The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the proposed rule 10C-1.113, Florida Administrative Code, is invalid.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, Tesha LaShawn Atkinson, is the sixteen (16) year old mother of Petitioners, LaTesha Barki Atkinson, age two years and two months, and Tiffany LaShawn Atkinson, age four months and two weeks; such ages being determined as of the filing of the amended petition on December 9, 1988. Accordingly, Petitioner, Tesha LaShawn Atkinson, is a "teenage parent" as that term is defined in Section 409.029, Florida Statutes. Petitioners reside at 1353 W. 15 Street, Jacksonville, Florida, which is within a geographical area where the proposed rule would be implemented. Petitioners are currently recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Petitioners' AFDC family number is 224-76-77. Pursuant to the proposed rule, Petitioner, Tesha LaShawn Atkinson, would be required to attend school or otherwise participate in a Project Independence program in order to continue receiving AFDC benefits. Petitioner, Tesha LaShawn Atkinson, has completed the 10th grade. She has no family member available to care for her children during the daytime hours she would be required to participate in Project Independence. Further, she does not wish to place her children in a daycare center. Proposed rule 10C-1.113 requires each AFDC applicant and recipient to participate in the AFDC employment and training program, unless exempted under federal or state guidelines. An exemption is available for a child under age 16; unless the child is a teenage parent. A "teenage parent" includes any person 14 years of age or older but less than 20 years of age who is pregnant or who is already a parent. Other exemptions are available for a pregnant woman in her third trimester and a custodial teen parent during the three month period following the birth of the child. A teen parent with a four month old child who is an AFDC applicant or recipient would be required to comply with the rule. The proposed rule 10C-1.113 is similar to programs being implemented in other states such as Arkansas. These similar plans condition the eligibility for welfare benefits to school attendance or appropriate training programs. Plans implemented in other states have accomplished the goal of having welfare teen mothers become less likely to remain on welfare since literacy is increased, ability to earn more money is increased, and the chance of having a second child is reduced. The proposed rule requires that a mandatory participant comply with the program and provides sanction procedures for the failure or refusal to comply. Prior to initiating sanctioning, the employment and training staff is required to determine whether the participant failed or refused to comply for reasons of good cause. Among the reasons cited as constituting good cause are that needed child care or transportation support services are not available. The Department is obligated to provide the necessary support services defined in Section 409.029(7)(a), Florida Statutes, to the extent that funds are available. If child care, transportation or any other support service that is necessary to enable participation in a program activity is not available, the participant is not required to participate until the needed service becomes available. The Department has printed a handbook which directs the districts to implement the teen parent program. The publication, however, clearly states that the proposed rule has been challenged and that while "the rule challenge is pending, teens are required to participate, but cannot be sanctioned for refusal or failure to participate." The proposed rule is to be implemented state-wide to the extent funds are available. At this point in time, however, all 11 Department districts will be represented by the program operating in only 14 counties. Only estimates can be given for the number of teen parents within those counties who will participate in the program. Consequently, the costs associated with the implementation of the program have been calculated based upon the numbers in the affected counties. As the program grows and funding becomes available, all areas would be required to comply.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Respondent because of his race in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Chester R. Cooper, is an African-American male. He was employed by Respondent, Gulf Coast Treatment Center, on May 19, 1998, as a youth care worker at its facility in Fort Walton Beach, Florida (assignment center). Petitioner was terminated on November 5, 1998. During his employment, Petitioner worked the "midnight shift" from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. His supervisor was Ollie Rainwater. Respondent operated its facility under a contract with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The Fort Walton Beach facility performs behavioral, medical, educational, and psychological assessments and completes a 21-day report to DJJ prior to the assignment of a each youth to a residential commitment facility. The program director of the Center was Mikel Currie. In November 1998, four of the five shift supervisors were African-Americans, and approximately 50 percent of the youth care workers at the Center are African-Americans. Pursuant to the requirements of the DJJ, the Center promulgated and briefed all employees on a Use of Force Policy, which provided in relevant part, that mechanical restraints, such as handcuffs or leg cuffs, may be used upon the youths only to prevent injury or property damage. The policy prohibits the shackling of youths together and the practice of hog-tying. Hog-tying is securing a youth's legs and hands together behind the youth's back. The policy also required that any use of mechanical restraints be reported in writing by the staff member involved within two hours of the incident. All youth care workers are provided with some training in this area. The Employee Conduct Policy expressly prohibits the "shielding" of any employee from the consequences of misconduct and imposes a duty upon all employees to report any misconduct. The language of this policy does not limit these reporting obligations to one's immediate supervisor. Such reports may be made to the program director or any member of the administration. Petitioner was aware of the policy to report misconduct, but believed that he was supposed to report the misconduct to his immediate supervisor, who was the person who was actually perpetrating the misconduct involved in this case. On November 4, 1998, Petitioner was assigned to the Boys' Unit of the Assignment Center. His shift began at 10:00 p.m., on November 4, 1998, and ended at 6:30 a.m., on November 5, 1998. Ollie Rainwater (African-American), shift supervisor, and Jimmy Coleman (African-American), youth care worker, were the only other employees assigned to the Boys' Unit on Petitioner's shift. Jesse Mathews (Caucasian) worked on November 3 and 4, 1998, on the second shift, from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. On November 3, 1998, Annette Whittlesay, a youth care worker on the female side of the facility observed Ollie Rainwater and Jesse Mathews, handcuff two youths together. However, she never reported this information to anyone in the administration. The Boys' Unit is comprised of two residential sides, each of which is approximately 75 to 80 feet long. The residential sides form a hallway divided by double doors. When Petitioner arrived at work on November 4, 1998, he observed Quentin Williams and Ricky Sheets handcuffed together. The handcuffing occurred when Petitioner was at the other end of the hall. The doors were closed and Petitioner did not see the actual handcuffing. The youths told Petitioner that Mr. Rainwater, along with Jimmy Coleman, handcuffed them. It took a while for Petitioner to obtain this information because the two youths were fighting each other while cuffed. During this time Petitioner sat down. Petitioner then went to find the key to the cuffs to uncuff the boys. Upon the program director's arrival at the Center, around 5:00 a.m., on November 5, 1998, one of the youths, Quentin Williams, reported to him that he had been handcuffed together with another youth, Ricky Sheets, by Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman. Quentin Williams reported that one of his wrists and one of his ankles had been shackled to the wrist and the ankle of Ricky Sheets, and that they had fought with each other while shackled together. During this struggle, Quentin Williams had been bitten on his finger by Sheets. Quentin Williams also told Mikel Currie that Petitioner had sat in a chair and laughed at them while they struggled. Mikel Currie sent Quentin Williams to the nurse for treatment of his finger and immediately commenced an investigation of the matter. Mikel Currie determined that no report of any use of mechanical restraints had been made by anyone from the night shift. Mikel Currie directed each of the youths who had been shackled or had witnessed the shackling or hog-tying to prepare a written statement in their own words. In order to avoid any collusion, the youths were separated from each other as they prepared their written statements. After the youths completed their written statements, each one was interviewed separately by Mikel Currie and Keith Williams (African-American), the first shift supervisor. Quentin Williams told Mikel Currie and Keith Williams that he had been shackled to Ricky Sheets by Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman on two consecutive nights. He also told them that "Mr. Cooper was sitting in a chair laughing" while he and Sheets were fighting. The youth did not state that any other employee was involved in the incident. Ricky Sheets' report was consistent with that of Quentin Williams. He identified Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman as the two staff members who had shackled him to Quentin Williams and did not state that any other employee was involved in the shackling. Youth, Frederick Alls, confirmed that Jimmy Coleman and Ollie Rainwater had shackled Quentin Williams and Ricky Sheets together on two nights and that Ollie Rainwater had hog- tied Alls with a set of leg cuffs earlier that morning. Alls did not state that any other employee was involved in the shackling or hog-tying. Youth, Brandon Mason, told Mikel Currie and Quentin Williams that two youths had been shackled together by Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman. He also told Mikel Currie and Keith Williams that Petitioner sat in a chair watching while Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman shackled Quentin Williams and Ricky Sheets together. Mason identified Ollie Rainwater, Jimmy Coleman, and Petitioner as the only employees involved in the shackling incidents. Two other youths, Edward Roberson and John Croshat, were interviewed and identified Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman as the staff members who shackled the two youths together. During the investigation, none of the six youths who were interviewed ever told Mikel Currie or Keith Williams that Jessie Mathews, a white youth care worker assigned to the evening shift (2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) had participated in any mechanical restraints or misconduct of any nature. From the youths, Mikel Currie determined that the shackling incidents occurred around 1:00 a.m., several hours after Jessie Mathews had left the Center. Neither Mikel Currie nor Keith Williams had any reason to suspect Jesse Mathews was involved. Mikel Currie and Keith Williams interviewed Ollie Rainwater on the afternoon of November 5, 1998. Ollie Rainwater admitted his involvement in the shackling and hog-tying incidents of November 4 and 5, 1998. He was terminated for violations of the Center's Use of Force and Employee Conduct policies. Ollie Rainwater never claimed that Jessie Mathews, or any other white employee, had been involved in misconduct. Mikel Currie and Keith Williams also interviewed Jimmy Coleman that same afternoon. Jimmy Coleman admitted that he was involved in the incidents on November 4 and 5, 1998. His role had been to bring the restraints to Ollie Rainwater when he ordered him to do so. Jimmy Coleman was terminated from employment. At hearing Jimmy Coleman testified he told Mikel Currie and Keith Williams that Jesse Mathews had participated in a similar incident the day before. However, the assertion is not credible because Mikel Currie and Keith Williams both testified unequivocally that Jimmy Coleman never mentioned that Jesse Mathews, or any other white employee, had been involved. This testimony is bolstered by the interviews given by the various youths. Mikel Currie attempted to reach Petitioner several times by telephone on November 5, 1998, but was unsuccessful. Keith Williams reached Petitioner by telephone around 1:00 p.m. on that date, as detailed in his contemporaneous memorandum of this conversation. Keith Williams asked Petitioner if he was aware of the shackling incidents and Petitioner denied any knowledge. Petitioner repeated several times that he knew nothing about the incidents. He made that statement because he did not directly see the handcuffing of the youths. He did not reveal his knowledge regarding events after the act of handcuffing. Mikel Currie and Keith Williams did not believe Petitioner's claims that he knew nothing about the incident because the Boys' Unit is a relatively small area (150 feet in length), Ollie Rainwater and Jimmy Coleman admitted their involvement and several of the youths had stated that Petitioner had observed the shackling incident. Accordingly, Mikel Currie and Keith Williams decided to terminate Petitioner for knowingly attempting to mislead Keith Williams during the course of the investigation, failure to report the improper restraint of the youths, and humiliating the youths by laughing at them while they were shackled. Petitioner was terminated on November 7, 1998. Contrary to his testimony, Petitioner never advised Mikel Currie, Keith Williams, or any other member of management that Jessie Mathews had any alleged involvement in the improper use of restraints. In his "Letter of Rebuttal" submitted to the Center four and one-half months after his termination, Petitioner never mentioned any involvement on the part of Jessie Mathews. He did, however, admit in this letter that he did observe the two youths shackled together while they fought. Since Respondent did not know of Jessie Mathews' similar behavior, Jessie Mathews was not terminated or otherwise disqualified. Later, however, Jessie Mathews, the white employee involved in the November 3, 1998, handcuffing was involved in an argument with another shift supervisor. Mr. Mathews used profanity and acted unprofessionally. He was suspended and demoted as a result of his misconduct. During the two months following the termination of Ollie Rainwater, Jeremy Coleman, and Petitioner, a majority of the individuals hired as youth care workers at the Center were minority group members (7 African-Americans and 1 Hispanic out of 15 hirees). Robert Cannon, a white youth care worker, was terminated by Mikel Currie on October 16, 1998, for suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol and refusing to take a drug/alcohol test. Neither Mikel Currie nor Keith Williams had any knowledge of any prior misconduct of this nature on the part of Robert Cannon. Tammy Curry, a white female youth care worker, was subject to an assault by a female youth on December 13, 1998. Mikel Currie placed Tammy Curry on leave while he investigated the incident. Based upon his investigation, Mikel Currie reinstated Tammy Curry because he determined that she had been punched in the face and pulled down the hallway by her hair by a youth in an unprovoked attack. Mikel Currie concluded that she had acted properly in self-defense. The youth was charged with battery and Tammy Curry was reinstated. Additionally, the Inspector General at the Department of Children and Family Services conducted its own investigation and cleared Tammy Curry of any wrongdoing. The Robert Canon and Tammy Curry incidents are not similar to Petitioner's circumstances. Respondent, including the unit presently known as the Okaloosa Youth Academy, actively pursues a policy of affirmative action designed to recruit minorities. As of the spring of 2000, the Center employed 138 individuals, the majority of whom (72 employees ) were African-American. After Petitioner's termination from the Center, Petitioner sought employment to replace the income he lost from this employment. On February 21, 2000, Petitioner began working for Correctional Services Corporation as an on-call youth worker. His earnings through the date of the hearing are $8,013.56. He earns $8.30 per hour. He averages approximately 24 hours per week.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry, P.L. 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501-3308 Kevin L. O'Dea, Esquire McGlinchey Stafford 643 Magazine Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Azizi Coleman, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Fischer is a child under commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service who on May 24, 1978, was granted the privilege of transferring to a community placement under the direct supervision and authority of the Bureau of Fields Services, Division of Youth Services. The transfer was the subject of a furlough agreement entered into by Fischer with HRS on the same date. On May 31, 1978, Fischer was furloughed from the Alyce D. McPherson School, Ocala, Florida, and released to the custody of Mr. Rolf Fischer, the brother of Fischer's natural father who had raised her since she was sixteen (16) months old. On June 6, 1978, Fischer was placed on a contract with her counselor, Francine Nelms, for the week of June 6, 1978, to June 13, 1978. The contract provided that Fischer could not leave her residence without her stepfather being with her, that she was to do all her chores and that she was to maintain an attitude of respect toward her stepfather. Fischer did not sign the contract although she read it and indicated that she understood it. On June 7, 1978, Fischer left her stepfather's place of residence without permission and travelled around the State of Florida by hitchhiking and riding the bus. She was apprehended in Venice, Florida, by the Venice Police Department. Pursuant to a hearing conducted by Mr. Arrie Owens, Youth Services Program Specialist of HRS, on June 21, 1978, Fischer had her furlough revoked because she failed to abide by her furlough agreement by virtue of her leaving her place of residence without permission. Fischer subsequently commenced this appeal.
The Issue Whether Amanda’s Childcare and Preschool is subject to a civil penalty and licensure action for failing to comply with staff-to-student ratios and for having tools on the daycare playground, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-22.001(4) and 65C-22.002(1)(a), and chapter 402, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the Department to operate a facility known as Amanda’s Childcare & Preschool located at 123 West Rhode Island Avenue, Orange City, Florida 32763. Respondent is owned by Joseph Corneck. During the morning of January 28, 2013, Mr. Corneck was working on the construction of a climbing apparatus in a playground at Respondent’s daycare facility. There were no children playing on the playground at the time of Mr. Corneck’s construction activities. Rather, there were 20 kindergarten-aged children inside an adjacent classroom while Mr. Corneck was outside working. Near lunchtime, Ms. Carolyn, a staff member who was supervising the classroom, lined the children up so that they could use the two available bathrooms and wash up for lunch. Because of crowding by the number of children lining up for only two bathrooms, Ms. Carolyn asked seven boys in the group to line up outside the classroom along the exterior wall near the door adjacent to the playground. Ms. Carolyn asked Mr. Corneck to assist in watching the boys while they were in line. Mr. Corneck left the apparatus that he was working on, which was approximately 30 feet away, and came over to the boys to watch over them while they were in the line. Mr. Corneck left the tools that he was working with, consisting of a hammer and a cordless drill gun, back on a platform of the apparatus. The platform where he left the tools was approximately four to six feet high. He also left the materials he was working with and a ladder near the apparatus. While Mr. Corneck was watching the boys, Department family services counselor Kalyn Yeager stopped by for a routine inspection. She noticed the boys outside the classroom and apparently concluded that they had access to the tools and materials. Mr. Corneck, however, did not allow the boys to play on the playground that day. There is no evidence that the children were allowed access to the tools or playground apparatus, and there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the children otherwise had access to those tools or materials, or that they were ever in danger or potential danger because of his construction activities. After the inspection, Ms. Yeager had a conversation with Mr. Corneck in which he advised that he had shown some of the day care students how to use tools. Mr. Corneck, however, never told Ms. Yeager that he had given a demonstration to the kindergarten-aged children who were present on the day of the inspection. Rather, his reference to a tool demonstration was about another occasion or occasions when he had demonstrated the use of tools to some of the older boys in Respondent’s after- school care. At the final hearing, Ms. Yeager could not recall the number of children who were there the day of her inspection. The evidence is otherwise inadequate to show that Respondent violated any applicable staff-to-child ratio standards. In sum, the Department failed to prove the alleged violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED 15th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 2013.
The Issue The matter for consideration in this case concerns Petitioner's challenge to the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services', award of a contract for services to provide treatment of youth in the Juvenile Alternative Services Projects (JASP) for Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. In particular, Petitioner contends that it did not receive due and fair consideration in accord with the criteria established by law. Petitioner stipulated, during the hearing, that it was not challenging the sufficiency of the Request for Proposal (RFP) pursuant to which bids were submitted nor the sufficiency or propriety of the criteria contained within the RFP. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS Petitioner presented as witnesses Dr. Peter Parrado, Executive Director of Juvenile Services Program, Inc.; Mr. Jack F. Wood, Program Supervisor, Children, Youth & Families (HRS); Mr. Patrick Keefe, District VI Intake Supervisor for HRS; Judge James P. Calhoun, Circuit Judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; Mr. John Benito, Assistant Public Defender for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; and Mr. Andrew Alexandre, District VI Intake Supervisor for Respondent (HRS). By stipulation of counsel, the direct testimony of Mr. Benito and Mr. Alexandre were presented by deposition and counsel for Respondent had the opportunity to cross examine those two (2) witnesses during the hearing. Respondent called as its witnesses Mr. Larry Lumpee, an employee of Respondent and Mr. William F. Bowman, Director of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. The parties presented twelve (12) joint exhibits. Joint Exhibit I was the Request for Proposal for the Manatee County JASP and Joint Exhibit 2 was the Request for Proposal for the Hillsborough County JASP. Joint Composite Exhibits 3 and 4 were the proposals or bids of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., for Manatee and Hillsborough Counties respectively. Joint Composite Exhibit 5 was the proposal or bid of Boy's Club of Manatee County, Inc., for the Manatee County JASP. Joint Composite Exhibits 6' and 7 were the proposals or bids of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., for Manatee County and Hillsborough County respectively. Joint Composite Exhibit 8 was the rating sheets of the selection committee for Hillsborough County and Joint Composite Exhibit 9 was the rating sheets for the selection committee for Manatee County. Joint Exhibits 10, 11 and 12 were the letters of notification of action dated May 28, 1982, from the Respondent to Boy's Club of Manatee County, Inc., Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., respectively. Those exhibits were admitted. Petitioner also offered the depositions of Mr. John Benito and Mr. Andrew Alexandre and with agreement of counsel for Respondent, these were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2. Petitioner had marked for identification its letter of protest dated June 10, 1982. This was not admitted as an exhibit. Respondent offered no exhibits other than the Joint Exhibits listed above. Counsel for both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has, since 1979, operated the Juvenile Alternative Services Project. The program provides diversion and treatment for first-time less serious juvenile offenders prior to an adjudication of delinquency by the courts. The JASP program came into existence in 1979, through a pilot program in HRS Districts V, VI and VII. The pilot program in District VI was operated by Youth Program Services, Inc., based in Orlando, Florida. The JASP pilot program in District V was operated by Juvenile Services Program, Inc., the Petitioner in this case. The contract for District VI, which consists of Manatee and Hillsborough Counties, was re-bid annually. The Requests for Proposal used in the years 1980, 1981, and 1982, except for very minor changes, were virtually identical. The contracts which are the subject of this case were let for bid pursuant to two (2) Requests for Proposals (hereafter RFP) dated April 23, 1982. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2) These two (2) RFPs advertised for two (2) separate contracts for the Manatee County JASP and Hillsborough County JASP. Proposals under both RFPs were required to be submitted no later than May 14, 1982, at 5:00 P.M. The Boys' Clubs of Manatee County, Inc.; Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., submitted timely proposals for the Manatee County program. (Joint Exhibits 3, 5 and 6) Timely proposals for the Hillsborough County program were received from Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. (Joint Exhibits 4 and 7) The proposals were evaluated by selection committees for each county. Members of the selection committee for Hillsborough County were Judge James Calhoun, Marcia Leonard Bailey, John Benito, Jack Wood, Patricia Moran, Andrew Alexandre and Patrick Keefe. These persons included a Circuit Judge, Assistant State Attorney, Assistant Public Defender, a citizen at large, and three (3) HRS employees. A similar committee performed the evaluation for Manatee County. In addition to reviewing the written proposals, the committees heard oral presentations from those parties which had submitted written proposals. Following the oral presentations, the committee members rated the various proposals by filling out rating sheets containing the various criteria contained in the RFP and used by the selection committee in arriving at a recommendation. (Joint Exhibits 8 and 9) The criteria were: A programmatic expertise; Prior experience--personnel history; Organization abilities; Qualifications of personnel--abilities to hire qualified personnel; Budget in cost effectiveness program; and Overall adequacy of personnel. The committee for Hillsborough County rated the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., very closely, with Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., receiving 677 total points and Juvenile Services Program, Inc., receiving 668 points. Following their evaluations, the committees recommended Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., as the entity to provide JASP programs for both Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. Thereafter, Juvenile Services Program, Inc., timely and properly filed its protests and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 120.57(1). Both Juvenile Services Program, Inc., and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., were qualified to perform the services requested by the RFPs. No evidence was presented relating to the selection process in Manatee County and there was no evidence that the Petitioner did not receive a full, fair, and proper evaluation of all criteria in the RFP for the Manatee County program. All five (5) committee members from the Hillsborough County selection committee who were called as witnesses testified that both the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., were well qualified. The major contention of the Petitioner focused on the fact that Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., was a new corporation and would not be able to perform the administrative and financial functions of the JASP programs as well as Juvenile Services Program, Inc., which had been in existence since 1976. There was no evidence presented which showed that the selection committees failed to evaluate each and every criterion established by the RFP. This was borne out by the rating sheets as well as the five (5) committee members called as witnesses by Petitioner. Dr. Peter Parrado, Executive Director of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., also testified about the inquiry by the committee into the various criteria during the oral presentations. Both the Petitioner and Bay Area Youth Services were evaluated by the committee in all criteria areas. The committee specifically inquired into the fact that Bay Area was a new organization, incorporated in April, 1982, and was satisfied that that would not interfere with the proper performance of the services requested by the RFP. Mr. William F. Bowman, Director of Bay Area Youth Services, Inc., and one (1) of the members of its Board of Directors appeared before the selection committee. The entire existing District VI staff of Youth Programs, Inc., was to continue in place with Bay Area Youth Services. Both Dr. Parrado and Mr. Bowman had been involved in the JASP program since its inception in 1979. Dr. Parrado was executive director of the Petitioner which had had the JASP contract for District V since the pilot program in 1979. Mr. Bowman, as a former employee of Youth Program Services, Inc., was the program director for the JASP program in District VI and had performed that function since the pilot program in 1979. Both men were well qualified to supervise the JASP programs for District VI. There was a specific requirement that the providers submitting proposals be able to have the projects operational by July 1, 1982. The committee was concerned with the ability of Juvenile Services Program, Inc., to step inland take over a program with which it was not familiar. The JASP program in District VI operated differently than the program in District V where Juvenile Services Program was already operating JASP. Mr. Bowman and the staff of Bay Area Youth Services were the same staff that had previously operated the JASP program in District VI for Youth Programs, Inc. Mr. Bowman and his staff were thoroughly familiar with the operation and procedures of the JASP program in District VI. The Committee was also concerned with continuity of the existing JASP operations in District VI and Dr. Parrado had not given assurance as to what, if any, of the existing staff would be retained if Juvenile Services Program, Inc., was awarded the contract. Bay Area Youth Services already had its staff and physical operation in place and would be less disruptive of the program'5 continuity if awarded the contract. The key individuals in the supervision and operation of JASP in District VI by the two (2) bidders would have been Dr. Parrado and Mr. Bowman. JASP in District VI would be the only program operated by Bay Area Youth Services and Mr. Bowman would be giving one hundred percent (100 percent) of his time to that program. On the other hand, Dr. Parrado's organization would have been operating JASP in three (3) other districts as well as several other youth programs in other counties. The budget submitted by Juvenile Services Program reflected that Dr. Parrado would spend fifteen percent (15 percent) of his time supervising the District VI JASP. Dr. Parrado testified that he would give as much time to District VI required but gave the committee no firm estimate as to how much of his time he would be able to be personally involved in District VI. The witnesses rated the performance of Mr. Bowman and his staff as excellent for the previous years they had operated JASP in District VI. Some administrative problems had developed while Youth Programs, Inc., provided JASP services in District VI. These were in the nature of late payrolls and delays in paying bills. The problems emanated from the Orlando office and were not attributable to Mr. Bowman and the staff in District VI. Because of the problems which had occurred with the large organization of Youth Programs, Inc., the committee was concerned that the same types of problems might arise with Juvenile Services Program, Inc., which is also a large organization. To aid in handling the administrative details of JASP, Bay Area Youth Services had retained an outside firm to do the payroll and tax and other payroll-related functions. A local accounting firm had been retained to monitor and take care of accounting and bookkeeping functions. The committee was satisfied that Mr. Bowman's organization would be able to adequately handle the administrative details of JASP in District VI. Although much of the administrative and personnel matters under Youth Programs, Inc., were handled out of the Orlando Central Office, Mr. Bowman had for three (3) years been responsible for all hiring, firing, and supervision of personnel in the District VI JASP. He also did all local buying of supplies and related items. He also was responsible for locating and obtaining office space and equipment. The director of the program in District VI performs a liaison function between the provider and those entities using the services such as the State Attorney's office, Public Defender's office, and the Circuit Judges responsible for juvenile matters. Mr. Bowman had developed good rapport and credibility with each of these entities as well as HRS counselors in District VI and had done an excellent job in selling the JASP program to these agencies.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a licensed child care facility known as Toddler Village. The license number is 889- 15. On October 1, 1991, at approximately 10:45 a.m., the facility had one adult supervising two children up to 12 months old, one adult supervising 11 children between 12-24 months old, and one adult supervising 17 children over two years old with the majority being four years old. The inspector gave the inspection report to Shirley Davenport and explained that Respondent had to correct the deficiency immediately. Ms. Davenport is the president of Respondent and, with her mother, owns the company. The inspector ordered Respondent to report on compliance by October 2, 1992. The evidence establishes that, following receipt of the letter, Respondent failed to reduce the number of children in the 12-24 months age group that each staff person was supervising. On January 16, 1992, the inspector again visited the facility. The ratios were one adult supervising two children up to 12 months old, one adult supervising 10 children between 12 and 24 months old, and one adult supervising 25 children over two years old with the majority being four years old. The inspector left an inspection report with Melissa Davenport, who is Shirley Davenport's daughter and was an adult employee of the facility at the time. The report ordered Respondent to provide proof of sufficient staff ratios by January 20, 1992, or else Respondent would face administrative action. On January 30, 1992, at approximate 9:25 a.m., the inspector again visited the facility. In the interim, Respondent had reported to Petitioner other corrective actions concerning alleged violations that are not involved in this case. However, Respondent failed to report corrective actions concerning the ratio of adults to children. The ratios on January 30 were one adult supervising six children up to 12 months old, one adult supervising nine children between 12 and 24 months old, and one adult supervising 21 children from two to four years old. The Administrative Complaint was signed by the District Administrator on February 3, 1992. There are 124 days between October 1, 1991, and February 3, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the staff-child ratio for 121 days and imposing an administrative fine of $1210. ENTERED this 28 day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Williams, Secretary ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28 day of July, 1992. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 James A. Sawyer, Jr. District 7 General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services South Tower, Suite S827 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Shirley Davenport 6510 Edgewater Drive Orlando, FL 32810
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the evaluators of the subject request for proposals (RFP) were qualified under the applicable law and RFP criteria to evaluate the proposals.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida and is the procuring agency in this proceeding. On November 23, 2009, the Department issued RFP #P2062 (the RFP), requesting proposals from prospective providers to operate 16 IDDS programs in 16 different judicial circuits in Florida: Circuits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20. The RFP's Statement of Services provided that proposers would be responsible for designing, implementing, and operating an IDDS program in each of the 16 listed judicial circuits. The RFP described an IDDS program as a diversion program targeting a specific population of juvenile offenders determined to be at risk of becoming serious and chronic offenders. The goal of IDDS is to facilitate a positive change in youth behavior and criminal thinking and provide the youth with the tools necessary to avoid recidivism or future criminal involvement. Prospective providers were instructed to propose services that included specified minimum components, including scheduling, supervision, and monitoring of compliance with court-ordered sanctions, such as community service, curfew, and restitution; random urinalysis monitoring; provision of counseling, anger management education, educational training, and vocation services to age-appropriate youth; and substance abuse prevention and treatment services. The RFP provided that proposers were to submit a single response to address one or more circuits in which they intended to propose operating an IDDS program. However, if a prospective provider proposed to operate IDDS programs in more than one circuit, its response had to include separate sections on staffing, prices, and budgets for each circuit/program proposed. The deadline to file challenges to the specifications of the RFP was within 72 hours of its posting. No challenges to the RFP's specifications were filed within the required 72-hour window. Petitioner, Intervenor, and two other proposers' timely submitted proposals to operate an IDDS program in Circuit 17, in response to the RFP. Following its evaluation of proposals, on March 2, 2009, Respondent posted its notice of agency action, indicating its intent to award the contract in Circuit 17 to Intervenor, whose proposal received the highest score of 1549.78 points. Juvenile Services Program, Inc., was ranked second, with 1454.01 points. Petitioner was ranked third, with 1327.57 points. Lutheran Services of Florida, Inc., was ranked fourth, with 986.43 points. Petitioner's timely challenge to Respondent's intended agency action in Circuit 17 is limited to the issue of whether the evaluators were qualified under the applicable law and RFP criteria to evaluate the proposals. The standard established by "the applicable law," section 287.057(17), Florida Statutes, is that the agency must appoint "[a]t least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought." The RFP criteria contain the following in the RFP Addendum, in the form of a question from a prospective provider and Respondent's answer: Q: Who will be evaluating the proposals[?] Will they be fully knowledgeable about IDDS programs and how they are run[?] A: The proposal will be evaluated by a team of DJJ staff who are fully knowledgeable about IDDS programs and how they are run. These people are chosen for their particular skills, knowledge and experience. They have also been chosen because of the Department's confidence in their ability to score proposals both independently and fairly. Amy Johnson, Respondent's chief of contracts, has the responsibility for supervising the Department's contracting and procurement process and ensuring compliance with section 287.057. The Department goes beyond the statutory requirements by specifically training potential evaluators in the competitive procurement process with a focus on the process itself, including evaluation and scoring of proposals. Ms. Johnson has in the past conducted this training and remains responsible for ensuring that evaluators are trained. A number of years ago, Ms. Johnson developed an internal means of identifying potential evaluators who were considered qualified to evaluate specific program areas and services that might be the subject of competitive procurements. This process involved identification by persons in charge of the various program areas of individuals they believed had sufficient experience and knowledge to evaluate certain types of programs and services. The program area representatives would submit names of individuals considered qualified to evaluate the various programs and services within their program area, along with a brief biographical statement describing the individuals' background and experience. Added to this substantive or programmatic categorization of potential evaluators was the qualification of having been trained in the competitive procurement process. Ms. Johnson developed a spreadsheet to maintain the results of the two-step qualification process. The spreadsheet lists individuals with a summary of the information obtained from the program area representatives, including the categorization of the types of programs and services the individuals are considered qualified to evaluate based on their background and experience. The spreadsheet also identifies the most recent date on which each individual completed training in the competitive procurement process. The spreadsheet document has been maintained over time to keep the running results of the pool of evaluators identified through the two-step qualification process. Elaine Atwood is the Department's contract administrator. She has assumed responsibility for conducting the training sessions for potential evaluators in the competitive procurement process, as well as the responsibility for maintaining the spreadsheet of the evaluator pool. Ms. Atwood served as the procurement officer for RFP #P2062. Her duties included working with the program area to put the RFP together, posting the RFP on the Department's website, receiving the proposals, and conducting all other activities that were part of the procurement process. The "program area" for RFP #P2062 is the Office of Probation and Community Intervention, and Paul Hatcher was the designated program area representative. IDDSs are one category of services within the Probation and Community Intervention program area. Ms. Atwood worked with Mr. Hatcher to address programmatic issues for this RFP. Mr. Hatcher identifies individuals who are considered qualified to conduct evaluations for RFPs involving programs or services falling under the umbrella of his program area. For the current pool of potential evaluators, Mr. Hatcher submitted names of individuals who were substantively qualified for programs and services falling under his program area and who could be placed on the evaluator pool spreadsheet for those categories of programs and services. However, Mr. Hatcher does not select the individual evaluators for a particular RFP. That is because selection of evaluators for a particular RFP is, by design, a random process, using the information about evaluator qualifications that is maintained on the spreadsheet.4/ Responses to RFP #P2062 were submitted in three volumes: Volume One was the "technical" proposal setting forth the prospective provider's organizational structure and management capability, the proposed program services, and proposed staffing; Volume Two was the "financial" proposal, including the proposed price sheet and budget and the provider's Supplier Qualifier Report prepared by Dun & Bradstreet; and Volume Three was the "past performance" section to demonstrate the provider's knowledge and experience in operating similar programs. Ms. Atwood conducted the review and scoring of the financial proposals in a fairly mechanical process of pulling out numbers from each cost proposal and, also, pulling Dun & Bradstreet numbers for the prospective providers and putting them on a spreadsheet. No evidence was presented that Ms. Atwood was not sufficiently qualified to conduct this review. Mr. Hatcher conducted the evaluation of prospective providers' past performance. No evidence was presented that Mr. Hatcher was not sufficiently qualified to conduct this review. Three evaluators were randomly selected from the pool of potential evaluators designated for IDDS reviews to evaluate and score the "technical" component of responses to RFP #P2062: Karen McNeal, Jeffrey Balliet, and Cheryl Surls. Of these three evaluators, Petitioner presented the testimony of only the first two, and Petitioner directed its qualification challenge to only one, Ms. McNeal. Ms. McNeal is employed in the Department's Probation program area. She is responsible for the oversight of the Duval Assessment Center that screens youth to determine their detention or release. She has held that position since July 1, 2009. Before that position, she was detention superintendent for the St. John's Juvenile Detention Center. She has been with the Department since October 2001. Before joining the Department, Ms. McNeal was a program analyst for ten years with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Ms. McNeal went through a four-week juvenile probation officer certification course before assuming her current position in Probation. That Probation training course included a review of the various prevention programs falling under the probation program area umbrella, including IDDS. However, Ms. McNeal does not have specific programmatic experience with IDDS. Ms. McNeal had not previously served as an evaluator on an RFP, before this experience. In accordance with the Department's internal procedure, Ms. McNeal underwent training by Ms. Atwood in the competitive procurement process on November 17, 2009. Mr. Balliet, the other member of the technical component evaluation team who testified, has held the position of contract manager for the Department since 2006. Before that time, he supervised a contract management unit at the district level and, also, served as assistant chief probation officer for Circuit 5, where he monitored compliance of IDDS programs in that circuit. Mr. Balliet has undergone training in the competitive procurement process multiple times. Although Mr. Balliet has had specific experience with IDDS programs, he did not think that such specific experience was necessary to evaluate an RFP dealing with IDDS programs, if one had a background that would otherwise allow for an understanding of the process. As noted above, the third evaluator on the three-person evaluation team for the technical component was Ms. Surls, who did not testify. Petitioner did not present any evidence to establish that Ms. Surls was not qualified to serve as an evaluator. Beyond the sheer difference in name of the particular services addressed by this RFP--IDDS versus other programs and services falling under the umbrella of the Probation and Community Intervention program area, Petitioner failed to establish that the experience and training Ms. McNeal has obtained over the years and, particularly, since assuming the oversight position for Duval Assessment Center, is not appropriate or sufficient to qualify her to evaluate proposals for IDDS. Petitioner presented no evidence that the components of an IDDS program are substantively dissimilar from the components of the services and programs in which Ms. McNeal has attained direct experience and training or that staffing considerations are dissimilar. Petitioner's case began and ended with the fact that Ms. McNeal has no direct experience, specifically with IDDS programs, and that Ms. McNeal had not previously evaluated proposals submitted in response to an RFP. The record does not reveal whether there would be any other Department employees, besides Mr. Balliet, who had direct experience specifically with IDDS programs and who, also, had evaluated proposals for an RFP before. Imposing either or both of these requirements for potential evaluators could serve as an impossibly restrictive hindrance to an agency trying to follow the competitive procurement process while also carrying out the agency's functions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Juvenile Justice, dismissing the Petition filed by Petitioner, Psychotherapeutic Services of Florida, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, provides for licensing of child care facilities by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS"). It mandates minimum standards for personnel, physical facilities, sanitation and safety, nutritional practices, admissions and record keeping, transportation safety, child discipline, and plans of activities. Section 402.306, Florida Statutes, allows counties whose licensing standards meet or exceed state minimum standards to perform child care facility licensing in that county rather than HRS performing that activity. Chapter 402, Florida Statutes, was originally enacted in 1974 to provide minimum standards for the growing number of commercial day care facilities. In the definitional section of that Chapter, the legislature specifically defined a child care facility and further specified those programs and facilities exempted from the child care facility licensing laws. Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes, provided as follows: "Child care facility" includes any child care center or child care arrangement which provides child care for more than five children unrelated to the operator and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. The following are not included: public schools and non- public schools which are in compliance with the Compulsory School Attendance Law, chapter 232; summer camps having children in full-time residence; summer day camps; and Bible Schools normally conducted during vacation periods. [Emphasis supplied.] Due to extensive publicity involving certain abuse incidents by personnel at child care facilities and public opinion, the child care facility licensing laws were revisited in 1984. In a special session, the Legislature strengthened some requirements of Chapter 402 and provided for screening and background checks of personnel in child care facilities and for reasonable parental access to children in those facilities. Chapter 84-551, Laws of Florida. Due to the insistence of HRS and certain counties performing their own child care facility licensing that pre- kindergarten programs in schools required those schools to obtain licensure as child care facilities, Chapter 402 was further amended in 1985 to clarify the exclusion of schools. As amended, the statutory definition of child care facility now provides: "Child care facility" includes any child care center or child care arrangement which provides child care for more than five children unrelated to the operator and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. The following are not included: public schools and non- public schools and their integral programs; summer camps having children in full-time residence; summer day camps; and Bible Schools normally conducted during during vacation periods. [Emphasis supplied.] Section 402.302(4), Florida Statutes 1985. The Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Impact Statement regarding the amendment of Chapter 402 provides that this change is a "Technical amendment which clarifies that public and non-public school programs are not subject to licensure as child care facilities." Respondent's Exhibit numbered 6. Following the 1985 amendments to Chapter 402, HRS and the Palm Beach County Health Department (which was responsible for child care facility licensing in Palm Beach County) jointly requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General regarding the scope of the statutory exclusions from child care licensing laws for public and nonpublic schools and their integral programs. The specific question posed was as follows: Do the exemptions under s. 402.302(4), F.S., as amended, and s. 9, Ch. 77-620, Laws of Florida, apply to public and nonpublic schools which offer: Prekindergarten classes during regular school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? Infant care during regular school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? School age child care services before and after school hours in the same physical plant or in an adjoining structure? In a lengthy analysis of the statutory exclusion of schools from child care facility licensing requirements, the Attorney General concluded: In sum, then, and unless and until legislatively or judicially determined otherwise, it is my opinion that the exemptions under s. 402.302(4), F.S., as amended by Chs. 84-551 and 85-54, Laws of Florida, and s. 9, Ch. 77-620, Laws of Florida, apply to public and nonpublic schools which offer prekindergarten classes or infant care during regular schools hours or school age child care services before and after school hours. . . . AGO 55-74, p. 7. Attorney General Opinion 85-74 also provides at page 3 as follows: Thus, public schools and nonpublic schools and their integral programs are not "child care facilit[ies]" for purposes of ss. 402.301-402.319, F.S., as amended. The term "integral programs" is not defined within ss. 402.301-402.319, F.S., as amended, or Oh. 85-54, Laws of Florida; however, the word "integral" has generally been defined as "[c]onstituting a completed whole; . . . lacking nothing of completeness." See, 46 C.J.S. Integral p. 1100; Ballentine's Law Dictionary 645 (3rd ed. 1969). And see, Random House Dictionary of the English Language Integral p. 738 (unabridged ed. 1967) (pertaining to or belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component; necessary to the completeness of the whole); Webster's Third International Dictionary Integral p. 1173 (1966) (composed of constituent parts; making up a whole). Of., Matezak v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 299 F.Supp. 409, 413 (D.C.N.Y. 1969)("integral" means part of constituent component necessary or essential to complete the whole). Whether a particular child care center or arrangement constitutes an integral program for purposes of s. 402.302(4), FS., as amended, would appear to present a factual question which can only be reached on a case-by-case basis. [Emphasis supplied.] During the special session in 1984 and the regular session in 1985, the Legislature increased funding for HRS' child care facility licensing activities and also created 48 additional staff positions for those licensure activities. Several HRS employees determined that (1) the Attorney General's Opinion was confusing, (2) it was too difficult to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a program was an integral part of a school or a child care facility, and (3) the exclusion of schools from child care facility licensing requirements was inconsistent with legislative intent of protecting children. Accordingly, HRS drafted an amendment to Rule 10M-12.001, Florida Administrative Code, to define the term "integral program". The "rule package" prepared by HRS in compliance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, commences with the following language: Reason rule is being filed or amended: Chapter 402.302(4), Florida Statutes, provides the definition of a child care facility. Public and non public schools and their integral programs are precluded from this definition as a child care facility and therefore are not subject to licensure. . . . The term "integral programs", which is not defined by statute, is ambiguous and has been the subject of various interpretations by public and non public schools. For purposes of licensure, this rule amendment is necessary in order to clarify which specific child care programs in the public and non public schools are required to be licensed. Without the rule amendment, some schools will continue to interpret their "integral programs" as meaning their infant and preschool programs, or before and after school programs, thereby avoiding licensure and resulting in no regulation by the department . . . Rule 10M-12.001, Florida Administrative Code, as proposed, would provide as follows: (1) Child Care Standards and Licensure. Child Care Standards included in this chapter were adopted by the department to protect the health, safety and well being of the children of the State who receive child care in child care facilities as defined in Section 402.302, Florida Statutes, and to promote their emotional and intellectual development and care. Public and nonpublic schools and their integral programs are not child care facilities as defined in Section 402.302(4) Florida Statutes, and are not subject to licensure. The term "integral programs" includes school activities which are directly related to the educational component of the school for 5 year old kindergarten programs through grade 12, and extra curricular activities, such as sport teams, school yearbook, school band, meetings, and service clubs. The term also includes child care programs administered directly by the school to care and supervise children from 5 year old kindergarten through grade 12 before and after the school day. The term "integral program" does not include child care programs for children below 5 year old kindergarten, such as infants and preschoolers, and child care programs which are contracted by the school to provide care and supervision for children from 5 year old kindergarten through grade 12 before and after the school day. The proposed rule as published and noticed by HRS, although defended by HRS vigorously in this proceeding, is not in fact the rule that HRS intends to adopt. HRS now admits that it has no authority to regulate any program in a public school since only the Florida Department of Education can regulate public schools. HRS intends, therefore, to delete the reference to public schools in its proposed rule and to only regulate nonpublic schools although it admits that such regulation of only nonpublic schools would therefore be discriminatory. HRS further intends to amend its proposed rule so as to clarify that those nonpublic schools which are religious in affiliation will continue to enjoy the additional exemption from child care facility licensure given to them by Section 402.316(1), Florida Statutes, which provides: The provisions of ss. 402.301-402.319, except for the requirements regarding screening of child care personnel, shall not apply to a child care facility which is an integral part of church or parochial schools conducting regularly scheduled classes, courses of study, or education programs accredited by, or by a member of, an organization which publishes and requires compliance with its standards for health, safety, and sanitation. However, such facilities shall meet minimum requirements of the applicable local governing body as to health, sanitation, and safety and shall meet the screening requirements pursuant to ss. 402.305 and 402.3055. Failure by a facility to comply with such screening requirements shall result in the loss of the facility's exemption from licensure. Petitioner Florida Association of Academic Nonpublic Schools (hereinafter "FAANS") is comprised of approximately 25 associations of schools. Additionally, archdioceses, which are separate corporate entities, and which own and operate schools, are direct members as are county organizations and the Florida Catholic Conference. The organization itself represents nonpublic schools in the state of Florida before state agencies, including the Legislature which it actively lobbies. It has a direct relationship as a state representative, one of only five in the country, with the United States Department of Education. It is involved in accreditation and has a code of ethics with which all schools (both direct members and indirect members) must comply. FAANS presently represents 943 schools with approximately 230,000 students, out of the approximate 1,750 nonpublic schools in the state of Florida. A majority of the schools represented by FAANS operate educational programs for children under 5 years of age. For the most part, these school programs are not licensed as child care facilities although some of the schools have licensed their programs under duress rather than have their programs closed by the child care facility licensing agencies. All of the nonpublic schools represented by FAANS comply with the Florida Department of Education requirement that they annually submit statistical information including the number of students and faculty in their prekindergarten programs for the Department of Education's Nonpublic School Data Base. Petitioner Jacksonville Country Day School presented no evidence in this proceeding. Petitioner The Cushman School is a nonpublic school in Miami, Florida, and is an indirect member of FAANS. It has been in operation for 62 years and has operated educational programs for children under 5 since it was founded. It begins enrolling students at the age of 3 years (and on rare occasion 2 years) and offers education through grade 6. It is not presently licensed as a child care facility. Under the proposed rule as published in the June 6, 1986, Florida Administrative Weekly, The Cushman School would be required to obtain a child care facility license, the economic impact of which would be significant. First, it would lose its exemption from property taxes as an educational institution at a speculated cost of approximately $10,000. Structural modifications would need to be made to the school for bathing and sleeping facilities. Additional requirements, such as fencing and child-staff ratios, would come into play imposing more costs on the school. The Cushman School possesses historic site status which means even minor repairs, let alone structural modifications, have extensive restrictions imposed as to how they can be done and the materials that can be used. The end result is that if the proposed rule goes into effect, The Cushman School will have to discontinue its educational programs for children under 5 years of age. The economic impact of compliance with child care facility licensing requirements by schools is not unique to The Cushman School. Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, requires each agency proposing or amending a rule to provide a detailed economic impact statement. The purpose of an economic impact statement is to promote informed decision-making by ensuring an accurate analysis of economic factors, and those factors an agency must consider are clearly specified. An agency must also consider the impact of a proposed rule on small businesses as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. There are nonpublic schools throughout Florida which fit the statutory definition of small business. It is clear from the economic impact statement for proposed rule 10M-12.001 that HRS did not consider the impact of the rule on small business nonpublic schools. Also to be considered is the cost to an agency of implementing the rule. According to HRS' impact statement, actual implementation statewide will only cost $31. There is no consideration of additional staff time and paperwork to process applications, issue additional licenses, or conduct additional inspections. There is no comment in the economic impact statement of the impact on competition and the open market for employment, or any indication that such an analysis is inapplicable; rather, the agency's estimate of effect on competition speaks to potential cost savings from deregulation of before and after school care programs. Similarly, the required analysis of the costs or economic benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule speaks in terms of deregulation and substantial savings and is, accordingly, deceptive. An agency is also required to provide a detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the estimates required in the economic impact statement. The only detailed statement in HRS' economic impact statement refers to the costs of printing and mailing, publication of the proposed rule in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and conducting a public hearing on the proposed rule. There is no hint of the data and method used, if any, in reaching other conclusions contained within the economic impact statement. The economic impact statement accompanying proposed rule 10M-12.001 is inadequate. Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, further requires that an agency proposing a rule give notice of its intended action and the specific legal authority under which its adoption is authorized. As set forth above, the rule proposed by HRS does not reflect its intended action since the rule purports to apply to both public and nonpublic schools and HRS intends to further amend the rule so as to exclude its application to public schools and its application to religious nonpublic schools. As to the specific legal authority under which the proposed rule is authorized, HRS cites, at the end of the proposed rule, as its rulemaking authority Section 402.301, Florida Statutes. That section is entitled "Child care facilities; legislative intent and declaration of purpose and policy". Nowhere in that legislative intent section is HRS authorized to promulgate rules. The proposed rule thus fails to fulfill that requirement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: Curtis Stephen Pope, a 12-year-old student, attends seventh grade in the public schools of Dade County. He lives with his grandmother, Mrs. Joyce Robinson, at 11352 Southwest 214 Street, Goulds, Florida. Until January, 1981, he attended seventh grade at nearby Mays Junior High School. (Testimony of J. Robinson, McPhaul.) In December, 1980, the vice principal of Mays Junior High recommended that Curtis be administratively reassigned to the Opportunity School South because of repeated disruptive behavior affecting the learning opportunity of others creating an unsafe learning environment. The school principal subsequently joined in that recommendation and on January 26, 1981, Curtis was reassigned to an educational alternative program at Youth Opportunity School South, 6135 Southwest 66th Street, Miami, Florida--a school located approximately 15 miles from Curtis' residence. It is that reassignment which is the subject of this proceeding. (Testimony of McPhaul; P-3). From September, 1980, through January 1981, Curtis repeatedly disrupted classes at Mays Junior High. His behavior adversely affected the learning environment and interfered with the educational process of other students, as well as his own. He was frequently referred to the assistant principal for disciplinary action. Twice he was suspended from school for ten-day periods: on October 20, 1980, for disrespect and defiance to the assistant principal and principal, and on November 12, 1980, for fighting with another student. Mrs. Robinson was contacted by Curtis' teachers as well as the school's administrators in an attempt to define the nature of Curtis' problem and take remedial action. However, despite these good-faith efforts, his classroom behavioral difficulties continued. (Testimony of McPhaul, J. Robinson; P-2). Specifically, Curtis' disruptive classroom behavior is described below: 2/ CLASS CURTIS' BEHAVIOR Reading Highly disruptive; fails to bring classroom materials or pay attention; easily distracted; plays during class and frequently tardy or absent. Math Disturbs class by talking, walking, and bothering other students; beats on desk, makes loud noises, and runs in and out of classroom; frequently tardy or absent. Intuitive Math Plays and walks about class; fails to follow directions; disturbs class and leaves without permission. Physical Education Disinterested n class; fails to participate in activities with other children. Science Rarely cooperates; fails to remain in seat, and leaves room without permission; unprepared for class; excessive tardiness. Civics Engages in fights and horse- play with other students; makes loud noises and refuses to stop; leaves room without permission; excessive absences. (Testimony of Herrman, Smith, Delvalle, Nicholson, Rochfort, Fields; P-2). At this time, Curtis requires individualized and special educational instruction which is unavailable at Mays Junior High--where classroom enrollment ranges from 25 to 30 students. On the few occasions when Curtis has received individualized instruction at Mays, his interest increased and his academic performance improved. Such individualized attention is available, on a routine basis, at the Youth Opportunity School South's educational alternative program-- where there is one teacher for every ten students. If Curtis makes the progress which can reasonably be expected of him in such a learning environment, he should eventually be able to return to regular school programs. Whether Curtis profits from and takes advantage of the greater instructional opportunities at Youth Opportunity School--and eventually returns to regular school programs--is wholly dependent on his own attitude and choice. (Testimony of J. Robinson, C. Robinson, Smith, Herrman, Delvalle, Nicholson, Rochfort, Fields; P-4). Mrs. Robinson opposes Curtis' reassignment primarily because of her belief that several neighborhood boys who attended the school later became involved in crime. But the fact that some students' behavioral problems persisted despite the educational opportunities offered at the Youth Opportunity School do not negate those opportunities or make them less real. Given positive support and encouragement at home--coupled with the educational environment available at the Youth Opportunity School South--Curtis will be given the opportunity to learn and achieve his potential; whether he--in--fact--does so will depend on him. (Testimony of J. Robinson, C. Robinson, McPhaul).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Superintendent's action in placing Curtis Stephen Pope in the educational alternative program offered at Youth Opportunity School South be upheld and confirmed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1981.
