AGENDA - Florida Sheriffs Association
[pic]
Committee Members:
Lt. Jeff Owens – Marion County Sheriff’s Office
Ms. Wanda White – Escambia County Sheriff’s Office
Lt. David Parisi- Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office
Commander Kevin McGowan – Collier County Sheriff’s Office
Sgt. Brad Delaere – St. John’s County Sheriff’s Office
Capt. Don Ross – Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office
Attendees:
Major Paul Laxton - Marion County Sheriff’s Office
Tracey Florence – Seminole County Sheriff’s Office
David Harvey – Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office
Stephen Sirmones – Seminole County Sheriff’s Office
Bernard Johns – Seminole County Sheriff’s Office
Tammy Stakes – Flagler County Sheriff’s Office
Dr. Richard Hough – University of West Florida
Sgt. Jason Caban – St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office
Howard Rich – Indian River County Sheriff’s Office
Bobbi Pohlman-Rodgers – G4S Youth Services
David Kilcrease- Jacksonville County Sheriff’s Office
Clarence Jones – Jacksonville County Sheriff’s Office
Major Mike Allen – Polk County Sheriff’s Office
Anne Gibson – Polk County Sheriff’s Office
Steven Soloman – Department of Juvenile Justice
Isaiah Dennard – Florida Sheriff’s Association
Paul Lawson – Okaloosa County Department of Corrections
Cpl. James Aguiar- Marion County Sheriff’s Office
Kathy Davis – Awake Marion
Michael Davis – Awake Marion
David Utter- Southern Poverty Law Center
Amanda Tipping – Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office
Lt. C.H. James- Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office
Jay Dreshnack – Hernando County Sheriff’s Office
Welcome: Lt. Owens welcomed everyone and thanked them for their attendance.
Established Quorum
Lt. Owens established a quorum.
Legal Notifications
Lt. Owens established that the proper legal notifications had been made.
Pledge of Allegiance
Lt. Owens led everyone in the invocation and pledge of allegiance.
Lt. Owens wanted to note that the same Subcommittee members were present so there is continuity in the quorum. The legal notification was verified at yesterday’s meeting was for both days.
Lt. Owens thanked everyone for their participation in yesterday’s meeting and believed we made great strides and are well over half of the way through the current list of revisions. It is also important to note that at the end of today’s meeting, if anyone does not remember, there needs to be a brief discussion about transition issues. Simply, this means the transition from Sheriff Dean as the Chairperson of the Committee to Sheriff Rutherford in Jacksonville. We will cover that later so no one gets lost on where we will meet in the future.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – David Utter
Standard: 13.02 - The rules shall include prohibited acts and the disciplinary action that can be taken to ensure proper conduct. The rules shall also indicate the procedures for any disciplinary action and the method for the establishment and loss of privileges. The rules shall provide a list of prohibited acts which shall include, at a minimum, the following: [1-51] (not included due to length).
Proposal: The rules shall include prohibited acts and the disciplinary action that can be taken to ensure proper conduct. The rules shall also indicate the procedures for any disciplinary action and the method for the establishment and loss of privileges. Facilities housing juveniles shall adopt a distinct and separate set of rules that are simplified and broken into major and minor violations, and the consequences for breaking each type of rule explicitly defined and explained to each youth at intake. Rule violations for refusing to work shall not apply to juveniles. The rules shall provide a list of prohibited acts which shall include, at a minimum, the following: [1-51] (not included due to length).
Rationale: The proposal is based on the fact that the current standard was clearly written for adults. As a general rule juveniles are not as sophisticated as adults and should be disciplined pursuant to rules and procedures less complicated than those used for adult prisoners.
Discussion: Mr. Utter stated that he wonders if the purpose here is to make for a separate and very distinct set of rules for kids. Following on Commander McGowan’s comments about Chapter 20 being its own entity and that where we talk about kids. It’s not problematic to have something in Chapter 20 that talks about having a separate set of rules that are more clearly and readily understandable for children. The main point is that these should be in the policies. He is happy to move this to Chapter 20, but the important concept here is a set of rules that are more readily understandable to juveniles.
Lt. Owens stated that as he presents that opportunity, he would just remind everyone that we had a discussion as well, to make sure we bifurcate between pre-adjudicated youths and those that have been adjudicated as adults. To add to the opportunity you are presenting, we need to mention that again.
Lt. Owens asked the Subcommittee for comment. Commander McGowan stated that Mr. Utter was right. These things belong in Chapter 20, so we go to Chapter 20, or we could request that he write one specifically for Chapter 20 for revision. Commander McGowan stated he believes this is applicable. It belongs better as a stand-alone in 20. Mr. Utter stated he would be happy to withdraw this and resubmit in Chapter 20 for the next time. Both Capt. Ross and Ms. White believed that would be appropriate. Lt. Owens stated that everyone was in agreement and would allow the withdrawal of this and at the next presentation it would be for Chapter 20. If there is some confusion about where it needs to be in Chapter 20, the Subcommittee can help at that time to determine where it needs to be placed and if it needs to be placed in a sub-paragraph. Mr. Utter stated that it would be as we did before it would be a referral to Appendix C or Chapter 20 in this rule. Lt. Owens stated that as long as it did not create confusion on how it applies to those direct file juveniles. We have to be very careful about that again, so we don’t conflict.
Motion: Withdrawn by Mr. Utter.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – David Utter
Standard: 13.03 - In addition to disciplinary action, inmates can also be required to pay for damaged, destroyed, or misappropriated property or goods. The rules and procedures for such administrative reimbursement sanctions should be in accordance with 33-22.008, Florida Administrative Code.
Proposal: In addition to disciplinary action, inmates can also be required to pay for damaged, destroyed, or misappropriated property or goods. The rules and procedures for such administrative reimbursement sanctions should be in accordance with 33-22.008, Florida Administrative Code. Facilities that house juveniles shall exempt juveniles from this section.
Rationale: Juveniles are per se indigent and should not be required to pay for damaged property.
Discussion: Mr. Utter stated that this had been discussed last summer. They are just asking that there be some language in Chapter 20 that kids are per se, indigent. That is the assumption of the juvenile court; they are not allowed to work. To have a rule that requires that they pay for stuff without considering that indigency is unfair.
Mr. Bernard Johns came to the podium. He stated that in Seminole County, by their policy, they do not administratively take money from juveniles. We feel if they break something they will take it to court and ask for restitution through legal means, but they would not administratively say that the juvenile owes the agency a certain amount of money. He also stated that he does not have a problem with banning the administrative taking or fining of youth. He would be opposed to something that would restrict the legal address of any issues that would arise.
Lt. Owens asked if they found that the courts generally hold the parents accountable.
Mr. Johns replied by stating that it would depend on the circumstances. He stated they have not had to seek it since the opening of the facility, however on the probation side where they run some other units, in the past, they have had juvenile intentionally break furniture and other items. Seminole County has taken it to court and had restitution orders issued. The Courts have worked with them in doing restitution orders on those youth. Whether we collect or not is another issue. They don’t administratively take money from anyone. They ask the Courts for the money.
Lt. Owens stated that he is not sure that they can set a rule that tells a judge that he cannot hold a juvenile accountable for monetary damages. He does not want to interfere with an Agency’s right to use the Courts for redress.
Mr. Johns said it is not administratively done. Command McGowan verified that it is not part of a DR (Disciplinary Report) and there is no statement that they have to pay a certain amount.
Lt. Owens stated he did not want to limit a Sheriff’s opportunity to seek redress and if the Courts decide they are not going to approve the restitution, they deal with the reality of angry juveniles.
Mr. Johns stated that the reality is one the juvenile leaves the facility, and the inmate does not pay for the damage, there is not much that can be done. They are not going to be able to pursue the juvenile and get the money. They would have to go through the Courts anyway.
Ms. White stated that when the juvenile returns to the facility after release, the facility is within its rights to acquire any funds the juvenile brings in to the facility.
Mr. Johns stated Mr. Utter has a point; the juveniles do not have anything.
Commander McGowan stated he agrees with the point that the juvenile does not have any money when they come in. The majority of the adults are the same way. If he is not mistaken, when damages are sought under this Statute or regulation, the individual can be put in red, but after three years, by the finance laws, those books have to be balanced out and it goes to zero. If the person returns, in Collier County, they charge an administrative fee for booking when they come in. If the person coming in has the money for the fee, they take it, otherwise they put it in red, after three years, the books are wiped clean. Even though the individual may not have any money at the time, they may get it. His note on this was that they are not holding the child accountable for his actions and that is the part that bothers him. Because it appears we are saying it’s okay for them to do this. Because they don’t have any money, the sanction should be there.
Mr. Johns stated he agrees with Commander McGowan, he just does not believe this should be done administratively. Commander McGowan stated he understands that, but the actual law that allows them to collect these funds actually allows the Agency to go out and put a lien against the parents’ house, which no Agency would ever do. However, it’s the matter of any DR or hearing inside the jail is an administrative action and we should hold the child accountable. Commander McGowan stated he does not have an issue with making them pay if they have the money.
Major Allen stated he was probably going to reiterate a thought, but he wanted to shed some light on the fact that the judicial system can charge the juveniles. Once again, what is the difference between a criminal mischief being conducted on the street, where a juvenile came to my house and did something and the Courts found him guilty, we would want restitution. It is not different than the jail. The facility design they have has big plate glass windows, thick windows. They don't break, but they crack. They have had juveniles crack those windows to the tune of $2500 dollars each. They’ll replace it, but through the courts, they try to get the money back the best way they can. It can be done through the juvenile or through the juvenile’s parents. Major Allen stated he would hope once the juvenile left the facility they would have to answer for that to their parents. However, the courts can do that. He has the elements of the criminal mischief: the damaged property, the property belonging to the person alleged and the injury or damage was done willfully or maliciously. They have a full time detective at their facility. He takes it to the State Attorney’s Office and they take it from there. Major Allen stated that he totally agrees that it could be done through the courts and should be done through the courts. It is a criminal mischief and it is a crime. While they are in jail we should not let them get away with crime. Administratively, he has to agree that they do not do that and would not suggest it. However, he objects to saying no discipline for that action, because then they would be unable to do what the law allows to be done.
Dr. Hough came to the podium on behalf of Polk County. He stated that to Commander McGowan’s point; first of all, certainly not precluding what a Department needs to do for the protection of their property, but criminologically as well. The issue of a general deterrent, making the youth, as an inmate aware that coming into the facility, what you do, you do, you are going to be held accountable for; consequences for the behavior.
Mr. Utter came back to the podium. He just wanted to clarify that he was not suggesting that the juvenile not be held accountable. This gets to the importance of a good behavior management system. If you have a bunch of rewards that the kids earn such as canteen, such as TV time, whatever it is, as long as it doesn’t get to a core value like visitation, phone calls and home, taking that away is a far better way to hold the juvenile accountable. One of the problems with criminal mischief and taking them to court, is that not only is the burden on what usually is very poor families, but arresting kids over and over, especially for misdemeanant stuff does not make us safer. We just get the juvenile in deeper and deeper into the system. He is absolutely for holding the child accountable. That’s the importance of a good behavior management system so you have stuff to take away.
Lt. Owens asked for any further comment from the Subcommittee. Commander McGowan stated that in stressing they are not taking any sanctions away, because it does say in addition to disciplinary action, a lot of the agencies are not seeking recourse through the courts as opposed to the Administrative Code. He has an objection to this. Captain Ross stated he sees as another option available to the agency and felt that if it is taken away it takes that option away and most everyone here goes through the courts in reference to criminal mischief proceedings; however, he would suggest leaving the wording as it is because it allows the agency the option of pursuing the administrative code.
Lt. Owens just wanted to make this comment. Chapter 13 may not be the best place for creativity on this issue and sees this could be a Chapter 20 inclusion.
Mr. Utter stated he was happy to withdraw the revision request and submit it under Chapter 20.
Motion: Withdrawn.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – David Utter
Standard: 13.13 - Inmates may be placed in administrative confinement for the purpose of ensuring immediate control and supervision when it is determined they constitute a threat to themselves, to others, or to the safety and security of the detention facility. An incident report or disciplinary report shall follow each such action.
a) The time of release for inmates in disciplinary or administrative confinement shall be recorded and filed in the inmate's file.
(b) Each inmate in administrative confinement shall receive housing, food, clothing, medical care, exercise, visitation, showers, and other services and privileges comparable to those available to the general population except as justified by his/her classification status or special inmates as defined in Section 5.04-Special Inmates.
(c) Such inmates should be checked by medical staff at intervals not exceeding 72 hours.
(d) Inmates in administrative or disciplinary confinement shall be required to bathe twice weekly.
Proposal: Inmates may be placed in administrative confinement for the purpose of ensuring immediate control and supervision only when it is determined they constitute a threat to themselves, to others, or to the safety and security of the detention facility.
a) An incident report or disciplinary report shall follow each such action and shall be reviewed by appropriate behavioral or medical staff.
b) Each written order for administrative confinement shall be limited to twenty-four (24) hours for adult inmates (no more than sixteen (16) hours a day for juveniles) and must be rewritten if further administrative confinement is required.
1) Orders given by a physician or psychiatrist over the telephone must be given directly to a registered nurse.
i) Telephone orders shall be reviewed and signed within twenty four (24) hours by a physician or psychiatrist.
(2) When a person is deemed in imminent danger, a registered nurse may initiate administrative confinement prior to obtaining a physician's or psychiatrist's order.
3) In all instances an order must be obtained within one (1) hour of initiating the administrative confinement.
(4) The issuance of a standing or PRN order for administrative confinement is prohibited.
c) Justification of need, the length of time in administrative confinement, conditions for release, and the condition of the person administratively confined shall be recorded in the clinical record.
d) Fifteen (15) minute observations must be face-to-face and must be recorded at the time they are made.
1) Documentation must include name of observer and time of the observation.
(2) Documentation must reflect unit procedures for opportunity for fluids, comfort and safety, meals, bathing and toileting.
(3) The observation flow sheet must have a key to correctly identify symbols used for the person’s behavior and activities, and a key to identify staff initials.
(4) The time of release for inmates in disciplinary or administrative confinement shall be recorded and filed in the inmate's file.
(e) Under no circumstances shall juveniles be subject to cell confinement as a punitive measure nor for longer than four (4) hours a day.
f) Each inmate in administrative confinement shall receive housing, food, clothing, medical care, exercise, visitation, showers, and other services and privileges comparable to those available to the general population except as justivied by his/her classification status or special inmates as defined in Section 5.04 – Special Inmates.
g) Facilities that house juveniles shall allow juveniles out of administrative or disciplinary confinement upon the juvenile regaining control over themselves.
1. Juveniles who are in administrative or disciplinary confinement shall be permitted to participate in all programming and activities.
(i) Such juveniles shall be permitted to bathe daily and maintain contact with their families.
h) Inmates in administrative confinement
Rationale: The proposal recognizes the distinct needs of children, generally incorporates national best practice, and ensures that facilities operate in a constitutional manner. Research shows that juveniles are especially susceptible to serious, long term trauma when exposed to isolation confinement
Discussion: Lt. Owens stated he received this revision by email last night; it was a revision written by Mr. Liles and Mr. Utter. Mr. Utter stated that he wished he was smart enough to coattail Mr. Liles’ work. It does not appear he is here today. He stated they submitted an addendum to the original submissions. They submitted revisions back in January and February and then submitted four or five addendums in May, and this one was missed. To further confuse matters, he has one more. There was a typo on the one. The very last sentence in the proposal talks about juveniles being subject to cell confinement for no longer than 16 hours. That is supposed to be four. Mr. Utter admits there is no standard that talks about this. This is an evolutionary issue. One of the submissions that was made for the Subcommittee’s consideration was from the American Academy of Psychiatrists that talks about solitary confinement and isolation and recommends it not be used on children. They are starting to see a lot of research on the harm that isolation does on all human beings, but it is especially something to look for in juveniles. So, this standard goes to, and again, it may be better placed in Chapter 20 and he is happy to withdraw it and resubmit it in Chapter 20, but it is something that needs to be closely watched by the Subcommittee. As you develop standards that are supposed to be applied Statewide to all Sheriffs’ and as more and more Sheriffs consider whether to take juveniles, isolation is really damaging to kids and you have to be really aware of that and have some high standards in its use.
Lt. Owens stated he was also a fan of Mr. Liles and Disability Rights Florida. Lt. Owens also advised that he agreed that with all the hard work that both Mr. Utter and Mr. Liles have done, Chapter 13 is not the right place for this. He believes this deserves some attention and so long as the rest of the Subcommittee is okay with it, he is okay with it being withdrawn and resubmitted. This one will be withdrawn and considered for Chapter 20 inclusion at the next meeting.
Major Allen came to the podium. He stated that since we are on this subject and he knows it’s being withdrawn. Major Allen wanted to provide additional information for consideration when this revision is resubmitted. He stated he did some research on the use of confinement and juvenile detention centers; DJJ run facilities. Contained in the detention services manual it says there are specific rule violations that due to the severity that are mandatory confinement, which include physical attack and/or battery, possession of any contraband considered a weapon, an attempted escape or escape, any gang-related activity that could jeopardize safety or security, any attempt to resist staff elevating to act of physical resistance as defined in the PAR policy, felony property damage. The first occurrence is three days, the second occurrence is four days; the third occurrence is five days, so this should be taken into consideration when examining the isolation issue. Polk County does not do that as the juveniles are not automatically locked up; however, DJJ does. If they were running the facilities, there may be someone to consider talking to.
Dr. Hough came to the podium. He stated that in reference to Director Dixon’s comments yesterday in reference Nelson Mandela’s book regarding his travails to SPLC’s use of Senator John McCain’s time as a prisoner of war he wanted to note not just for the Subcommittee, but for incoming people and everyone here, is that the position of combining solitary confinement for disciplinary purposes within a correctional facility with the long-term debilitating effects that may occur from months, years as a prisoner or in another conditions, this is just a danger to watch out for. The article Mr. Utter referred to by the American Academy of Psychiatrists; this specifically goes to long-term solitary confinement. It does not address brief detention for a correctional facility, so whichever chapter this is placed in, the sub current there needs to be very clear and be cautious not to conflate those two issues and do away with confinement thinking that it’s damaging or it’s settled science that brief detention is damaging, it’s not.
Motion: Withdrawn to resubmit under Chapter 20.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – David Utter
Standard: Chapter 15- Direct Supervision Jails-
Proposal: Facilities that house juveniles shall utilize direct supervision and maintain staff ratios of 1 staff per 8 youth during waking hours and 1:10 during non-waking hours
Rationale: Currently, juveniles in the juvenile justice system within the Florida Dept. of Juvenile Justice are supervised directly by officers trained specifically to monitor and interact with youth. Sheriffs who wish to detain such juveniles should be required to continue that practice, based on research and best practices indicating that direct supervision provides detained youth with an environment more conducive to the goals of the juvenile justice system.
Discussion: Mr. Utter came to the podium. He stated this was the same issue they discussed yesterday in reference to direct supervision. The focus is not the ratio, the focus is having a staff person in the living unit with the juveniles so that they can pre-emptively identify potential problems and respond appropriately.
Commander McGowan stated that Chapter 15 may be the wrong spot for this. He stated that in Collier County he has two juveniles who are being tried as adults. They are not in a direct supervision area. Now, they are going to be compelled to put a deputy inside, instead of the way it is. Again, these kinds of issues need to go to Chapter 20 and away from the general population. If he would have to for instance, have the juveniles go to the medical housing unit, they would then have to have a direct housing unit there, plus the direct observation in the housing unit for the remaining youth. These need to be brought up in Chapter 20.
Mr. Utter stated they would be happy to withdraw and resubmit in Chapter 20.
Major Allen stated this was the same as the last one as it was for informational purposes. In accordance with the DJJ standards it says staff is aware of the location of youth assigned to their supervision at all times. They monitor the youth in their direct care from one location to another and they are in sight of a JDO (juvenile detention officer) at all times, with the exception of sleeping hours or secured in their rooms. In the service manual, it states that each facility shall develop and implement a facility operating procedure to ensure staff observe youth at least every ten minutes or at least every five minutes if required by mental health staff while the youth are in their sleeping quarters either while asleep or at other times, such as illness or while in confinement. Even the DJJ facilities do not require direct supervision. Of course, we all require sight and/or sound of a corrections officer at all times. He stated that this has already been addressed. If he had the staff to put one on one, he would love to do so, however, personnel cost money and we try to do the best we can with the number of staff they have. Major Allen stated he totally agrees that they need to be within sight and sound and they meet that. Any time they are inspected, any time the youth are in there, there will be someone in there.
Lt. Owens stated they would accept the request for withdrawal and resubmission under Chapter 20.
Motion: Withdrawn to resubmit in Chapter 20.
Lt. Owens stated that at this time he would like to go out of order to 9.03. This was the solo hand-out you picked up yesterday and he is speaking slowly so he wants to give Major Allen a chance to come back this way. He submitted this one and he was not forewarned that this would be done out of order. He would like to do this because after this one, we are going to go completely into Chapter 20 submissions.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – Major Allen
Standard: 9.03 – 9.03) Mail (SEE APPENDIX “C” CONCERNING YOUTH DETENTION FACILITIES)
(a) General correspondence such as between the inmate, the family, and other persons should be encouraged.
(b) Incoming inmate mail may be monitored to ascertain any attempts to escape, security violations, or conspiracy to introduce contraband. Incoming mail may be inspected to intercept cash, checks, money orders or physical contraband.
(c) Outgoing mail shall not be interfered with except to open and inspect it to determine if:
(1) The letter contained threats of physical harm against persons or threats of criminal activity;
(2) The letter threatens blackmail or extortion;
(3) The letter contains plans to escape;
(4) The letter contains plans for activities in violation of detention facility rules;
(5) The letter is in code;
(6) The letter contains information which, if communicated, would create a clear and present danger of violence and physical harm to a human being.
Proposal: (9.03) Mail (SEE APPENDIX “C” CONCERNING YOUTH DETENTION FACILITIES)
(a) General correspondence such as between the inmate, the family, and other persons should be encouraged.
(b) Incoming inmate mail may be monitored to ascertain any attempts to escape, security violations, or conspiracy to introduce contraband. Incoming mail may be inspected to intercept cash, checks, money orders or physical contraband.
(c) Outgoing mail shall not be interfered with except to open and inspect it to determine if:
(1) The letter contained threats of physical harm against persons or threats of criminal activity;
(2) The letter threatens blackmail or extortion;
(3) The letter contains plans to escape;
(4) The letter contains plans for activities in violation of detention facility rules;
(5) The letter is in code;
(6) The letter contains information which, if communicated, would create a clear and present danger of violence and physical harm to a human being.
(7) The letter contains plans to commit, conspiracy to commit, or evidence of the commission of any local, state, or federal law violations.
Rationale: During a recent unrelated investigation, it was discovered that an inmate was filing fraudulent income tax returns totaling in excess of $200,000. An investigation was conducted and this one inmate’s tax fraud has now branched out to several other inmates who are doing the same thing. These individuals are all now under investigation for their actions and the IRS is involved. Inmate income tax fraud is not new, and it is not uncommon; however enforcement is difficult. At the end of each year, our mailroom sees an influx of mail being sent to the IRS by the same inmates. Some of these inmates are in the county jail on appeals and have been in prison for years and have no need to file income tax returns. In 2009, Florida was number one in the country for inmate income tax fraud, where inmates claimed a total of $295 million dollars in tax refunds they were not owed. $39 million was actually paid to prisoners. An attempt was made to change internal policies and procedures, but was unsuccessful in changing our policy because our policy mirrors the policy of the FMJS. It is requested that an addition be made to the policy to allow for review of a letter to determine if letters contain plans to commit, conspiracy to commit, or evidence of the commission of any local, state, or federal law violations.
Discussion: Major Allen stated the only difference in this standard is adding a number seven (7). Everything else is the same up to number six (6). It says, “The letter contains plans to commit, conspiracy to commit, or evidence of the commission of any local, state, or federal law violations.” If you see the rationale for revision, Hillsborough County has experience quite a lot of fraud that is occurring through the IRS system. Not unlike Hillsborough we see it too, and he believes that other jails will also be experiencing this. Currently, FMJS standards do not allow us to open mail for that reason, which is if they are committing a crime. Sometimes during tax season we’ll see inmates get hundreds of tax forms and then later on we’ll see them getting thousands of dollars in checks from the IRS. Of course an investigation ensues, but they would like to try and stop it before it gets there, than to have them file the fraudulent claims. This was the reason why.
Lt. Owens asked for any comments or discussion.
Motion: Ms. White made a motion to accept, which was seconded by Commander McGowan. All in favor, motion passes unanimously.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – David Utter
Standard: 20.02 (h)- Use of Force- All use of force reports shall be retained in compliance with the General Records Schedule and Chapters 119 and 257 of the Florida State Statutes and made available to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
Proposal: All use of force reports shall be retained in compliance with the General Records Schedule and Chapters 119 and 257 of the Florida State Statutes and copies of all use of force and incident reports involving juveniles shall be transmitted to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
Rationale: Use of force reports against juveniles must be provided to DJJ in order for that agency to be able to provide appropriate treatment and rehabilitation to youth who may end up in its custody.
Discussion: Mr. Utter came to the podium. He stated this was an issue in the past. Looking back at the past minutes, he understands this was actually part of the initial draft of Chapter 20, was that this was going to happen. There was a lot of discussion about it; it was removed. He would be interested to hear what Polk County does on this and Marion County. He understands that in Seminole, these are put in the juveniles’ file and the file just goes with the juvenile where the juvenile goes. He thinks it is a good practice, especially if they go to a program. It’s important that the program knows everything that happened, if it unsubstantiated. Even if the juvenile had the experience, it is important for whoever is providing the treatment. So, if Polk’s doing that, Marion’s doing it, but whether it’s sending use of force reports as it happens, or something that says anything that happens to the kid goes and stays in the file and the complete file is transmitted. When we talked about this last summer, it’s important that the treatment provider know what’s happened to the child.
Commander McGowan asked if there was mechanism for DJJ to receive such a report. Mr. Utter said he would have to leave that to DJJ to answer. JJIS is an active system.
Lt. Owens stated he believed they would get that answer. Lt. Owens asked Lt. Savarese to help them with this issue.
Dr. Hough came to the podium. He stated there was no argument against information. It is always good. The DRAI that they referred to yesterday provides information when a juvenile moves on to a longer term residential treatment facility. JJIS is not available to all agencies. That would require, again, a burden. There would be a cost and just the transmission of records for all of the Sheriff Offices within the State to a centralized location is an undue burden on those agencies and frankly, implies an oversight by the Department of Juvenile Justice on what the use of the records would be for. He knows that getting information back from entities can be problematic.
Lt. Owens asked if JJIS was web-based or on a server at the Agencies. Dr. Hough stated it was web-based.
Mr. Bernard Johns came to the podium. He stated that JJIS, web-based, is free. There is no cost. One just has to have the personnel who are going to access it attend a class to get access to it. However, the system itself is free. He also had made the offer to them that if they wanted to create a special alert for when force had to be used that Seminole would be willing to create the alert, however, they never created the alert and don’t seem to be that interested in it. Their PAR reports are transmitted to their Inspector General’s Office in Tallahassee, who review all that. Any time they have a response to resistance, they generate a disciplinary report and that goes in the file and Seminole gives them the entire file and it transmits when they transfer to another facility. However, only one out of every thousand youth that enter the system is going to be committed and leave, so very few juveniles are going to be transmitting the records over to the Department. If they are going to another county, then yes. If they are going to be committed, they would get it. However, the typical youth who come through the facility, no one ever wants the records. They scan them and maintain them. Mr. Johns stated he was not sure what they would do with it once they go it. They are willing to provide it if they want it, but they don’t seem to want it.
Lt. Owens stated that he remembered in one of the earlier meetings that Mr. Bedson was discussing examining trends at the State level and felt it important that even under the circumstances that the juveniles were not being transferred to the State level programs; at least they wanted that information as well.
Mr. Johns stated they agreed upon in their discussions at that time, that if they wanted the information all they would have to do was ask and we would send them if requested, but they have not asked on a single juvenile. Other counties ask why we are sending all this stuff because we send more information than they send us. They don’t send that information back to us if we get a juvenile from them. We are just not sure what they would do with the information. The Inspector General’s Office handles that kind of thing.
Lt. Savarese of the Marion County Sheriff’s Office came to the podium. He stated that currently in Marion County they utilize the JJIS. As far as DJJ being in the blind so to speak and not knowing about a use of force or a disciplinary issue, they have a weekly meeting here which involves the juvenile probation officers, School Board, court liaison. There is not a time when we have a problematic youth that information is not brought up in that meeting. If a youth goes to court, it is brought up in court. No one is really ever in the blind if they have a problematic youth. If a youth does get sentenced to a moderate risk program, their first stop is across the street from me to DJJ, and off to the program they go. When the juvenile is transferred, we will call them and give them a warning. Reports are kept on file here, but like Mr. Johns stated, Lt. Savarese has never had them ask for a report. We voluntarily provide them with the information. They enter it into JJIS.
Major Allen came to podium. He stated this will probably sound familiar, but they also use JJIS. They are one of the ones who stood here and said they understand the need for JJIS. Some counties said they did not want to double input; Polk County stated they wanted the historical information that he is referring to. If they get a youth and they want to get a look back to all the programs that youth has been in, and how he’s been acting. They find out from that if the juvenile has been a suicide risk, if he was an escape risk and so forth. There is a way to put alerts in the system, which they utilize on a regular basis. They have their own records management system and if anyone wanted to know they could come down and get the youth’s file. In addition, they use a behavior management system which has a sheet which shows different behaviors. That is given to the juvenile probation officer. All the youth know that if you go to school and you do what you’re supposed to do, don’t get in fights, when the juvenile probation officer goes to court, they will give a positive report. If the juvenile has been acting up, it has been recorded, the judge has it there and the judge can do whatever he needs to. As far as they are concerned, the information is being shared the best way they can do so. Major Allen stated he would caution that all agencies do not use the same documentation. We are under F.S.S. 119, so if they want the information, it’s available, come ask. He stated they have been asked and they give them whatever information they have asked for. If he was to get a report from another agency, it’s not going to look the same and we would not want to have another agency do a use of force report the way it would need to be for DJJ. They ran a boot camp for many years and know the paperwork they require. It is DJJ paperwork and it is in their format. Major Allen stated he believes that was the issue initially. Counties did not want to change everything they do because they are taking on those pre-adjudicated youth. The information is there and for Mr. Utter’s information, Seminole uses it, Marion uses it now and so does Polk.
Lt. Owens asked for any discussion from the Subcommittee. Capt. Ross stated that he felt that making it available was sufficient. That was a form of making it available. He believes its fine as written. This was discussed quite a bit when this first came up. Commander McGowan said that going back to his original question, is there a mechanism for DJJ to accept any of this information. Lt. Owens stated that in retrospect there were some compatibility issues discussed and as Major Allen pointed out the platform is quite different. He asked for any further discussion or motions to change the language of this standard.
Motion: No motion is entertained. This will remain the same.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – David Utter
Standard: 20.02 (a &b)- (a) Each agency shall develop policies and procedures on use of force, which is consistent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Use of Force Continuum and/or the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) Use of Force Continuum regarding resistance and control techniques as well as local, state and federal laws. FDLE approved training for certified corrections officers is required, FDJJ approved training for non-corrections certified employees is required.
(b) Each agency will adopt a comprehensive annual training program for employees consistent with policies and procedures and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Use of Force Continuum and/or the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) Use of Force Continuum regarding resistance and control techniques.
FDLE approved training for certified corrections officers is required
Proposal: (a) Each agency shall develop policies and procedures on use of force, which is consistent with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) Use of Force Continuum regarding resistance and control techniques as well as local, state and federal laws. FDJJ approved training for non-corrections certified employees are required.
(b) Each agency will adopt a comprehensive annual training program for employees consistent with policies and procedures and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) Use of Force Continuum regarding resistance and control techniques. FDJJ approved training for non-corrections certified employees is required
Rationale: The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice's use of force policy was designed specifically to apply to juveniles and is more appropriate to the juvenile population than the FDLE's. Therefore this proposal is based on research and best practices and provides detained youth with an environment more conducive to the goals of the juvenile justice system. It recognizes the distinct needs of children, generally incorporates national best practice, and ensures that facilities operate in a constitutional manner.
Discussion: Prior to any discussion, Mr. Utter would like to withdraw this revision and submit it at a later time.
Motion: Withdrawn.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – David Utter
Standard: 20.02 (j & k)- J) Agency approved chemical and electronic weapons may be accessible in the juvenile facility to certified corrections officers.
(k) Agency approved chemical agents and electronic weapons shall only be used by certified corrections officers trained in their use, when the use of force is necessary, when this level of force is the least likely to cause injuries to staff or youths, and only if in compliance with and if authorized by the policy and procedure directives for the facility. In all cases where chemical
agents or electronic weapons are used on youths, each youth shall be examined by medical personnel as soon as practical. Acknowledgment of the medical examination shall be annotated on the Use of Force report.
Proposal: Chemical agents shall only be used on juveniles by certified officers when requested to respond to juvenile detention facilities during exigent circumstances that pose a serious risk of bodily harm and that cannot be controlled by existing juvenile corrections officers. Under no circumstances shall electronic weapons be used on juveniles. In all cases where chemical agents are used on juveniles, each juvenile shall be examined by a physician or other medical personnel as soon as practicable. Acknowledgment of the medical examination shall be annotated on the Use-of-Force report
Rationale: Chemical and electronic restraints are unnecessary in a juvenile detention setting. Their use is unnecessarily punitive and especially brutal, exposing juveniles to harm and counties to liability. The Florida Dept. of Juvenile Justice and Marion County have safely detained youth without their availability, except in emergencies, and the FMJS should be modified to reflect these best practices.
Discussion: Mr. Utter came to the podium. He stated this is a rehash of the issue of pepper-spray and tasers. Because we are talking about the juveniles in the correct spot, Chapter 20, he wants to take the opportunity to address something. He stated he did not have the opportunity to make a comment when Ms. Gibson made a statement about the trial last week. He has provided an editorial from Sheriff Judd’s hometown newspaper which talks about the case. He has talked with the lawyers who actually tried the case and based on those conversations and the update he received from the lawyers who were in the court room Tampa, we’re shocked that Ms. Gibson would be so bold as to say that their clients were not credible. What’s happening in Federal Court right now as the Judge stated that he wanted more evidence and he wants oral argument. We have all been in court before. Every time he (Mr. Utter) is court and one side presents a case that is frivolous, the Judge responds and rules quickly. That is not the case here. He thinks the discussion that Ms. Gibson gave of what happened in Tampa is a bit misguided. The second thing he would say is that this notion of irrefutable evidence about pepper-spray being less harmful than a physical intervention. That irrefutable evidence was provided by their expert, who is here. The last time he ran a detention center, he was demoted for bringing a gun into the facility. So if anyone was not credible, Mr. Utter stated it was not their clients. This is a chance for this Subcommittee to protect kids across the State from an unnecessary use of a very caustic and harmful chemical agent. Federal Court may well rule against their clients, but he also may say there is some serious problems with its use. The point he is trying to make is that what the law says, what the law allows is a very low threshold for what is Constitutional. This is a policy-making group that is supposed to be making policy that protects juveniles across the State. That is a heavy responsibility. A heavy duty you have and what we’re arguing for here is not what we think should be the case. That is they believe pepper-spray should not be allowed to be used on children, ever. This argument that it is used by SRO’s; we don’t believe that is right either. We have class action certification in Birmingham, Alabama where they have maced over 200 kids over the past five years. We don’t think juveniles should be pepper-sprayed. There are better ways to resolve conflict. This position they are taking here is consistent with Marion County. He stated he did not know if Seminole has pepper-spray in the building. If you are going to use it, it should be saved for exigent circumstances, which has been the policy for kids for the past 10-20 years when the DJJ was supervising juveniles. Tasers should not be used on
juveniles, ever. Mr. Utter wanted to submit a copy of the Lakeland Ledger article into the record formally.
Mr. Dennard came to the podium. He stated he can say from his involvement with FMJS since its inception in 1996 and with these individuals on the panel, it was tough for us last year to go through this. There is no one on the panel who took anything we decided or recommended to the Committee, who took it lightly. One of the things which were discussed was not taking the tools away from these Sheriffs and Jail Administrators to use. They are only tools. The law allows doing certain things, but we have to be reasonable in the things we do. With that said, with his involvement in FMJS, he has never seen it where it has been, where it’s County against County. We’re here to rule on standards that affects all jails, not just Polk, not comparing Marion or Seminole. He would hate to see us get off on the tangent because Marion does not do it, and Polk does it this way, that’s not what this Subcommittee is here for. We are not here to litigate any issues that are on-going. We are here to look at standards. Do we care about kids; absolutely. There are no correctional professionals and we were called guards yesterday; that’s not what we do. We are just as professional as anyone else in criminal justice. That’s what we prefer to be referred to as is correctional professionals. That is what they are and they practice that every day. If we keep on in the mindset that Marion does this and Polk does something else, it just devalues what the Subcommittee is here for.
Ms. Anne Gibson of Polk County Sheriff’s Office came to the podium for the record. She said that she does not like to be up here and her goal is to not have to be here at the podium in front of the Subcommittee. Again, Mr. Utter has brought up the lawsuit as he did yesterday about Polk County. It would not be discussed if Mr. Utter would not bring it up. As stated, Ms. Gibson did state on the record what Polk’s position was as to the evidence that was presented. She will maintain her oath as they all as attorneys have to maintain of civility and honesty and will say; clearly, submitting editorials from the Lakeland Ledger is not evidence. Goodness knows, newspapers do not always present both sides as they most certainly have not done in this case in her opinion. Ms. Gibson stated she must also point out that it was a very “low blow” that Mr. Utter just made about Dr. Hough that the evidence does not support. Dr. Hough was promoted to Chief after that. There are issues that may come from that after this.
In the uncontroverted evidence in the case, absolutely was that pepper-spray reduces the potential for injury and risk of injury in every single case. They had two expert witnesses: Gary Delann and Dr. Hough. Southern Poverty Law chose not to present any evidence in that case, at all, so it was uncontroverted pepper-spray, in her opinion, reduces the risk of injury. There was no use of force expert from the other side. She appreciates, and knows the Subcommittee will be able to separate, once again, fact from fiction and the credence that should be placed on such items as editorials. She would also hope that people would leave personalities out of this issue. This room has no place for personality issues and it has no place for low blows. Everyone is here trying to do the best thing for the children and for the community and the State of Florida and that kind of behavior has no room here. She thanked everyone for their professionalism.
Dr. Hough came to the podium. He stated that Mr. Utter’s actionable lie will be forwarded to the Bar for something that he was not present at, utterly unfactual, is pretty outrageous. It speaks to SPLC’s no holds barred attempt to influence the agencies here in the State. This is very unfortunate that he would lie in this way and it is unbelievably reprehensible. As to the issue that we look at and his expertise as a use of force expert for many years, we return to what we discussed yesterday, which is putting tools in the hands of professionals, to hopefully, as Ms. Gibson said, to protect the children in our communities, to protect the inmates in the facilities and to protect the value and health of the staff against increased potential for injury and the danger that might incur with the withdrawn standard prior to this one. The same note that in an attempt to move away from FDLE CJSTC continuum and training issues, it takes away tools that the agencies need to utilize.
Mr. Utter came back to the podium and stated he apologized if he offended anyone. He just wants to point out that while there may not have been a use of force of expert there; he stated he was not. There was juvenile justice expert and Chapter 20 deals with juvenile justice. The question here is that how Sheriffs here who decided to house juvenile justice kids, how to they treat them. He stated he understands that everyone in this room is a use of force expert, but this is a chapter about juvenile justice. One of the things, in know that the Subcommittee writes the standards and there is an accreditation and inspection process, there is now a body of videotape, a body of evidence that has come from the Federal Court that, independent observers witnessed and saw some problems. Mr. Utter stated that he would hope that when Mr. Dennard’ s accreditation teams go into these facilities and monitor them for compliance with Chapter 20, to see whether pepper-spray is being used properly, that they look at some of the evidence and look at these tapes. Mr. Utter stated that the reason he spoke so forcefully about uncontributed and credible evidence is because Ms. Gibson gave her opinion about the credibility of my clients. That is a judgment call by the Court and he understands she has her judgment call, but that is a United States Magistrate and he’ll have to make that (decision) and we look forward to that; however, he was defending his clients and their credibility. That’s what that was about. Mr. Utter stated he urged when these places are inspected that they look at the evidence which is presented.
Ms. White would like clarify one point. There are two different processes here. There is the Florida Model Jail Inspections, which is what Florida Model Jail is responsible for; they are minimum standards. There are accreditation standards from other accrediting bodies, not from the Florida Model Jail Standards and there are different rules and guidelines and standards for those things.
David Harvey of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office came to the podium. He stated that what he currently had in front of him is the checklist for the juvenile detention facility. This is strictly what one uses to inspect the facility. As Ms. White stated, the accreditation process is totally separate. When the inspectors go in, all they are doing is checking off what’s here. On the use of force it says, “Does the facility have a written policy on use of force for juveniles?” “If force is used, a written report is generated to the Officer-in-Charge or designee.” “Is the youth examined by medical personnel, as soon as practical following an incident with use of force?” “Are Agency-approved chemical and electronic weapons accessible to Juvenile Correctional Officers for exigent circumstances?” “Is there an electronic video recording system maintained for at least 30 days in the Juvenile Detention Facility?”
Mr. Dennard stated he just wanted to re-emphasize what Ms. White brought up. An accreditation inspection is totally different from our annual jail inspection. Number one, to answer Mr. Utter, Mr. Dennard stated he does not have any team which he supervises as far as inspections. Once inspectors are trained, they are independent. They can be notified by any jail administrator to conduct an inspection. On occasion, when asked, he does a jail inspection. Also when asked, he does an accreditation audit for FCAC and ACA. When he goes there, it is very serious business. The liability is what we look at. If there are some
issues, he will bring it to the jail administrator’s attention. He stated he is very slow and methodical in the way he does an inspection. It is the responsibility we have to our profession, the taxpayers and the juveniles. In the almost thirty years, he has never “looked the other way.” Lt. Savarese can tell you that he couldn’t wait until Mr. Dennard left, and even after he left, he called him looking for information. We do take this very seriously. When we go out as a team, do we look at this stuff; absolutely. We are in the service of the Sheriff, the jail administrators and taxpayers. We take this seriously.
Ms. Bobbi Pohlman with G4S Youth Services came to the podium. She stated that she personally did not care to see juveniles hit with chemical agents or Tasers. It’s a personal preference; she’s a mom. However, the Senate Bill 2112, as well as the State Statute now requires that Counties or Sheriffs first are either accredited by the Florida Corrections Accreditation Commission or the ACA; and they have to have a yearly FMJS audit. In front of her, she has the Standards ACA for Juvenile Detention Facilities that does allow for the use of chemical agents. Her concern is making this more restrictive than what they currently allow for their accreditation.
Lt. Owens stated that he would like to remind everyone that from the very beginning of this process they had the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, the ACLU, the SPLC, the NAACP, the Disability Rights Florida, and does he need to continue. Lt. Owens stated he does not mean to enter into any discussion of he said/she said. This is not a proper venue for litigation. If we would like to postpone indefinitely any remaining submissions, we can do that. He would like to caution everybody in the audience to stop it now. It’s not productive. All groups in this room were productive in the beginning and there is a lot of talent in this process. He would dislike to see that go away. Let’s recollect ourselves and approach this in a manner consistent with decorum. If anyone has a conflict with that, he will entertain that now.
Lt. Owens asked for Subcommittee discussion. Captain Ross stated he would like to say a couple of things. He thanked Lt. Owens for his statement, it needed to be said. We keep talking about problems with the inappropriate use of chemical agents or Tasers or whatever Mr. Utter keeps referring to. They want people to look at video during an inspection. All of that is a problem with an employee, not the standard. We’re here to talk about standards. We are not only here to protect juveniles, we are here to balance the protection of juveniles, inmates, the community and staff. Those are the things we have to be concerned with, not just the juveniles.
Motion: There was no motion to change the language. Standard remains the same.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – David Utter
Standard: 20.04 – Suicide Prevention:
Proposal: Facilities that house juveniles shall be responsible for consulting with mental health professionals and designing mental health assessments and appropriate interventions for youth deemed to be a suicide risk, and guidelines on when and how youth are taken off suicide watch.
Rationale: The proposal is based on research and best practices. It recognizes the distinct needs of children, generally incorporates national best practice, and ensures that facilities operate in a constitutional manner.
Discussion: Mr. Utter came to the podium. This just says that for those facilities that have juveniles that they shadow mental health professionals and develop mental health assessments and incorporate those into the agency. It is apparent on its face and nothing else needs to be said.
Major Allen just wanted to offer a suggestion for the language. He stated he understood the importance of a mental health assessment and at the juvenile detention center, it is done there. Then, when they get to their facility, it is done again. Sometimes they say one thing at one place and something else at another. This is for consistency and for their protection. If they want to hurt themselves, we would like to know. Major Allen stated that he wanted to offer this. It’s very difficult sometimes for people to put on paper, when you read that and try to follow that standard. What’s said and actually doing it are two different things. “Facilities that house pre-adjudicated juveniles shall be responsible for consulting with mental health professionals in accordance with an agreement with a mental health authority licensed in the State of Florida for the provision of medical and mental health services.” Major Allen stated he did not believe there is a jail in Florida that runs without medical and mental health services. They all know the risks associated with not doing that. He agrees with Mr. Utter that we need to ensure that the mental health is reference in there because when he looked through the standard he could not find it. It does say medical and it does say we shall contact the medical and it be licensed in the State of Florida, but we should put the mental health reference.
Mr. Johns came to the podium. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Utter. In Seminole County they have a mental health professional visit every child in confinement and every juvenile on suicide watch every day, seven days and they are on call 24/7. He does think there needs to be something that’s measurable in bold. It’s nice to make a broad statement, but there needs to be something in there. It has to be implemented, so we’re going to have to say how to implement. He is not opposed to this, but there has to be understanding of what it means.
Major Allen stated he forgot to ask when he was up here if he could submit this for consideration the change. Lt. Owens asked him to read it for the record one more time. Facilities that house pre-adjudicated juveniles shall be responsible for consulting with mental health professionals in accordance with an agreement with a mental health authority licensed in the State of Florida for the provision of medical and mental health services.
Mr. Utter stated that it’s not his language. He stated he does not know who is licensed in the State of Florida and therefore cannot comment.
Ms. White stated she liked this one. She made a motion for acceptance as amended by Major Allen. Lt. Owens stated he has a recommendation for the Subcommittee to table this over to the Medical Subcommittee. They are working on two or three other Chapter 20 issues and does not claim to have medical or mental health expertise. He agrees with everyone that there is value in this; however, the audience should be the FMJS Medical Subcommittee. Commander McGowan stated he has no problem with using the language that Major Allen submitted. Lt. Owens suggested submitting both revision requests and let the Medical Subcommittee make the decision and find the common language that fits the legality of the issue and the contribution to the youth.
Mr. Utter stated that Mr. Johns had a point in reference to this measurability. That’s a fine idea. Lt. Owens stated we will put it on the record that 20.04 will be submitted to the Medical Subcommittee and will forward it to the chair.
Motion: Tabled; forwarded to the Medical Subcommittee.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – David Utter
Standard: 20.07- Activities and Programs
Proposal: Facilities that house juveniles shall design programs that keep youth engaged in pro-social and healthy activities and out of their cell for the full day (8 a.m. to 8 p.m.). Youth shall be provided the opportunity to participate in constructive activities that will benefit the youth as follows: (a-d).
Rationale: This proposal is based on research and best practices. It recognizes the distinct needs of children, generally incorporates national best practice, and ensures that facilities operate in a constitutional manner. Facilities that house juveniles are responsible for their physical and intellectual development for as long as they are in their custody.
Discussion: Mr. Utter stated this gets to the issue he spoke about in his opening. It gets to much of what Mr. Dixon spoke about. He would urge the Subcommittee not to focus too much on the hours, the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. It could be different hours. The important thing is that Sheriffs who decide to house juveniles have them engaged in pro-social activities every waking minute if possible. The ACA standards talk about giving juveniles down time to write home, 30 – 40 minutes, an hour a day, a week, and he’s fine with that. He understands that they have spoken about a lot of expensive things for instruction. This is what makes juveniles more expensive. This is and the medical and mental health items. Keep them busy and provide them with a sound behavior management program, you are going to have far fewer problems. There is no question about that. There is nothing in the standards now which talks about the responsibility the Sheriffs have to keep juveniles busy. Again, he thinks this Subcommittee should be striving something beyond legal liability. This may be what the inspections are about. You are not going to get sued on this stuff if you don’t do this, however, juvenile detention is supposed to be a gateway to treatment. You have them for such a short period of time, but having a program that keeps them busy is going to make staff happier, and the juveniles happier.
Dr. Hough came to the podium. He stated that handling the jail populations as they do, it is true about the brief period of time and what they are able to do with anyone during a brief stay. Next to the exercise yard, the next popular was the literacy lab. He took seized drug money and a grant from the school board and created a touch screen literacy lab in 1992. The juvenile boot camp was one of the biggest components that he had. The structured activities during the day are beneficial to the staff and the juveniles. He stated he went out on his own and together with another employee they started a chaplaincy program. He brought in the retired senior volunteer program, Narcotics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous, Youth for Christ and most of this was without any consultation or recommendation from DJJ to do so. This is what the research tells us that structured activities are very important. He would agree that the hours, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., be cautious about limiting what correctional agencies must do. He gives strong encouragement to having a set of vibrant, day-long activities.
Lt. Owens asked for the Subcommittee input. Lt. Owens asked Mr. Utter what a-d was. He stated he did not have the document in front of him. Mr. Utter stated he did not have Chapter 20 with him. Mr. Utter stated he took it straight from Chapter 20. Lt. Owens stated he had a copy now. Mr. Utter stated the important language is the fact that they shall have a designed program and that program includes these four things, gender-specific education, educational programming, and recreation. The key is not being changed; it’s the requirement that they have something for the juveniles 10-12 hours a day.
Commander McGowan stated they could remove the times that they have in here because it’s arbitrary. We remove that from the document as it’s presented, would that be acceptable. Mr. Utter stated that it would. Lt. Owens stated he wanted to take a piece of advice from Dr. Hough’s comments. He thinks the word design might be imprudent and the word “implement” might be better. The thought process is there is expertise in the field that we should implement from and he is not sure that he or his peers want to claim expertise to actually design the program. If he may interject that if they use the word implement instead of design. Mr. Utter stated that he agreed and wanted to note that different geographical regions are going to have different elements. Each geographic region would have its own “flavor” for this.
Major Allen asked them to explain again what it is going to say. Lt. Owens stated they are going to take out the time reference and it shall read, “Facilities that house juveniles shall design programs that keep youth engaged in pro-social and healthy activities and out of their cell for the full day. Lt. Owens stated maybe they should not say full day. Major Allen stated that was why he was at the podium. When we say full day and we say all and never, those are terms that are very hard for us to live by. He stated he lives by what’s in black and white. Those are their rules and regulations. So, he is concerned when we say we have to do things, all day, never do this. He does have some alternative language which may help; both with what Mr. Utter would like to see in there and from my perspective in running a facility so he can live with that. Major Allen stated, “Facilities that house juveniles shall develop a daily schedule clearly outlining the dates and times for every youth activity.” This would cover all the activity that you have to provide. What that would do for an organization like SPLC. If they want to see if an agency is doing what they say they do, he will give them a piece of paper, he will give them the schedule, everything we do. We currently have that and we live by that schedule. Does it say that all youths have to be out of their cells at all times? No. Because, Major Allen stated, a behavior management system would not allow that. There are consequences for bad behavior. Some of that may be that a juvenile would not get to come out of their cell where we have pizza parties and Coke and all the movies and play games and all the things they do. What do you do with a youth who is unruly and cannot participate in those activities? Sometimes you have to place them away from other youth in their cell. They are limited in their space and do not know that their facility can live with the all-day language in this standard revisions request.
Ms. White asked Major Allen to repeat the language of the standard revision request he just proposed. “Facilities that house juveniles shall develop a daily schedule clearly outlining the dates and times for every youth activity.” Then, we would follow with the same language that is in 20.07. “Youth shall be provided the opportunity to participate in constructive activities that will benefit the youth as follows:” and keep the same wording. Major Allen stated that he believes this will give Mr. Utter what he is asking for, which is to see if we are just locking them up or are we letting them do things during the day and
keeping them busy. Major Allen stated he agrees that when they are busy they behave a little better than when they are not.
Lt. Owens stated that he, too, would like to offer some language. If we just put a period after the word “activities,” in Mr. Utter’s original submission. It could read that, “Facilities that house juveniles shall implement programs that keep youth engaged in pro-social and healthy activities.” Then, we don’t block his agency in or any other agency for the future on the full day issue, nor do we box them on the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The second sentence could stand on its own as written. Again, it would give all Sheriffs an opportunity to implement those programs you feel most progressive for the youth, to block the full day issue away and getting the time designation away.
Capt. Ross has a question. How are we defining health activities and pro-social activities? If we put that language in there how do we establish compliance? He doesn’t think that changing the wording changes the standard. We are offering programs, we’re offering activities, and we have a through d. He believes that compliance is going to be the same. Whether you are offering programs or not, it doesn’t change the standard and it doesn’t change compliance for an inspector.
Lt. Owens stated that the term “pro-social” is the most significant change that he sees, philosophy-wise in your submission, Mr. Utter. To add to Capt. Ross’ discussion, it seems that to change the focus of a staff member looking for programs to implement, that could help more clearly define 20.07.
Mr. Utter stated the alternative here, “pro-social”, juvenile delinquency has a long list of pro-social, protective and there are a number of different phrases that cover this stuff. It’s religion, education, recreation. The problem with being more explicit and list those things, but then there would be more pressure.
Capt. Ross stated that if we say “pro-social” it encompasses plans they are already doing; that they are already required to do. He stated he does not see where the standard has been changed at all. Some language has been added, but he does not see any additional quality. There is pro-social and health. Who does that? If the agency defines it then we already have programs and activities.
Mr. Utter stated he believes it is well defined in the body. In doing some juvenile delinquency research, he believes the problem with the way the standard is currently written is that one can satisfy the standard with the five hours of school, the hour of recreation and that’s it. The juvenile is now idle.
Capt. Ross stated those activities are pro-social; recreation and school are pro-social. So by definition, we have met the standard doing the minimum, which you just defined.
Mr. Utter stated the proposal he has would have it mandatory that Sheriffs who have juveniles have the juveniles’ active for that full day. He understands Major Allen’s concern about the word “full”. Mr. Utter stated he believes it needs to stay in there. There needs to be something that says you have to keep the juvenile active for the full day. He understands that might be too prescriptive. Lt. Owens hit the nail on the head for the most important stuff; it’s pro-social and healthy and it’s this notion of keeping the juvenile busy all day. He understands the concern.
Capt. Ross stated he believes the goal, if it’s the full day, he would object to that language. The hours and defining the hours and the full day; if not for that, if we leave the language out, it doesn’t change the requirement of the standard.
Lt. Owens made a motion that the standard be changed to read that, “Facilities that house juveniles shall implement programs that shall keep youth engaged in pro-social and healthy activities. Youth shall be provided the opportunity to participate in constructive activities that will benefit the youth as follows: a-d). Is there a second? Commander McGowan stated he felt that the first sentence needed to be reworked entirely. This is Chapter 20 and we already house juveniles. We’re coming down to the fact we need a sentence that says we will implement programs. It needs to start there and change the redundant words in the standard.
“Facilities shall implement programs that provide youth pro-social and healthy activities. Youth shall be provided the opportunity to participate in constructive activities that will benefit the youth as follows: a-d).
Commander McGowan stated that will prevent anyone from handing them coloring books and crayons.
Lt. Owens stated he retracts his submission and adds this, ““Facilities shall implement programs that provide youth pro-social and healthy activities. Youth shall be provided the opportunity to participate in constructive activities that will benefit the youth as follows: a-d).”
Motion: Lt. Owens made the motion to accept. Commander McGowan seconded. All in favor signify by saying Aye. One dissenting vote cast. Motion carries.
There was a short break.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – David Utter
Standard: 20.08- Youth shall not be housed in direct supervision units unless approved by the facility classification process in accordance with 951.23 (4), Florida State Statutes.
Proposal: Any facility that houses juveniles shall have juveniles directly supervised, with a direct care staff ratio of 1 staff per 8 youth during waking hours and 1:10 during non-waking hours
Rationale: The proposal is based on research and best practices indicating that direct supervision provides detained youth with an environment more conducive to the goals of the juvenile justice system. It recognizes the distinct needs of children, generally incorporates national best practice, and ensures that facilities operate in a constitutional manner.
Discussion: Mr. Utter stated the only thing he would add here, again, it’s not about the numbers, it’s about having staff in the unit, engaging with the juveniles. We understand that DJJ is not perfect. We understand that there are improvements that can be made in the way DJJ runs its facilities. The argument is that once Sheriffs decide to take children, it’s a heavy responsibility. Again, this about setting as high a bar as possible for the Sheriffs who seek to
take juveniles into custody. It’s about uniformity so that a juvenile in Escambia is treated as well as one in Collier.
An unidentified audience member came to the podium. He stated that the Department of Juvenile Justice does not utilize staffing ratios. It is not supported by research that this number will provide something other than what the agencies are doing now.
Lt. Owens asked for any Subcommittee discussion.
Motion: No motion to change. Standard remains the same.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – Paul Liles
Standard: 20.06- Behavior Management- Rules and regulations governing the conduct of youths and visitors shall be posted and available to each youth and all visitors.
a) A systematic behavioral management system of consequences and rewards shall be in place to encourage positive behavior from the youths.
b) The use of drugs to control youth behavior is prohibited, foregoing the administration of medication as prescribed by a licensed physician.
Proposal: 20.06- Behavior Management- Rules and regulations governing the conduct of youths and visitors shall be posted and available to each youth and all visitors.
a) A systematic behavioral management system of consequences and rewards shall be in place to encourage positive behavior from the youths.
b) The use of drugs to control youth behavior is prohibited, foregoing the administration of medication as prescribed by a licensed physician.
c) The use of manual or mechanical restraint to control youth behavior is prohibited except in instances where a youth is actively engaged in self-harm and no less restrictive methodologies would be effective in preventing that behavior, and then only on the order of a qualified mental health professional.
d) Under no circumstances shall youth be subject to manual or mechanical restraint for more than four (4) hours.
1. While in mechanical or manual restrain, youth must be under constant, close observation by a staff person with documented checks no less frequently than every five (5) minutes.
e) The use of aversive physical stimuli or devices (not including the reasonable use of manual or mechanical restrain) to control youth behavior is prohibited.
Rationale: This proposal is based on research and best practices indicated the restraint of youths should be minimized, except when necessary to protect the youth or others from harm, and no other less restrictive methodology would be effective in preventing the behavior, which is more conducive to the goals of the juvenile justice system. This proposal recognizes the distinct needs of children, generally incorporates national best practices, and ensures that facilities operate in a constitutional manner.
Discussion: Lt. Owens stated that Mr. Liles was not here. Lt. Owens asked Mr. Utter to contact Mr. Liles, even though we will be making contact with him by email, to attend the next meeting. This will be tabled until Mr. Liles can be present and have discussion.
Motion: Tabled until Mr. Liles can present.
Standards Review Subcommittee – Presenter – Bernard Johns
Standard: 20.13- New
Proposal: 20.13 Admission of Youth for Non-Criminal Reasons-
a) Out of state runaways who are a member of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) shall be held in secure detention in accordance with the requirements of the ICJ. Out of state runaways from States who are not a member of the ICJ may only be held in non-secure shelters unless the youth has a hold for a felony charge.
b) Youth being court-ordered to an Addictions Receiving Facility (ARF) may be held in secure detention when specifically required by court order to facilitate the transfer of youth to or from an ARF.
Rationale: The ICJ Administrator for the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice stated that juvenile detention centers must hold ICJ out of state runaways that are picked up locally in secure detention. Youth from non-ICJ states may not be held in secure detention unless they have a hold for a felony charge. FMJS Standards are silent on holding out of state runaways in secure detention. Florida Statutes address Florida’s commitment to participate in ICJ, but do not address this issue directly. Courts commonly order youth being sent to ARF to be: taken into secure detention, held in secure detention until the bed is available at an ARF, securely transported by detention to an ARF, securely transported by detention from an ARF, at the conclusion of an evaluation back to secure detention, and held in secure detention until the youth may appear back in front of the Court. FMJS standards are silent in regards to youth being securely detained and transported to and from an ARF by detention.
Discussion: Mr. Johns came to the podium. Florida Statute requires that we obey the Interstate Compact for Juveniles. It requires that youth who are picked up as runaways from Compact member states must be securely detained until they are returned home. If they are from a non-member State they cannot be detained but taken to a shelter unless they have a felony hold. In trying to track down the statutes it’s like trying to follow a rabbit trail. It took forever and he had to contact DJJ in Tallahassee and speak with the Compact Administrator in order to figure out what the statutes were. He would like to be very clear. We are required to hold them under Federal law. Also, we get quite a few juveniles whom the judges’ courts order to be transferred to a treatment facility and we have to bring them back and take them back to court.
Lt. Owens stated he just checked to make sure there was not a previous 20.13 existing so the numbering is correct. If eventually we vote to approve this, at this point 20.13 does not exist in the numbering system.
Mr. Dennard was speaking, however, there was too much background noise to decipher.
Mr. Johns stated that they spoke with DJJ to house these particular juveniles and was advised that it was their (Seminole) county and if they want the juveniles, they get them all.
Lt. Owens clarified that the juveniles that have been adjudicated and sent to DJJ in Seminole County….
Mr. Johns stated the juveniles he is referring to are not there on a criminal charge. They are either a runaway from out of state; they don’t take local juvenile runaways. They have to be an out of state, Compact juvenile. Now, Georgia is a non-Compact member State. If a kid from Georgia ends up in Florida they cannot be housed. They have to go to an abuse shelter. They just had a juvenile from California. They had to house them until they returned to California. It could be anywhere from a week to five or six months if they fight extradition.
Lt. Owens asked if before Seminole opened their facility if DJJ would take the juveniles.
Mr. Johns stated that DJJ would take them before. When we talked to them asked them to continue to house these youth, they said no.
Lt. Owens asked if there was any reason for DJJ to say no. Mr. Johns stated that DJJ advised it was their (Seminole) county and if we wanted to run the center, we get it all. We are not opposed to it, but we want to make it clear we’re not doing anything we’re not supposed to be. We never discussed either one of these issues. It never occurred to Mr. Johns until he got a phone call one day who asked about the ARF and that the facility was supposed to hold them. He stated he did not want to be held in contempt for not holding the juvenile because he can’t disobey the court order.
Lt. Owens stated there is a difference in a court order and the Compact Agreement. Mr. Johns stated it is in Florida Statute that we will follow the Compact Agreement. Ms. White asked if he had that statute number. Mr. Johns stated he did not, but would try to locate it.
Capt. Ross stated if we have the statute on the Compact, if there’s a court order, you will follow that. Does the Florida Model Jail Standards silence mean you can’t house them?
Mr. Johns stated it was very specific as to what we could house. When you look at those, neither one mentions the Compact or ARF kids in the criminal statutes. These are coming from different places that we never really covered. He just does not want there to be any confusion later.
Mr. Paul Lawson, Okaloosa County, came to the podium. He would argue that paragraph A states that those youth should go to a DJJ facility and not to a jail. They are not charged with a crime. They only reason they are being detained is because they are a runaway. In regards to paragraph B, Okaloosa and other counties are involved in litigation through the Department of Administrative Hearings with DJJ with regards to the billing. They juvenile should not be in a county jail. There has been a ruling on that. He has not read the entire thing, but in summary, the juveniles who are adjudicated, the counties should not be billed for those. They should not be in jail but in the custody of DJJ.
Ms. White stated that it is her understanding that it being in Chapter 20, we’re talking about those Sheriffs offices or counties that run youth detention centers here. This would not apply to any other facility.
Lt. Owens stated he agreed. We are only talking about those counties who choose to operate a pre-adjudicated youth detention facility.
Ms. Pohlman stated that in regards to paragraph A, she would respectfully submit it be changed to state, “shall be held only in secure juvenile only detention.” Under the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act, non-offenders or juveniles who have not been charged with alleged or having committed a crime may be held securely at any time, whether it’s a juvenile only facility or an adult facility with the exception of out of state runaways who must be held in a juvenile only detention facility. On B, she would like a little more time on this. She is requesting additional time before the Subcommittee rules on this so she make speak to Department of Juvenile Justice as to what exactly is going on with these youth. If they are being held securely and not being charged with an alleged crime, then there may be an issue of the violation of the Federal Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act.
Mr. Johns stated he could not find the statute, but would be willing to table this until the next Subcommittee meeting where he can have someone from DJJ be present and advise on this issue.
Lt. Owens stated it seems the focus is moving in the right direction. There are some caveats, sort of share sporadically through the audience. That is creating a bit of problem with, but we may feel that without further research to make a move one way or the other.
Ms. White stated that since it is Ms. Pohlman who has requested the additional time, she felt we should honor the request. Ms. Pohlman stated she will work with Mr. Johns on this. Lt. Owens asked if he would be willing to withdraw his submission and resubmit for the next meeting, to which Mr. Johns agreed. He stated he would ask the Compact Administrator to attend since she is the State expert on this.
Major Allen came to the podium. He stated this has nothing to do with the standard, but unfortunately he has to explain a few things which have been printed in the local paper. He stated if they wanted to conclude the meeting, he still needed to add it to the record.
Motion: Withdrawn.
Open Forum: Lt. Owens asked David Harvey to come to the podium. He wanted to add before Sergeant Harvey discusses the change over to Jacksonville. Isaiah and Sarrah Carroll have worked diligently over the last few months in providing and assisting us with the transition. By transition, most of you know, Sheriff Ed Dean has been Chair of the FMJS Committee for a number of years; since 2001 or 2002. Lt. Owens stated he would like to express his appreciation for him being an excellent guide. He is someone well-respected in his circle, but has heard many comments from people Lt. Owens has shared panel time with and audience members of his guidance. With that said, he would like to make this public that Sheriff Dean has a lot of great alliances in our community and around the State and one of his good friends is taking the reins. As you know, Sheriff Rutherford has been very helpful to the process. Many of you have met him in this room and he is taking the reins for the Chair position. With all due respect to the Sheriffs and the County Commissioners who serve on the
panel and with all due respect to the Florida Sheriff’s Association, Isaiah Dennard and Sarrah Carroll, he is very appreciative of that. The fact that Sergeant Harvey is standing here, is that he will assume Lt. Owens place on the Standards Review Subcommittee. With that, it is sort of a point now that we need to inform you on how that transition will take place. Perhaps even a thought on where the meetings might be held.
Sergeant Harvey stated he wanted to thank Lt. Owens and especially Lydia Hightower, who is not here today, for all the assistance she has given me. He stated he thought he knew the process, but Lydia really knows the process. The first meeting they are looking at will be in Jacksonville. Most of the accrediting bodies and most of the agencies who are accredited through FCAC, they will be putting out the legal notices. They plan on having the meeting in Jacksonville at the Keiser University located on the Southside of Jacksonville. It is a very nice facility. The date will most likely be the last of February 2013. Between now and then, he will be receiving all of the emails on the proposed changes and resubmittals. (Background noise).
Lt. Owens asked Sergeant Harvey to share his email address for submissions. Sergeant Harvey advised it is david.harvey@. Lt. Owens asked if he had the address for Keiser University. It is 6430 South Pointe Parkway, Jacksonville, Florida.
Lt. Owens stated they were looking forward to the change and asked if Mr. Dennard had any comments. Mr. Dennard stated that on behalf of the Florida Sheriff’s Association and with his involvement, he would definitely like to thank Lt. Owens for his assistance since he has been with the FSA. He stated that Lt. Owens and Lydia have been a great help. It’s been a long time since Sheriff Dean took over in 1998. He really has set a standard, a model for this. As this goes to Jacksonville, with Sheriff Rutherford, he is very enthusiastic about taking on this task. We have a lot of his staff here. He asked them to stand. They are very much involved in the process. They are going to do different things, but the goal of the Subcommittee is still the same. Jeff, Lydia and Major Laxton have truly been very open here in Ocala, always accommodating and it’s a lot to try and pull agencies together and make sure the inspections are done and make sure you do the right thing. For his involvement with them, he thanked Jeff, Lydia and Major Laxton. Lt. Owens thank Mr. Dennard for the kind comments.
Ms. White would like to add to that. She has been on the committee for several years now and she remembers when Lydia joined us in 2005. Before that Gary Harbin handled it all by himself, but she has been a tremendous asset to this Committee and Subcommittee, as well as to Lt. Owens. She does a tremendous amount of work and this is a full time job just about. There is always something going on with FMJS year round, so this is an extra duty that she has, as well as Lt. Owens and Lt. Owens has provided the direction and led the Committee with professionalism and diplomacy that is highly regarded and appreciated by the rest of the Committee members. They will be submitting a formal letter of Commendation request from the Florida Sheriff’s Association for that, but they would like to extend our appreciation and respect for everything you and Lydia have done. Lt. Owens thanked Ms. White.
Commander McGowan stated he was at a little bit of a loss for words (round of applause). Lt. Owens stated that was a first for Kevin. Sergeant Harvey stated he just wanted to make it clear that Lydia would still continue to receive the inspections until the end of the year. Jacksonville will start receiving them in January 2013. He stated he spoke with Lydia on Wednesday, and she said that it makes her nervous when it gets to the end of the year and
people are not submitting their reports. So believe me she will be calling you and emailing you; whatever it takes to get those reports in. The goal is, for quite a few years, they would make the report that not all of the counties had turned in their inspection reports. The goal is 100 percent every year.
Ms. White stated it was achieved for the first time last year. So that’s the goal.
Lt. Owens thanked Sergeant Harvey and asked Major Allen to come the podium. Major Allen stated he promised this will just take a minute. He stated he was made aware there was an article written in the local paper here. He doesn’t know the paper; all he knows is that it was written by a Bruce Ackerman from the Halifax Media Group. He has some quotes in here that says that, there was quote from Mr. Utter about the Polk County Jail. This was referencing juveniles being sprayed and thrown in isolation for behaving like kids behave- impulsively and irrationally. No amount of training is going to protect from pepper-spray and isolation misuse. Both need to be eliminated or severely circumscribed in its use. Major Allen stated the problem is they go on to say that he (Major Allen) said that effective action such as pepper-spray when they are not following orders or they are a physical threat, and a kid had not been sprayed for acting like a kid. Major Allen stated they don’t spray juveniles for throwing water. They spray for active physical resistance. If the juvenile actively resists and they go to hurt someone, then chemical or hands-on is used. He stated he just wanted to add this to the record and for everyone not to believe what they read in the paper.
Nancy Noonan came to the podium. She stated she is a retired educator from Pennsylvania living in Florida. She is working with Awake Marion Coalition and on the project team for juvenile justice. She just wanted to indicate to everyone that this has been very informative meeting. As a member of a progressive coalition, she is happy things are on the record. She is looking forward to the next meeting and seeing what clarifications may be made to those issues affecting juveniles. We’ve heard a lot of what goes in what section and she is not familiar in detail with all of that, but she appreciates what has taken place here today and yesterday. She sincerely hopes that as the Subcommittee considers the changes in the Florida Standards for Juvenile Justice, she hopes they will consider what is in the best interest of the children and making it as consistent county by county as possible.
Lt. Owens stated that again, for all the groups who are here, whoever you represent, the bottom line is yes, that theme you just spoke to, speaks loudest. We are all setting our goals on doing the best we can with juveniles in mind, staff in mind and the public in mind. He thanked her for those kinds and he thanked everyone who has attended. He stated if everyone will remember, day one, there was about 300 people in this room and it has trickled down to about 75 people, but he can’t say how important the 75 people are. Thank you again.
Motion to adjourn by Commander McGowan, seconded by Sergeant Delaere.
Meeting is adjourned.
-----------------------
FLORIDA MODEL JAIL STANDARDS REVIEW
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES (Unadopted)
Friday, September 21, 2012
09: 00 A.M.
Marion County Sheriff’s Office
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- florida bar association lawyer complaints
- business review agenda sample
- florida hospital association website
- florida hospital association annual meeting
- florida hospital association jobs
- powerpoint agenda template
- management review agenda examples
- florida head start association conference
- introduction meeting agenda sample
- florida healthcare association membership
- florida hospital association covid
- florida school board association website