to which

DMC monitoring and interventions will continue in the future. Florida has clearly made

a commitment to DMC monitoring and interventions. At the state-level, the DJJ has

hired a full-time data analyst to continue to collect data about the characteristics and

demographics of juveniles in the justice system. DJJ also created and staffed a

position for a State DMC Coordinator, whose job is to promote DMC reduction in all

Florida jurisdictions. Finally, the SAG has made DMC an ongoing area of focus. 

Before the 1992 Federal mandate, the Florida SAG was already spending $400,000 of

their OJJDP formula grants annually on projects that impacted DMC. Currently the

SAG has approved five new DMC projects with a total budget of $600,000.

2. SPECIFICATION OF LESSONS LEARNED

The Florida DMC Initiative provided opportunities to learn from the efforts to

reform the juvenile justice system and involve state and local stakeholders in project

planning and implementation. The following paragraphs describe the DMC process

and corresponding lessons learned in more detail. The analysis of the evaluation

findings in this chapter is based on the findings presented in Dr. Feyerherm's

companion document. The information is organized according to the following topics: 15

1) defining DMC, 2) designing and implementing an intervention, 3) monitoring

progress and recognizing the impact of DMC activities. 

2.1 Defining the DMC Problem

The process of defining the extent of disproportionate confinement of minority

youth involves both the collection and analysis of statistical data and the identification

of factors which contribute to DMC. In Florida's DMC experience the research

conducted at the State-level during Phase I was important in defining the extent of

DMC and also in indicating potential causes. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

V-5
 Ibid. 16

 Ibid. 17

V-6

Invest in Rigorous Data Collection and Structured Problem Definition

Rigorous data collection was an investment in problem definition and consensus

building. The Phase I research went beyond the minimum scope of the problem by not

only examining the ratio of minority youth held in confinement, but also collecting data

for youth with comparable records and offenses by race in the following juvenile justice

areas:

The disposition of youth detained by law enforcement

The processing of youth by HRS case managers

The decision to adjudicate youth by State's Attorneys' Office

The judicial disposition of youth.

Data for each county were graphically presented as odds ratios by race in a decision

tree representing the juvenile justice system from initial referral to final disposition. 

Once the research had established data showing that processing decisions throughout

the system were combining to result in DMC, then state staff called a statewide

conference to disseminate the information to system stakeholders. They found that if

the data were presented without accusation they were able to help generate consensus

that the entire system needed to address internal practices to reduce DMC. "You can't

go against any of the players if you are trying to convince them to join a cooperative

effort to change the system." 

Unnecessary Controversy Over "Minority Criminality"

As Feyerherm has observed, a common first reaction among juvenile justice

professionals to data demonstrating disproportionate outcomes is to argue that the

youth who are confined are the "right kids." This claim is based on the idea that 16

minority juveniles are more likely to be involved with delinquent behavior and therefore

it is reasonable that ratios above strict population proportions would be observed. It is

unnecessary, however, to become distracted by debate over racial comparisons of

juvenile crime rates if the problem is defined as one of equal processing for equal

crimes once youth are in the system. Prevention approaches in minority communities

can be addressed separately from the question of equal treatment within the system

without fighting the battle of perceived criminality of minority youth. 17
V-7

In Hillsborough County, the majority of the Core Group held the position that the

youth held in confinement were the "right kids." This was partially because of the large

number of juvenile justice professionals, including the State's Attorney (an elected

official), whose voices helped define the agenda, were wary of being perceived as soft

on dangerous juvenile delinquents. Eventually, however, the group agreed to consider

that improving treatment alternatives for even serious minority delinquents could help

to prevent some of them from committing additional crimes requiring confinement. The

State DJJ helped the Core Group reach this acceptance by providing technical

assistance on alternatives to confinement and by insisting that the project address a

target population including more serious delinquents already involved with the juvenile

justice system. Many members of the Group still hold that the system has confined only

the right juveniles, but by taking a systemic approach to the causes of DMC, they have

continued to participate and to move forward with developing constructive alternatives

to court and confinement. (The issue may surface again in the coming year when

MORI implements its cultural sensitivity training for juvenile justice professionals.)

2.2 Designing an Approach

The experience of designing and implementing an approach to address DMC 

has been the main focus of this evaluation. The Hillsborough MORI project

experiences have implications for issues such as community ownership, broad-based

involvement, and ease of implementation, which are discussed below.

Local Planning, Not State or Federal

Juvenile justice remains primarily a function of local governments in hundreds of

jurisdictions across the country. Further, solutions to problems of high rates of minority

confinement must involve minority communities as advocates for changes in the

juvenile justice system, changes in social policies that result in conditions putting youth

at-risk of delinquency, and changes in the social conditions of minority communities

and the community at-large that may also put youth at-risk. Therefore, planning must

be provided for at the local level. Communities should be allowed the policy "space" in

which to develop their own capacity and their own approaches.

Florida DMC project success stems, in large part, from the exceptional level of

participation both from the public agencies and officials, and from community providers

and representatives. But it was not just the act of meeting that created real changes in

the juvenile justice system, it was when the group was given something to do that the
V-8

real changes occurred. When the group had to discuss topics, such as describing how

the details of how the justice system works, they found they had to clarify their positions

and reach consensus. By simply meeting, they could and did agree that they all

wanted to improve the situation, but it took months from the point that they could agree

that there was a DMC problem before the group and the process matured enough that

they could agree on a method for diverting minority youth.

Involve All Significant Actors to Achieve System Reforms

An obvious benefit of the Florida DMC Initiative was the interagency dialogue it

created within the juvenile justice system, which enabled long-needed reforms. Staff of

the Florida DJJ said, "DMC planning can start a dialogue on other important juvenile

justice issues; the MORI interagency planning was able to affect how youth are

processed in Tampa, removing kinks in the system and shortening time in

confinement." A member of the Core Group commented that it is important to

document and recognize the unintended benefits of a community-based planning

project such as this. Getting all of the stakeholders into the same room and discussing

ways to address a common problem was valuable in so many other ways besides being

able to achieve the measurable outcomes of the project. "The unexpected benefits can

be expected."

One unintended benefit was that community-based service providers met each

other and representatives of public agencies, learned how each works and built trust

that all organizations have the same objectives. This networking was considered to be

a crucial outcome for the future of MORI in the county. The importance of the

cooperation of the key juvenile justice actors cannot be overestimated: the Public

Defender, the superintendent of schools, the Hillsborough County State's Attorney, the

Regional Director of the DJJ, all participated as equal members with the community

and enabled the project to make a significant impact.

Understand and Respect Local Power and Influence Structures

Approaches to DMC, such as Florida's, that seek to foster local planning need to

invest in understanding local power and influence structures. Both state and local

DMC stakeholders felt that a lack of knowledge of local power structures resulted in

frustration for state project managers when they perceived a lack of ability to implement

components of the project on schedule. State DJJ staff said that MORI lacked a central

leader to keep the project focused and that "people with responsibility for project
V-9

activities (such as the Project Director) have to have authority to achieve their tasks. 

Meanwhile, the staff of the MORI were subject to what they considered unrealistic

demands that they speed up consensus, or delegate responsibilities to volunteer Board

members who participated on a goodwill basis and were not accountable to the project

or the terms of the contract.

While the contract was often useful for keeping the State DJJ staff in

Tallahassee "on the same page" with the MORI staff and the Core Group in Tampa, it

often did not allow "space" for the implementation of appropriate DMC interventions in

Tampa. For example, the Core Group had to develop and implement a civil citation

program because it was in the contract, even though the Group realized that it was not

the most effective method for diverting minority youth from the juvenile justice system. 

Without the firm contract language, the Core Group might have chosen not to focus on

the civil citation program but to focus on a diversion program that was more targeted to

minority youth.

One way to achieve understanding of local power structures is through the

involvement of a local grant partner. In Hillsborough County, the Children's Board

provided one-half of the grant funds and initially wished to serve as the local contract

manager. However, the Children's Board remained in the background during the first

program year. A Children's Board contract manager said that her organization "failed"

MORI by not insisting on its role as equal partner with the DJJ. "The Children's Board

should have understood the state's expectations of the pilot project, such as the

contractual goals and the logical way to report progress data." As an experienced local

grants administrator, the Children's Board could have played a greater role and helped

both the DJJ and MORI by setting up necessary relationships with service providers in

the community and by tempering expectations in the beginning stages of the project.

Choose Intervention Strategies That Respond to System Needs

The Florida DMC project accepted a systemic view of the causes of DMC

recognizing that the juvenile justice system could be partially responsible for high rates

of minority confinement that are also the result of larger social policies and societal

conditions (including poverty and racism). Consistent with this view, they also

accepted that many different approaches could work to reduce DMC and, in fact, could

work together. The MORI plan involved five largely independent strategies aimed at

both serious and non-serious juvenile offenders, system reform, and training for

professionals within the system. 
V-10

2.3 Monitor Progress and Recognize the System Effects of DMC Activity

Observers and participants in the Florida DMC Initiative continually stressed the

unexpected benefits to the juvenile justice system that directly resulted from DMC and

MORI activities. As discussed above, Florida has made DMC an on-going topic of

statewide concern in juvenile justice, hiring a State DMC Coordinator, funding

continued data collection, and committing significant formula grant funds to DMC

programs in other sites. The Phase I data collection caused the state to recognize the

lack of regularly collected data available on the status and characteristics of youth in

the system. The state has created new resources and mechanisms to address those

needs.

DMC organizing activities maintained the momentum begun in Hillsborough

County by the Juvenile Justice Work Group. By forming the Core Group and the

Coalition of Service Providers, MORI not only focused community attention and

resources on the juvenile justice system, but also created a new high level of

collaboration. Public and non-profit organizations worked together and learned about

each other, establishing links that are necessary if MORI is to implement a successful

model of community-based provision of alternative services for minority youth.
APPENDIX AGLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
A-1

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

DJJ - The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

DMC - Disproportionate Minority Confinement

HRS - The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

JAC - The Juvenile Assessment Center

JASP - The Juvenile Alternative Sanctions Program

JJS - The Juvenile Justice System

MORI - The Minority Overrepresentation Initiative

OJJDP - The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

SAG - The State Advisory Group
APPENDIX BSTATE-LEVEL INTERVIEW GUIDE
B-1

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT (DMC) INITIATIVE 

FLORIDA

STATE-LEVEL INTERVIEW GUIDE

NAME : POSITION/TITLE : 

LOCATION : OFFICE : 

DATE : INTERVIEWER : 

Introduction:

Good morning/afternoon.

Caliber Associates is a consulting firm located near Washington, D.C. specializing in

the evaluation of social service programs. Caliber is currently under contract with the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to provide evaluation

services for the Governor's Office for Children, Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth

Project.

Based on the data required for an evaluation of the Florida initiative, interviews are

being conducted with key personnel from the Governor's Office for Children about the

Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth Project. We are here today to document the

state-level approaches to remedy minority over-representation.

Do you have any questions before we begin?
B-2

1. Please briefly describe the Governor's Office for Children—its' mission,

functions, staffing and programs. How is it that this Office has responsibility for

OJJDP mandates, etc.?

2. Please briefly describe your own job.

• Title

• Responsibilities

• Length of time in job

3. Please describe your participation and support of the DMC initiative (i.e., brief

chronology of events).
B-3

4. What are your perceptions of factors that contribute to the problem of DMC?

5. What role do you think various levels of government should play to eliminate

DMC?

• Federal

• State

• County 

6. What were the major issues or problems that your organization wanted to

address through the Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth Project (ET)? 
B-4

• What/who were the sources of support of the Project?

• What/who presented barriers to the Project?)

7. What was the level of coordination or cooperation within the state in

developing/implementing the ET project?

8. Among politicians, bureaucrats and others who do not support ET, what were

their reasons and rationale?

9. What were the total resources devoted to ET? (Trying to get at other nonfederal contributions/sources of commitment).
B-5

10. What were the factors that facilitated the implementation and operation of the ET

project?

11. What obstacles occurred when implementing and operating the ET project?

12. Please describe your data/information systems.

13. Do you think that the ET project impacted or affected the target population?

14. What have been the most important lessons learned from implementing and

operating the ET project?
B-6

15. What is the level of commitment to continue the ET project?

• What/who are the sources of commitment?

• Are there any follow-up plans?

• How will Arizona monitor the remedies of DMC? Who will do what, 

when and where?

16. Do you have any final questions or comments?

This interview is now completed. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
APPENDIX CPILOT PROJECT INTERVIEW GUIDE
C-1

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT (DMC) INITIATIVE 

FLORIDA

PILOT PROJECT INTERVIEW GUIDE

NAME : POSITION/TITLE : 

LOCATION : PROGRAM NAME : 

DATE : INTERVIEWER : 

Introduction:

Good morning/afternoon.

Caliber Associates is a consulting firm located near Washington, D.C., specializing in

the evaluation of social service programs. Caliber is currently under contract with the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to provide evaluation

support for each of the DMC State Pilot Projects.

Today we want to discuss three main topics about your DMC initiative:

The local planning process for the intervention

The State support role for the pilot project

Future plans for DMC

Do you have any questions before we begin?
C-2

I. BACKGROUND ON DMC

1. Please briefly describe your organization.

2. Please briefly describe your own position.

• Title

• Responsibilities

3. Why/when did you first become involved with the DMC initiative? 
C-3

4. What role do you think various levels of government should play to 

eliminate DMC?

5. What are your perceptions of the key factors that contribute to DMC?

II. THE STATE PHASE I PLANNING PROCESS

6. Please describe Phase I of the DMC initiative.

• What was your participation in Phase I of the DMC initiative?
C-4

• What was your interpretation of key Phase I analysis findings?

• How were the Phase I analysis findings disseminated?

• How well were the Phase I analysis findings received?

• How did the Phase I analysis findings influence planning for Phase II?
C-5

III. THE STATE PHASE II PLANNING PROCESS

7. Please describe the DMC Phase II planning process.

• How was the DMC pilot project selected?

• Who were the key players at the state/local levels?

• What major planning processes did the state use? [Why were 

these key steps chosen?]
C-6

What were the obstacles or hindering factors in the planning process?

• What were the facilitating factors in the planning process?

8. What were the total resources devoted to planning DMC? (NOTE: If only federal

- we know the amounts. This question is trying to get at other contributions/

sources of commitment)

• State contributions

• Other
C-7

IV. THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DMC PILOT PROJECT

9. Please describe the relationship between the Department of Juvenile Justice/

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the Hillsboroughgh

County DMC project.

• Was technical assistance provided to the pilot project?

• Was state oversight provided? What was the oversight relationship

between the state and the pilot project?

• What were the strengths and weaknesses of that relationship?
C-8

10. What has been the role of the SAG on the DMC initiative?

11. What is the current Hillsborough County DMC project plan/design?

• JAC diversion

• Training of juvenile justice personnel

• Coalition of service providers

• Tracking of minority youth
C-9

• Civil citation project

• What are your perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the 

plan?

• How has the DMC pilot project plan been modified?

• What prompted the plan modifications?

12. Have any parts of the DMC plan been implemented?
C-10

13. How will the DMC plan been implemented?

• Timetable

• Level of state/local collaboration

V. FUTURE PLANS ON DMC

14. How will the state monitor incidences of DMC? (Processes and outcomes)

• What are the sources of data?
C-11

• What type of data will be collected?

• Where will the data be reported?

15. What are the state’s future plans to meet the federal DMC mandate?

16. What have been the most important lessons learned from planning and

implementing the DMC pilot project?

17. Do you have any final questions or comments?

This interview is now completed. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.