The Issue This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements in section 985.686, Florida Statutes, for juvenile detention care. The challenging counties are political subdivisions of the State of Florida and are non-fiscally constrained counties subject to the cost-sharing requirements of section 985.686. The challenging counties are substantially affected by the application of Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.010 through 63G-1.018, including the Proposed Rules. It was stipulated that the challenging counties’ alleged substantial interests are of the type these proceedings are designed to protect. Petitioner, Florida Association of Counties (“FAC”), is a statewide association and not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under chapter 617, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of representing county government in Florida and protecting, promoting, and improving the mutual interests of all counties in Florida. All of the 67 counties in Florida are members of FAC, and the Proposed Rules regarding Detention Cost Share affect all counties. Of the 67 counties in Florida, 35 are considered non- fiscally constrained, and are billed by the Department for their respective costs of secure detention care, as determined by the Department; 27 of these counties are participating alongside FAC in these proceedings. The subject matter of these proceedings is clearly within FAC’s scope of interest and activity, and a substantial number of FAC’s members are adversely affected by the Proposed Rules. The challenging counties, and FAC, participated in the various rulemaking proceedings held by the Department related to the Proposed Rules, including rule hearings held on June 6, 2014, and August 5, 2014. Rule Making The initial version of the Proposed Rules was issued, and a Rule Development Workshop was held on March 28, 2014. Numerous challenging counties submitted comments on the Proposed Rules either prior to, or at the Rule Development Workshop. On May 15, 2014, the Department published Proposed Rules 63G-1.011, 1.013, 1.016, and 1.017 in the Florida Administrative Register. In that Notice, the Department scheduled a hearing on the Proposed Rules for June 6, 2014. On June 6, 2014, a rulemaking hearing was held on the Proposed Rules. Numerous challenging counties submitted comments to the Proposed Rules either prior to, or at the hearing. A supplemental rulemaking hearing was held on August 5, 2014. Again, numerous challenging counties submitted comments regarding the Proposed Rules either prior to, or at the supplemental rulemaking hearing. On September 5, 2014, the Department advertised its Notice of Change as to the Proposed Rules. Thereafter, all parties to this proceeding timely filed petitions challenging the Proposed Rules. A statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) was not originally prepared by the Department. In the rulemaking proceedings before the Department, Bay County submitted a good faith written proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative. In its proposal, Bay County asserted that the Department’s own stipulations signed by the agency are competent substantial evidence that the agency has a “less costly alternative” to the approach taken in the Proposed Rules, by assessing the costs of all detention days for juveniles on probation status to the state, and not the counties.2/ As Bay County noted in the proposal, the Department previously had agreed to assume all of the cost of detention days occurring after a disposition of probation. Following the June 6, 2014, hearing, the Department issued a SERC for the Proposed Rules. Ultimately, the Department rejected the lower cost regulatory alternative proposed by the counties “because it is inconsistent with the relevant statute (section 985.686, F.S.), fails to substantially accomplish the statutory objective, and would render the Department unable to continue to operate secure detention.” The Implemented Statute The Proposed Rules purport to implement section 985.686, which provides that each county is responsible for paying the costs of providing detention care “for juveniles for the period of time prior to final court disposition.” § 985.686(3), Fla. Stat. The statute establishes a cost-sharing system whereby each non-fiscally constrained county is required to be individually provided with an estimate of “its costs of detention care for juveniles who reside in that county for the period of time prior to final court disposition,” based on “the prior use of secure detention for juveniles who are residents of that county, as calculated by the department.” § 985.686(5), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Each county must pay the estimated costs at the beginning of each month. At the end of the state fiscal year, “[a]ny difference between the estimated costs and actual costs shall be reconciled.” Id. The Department is responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements and is authorized to adopt rules as set forth in section 985.686(11). In general, the Proposed Rules provide definitions including for pre and postdisposition, provide for calculating the estimated costs, for monthly reporting, and for annual reconciliation. Specific changes will be discussed in detail below. The complete text of the Challenged Rules, showing the proposed amendments (in strike-through and underlined format) is attached hereto as Appendix A. The Prior Rule Challenge On July 16, 2006, the Department promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.002, 63G-1.004, 63G-1.007, and 63G-1.008, among others, setting forth the definitions and procedures for calculating the costs as between the state and the various counties. These rules were repealed as of July 6, 2010, and in their place, the Department adopted rules 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017. Although the previous rules defined “final court disposition,” for purposes of determining the counties’ responsibility for providing the costs of secure detention, the 2010 rules replaced this with a definition of “commitment,” so that the state was only responsible for days occurring after a disposition of commitment. This had the effect of transferring the responsibility for tens of thousands of days of detention from the state to the counties. In addition, the 2010 rules failed to provide a process by which the counties were only charged their respective actual costs of secure detention. In 2012, several counties challenged rules 63G-1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because these rules replaced the statutory dividing line for the costs of secure detention with “commitment,” and because the rules resulted in the overcharging of counties for their respective actual costs of secure detention. On July 17, 2012, a Final Order was issued by the undersigned which agreed with the counties and found that the rules were an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Okaloosa Cnty., et al. v. Dep’t of Juv. Just., DOAH Case No. 12-0891RX (Fla. DOAH July 17, 2012). On June 5, 2013, this ruling was affirmed on appeal. Dep’t of Juv. Just. v. Okaloosa Cnty., 113 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“2012 Rule Challenge”). The Department’s Response to the 2012 Rule Challenge No changes to the Department’s practices were made after the Rule Challenge Final Order was released in 2012. Rather, changes were not made until after the Rule Challenge decision was affirmed on appeal in June 2013. Shortly after the opinion was released by the First District Court of Appeal, the Department modified its policies and practices to conform with its interpretation of the requirements of that opinion, and informed the counties that “all days for youth in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment belong to the state.” At this time, the Department determined that “by their nature all VOPs [violations of probation] are attached to charges that have a qualified disposition and thus are a state pay.” In response to the appellate court decision, the Department implemented and published to the counties its interpretation that the counties were only responsible for detention days occurring prior to a final court disposition, and were not responsible for detention days occurring after a juvenile has been sentenced to commitment or probation, or is waiting for release after a dismissal of the charge. A statement to this effect was developed by the Department with input from multiple staff, and was to be a “clear bright line” setting “clear parameters” and a “final determination” that the Department could share with those outside the agency. However, no rules were developed by the Department at this time. In July 2013, the Department revised its estimate to the counties for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2013-14 from what had been issued (previously). This revised estimate incorporated the Department’s analysis that included in the state’s responsibility any detention days for youth in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment, or where the charges against the youth had been dismissed. The revised estimate also excluded these days from the collective responsibility of the counties, including detention days resulting from a new law violation of probation. At the time of the 2012 Rule Challenge, several counties had pending administrative challenges to the Department’s reconciliations for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. In September 2013, the Department issued recalculations of its final reconciliation statements to the counties for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The recalculations were based upon the Department’s revised policies and practices and included in the state’s responsibility any detention days for youths in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment, or where the charges against the youth had been dismissed, and similarly excluded detention days resulting from a new law violation of probation. This resulted in large overpayments from the non-fiscally constrained counties to the state for these fiscal years. These recalculations were not merely an internal exercise, but rather were intended to notify the counties what they had overpaid for the fiscal years at issue, and were published and made available to the counties and public at large on the Department’s website. In December 2013, the Department entered into stipulations of facts and procedure to resolve three separate administrative proceedings related to final reconciliation amounts for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. Those stipulations of facts and procedure included the following definitions: The parties agree that “Final Court Disposition” as contained in section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and based on the decision of the First District Court of Appeal, means a disposition order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, including an order sentencing a juvenile to commitment to the Department, or other private or public institution as allowed by law, placing the juvenile on probation, or dismissing the charge. The parties further agree that a “Pre- dispositional Day” means any secure detention day occurring prior to the day on which a Final Court Disposition is entered. A pre- dispositional day does not include any secure detention day after a juvenile has been sentenced to commitment or placed on probation, or is waiting for release after dismissal of a charge. (Petitioner’s Ex. 26) In addition to the above stipulations, the Department also stipulated to its recalculated amounts for each of these years, resulting in large overpayments from the counties. However, the Department refused to provide credits for these overpayment amounts. In November and December 2013, the Department issued a final reconciliation statement and revised final reconciliation statement to the counties for FY 2012-13, which included in the state’s responsibility any detention days for youth in detention with a current placement of probation or commitment, or where the charges against the youth had been dismissed, and likewise excluded these days from the collective responsibility of the counties, including detention days resulting from a new law violation of probation. Under the Department’s reconciliation statement for FY 2012-13, the counties were collectively funding approximately thirty-two percent (32%) of the costs of secure juvenile detention. The Department also submitted its legislative budget request for FY 2014-15 in October 2013. This legislative budget request was based on the Department’s independent judgment as required by sections 216.011 and 216.023, Florida Statutes,3/ and excluded from the counties’ collective responsibility all detention days relating to a violation of probation, including for a new substantive law violation. The request provided that “the department may only bill the counties for youth whose cases have not had a disposition either to commitment or probation.” The request also notes a shift in the counties’ collective obligations from 73 percent of the total costs to 32 percent of these costs “in order to bring the budget split in line with the June 2013 ruling by the First District Court of Appeal.” Under this interpretation, the Department projected a $35.5 million deficiency in its budget for FY 13-14 and requested an $18.4 million appropriation for detention costs from the Legislature. This request was funded in the General Appropriations Act for 2014-15. The Department did not ask for additional funding for past years that had been challenged by the counties. At this same time, a projection for the deficit for FY 2014-15 was developed by the Department staff based on the same interpretation of the state’s responsibility for detention days. There was no objection from the Department’s Secretary or the Governor’s Office to this interpretation of the state’s responsibility. Change in Interpretation Re New Law Violation Fred Schuknecht, then - Chief of Staff of the Department, testified that in response to the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in June 2013, the Department adopted a broad interpretation of the ruling that final court disposition meant commitment, and also included all secure detention days incurred by probationers as postdisposition days. This included detention days for youths already on probation who committed new offenses and were then detained as a result of the new offense or because of the violation of probation resulting from the commission of the new offense. During the budgeting process for the 2014-15 Fiscal Year, the Department altered its interpretation of the 2012 Rule Challenge decision, and its newly-established practice relating to payment for all detention days involving probationers. The Department now proposes, through the challenged rules, to shift to the counties the responsibility for detention days occurring after a final court disposition of probation where there is a new law violation. Although the challengers assert that the changed interpretation was driven by the budget proposal submitted by the Governor’s Office in January 2014 (which did not utilize the Department’s prior interpretation) the Department specifically contends that it did not change its official position on this interpretation until the adoption of the state budget by the General Appropriations Act (GAA) in June 2014. While the Department stated it made its initial broad interpretation because it was “under the gun” to issue its cost sharing billing for FY 2013-2014 within two weeks of the appellate opinion, the Department continued to assert that interpretation in September 2013, when it published recalculations for FYs 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012. Further, Mr. Schuknecht conceded that this interpretation had not changed at the time the Department’s legislative budget request was submitted in October 2013, or in November and December 2013, when the Department issued the reconciliation and revised reconciliation for FY 2012-2013. Likewise, this interpretation formed the basis for the stipulations signed by the counties and Department in December 2013. At hearing, testimony established that the Department’s interpretation that the state was responsible for all days of detention for probationers was formed after frequent discussions on this topic and with input from multiple staff involved in cost sharing, including Mr. Schuknecht (Director of Administration at that time), Vickie Harris (Budget Director), Mark Greenwald (Director of Research and Planning), the Chief of Staff, Deputy Secretary, the legal team, as well as the Department’s Secretary. For FY 2014-15, the Executive Office of the Governor proposed a recommended budget which was contrary to the Department’s initial interpretation, and included within the counties’ collective responsibility those detention days for a youth on probation charged with a new substantive law violation. This recommended budget proposed that the counties would be responsible for fifty-seven percent (57%) of the shared costs of secure detention, and that the state would be responsible for forty-three percent (43%). This is in contrast to the thirty- two percent (32%) the counties were paying under the Department’s initial interpretation of the Rule Challenge Decision. The Governor’s Office then asked the Department to amend its earlier submitted legislative budget request, to reflect the Governor’s budget because it wanted the Department’s request to match. Although the GAA for FY 2014-15 incorporated a cost- sharing split similar to that included in the Governor’s proposal, it differed from the governor’s budget recommendation. It was not until June 2014, when the GAA was adopted into law, that the Department asserts it officially changed positions. As stipulated by the parties, there is no language in the GAA for FY 2014-15 setting forth the policy behind the budget split for secure detention. The Proposed Rules differ from the Department’s initial interpretation of the requirements of the Rule Challenge decision and its earlier established policies and procedures regarding the same as implemented in June 2013, through at least early 2014. The interpretation set forth in the Proposed Rules results in a lessened budgetary impact on the state by shifting more detention days to the counties. At hearing, Mr. Schuknecht testified as to the rationale for the Department’s changed interpretation regarding the counties’ responsibility for detention days for a youth on probation charged with a new substantive law violation: Q. If you would, Mr. Schuknecht, please kind of talk about the highlights of that rule, and especially in relationship to the Court’s ruling in the previous rule challenge. A. Basically how we got here is, in June of 2013, the First DCA ruled basically supporting the – DOAH’s hearing, the final court disposition prior to that. Basically we determined the final court decision meant commitment. They said it can’t be just commitment. So at that time we took the broadest interpretation as well will actually include all probationers as part of the final court disposition and they would be post-disposition days. Subsequent to that, in effect, through the Governor’s Office as well as the Legislature, as well as ourselves, we realized basically by doing that we are including probationers with new offenses as post-disposition cases which, in effect, makes no sense. It’s logical that they be pre- disposition cases because there is no disposition on those cases with new offenses. Plus probationers would only be in detention because they have new cases. They wouldn’t be there otherwise. So, in fact, that’s how we – so that’s the main change in the rule, in effect, defining what pre-disposition means. Mr. Schuknecht’s explanation for the Department’s changed interpretation is consistent with the explanation given by Jason Welty, the Department’s previous Chief of Staff, during the June 6, 2014, Workshop, that “the Department’s original interpretation was, quite frankly, in error.” Cost of Detention Days for Juveniles on Probation The Challengers contend that all days in detention served by a juvenile on probation are the responsibility of the state, and not the counties. Accordingly, the Challengers contest the Department’s Proposed Rules which assign responsibility for detention days of juveniles with new law violations to the counties, and not the state. Much of the testimony and argument at the hearing focused on the Department’s definitions for predisposition and postdisposition, and how these definitions apply as to youth on probation status with the Department. These definitions are crucial, as they relate to how the costs are split amongst the state and the counties. Only the costs of predisposition detention days may be billed to the counties under section 985.686. Final court disposition is specifically defined by the Proposed Rules as the “decision announced by the court at the disposition hearing” including “commitment, probation, and dismissal of charges.” “Predisposition” is further defined as the “period of time a youth is in detention care prior to entry of a final court disposition.” Proposed Rule 63G-1.011(14). “Postdisposition” on the other hand, means “the period of time a youth is in detention care after entry of a final court disposition.” Proposed Rule 63G-1.011(15). However, the definitions do not stop with this general language. Proposed Rule sections 63G-1.011(14)(b) and (15)(b) provide that it is the counties’ responsibility to fund the costs for days when a youth is on probation and is charged with a new law violation. These definitions are implemented through the Proposed Rules relating to the estimate and reconciliation processes. The Department argues that youth who are on probation and commit new offenses may be held in secure detention for the new offense but cannot be legally held in secure detention on the underlying violation of probation. However, the Department’s position would appear to be counter to the express language of several statutory provisions. Section 985.439(4) provides in relevant part: Upon the child’s admission, or if the court finds after a hearing that the child has violated the conditions of probation or postcommitment probation, the court shall enter an order revoking, modifying, or continuing probation or postcommitment probation. In each such case, the court shall enter a new disposition order and, in addition to the sanctions set forth in this section, may impose any sanction the court could have imposed at the original disposition hearing. If the child is found to have violated the conditions of probation or postcommitment probation, the court may: Place the child in a consequence unit in that judicial circuit, if available, for up to 5 days for a first violation and up to 15 days for a second or subsequent violation. Place the child in nonsecure detention with electronic monitoring. However, this sanction may be used only if a residential consequence unit is not available. If the violation of probation is technical in nature and not a new violation of law, place the child in an alternative consequence program designed to provide swift and appropriate consequences to any further violations of probation. Neither statute nor Department rules define what is meant by a “technical” violation of probation. However, retired juvenile court judge Frank A. Orlando, accepted as an expert in juvenile detention issues, explained at hearing that: A technical violation in my opinion is something that doesn’t involve a law violation. It is a condition of probation. It would be a curfew. It could be going to school. It could be staying away from a family, a victim, or staying away from a place. It could be not obeying the probation officer, him or herself. In that sense they are technical violations of probation, but they are both violation of probation. In addition, section 985.101(1) provides that a juvenile may be “taken into custody” under chapter 985 for, among others, “a delinquent act or violation of law, pursuant to Florida law pertaining to a lawful arrest,” and “[b]y a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that the child is in violation of the conditions of the child’s probation, home detention, postcommitment probation, or conditional release supervision; has absconded from nonresidential commitment; or has escaped from residential commitment.” § 985.101(1)(b), (d), Fla. Stat. However, this provision also expressly provides that “[N]othing in this subsection shall be construed to allow the detention of a child who does not meet the detention criteria in part V.” Part V of the Act includes section 985.255, which sets forth the detention criteria, and provides in pertinent part: Subject to s. 985.25(1), a child taken into custody and placed into secure or nonsecure detention care shall be given a hearing within 24 hours after being taken into custody. At the hearing, the court may order continued detention if: The child is alleged to be an escapee from a residential commitment program; or an absconder from a nonresidential commitment program, a probation program, or conditional release supervision; or is alleged to have escaped while being lawfully transported to or from a residential commitment program. Thus, the undersigned is persuaded that sections 985.439(4), 985.101(1), and 985.255 all support a finding that a violation of probation, not associated with a new violation of law, may under some circumstances result in a new disposition of secure detention. However, pursuant to the Proposed Rules, under these circumstances the state would continue to be responsible for the cost of the secure detention. As explained at hearing, there is an idiosyncrasy in chapter 985 regarding secure detention for juveniles who have been charged with a violation of probation or violating a term of their conditional release. Under chapter 985, a child taken into custody for violating the terms of probation or conditional release supervision shall be held in a consequence unit. If a consequence unit is not available, the child is to be placed on home detention with electronic monitoring. § 985.255(1)(h), Fla. Stat. These consequence units have not been funded by the Florida Legislature for a number of years. However, the juvenile justice system has found a practical method to accommodate the nonexistence of these “consequence units.” For technical violations of probation, the courts often convert the violations of probation to a contempt of court, and will hold the juvenile in detention on this basis. This contempt of court procedure may also be used by the courts to detain a juvenile in secure detention for a violation of probation based on a new law violation. Pursuant to section 985.037, a juvenile who has been held in direct or indirect contempt may be placed in secure detention not to exceed five days for the first offense, and not to exceed 15 days for a second or subsequent offense. As noted by Judge Orlando and Seventh Judicial Circuit Judge Terrill J. LaRue, an order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt is the mechanism used to place a juvenile in secure detention for a violation of probation or conditional release. In addition, the probation is a significant factor that weighs heavily into the Department’s decision to securely detain the juvenile, and in large part determines whether the juvenile will be detained. For a youth who is on probation and is charged with a new substantive law offense, the Department, pursuant to its rules and policies, determines whether the youth will be detained in secure detention based on the Department’s Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (“DRAI”). § 985.245, Fla. Stat.; rule 63D-9.002. Under the DRAI, if the child scores 0-7 points, the child is not detained; 7-11 points, the child is detained on home detention; for 12 points or more, the child is detained on secure detention. For a youth who is on probation, the underlying charge for which that youth was placed on probation and/or the “legal status” of the youth itself will always be taken into account under the DRAI and will make secure detention significantly more likely than had the youth not been on probation on a number of fronts. This is also true for a youth on commitment status, in the case of conditional release. The highest scoring underlying charge may be used to assess the juvenile for probation if the new law violation does not score enough points for the juvenile to be securely detained. Therefore, there are days served in secure detention based on the scoring of the underlying charge for which the juvenile is on probation, and not the new law violation. In addition, there are a number of points resulting from the underlying charge for which the juvenile is on probation, regardless of whether the DRAI is scored on the new law violation or the underlying charge. A juvenile on probation will always get points purely for his or her legal status of probation. The number of points depends on the amount of time since the last adjudication or adjudication withheld. Six points is assigned for active probation cases with the last adjudication or adjudication withheld within 90 days. Two points are assigned if the last adjudication or adjudication withheld was more than 90 days ago. Similarly, the legal status of commitment, in the case of conditional release, also results in points towards secure detention. The prior adjudication or adjudication withheld which resulted in the probation or commitment status would also score points under the prior history section of the DRAI. In many cases, the underlying charge for which the youth is on probation will be the deciding factor regarding whether the youth is held in secure detention. Thus, the DRAI is significantly affected by a probationary status which adds additional points, and can trigger secure detention, regardless of the nature of the new law violation. In addition, a trial judge has the discretion to place a youth in secure detention on a violation of probation for committing a new law offense even when the score on the DRAI does not mandate secure detention. The Juvenile Justice Information System (“JJIS”) is an extensive database maintained by the Department, and utilized during the process of billing the counties for secure juvenile detention. The reason for the detention stay can be readily ascertained based on information entered into JJIS at the time a juvenile is assessed and detained. For instance, in the case of a violation of probation, there is always a referral for a violation of probation entered by the probation officer. This is true whether the violation is a new law violation or a technical violation of the terms of the probation. In addition, the Department can also ascertain from JJIS whether the juvenile was scored on the new law violation or, alternatively, the underlying charge which resulted in probation. The Department concedes that it can determine, in any given instance, why a juvenile has been detained. As acknowledged by the Department, the responsibility for days, whether predisposition or postdisposition, should be based on the reason for the detention. Probation is considered a postdisposition status. Likewise, detention days of juveniles on probation are postdispositional, and the financial responsibility of the State. Under the Proposed Rules, the only exception are those instances in which a youth is on probation and is detained because the youth is charged with a new violation of law, in which case the detention days prior to final court disposition on the new charge are the responsibility of the counties. This finding is further supported by the Department’s treatment of juveniles on conditional release, which is also a postdispositional status. When a youth is on conditional release with the Department, the youth is on supervision similar to probation supervision. Conditional release and probation contain the same standard conditions. The only essential difference between a youth on “conditional release” and a youth on probation is that a youth on conditional release has the status of commitment rather than probation. There is no real difference in how a probation officer treats a youth on conditional release or a youth on probation and the DRAI does not provide any distinction for the two legal statuses. The Department considers both probation and conditional release qualified postdispositional statuses. Under the Proposed Rules, the counties pay for detention days for youth on probation who commit a new law violation. This is true regardless of whether the youth would be placed in secure detention but for the probation. However, detention days incurred by the same youth who commits a technical violation of probation are deemed the responsibility of the state, since, under the Proposed Rules, the youth has not been charged with a new violation of law. Under the Proposed Rules, when a youth on conditional release commits either a new law violation or technical violation of conditional release and is placed in secure detention, those detention days are to be paid by the State. The Two Day Rule As part of the Notice of Change, the Department added a provision referred to as “the Two Day Rule” to the definitions for pre and postdisposition. The Two Day Rule provides that detention days where the youth is on probation are the responsibility of the state “unless the youth is charged with a new violation of law that has a referral date between zero and two days prior to the detention admission date, as determined by subtracting the referral date in JJIS from the detention admission date in JJIS.” Proposed Rule 63G-1.011(15)(b). Despite conceding that it knows why juveniles are being detained, the Department included the “Two Day Rule” in the Proposed Rule “[b]ecause it is difficult to determine the level of accuracy in the aggregate looking at thousands of cases at once.” Thus, the Two Day Rule captures when the Department receives a referral date for a new criminal charge and presumes that if a juvenile is put in secure detention within two days of that referral date, the detention is for that new charge. In some instances, detention days that should be treated as state days would in fact be treated as county days under the “Two Day Rule.” Mark Greenwald, Director of Research and Planning for the Department, testified: Q. Well, let’s see how factually this would work is that there is a referral for a charge, a new offense, and the youth is detained the next day on a contempt unrelated to that new charge. Isn’t that day going to now be--he is going to be detained because of a violation of the law because of your two-day rule? A. Under the rule, yes, the open charge would count. Q. But if he was a probationer and it was a contempt, that would not have been a county day. That would be a State day. A. Yes. Q. But now because of the two-day rule we will now treat that as a county responsibility and county responsibility for the cost? A. Yes. Other examples were cited in the testimony, such as where there was a pick-up order for a youth on probation who had absconded. Where there was also a new charge, the detention days would be billed to the county, even if the pick-up order was issued prior to the new law violation. Mr. Greenwald testified that when the Department decided to adopt the Two Day Rule, it had done no analysis to determine whether a One Day Rule or a Three Day Rule would more accurately identify probationary youths placed in detention due to a new law violation. Both Judges Orlando and LaRue expressed uncertainty regarding the applicability and utility of the Two Day Rule, noting that the Two Day Rule does not have any correlation or relationship to when or how juveniles are placed in secure detention for violations of probation. Judge LaRue further indicated that the term “referral date” as referenced in the Two Day Rule has no impact on what he does “whatsoever” and is a term: I’ve never heard before. I don’t use that term. I’ve never heard the term. This is something that, in reviewing this potential rule change here – or the rule change, I should say, that’s something I came across and scratched my head a little bit about exactly what it means. I think I know what it means. But it’s not a term that I use – it’s not a term of art, and it’s not a term that I use generally. The evidence adduced at hearing did not establish a rational basis for inclusion of the Two Day Rule provision in the definitions of pre and postdisposition. Notably absent was any credible evidence that use of the Two Day Rule would accurately identify detention days related to new law violations by probationers. To the contrary, the evidence established that use of a blanket metric, arbitrarily set at two days, would under several scenarios improperly shift responsibility for detention days to the counties. Moreover, given the capabilities of the JJIS, there is simply no reason to “assume” that a detention has resulted from a new law violation if within a given period of time from referral, when the Department has the ability to accurately determine the actual reason for the detention. Estimates, Reconciliation and Actual Costs At the start of the fiscal year, the Department provides an estimate to the counties of their respective costs of secure detention which is broken down into 12 installments that the counties pay on a monthly basis. At the end of the fiscal year, the Department performs a reconciliation of those costs based on the “actual costs” and sends a statement to each county showing under or overpayment, and providing for debits and credits as appropriate. The credits or debits would be applied to the current year billing, although they would relate to the previous fiscal year. Proposed Rule 63G-1.013 provides the process for calculating the estimate to each county at the beginning of the fiscal year. As part of this process, the Proposed Rule provides that the Department shall estimate “detention costs, using the current year actual expenditures projected through the end of the fiscal year, with necessary annualized adjustments for any new legislative appropriations within the detention budget entity.” The Department has modified its process in the Proposed Rules so that the estimate of costs is based, to a certain extent, on actual expenditures from the prior year, instead of the appropriation. However, the estimate process also takes into account the appropriation for the upcoming fiscal year, and a portion of the estimate of costs is still based on the appropriation. The Department concedes that there is a need for it to calculate the estimate as accurately as possible, and that there have been occasions in the past where the Department has not provided the counties credits owed as part of the reconciliation process. It is also clear from the record that credits for overpayments have not been provided by the Department to the counties for several fiscal years, beginning in FY 2009-10. Proposed Rule 63G-1.017 provides the annual reconciliation process at year end for determining each county’s actual costs for secure detention. This process includes the calculation of each county’s actual cost which is determined by the number of detention days and a calculation of the actual costs. The total “actual costs” for secure detention are divided by the “total number of service days” to produce an “actual per diem,” which is then applied to each county’s detention days to calculate each county’s share of the actual costs. Proposed Rule 63G-1.011 provides a definition for “actual costs” as follows: [T]he total detention expenditures as reported by the department after the certified forward period has ended, less $2.5 million provided for additional medical and mental health care per section 985.686(3). These costs include expenditures in all fund types and appropriations categories (Salaries & Benefits, Other Personal Services, Expenses, OCO, Food Products, Legislative Initiatives, Fiscally Constrained Counties, Contracted Service, G/A-Contracted Services, Risk Management Insurance, Lease or Lease- Purchase of Equipment, Human Resources Outsourcing, and FCO-Maintenance & Repair). The challengers assert that the proposed rules relating to the reconciliation process are vague, internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with statutory requirements contained in the law implemented. These include, but are not limited to: (1) the definition of actual costs fails to include an exclusion for “the costs of preadjudicatory nonmedical educational or therapeutic services” pursuant to section 985.686(3); (2) the definition of actual costs is over broad by including “expenditures in all fund types and appropriations categories;” and (3) the Proposed Rules fail to provide for input from the counties, as set forth in section 985.686(6). The Proposed Rules do not provide for input from the counties regarding the calculations the Department makes for detention cost share.
Findings Of Fact Prior to his termination, Petitioner had been employed as a Correctional Officer by the Respondent, Department of Corrections, at Glades Correctional Institute for approximately two years. On April 3, 1987, Petitioner signed a written statement acknowledging that he was immediately responsible for reading the rules of the Respondent. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Edward Minor, Correctional Officer Supervisor at Glades Correctional Institute. Mr. Chester Lambdin is the Superintendent of Glades Correctional Institute. Although he felt ill, Petitioner reported to work on January 25, 1989 before his scheduled eight hour work shift was to begin at midnight and continue through January 26, 1989. Petitioner left work due to his illness before the end of his January 26, 1989 shift. Petitioner did not report to work after he left on January 26, 1989. On January 26, 1989, Petitioner contacted his supervisor, Mr. Minor, and informed him that he was ill; that he would not report to work for about two days and that he had a doctor's excuse for his absence. Mr. Minor excused Petitioner for two days, January 27, 1989 and January 28, 1989. Petitioner's doctor's excuse covered the period of January 27, 1989 through January 30, 1989. Petitioner gave the excuse to a fellow worker and requested the associate to deliver the excuse to Mr. Minor. Before February 2, 1989, Mr. Minor did not see the excuse. Petitioner did not contact Mr. Minor until the afternoon or evening of February 2, 1989. Petitioner was not scheduled to work on January 30 or January 31, 1989. Petitioner stated that he knew he should contact his supervisor before each work shift if he were ill and would not report to work, but he stated that most of his fellow workers did not follow the procedure and were not penalized for failure to make the required report. Notice before an absence is the standard policy of the Respondent. Petitioner was on unauthorized leave on January 29, 1989, February 1, 1989 and February 2, 1989. On February 3, 1989, Mr. Lambdin drafted a letter to Petitioner, which was posted by certified mail, informing Petitioner that he had been deemed to have abandoned his position as a Correctional Officer I at Glades Correctional Institution and to have resigned from the career service system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration issue a final order that the Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service System as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of May 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-1189 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. The Respondent was the sole party who submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2; rejected in part as not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Rejected as conclusion of law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 11. As to first sentence, rejected as irrelevant. As to the remainder, adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Lynne Winston, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Mr. Lewis C. Stewart 692 Waddel Way Pahokee, Florida 33476 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Varga, Esquire Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent assessed Petitioner for secure juvenile detention care for the 2007-2008 fiscal year in a manner that implements Section 985.686, Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 63G-1.1
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the cost sharing requirements in Section 985.686 for juvenile detention care. Petitioner is a non-fiscally constrained county2 subject to the statutory cost sharing requirements. The statutory requirements for funding juvenile detention in the state guide the findings in this proceeding. Subsection 985.686(1) requires Petitioner and Respondent to share the costs of "financial support" for "detention care" for juveniles who reside in Hillsborough County, Florida (the County), and are held in detention centers operated by Respondent. Subsection 985.686(3) requires Petitioner to pay the costs of detention care "for the period of time" prior to final court disposition (predisposition care). Respondent must pay the costs of detention care on or after final court disposition (post-disposition care). Detention care is defined in Subsection 985.686(2)(a) to mean secure detention. Secure detention is defined in Subsection 985.03(18)(a), for the purposes of Chapter 985, to include custody "prior to" adjudication or disposition as well as custody after adjudication but "prior to" placement.3 The term "placement" is not defined by statute or rule. However, secure detention centers are legally unavailable to circuit courts for post-disposition placement. Post-disposition care of juveniles in a secure detention center is generally limited to juveniles who are waiting for residential placement. The trier-of-fact construes the reference to placement in Subsection 985.03(18)(a) to mean residential placement. Secure detention includes custody in a detention center for both predisposition and post-disposition care. Predisposition care occurs prior to adjudication or final disposition. Post- disposition care occurs after adjudication or disposition but prior to residential placement. Post-disposition care also includes custody in a detention center after final disposition but prior to release. Although this type of post-disposition care comprises a small proportion of total post-disposition care, references to post-disposition care in this Recommended Order include care after final disposition for: juveniles waiting for residential placement and juveniles waiting for release. Juveniles are not supposed to remain in detention centers very long after final disposition while they wait for residential placement. However, juveniles with exceptional needs, such as mental health needs, may remain in detention centers for a longer period of time due to the limited availability of appropriate residential placement facilities. Approximately 2,057 secure detention beds exist statewide. The operating cost for each bed is the same whether the bed is used for predisposition or post-disposition care. The operating cost for a secure detention bed may increase if the detention center exceeds capacity because of overtime expenses, temporary staffing, and other temporary costs. Although only two secure detention centers did not exceed capacity at some time during the previous year, secure detention utilization in the same year averaged approximately 89 percent of capacity. The Legislature funds the cost of juvenile detention care through an annual appropriation. Appropriations from 2002 forward have historically allocated approximately 11 percent of the cost of detention care to Respondent and approximately 89 percent to the counties. The total appropriation for the 2007-2008 fiscal year was $125,327,667. The Legislature allocated $30,860,924 to the state and $101,628,064 to the counties. Negative amounts in certain categories brought the net appropriation to $125,327,667. The Legislature pays the state's share of juvenile detention costs from general revenue. However, the "appropriation" for the counties' share of detention costs is actually an account payable. Pursuant to Subsection 985.686(6), Petitioner must make monthly payments into a state trust fund for its share of statewide predisposition detention costs. Subsection 985.686(3) requires Respondent to develop an accounts payable system to allocate to the counties the costs of secure detention for predisposition care. Pursuant to Subsection 985.686(5), Respondent administers the account payable system through a system of prospective assessment and retroactive reconciliation. Prospective assessments at the outset of a year are based on actual costs from the previous year. Subsection 985.686(5) requires Petitioner to pay the prospective assessment monthly and requires Respondent to complete an annual reconciliation at the end of the year to determine whether actual costs during the year were more or less than the prospective assessment. Sometime after the end of each fiscal year, Respondent either credits or debits Petitioner for any differences between the prospective assessment and actual costs determined in the annual reconciliation. Subsection 985.686(3) requires Petitioner to pay for the costs of secure detention in the County for the "period of time" juveniles are in predisposition care. No statute or rule expressly defines the phrase "period of time." Subsection 985.686(10) authorizes Respondent to adopt rules to administer Section 985.686. Rule 63G-1.004(1)(c) implicitly defines the statutory reference to a "period of time" in predisposition care to mean "service days." Other provisions in Rule 63G-1.004 prescribe the methodology to be used in calculating Petitioner's share of the costs for predisposition care. Respondent must first identify all juveniles in predisposition care based upon usage during the preceding fiscal year. Second, Respondent must match each placement record with the corresponding identification code. Third, Respondent must calculate the "service days" in predisposition care. Finally, Respondent must divide the number of "service days" Petitioner used for predisposition care in the County by the service days used by all counties to determine the percentage of the counties' costs for predisposition care that Petitioner owes. Petitioner disputes the methodology Respondent uses to determine the amount Petitioner owes for predisposition care in the County. However, that dispute is the subject of a companion case identified by DOAH Case No. 07-4398 and is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The dispute in this proceeding is limited to Respondent's determination of the service days that Respondent allocated to Petitioner for predisposition care in the County. The term "service days" is not defined by statute or rule. Respondent defines service days to mean "utilization" days. Utilization days are not synonymous with calendar days. Utilization days correspond more closely to the number of juveniles in secure detention. If for example, 10 juveniles utilize one detention center during any part of a day, 10 utilization days have occurred during one calendar day. A secure detention center may be utilized simultaneously by juveniles in predisposition care and juveniles in post-disposition care (dual-use occupancy). If the 10 utilization days in the preceding example were to include equal dual-use occupancy, Respondent would count five utilization days for predisposition care and five utilization days for post-disposition care. The 10 juveniles in the preceding example may not occupy a detention center for an entire calendar day. The five juveniles in predisposition care may occupy the center for only part of a calendar day and five more juveniles may receive predisposition care for the remainder of the day. In that example, Respondent would allocate 10 utilization days to Petitioner for predisposition care during that calendar day and only five utilization days to the state for a total of 15 utilization days. Respondent determined there were 709,251 utilization days for pre and post-disposition care in the state for the year in issue. Respondent allocated 579,409 utilization days to the counties' predisposition care and 129,842 utilization days to the state for post-disposition care. Respondent allocated 47,714 utilization days to Petitioner and, after reconciliation, reduced that number to 47,214. Petitioner claims the correct number of utilization days is 31,008. Respondent allegedly misallocated 16,206 utilization days for predisposition care by Petitioner. Respondent identifies the 16,206 utilization days in nine categories. The categories and corresponding number of days that Petitioner challenges are: contempt of court (327), detention order (3,005), interstate compacts (1), pick up orders (12,267), prosecution previously deferred (28), transfer from another county awaiting commitment beds (444), violation of after care (10), violation of community control (79), and violation of probation (45). Subsection 985.686(6) requires Respondent to calculate the monthly assessment against Petitioner with input from the County. Respondent allowed input from the counties during rulemaking workshops but has thwarted virtually any input from the County during the annual processes of calculating assessments and reconciliation. Respondent classifies each of the nine challenged categories as predisposition care. However, the data that Respondent provides to the County each year does not include final disposition dates. The omission of disposition dates from the information that Respondent provides to Petitioner effectively thwarts the County's ability to provide meaningful input into the calculations that Respondent performs pursuant to Subsection 985.686(6). The absence of disposition dates precludes the County from independently auditing, or challenging, the assessments that Respondent calculates pursuant to Subsection 985.686(6). The absence of disposition dates also deprives the trier-of-fact of a basis for resolving the dispute over the nine categories of utilization days that Respondent determined were predisposition care. Respondent claims the allegation of misclassification is a challenge to agency policy that is not subject to the due process requirements prescribed in Chapter 120. To the contrary, the allegation raises a disputed issue of fact over the correct disposition date, and that issue is not infused with agency policy or agency expertise. The correct disposition date can be determined through conventional means of proof, including public records. Although Respondent presumably uses that information to determine a disposition date, Respondent does not make the information available to the County. Even if a determination of the disposition date were solely a policy issue, it is not exempt from the due process requirements prescribed in Subsection 120.57(1). One of the principal purposes of a proceeding conducted pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1) (a 120.57 proceeding) is to encourage responsible agency policymaking. During this proceeding, Respondent did not explicate, by conventional methods of proof, any intelligible standards that guide the exercise of agency discretion in classifying the nine challenged categories of utilization days as predisposition days. Nor did Respondent explicate any evidential predicate to support a finding that the classification is infused with agency expertise and entitled to great deference. The only standards that Respondent articulated during the evidentiary hearing is that agency employees exercise discretion pursuant to instructions from agency management. Respondent also considers open charges against juveniles as a basis for distinguishing predisposition utilization days from post-disposition utilization days. If, for example, a juvenile is in secure detention awaiting placement after final disposition of one charge but has another open charge, Respondent classifies that utilization day as predisposition care. The trier-of-fact finds that secure detention after final disposition, but before residential placement for the charge adjudicated, is post-dispositional care. The record does not disclose how many, if any, of the 47,215 utilization days allocated to Petitioner involve open charges. Respondent did not explicate any intelligible standards to guide the exercise of agency discretion in using open charges as a basis for distinguishing predisposition utilization days from post-disposition utilization days. Nor did Respondent explicate an evidentiary basis to support a finding that the relevant classification is infused with either agency expertise or agency policy and entitled to deference. Petitioner acknowledges that some of the nine categories require final disposition before a juvenile can be placed in secure detention prior to residential placement. For example, data identification codes for offenses such as contempt of court, detention orders, pick up orders, prosecution previously deferred, violation of after care, violation of community control, and violation of probation require a final disposition. The omission of a final disposition date from the data available to Petitioner deprives Petitioner of the ability to provide input to Respondent to correct the assessments that Respondent calculates pursuant to Subsection 985.686(6).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order assessing Petitioner for the costs of predisposition care in the County using utilization days determined in accordance with this Recommended Order and meaningful input from the County. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 10th day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Shirley R. Bennett was employed by DHRS as a Detention Care Worker I. In August 1982 Bennett was injured at work while breaking up a fight between two inmates at the Detention Center. She was placed on workers' compensation and remained off duty until the doctor treating her said she was able to return to work. Petitioner remained away from her work station and called in to say she was too sick to come to work. On October 10, 1984, Jerry McDonald, Assistant Detention Superintendent, called Bennett and told her that for sick leave to be granted she had to bring in a certificate from a doctor. Bennett indicated she would do so. On October 11, 1984, McDona1d again called Bennett and repeated his message about her needing a doctor's certificate for sick leave to be granted. On October 16, 1984, McDonald again called Bennett about needing a doctor's certificate for sick leave to be granted and that if she remained on unauthorized absence for three consecutive days she would be terminated for having abandoned her position. At this time Bennett said she was too sick to come in. McDonald told her to mail in the doctor's certificate. No such certificate was ever received by the Respondent. October 16, 1984, was a workday for Petitioner and she was scheduled to be off duty on the 17th but to work October 19 through 22, inclusive. Petitioner failed to report for work on any of those days and never presented a doctor's certificate saying she was unable to work because of illness. By letter dated October 24, 1984, sent to Petitioner by certified mail, Petitioner was notified by Respondent that her resignation by reason of abandonment was being processed and of her right to petition for review within 20 days. Petitioner's request for review dated November 7, 1984, was timely filed.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that he is of good moral character, and should be granted an exemption from employment disqualification, thereby allowing him to work in a position of special trust or responsibility pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 1995, the Orlando Police Department responded to an emergency call from Petitioner's residence. Petitioner was arrested and charged with domestic violence, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. The domestic violence and false imprisonment charges were subsequently dropped. Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the reduced misdemeanor charge of simple assault upon his wife, an act of domestic violence. On September 18, 1996, adjudication of guilt was withheld by the Orange County Circuit Court. Petitioner was given credit for 43 days time served in the Orange County Jail. He was also ordered to pay court costs. Petitioner was not placed on probation and was not ordered to attend domestic violence counseling. Petitioner disputes the narrative contained in the charging affidavit and claims that at no time did he threaten his wife, and that the firearm was present in the room only for cleaning, and was not displayed inappropriately. Petitioner's description of the events is not credible. Petitioner began work as a detention care worker at the Orange Regional Juvenile Detention Center in October 1995. The position required a level 2 background screening be conducted. On August 23, 1996, Petitioner submitted an affidavit of Good Moral Character which did not disclose his arrest or sentence. In August of 1996, a background screening request packet was submitted to the Background Screening Unit of Respondent's Inspector General's office. A preliminary FCIC/NCIC screening check conducted on Petitioner revealed that he had a disqualifying offense (assault on a spouse). His background screening received a rating of "Unfavorable Disqualifying." In a letter from Respondent dated August 7, 1997, Petitioner was notified that he had been disqualified and was, therefore, ineligible to work in a caretaker's position with Respondent. This disqualification was based upon the 1995 domestic assault charge. Petitioner is a 52-year-old Divinity School graduate and former church minister. Petitioner holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Bethune-Cookman College in Daytona Beach, and a Master of Divinity Degree from Morehouse School of Religion in Atlanta. Prior to commencing his employment with Respondent, Petitioner had successfully worked with juveniles for many years in a variety of capacities, to-wit: school teacher, counselor, youth group leader, civic leader, and minister. Petitioner received numerous awards and certificates documenting his involvement with and commitment to the welfare of his community and of juveniles in particular. After starting his work as a Detention Care Worker at the Orlando Regional Juvenile Detention Center, several Juvenile Detention Center workers in both supervisory and co-worker roles testified to the exceptional quality and caliber of Petitioner's work with juveniles. Since the alleged incident of domestic violence three years ago, no claim of any other alleged illegal conduct has been made against Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust be GRANTED. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy Terry, Esquire 1407 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 536914 Orlando, Florida 32801 Lynne Winston, Esquire Inspector General's Office 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of the contract for Request for Proposals (RFP) No. P2032 to Daniel Memorial, Inc. (Daniel), is contrary to the specifications of the RFP.
Findings Of Fact DJJ issued RFP No. P2032 on April 2, 2007. The RFP solicited proposals for a “20-slot day treatment program for youth placed on Probation, being released from a residential program, transitioning back into the community or classified as minimum risk, and a 100-slot service- oriented Intervention program with comprehensive case management services for youth which the programs are currently located in Pinellas and Pasco Counties ” The contract resulting from the RFP will be for a three-year term -- July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010 -- with a renewal option for up to an additional three years at DJJ’s sole discretion. The RFP states that the maximum annual contract amount is $948,308, and prospective providers were required to propose a price at or below that amount EYA and Daniel submitted timely, responsive proposals in response to the RFP. Daniel’s proposal offered a slightly lower price than EYA’s proposal.1 On June 11, 2007, DJJ posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Daniel. Thereafter, EYA timely filed a notice of intent to protest and a formal written protest challenging the proposed award of the contract to Daniel. The RFP provides that the proposals were to be evaluated and scored in three categories: technical proposal, financial proposal, and past performance. The past performance category focuses on the prospective provider’s knowledge and experience in operating non-residential juvenile justice programs. The criteria related to the past performance category are contained in Attachment C to the RFP. Attachment C consists of three parts: Part I - Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs; Part II - Evaluation for Past Performance in the United States Outside of Florida; and Part III - Evaluation for Professional Accreditation in the United States. The focus of the dispute in this case is on Part III. A proposal could receive a total of 1,000 points if, as is the case with both EYA and Daniel, the prospective provider operated other DJJ-contracted non-residential programs in Florida. The proposals could receive up to 240 points for Attachment C, with a maximum of 40 points for Part III. The RFP provides that the proposal that receives the highest total points will be awarded the contract. Daniel’s proposal received a total of 600.13 points, which was the highest overall score. Daniel received 176 points for Attachment C, including 30 points for Part III. EYA’s proposal received a total of 573.46 points, which was the second highest overall score. EYA received 143.7 points for Attachment C, including zero points for Part III. EYA contends that Daniel should not have received any points for Part III, which would have resulted in Daniel’s overall score being 30 points lower, or 570.13, and would have given EYA the highest overall score. Part III of Attachment C asks whether the prospective provider currently operates non-residential juvenile justice programs that are accredited and in good standing with certain accrediting agencies, including the Council on Accreditation (COA). If so, the RFP requires the prospective provider to include supporting documentation. The prospective provider receives 10 points for each accredited program listed in Part III of Attachment C. The RFP states multiple times that the supporting documentation “must include the start and end dates [of the programs], be current dated and valid at least through the start date of the Contract that results from this RFP,” and that it must state that “the program cited is a non-residential juvenile program and that is run by the prospective Provider.” The RFP also states multiple times that a prospective provider’s failure to provide the required supporting documentation “shall” result in zero points being awarded for Part III of Attachment C, and that DJJ “is not responsible for research to clarify the prospective Provider's documentation.” EYA did not list any programs in its response to Part III of Attachment C. Its wilderness programs are accredited by COA, but its non-residential juvenile justice programs are not accredited. EYA is currently seeking COA accreditation for the services provided in its non-residential programs based, in part, on DJJ’s scoring of Daniel’s proposal in this proceeding. Daniel listed three programs in its response to Part III: a behavioral management program in Circuit 4; a conditional release program in Circuits 6 and 13; and a behavioral management program in Circuit 7. The documentation provided by Daniel to show that the listed programs are accredited was a letter from COA dated August 18, 2006. The letter confirms that Daniel is accredited by COA; that the accreditation runs through September 30, 2010; and that the accreditation includes “the following programs:” Mental Health Services Psychosocial and Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Services Case Management Services Foster and Kinship Care Services Supported Community Living Services Residential Treatment Services The letter does not on its face refer to the three programs listed by Daniel in its response to Part III. The letter does not on its face reflect whether the listed services were accredited in non-residential programs (as compared to residential programs) or in juvenile justice programs (as compared to adult programs or juvenile programs that do not involve the juvenile justice system). Each of the three programs listed by Daniel in its response to Part III is a non-residential program operated under contract with DJJ. Those programs were also listed by DJJ contract number in Daniel’s response to Part I of Attachment C. Paul Hatcher, the DJJ employee who evaluated the responses to the RFP with respect to Attachment C, was familiar with the three programs listed in Daniel’s response to Part III. He knew from his experience and his review of Part I of Attachment C that the programs were non-residential juvenile justice programs and he knew that the programs provided case management services and mental health services. Mr. Hatcher acknowledged that the COA letter does not specifically mention the three listed programs. He nevertheless considered the letter to be sufficient documentation of accreditation for the three programs because the letter indicated that Daniel, as an organization, was accredited and that it had specific accreditation for the services provided at the three listed programs. COA accredits organizations and services, not specific programs.2 On this issue, Dr. Hilda Shirk, a member of the COA Board of Trustees and an experienced COA peer reviewer, testified that “COA accreditation applies to the entire organization and the services that it provides” and that Daniel’s accreditation includes all of its programs that fall under the service areas listed in the COA letter, which is consistent with Mr. Hatcher’s interpretation of the letter. COA does not separately accredit services provided in residential and non-residential settings, nor does it separately accredit services provided to adults or juveniles. The standards used to evaluate case management services and mental health services, for example, are the same notwithstanding the setting or the type of client being served. COA performed its on-site accreditation review of Daniel in April 2006. It is unlikely that two of the three programs listed by Daniel in response to Part III -- the conditional release program in Circuits 6 and 13 (DJJ Contract No. P2013 and the behavior management program in Circuit 7 (DJJ Contract No. G8101 -- were evaluated by COA as part of that review because those programs had just started. That does not mean, however, that those programs are not accredited. Indeed, Dr. Shirk testified that an organization is not required to submit each new program to COA for review if the services offered in the program fit within a service area for which the organization has been accredited.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that DJJ issue a final order dismissing the EYA’s protest and awarding the contract for RFP No. P2032 to Daniel. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 14th day of December, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent, the Department of Juvenile Justice (the Department or Respondent), provided Petitioner, the County of Volusia (Volusia County or Petitioner), a point of entry to challenge the Department's 2008-2009 reconciliation regarding Volusia County and the Department's shared costs for secure detention care for juveniles.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida is responsible for providing detention care to juveniles. Volusia County and the Department have a joint obligation to contribute to the financial support of juvenile detention care pursuant to section 985.686(1), Florida Statutes.1/ Volusia County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is mandated by section 985.686(3) to pay the costs of providing detention care for juveniles only for the period of time prior to final court disposition, exclusive of certain costs as set forth in the statute. The State of Florida is responsible for all other costs of secure juvenile detention. The Department is responsible for administering the cost-sharing requirements. Any difference between the estimated costs and actual costs paid by Petitioner shall be reconciled by Respondent at the end of each fiscal year pursuant to section 985.686(5). The administrative rules enacted by the Department provide that a county is to be given a credit for any overpayment. Volusia County paid $3,739,325 in twelve monthly payments of $311,610.38 based on the Department's fiscal year 2008-2009 Secure Detention Cost Share Estimate. On or about December 7, 2009, the Department issued its Annual Reconciliation for fiscal year 2008-2009, which set forth Volusia County’s FY 2008-2009 share of the year-end cost of secure detention, and assigned Petitioner a credit for overpayment in the amount of $111,040.17. On invoice number 201002-64, dated January 5, 2010, Respondent provided Volusia County a credit of $111,040.17, designated as “FY 08-09 Reconciliation.” The Department has adopted the administrative law judge’s Recommended Order entered in DOAH Case No. 10-1893 (consolidated with seven other cases), Miami-Dade County, et al. v. Department of Juvenile Justice, Case No. 10-1893, et seq. (Fla. DOAH Aug. 22, 2012)(Miami-Dade Recommended Order), as set forth in Okaloosa County v. Department of Juvenile Justice, 131 So. 3d 818, 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), which required the Department to provide an annual reconciliation that reflected each county’s actual costs. For FY 2008-2009, the actual cost per day for secure detention for a juvenile was $220.81. For FY 2008-2009, Volusia County’s total pre- dispositional days were 8,679. For FY 2008-2009, Volusia County’s actual costs were $1,916,409.90. For FY 2008-2009, Volusia County overpaid the Department $1,822,915.10. Volusia County is substantially affected by the reassessment of its actual costs of detention for FY 2008-2009. For fiscal year 2008-2009, Volusia County is owed an additional credit of $1,711,874.93 for overpayment. Volusia County filed its Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing on April 16, 2013, challenging the FY 2008-2009 annual reconciliation and seeking a refund for its overpayment. Volusia County’s substantial interest is of a type and nature for which the undersigned has jurisdiction in that it will determine Volusia County’s actual cost of secure detention care for FY 2008-2009 and determine whether Volusia County is entitled to a credit.2/ Volusia County was not a party to DOAH Case No. 10- 1893 resulting in the Miami-Dade Recommended Order or Okaloosa County v. Department of Juvenile Justice, 131 So. 3d 818, 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), referenced in Finding of Fact 10, above. In this case, the Department’s response to request number one of Volusia County’s Second Request for Admissions admitted “that Volusia County was not provided a point of entry into proceedings as required under section 28-106.111 of the Florida Administrative Code to challenge the fiscal year 2008- 2009 annual reconciliation.” See Exh. P-5, pp. 6-9. The Department’s response to Volusia County’s request number two of Volusia County’s Second Request for Admissions admitted “that Volusia County was not provided a clear point of entry to challenge the fiscal year 2008-2009 annual reconciliation pursuant to Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1374 (Fla 1979).” See Exh. P-5, pp. 6- 9. At no time has the Department attempted to seek relief from its admission that Volusia County was not provided a point of entry to challenge the FY 2008-2009 reconciliation. Based upon the Department’s admission, it is found as a matter of fact that Volusia County was not provided with a point of entry to challenge the FY 2008-2009 reconciliation. As Volusia County was not provided with a point of entry to challenge the FY 2008-2009 reconciliation, Count I of Volusia County’s Amended Petition challenging the Department's FY 2008-2009 reconciliation was timely filed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order finding that the Department failed to provide Volusia County with a point of entry to challenge the Department's 2008-2009 reconciliation regarding Volusia County and the Department's shared costs for secure detention care for juveniles, and further providing that the Department shall, without undue delay, provide a revised assessment to Volusia County stating that for FY 2008-2009: Volusia County’s actual costs of providing predisposition secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 were $1,916,409.90; Volusia County overpaid the Department $1,822,915.10; and, Volusia County is owed an additional credit of $1,711,874.93 for overpayment. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2014, 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 29th day of October, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of the contract for Request for Proposals (RFP) No. P2029 to Henry and Rilla White Youth Foundation, Inc. (White Foundation) is contrary to the specifications of the RFP.
Findings Of Fact DJJ issued RFP No. P2029 on April 17, 2007. The RFP solicited proposals for a “240-available slot Community-based Intervention Services program for boys and girls for Volusia, Flagler and Putnam counties ” The contract resulting from the RFP will be for a three-year term -- July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010 -- with a renewal option for up to an additional three years at DJJ’s sole discretion. The RFP states that the maximum annual contract amount is $1,504,968, and prospective providers were required to propose a price at or below that amount. EYA and White Foundation submitted timely, responsive proposals in response to the RFP. White Foundation’s proposal offered a slightly lower price than EYA’s proposal.1 On June 18, 2007, DJJ posted notice of its intent to award the contract to White Foundation. Thereafter, EYA timely filed a notice of intent to protest and a formal written protest challenging the proposed award of the contract to White Foundation. The RFP provided that the proposals were to be evaluated and scored in three categories: technical proposal, financial proposal, and past performance. The past performance category focuses on the prospective provider’s knowledge and experience in operating non-residential juvenile justice programs. The criteria related to the past performance category are contained in Attachment C to the RFP. Attachment C consists of three parts: Part I - Past Performance of Non-Residential Programs; Part II - Evaluation for Past Performance in the United States Outside of Florida; and Part III - Evaluation for Professional Accreditation in the United States. The focus of the dispute in this case is on Part III. A proposal could receive a total of 1,000 points if, as is the case with both EYA and White Foundation, the prospective provider operated DJJ-contracted non-residential programs in Florida. The proposal could receive up to 240 points for Attachment C, with a maximum of 40 points for Part III. The RFP states that the proposal that receives the highest overall score will be awarded the contract. White Foundation’s proposal received a total of 785.98 points, which was the highest overall score. White Foundation’s score included 40 points for Part III of Attachment C. EYA’s proposal received a total of 752.03 points, which was the second-highest overall score. EYA received zero points for Part III of Attachment C. EYA contends that White Foundation should not have received any points for Part III, which would have resulted in White Foundation’s overall score being 745.98 and would have given EYA the highest overall score. Part III of Attachment C asks whether the prospective provider currently operates non-residential juvenile justice programs that are accredited and in good standing with certain accrediting agencies, including the Rehabilitation Accreditation Commission (CARF). If so, the RFP requires the prospective provider to include supporting documentation. The prospective provider receives 10 points for each accredited program listed in Part III of Attachment C. The RFP states multiple times that the supporting documentation “must include the start and end dates [of the programs], be current dated and valid at least through the start date of the Contract that results from this RFP,” and that it must state that “the program cited is a non-residential juvenile program and that is run by the prospective Provider.” The RFP also states multiple times that a prospective provider’s failure to provide the required supporting documentation “shall” result in zero points being awarded for Part III of Attachment C, and that DJJ “is not responsible for research to clarify the prospective Provider's documentation.” EYA did not list any programs in its response to Part III of Attachment C. Its wilderness programs are accredited by the Council on Accreditation (COA), but its non-residential juvenile justice programs are not accredited by COA , CARF, or any other organization. White Foundation listed four programs in its response to Part III of Attachment C: a conditional release program in Nassau County; a conditional release program in Duval County; a conditional release program in Clay County; and an Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services program in Circuit 2. The documentation provided by White Foundation to show that the listed programs are accredited was an undated certificate from CARF and a one-page “Survey Accreditation Detail” dated June 28, 2006. The CARF certificate states that “a three-year accreditation is awarded to the [White Foundation] for the following identified services: case management/services coordination: family services (children and adolescents)" and for “out-of-home treatment: family services (children and adolescents).” The seal on the certificate includes an expiration date of August 2007. The CARF certificate does not mention any of the programs listed by White Foundation in response to Part III of Attachment C. It only certifies that that White Foundation is accredited as an organization for certain services. The Survey Accreditation Detail document makes reference to survey number 32190; company number 200190; an accreditation decision of “three-year accreditation”; an accreditation expiration date of August 31, 2007; and Correction Services of Florida, LLC as the “company submitting intent.” The document lists six “companies with programs,” including the four programs listed by White Foundation in its response to Part III of Attachment C. The bottom of the Survey Accreditation Document includes the notation “page 1 of 2.” The second page of the document is not included in the portion of White Foundation’s response to the RFP that was received into evidence, nor is it included in the exhibit attached to the deposition of Paul Hatcher, the DJJ employee who evaluated the responses to the RFP with respect to Attachment C. Mr. Hatcher testified that he interpreted the Survey Accreditation Detail document to be “a summary of the prospective provider’s programs that received accreditation based on the CARF award letter.” That interpretation, while not implausible, is not adequately supported by the evidence of record. First, there is nothing on the Survey Accreditation Detail document to demonstrate that it was prepared by CARF, and Mr. Hatcher acknowledged that he did not know who prepared the document. Second, it cannot be determined from the Survey Accreditation Detail document whether the “three-year accreditation” referred to in the document relates to all of the “companies with programs” listed on the document, or just to Correction Services of Florida, LLC, which is identified as the “company submitting intent.” Indeed, each of the listed “companies with programs” has a different six-digit number in parenthesis following its name and only the number following Correction Services of Florida, LLC, matches the “company number” referenced at the top of the Survey Accreditation Detail document. Third, the record does not reflect the relationship, if any, between White Foundation and Correction Services of Florida, LLC. Indeed, Mr. Hatcher testified that he did not know anything about Correction Services of Florida, LLC, except that it appeared to have the same address as White Foundation. The CARF certificate and the Survey Accreditation Detail document do not on their face reflect whether the listed programs are non-residential programs (as compared to residential programs) or whether they are juvenile justice programs (as compared to juvenile programs that do not involve the juvenile justice system). However, Mr. Hatcher testified that all of the services identified on the CARF certificate correspond to non-residential facilities and that he was familiar with the listed programs and knew that they were juvenile justice programs. It cannot be determined from the CARF certificate and Survey Accreditation Detail document whether the four programs listed by White Foundation in its response to Part III of Attachment C are accredited. Indeed, Mr. Hatcher candidly acknowledged as much in his testimony.2 If DJJ had scored White Foundation’s proposal in accordance with the specifications of the RFP, the proposal would have received zero points for Part III of Attachment C, which would have resulted in EYA’s proposal receiving the highest overall score.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that DJJ issue a final order rescinding the proposed award of RFP No. P2029 to White Foundation. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 14th day of December, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Ronald Winkfield was employed as a detention care worker with the Hillsborough Regional Juvenile Detention Center in February of 1982, and was assigned to work the midnight to 8:00 A.M. shift. On or about June 8, 1981, Mr. Winkfield was involved in an automobile accident, received injuries and returned to work on or about August 17, 1981. He claims that he still suffers severe headaches as a result of the accident and that his work with delinquents caused him mental strain. The logs of the Detention Center illustrate that Mr. Winkfield missed four days of work during the first week of February, and called in sick on the first two of those four days. On February 7, 8, 9 and 10, 1982, Mr. Winkfield again did not appear for duty and did not call in sick on any of those days. Employees of the Detention Center working the midnight to 8:00 A.M. shift were instructed to call in before 6:00 P.M. if they were not going to report for work that night. Petitioner admits that he did not report for work on February 7, 8, 9 or 10, 1982, and that he did not call in on those dates to report his absence. He explains that he did not call in because an employee told him during the first week of February that she would not accept his calls unless he brought in a doctor's certificate stating that he was unable to work. About 11:45 P.M. on February 10, 1982, Mr. Winkfield was seen at a doughnut shop getting out of a Tampa Tribune truck. Petitioner was employed by the Tampa Tribune to deliver papers in February of 1982. A week or two before February 7, 1982, a personnel officer discussed with Mr. Winkfield the procedure for obtaining time off without pay. Mr. Winkfield never formally applied for leave without pay. By letter dated February 12, 1982, the Assistant Supervisor of the Hillsborough Regional Juvenile Detention Center advised Mr. Winkfield that he was deemed to have abandoned his position and to have resigned from the Career Service because of his failure to report to work for four consecutive workdays without authorized leave.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered concluding that petitioner Ronald Winkfield has abandoned his position of employment and resigned from the Career Service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 7th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Winkfield 5914 82nd Street Tampa, Florida 33619 Amelia M. Park, Esquire District VI Legal Counsel Department of HRS 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 David Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
