A: The most recent Common Definitions document contains cumulative details of how the output and outcome measures of program performance are defined and developed from available data. Click here for additional information on Common Definitions.

A: Each summer, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) begins the process of compiling its annual Comprehensive Accountability Report (CAR), which is used by legislators and policymakers to examine the effectiveness of individual programs. The process for compiling the current year’s report typically begins around the start of the calendar year by extracting from the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) a list of youth released from each DJJ program during the study period. This process is called Data Confirmation and gives providers the opportunity to review, confirm, and correct the data that is in JJIS to ensure accuracy. An instruction sheet and list of youth released from each program is sent to the program’s respective provider to check against their records, review for accuracy and bring to our attention: any missing youth, youth that should not be included during the study period, and verify admission dates, release dates, and release reasons that are consistent with provider records. The information sent to providers is password protected to ensure that all identifiable data is secured.

Any discrepancies between the program’s data and the information extracted from JJIS are indicated by the provider in the original spreadsheet sent and returned to the identified designee at the Department. Upon receipt of requested corrections, Data Integrity Officers review provider comments and make corrections to JJIS when necessary. Once this step is completed, final spreadsheets with DIO comments on the status of the original changes requested by the provider are returned to the provider (and follow-up conference calls are scheduled as necessary).

A: The following annual research reports are available from the Department (click on the link for additional information and to access that report):

• Comprehensive Accountability Report (CAR)
• Delinquency in Schools
• Disproportionate Minority Contact
• Delinquency Profile
• PACT Profile

Additional research and data can be found on our page under Reports as well as Fast Facts.

A: Contact the Chief of Research or the Research Staff Supervisor to find out about available research and data or to submit an ad-hoc request.

A: Programs and services are evaluated monthly (or as often as new performance data is available) on measures such as utilization, youth admitted, youth served, offenses during supervision, and other pertinent indicators (some that will be integrated over time). This data is available in the Current Performance Measurement Report (PMR).

A: The Data Integrity Officers have developed the JJIS Business Rules, which are available for review, that are the Data Entry Guidelines for system and user consistency statewide. Visit the Data Integrity / JJIS Webpage for additional information or to contact your local DIO.

A: Researchers may contact the Department’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) if they are interested in working with the DJJ on a research effort. In order to protect the rights of the youth, the IRB carefully reviews each research proposal.

A: The Positive Achievement Change Tool Assessment (PACT) and Case Management System is a comprehensive assessment and case management process that addresses both criminogenic needs and protective factors, from the moment a youth enters the system to the moment they exit. By outlining the most effective way to work with our youth, while providing efficiencies for staff and programs, we allow for the youth’s time in our care to be used as effectively as possible, and in turn, allow for a more successful effect in reducing their risk to re-offend.

Recognizing the differences in our continuum of care from intake to aftercare, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice has created assessment instruments and case planning tools that fit these specific environments while sharing the same foundational concepts. Assessments currently include the Community PACT (C-PACT) and the Residential PACT (R-PACT), with a Prevention PACT under development. Case planning tools include the Youth Empowered Success Plan and the Residential Performance Plan.

The PACT Profile is an interactive online data report. Data presented here are taken from the PACT Pre-Screen and Full Assessments completed in the State of Florida. Statewide information can be filtered by Region, Judicial Circuit, County, Gender and Race. Topic Views include Risk to Re-offend, Drug and Alcohol use, Mental Health Issues, Motives for Crime, School Family and Social issues and Criminogenic Needs.

A: Data Integrity Officers ensure that data and information is accurate throughout the Department of Juvenile Justice. Visit the Data Integrity / JJIS Webpage for additional information and to contact your local DIO.

A: The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is dedicated to the protection of youth in custody and under supervision from risks related to research studies. The Institutional Review Board has been assigned the task of reviewing and providing written approval for studies that meet the standards set by DJJ.

The DJJ IRB reviews research proposals that involve DJJ youth (e.g., direct contact with youth, access to individualized youth information) and/or occur within a DJJ program.  The IRB then provides recommendations to the Secretary’s designee to accept or reject the research proposal.

A: Researchers proposing studies that will involve entering a program or contacting program youth must obtain IRB approval prior to implementation. Researchers requesting identified or de-identified data must obtain IRB approval prior to receiving the data. This applies to all research for the purpose of generalized knowledge (e.g., journal articles, dissertations) and grant-funded research. Research involving program staff must also obtain IRB approval.

A: The instructional handbook and required forms are temporarily unavailable for public posting. Please contact the Director of the IRB for required application forms. The required forms are the IRB Coversheet and Application (also referred to as the “Questionnaire”). The instructional handbook describes how to complete the other required documents for submission. Most researchers will need to complete a departmental background screening prior to approval. This applies to all researchers except those solely requesting de-identified data.

A: If your question or concern is pertaining to the background screening process, please contact the Background Screening Unit directly at generalbsu@djj.state.fl.us or (850) 921-6345.

For other questions or concerns, please contact the IRB Director at (850) 413-0646 or jennifer.bates@djj.state.fl.us.

A: The Board meets on a quarterly basis. Please see the main IRB web page for a list of tentative meeting dates. Dates are subject to change.

A: Please see the main IRB web page for a list of proposal submission dates. The IRB will only accept proposal submissions via the mail. Electronic submissions will not be accepted. Proposals received after the submission deadline will automatically be held until the next submission cycle. The address to mail submissions can be found on the main IRB web page.

A: No.

A: Final proposal approval is active for 365 days from the time the Secretary’s delegate signs the Privacy & Security Agreement. Researchers may apply for an extension or renewal of their approved status.

A: The IRB Director will send approved Principal Investigators a notice generally 30 days before the project approval is set to end. This notice will provide the Principal Investigator an opportunity to initiate the extension/renewal process.

A: The Current PMR is part of the Department’s commitment to share program performance data on an ongoing basis with taxpayers and other stakeholders throughout Florida.  A variety of performance measures will be updated regularly for programs and services throughout Florida and made available on the Department’s web site.

A: Governor Scott and Secretary Walters firmly believe that programs should be continuously monitored and evaluated to ensure that they are providing appropriate and effective services to our youth.  Most of the measures available through the Current PMR system are already collected by the Department, and using the interactive tables, the information on programs providing services to youth will now be shared with the public in an easily accessible, user-friendly format.

A: The ranks will mean different things for different programs.  Readers are encouraged to review the “definitions” at the end of each area’s section of their performance measure page.

A: Many measures will be updated monthly, though some will be updated on a quarterly basis as data becomes available.

A: Programs are reviewed across a series of performance measures that may include more information than what is available through the Current PMR system.  All financial consequences are outlined in the program contract and through other state laws/policies.  The Current PMR system reflects measures that are already used to assess on-going program performance.

A: Again, programs are reviewed across a series of performance measures that may include more information than what is available through the Current PMR system.  Underperforming programs may face penalties during the current contract period and underperformance may affect opportunities for future funding from the Department.

A: Not necessarily.  The ranking system reflects how a program performs with regard to specific measures.  A program with a low rank on the “utilization rate” measure may provide excellent services to youth but simply struggle to serve enough youth to meet contractual standards.

A: Information for the Current PMR system is collected directly from the Department’s Juvenile Justice Information system (JJIS), prevention web or from program providers.

A: Detailed definitions of each measure will be provided for each performance table.  Readers are asked to review the definitions for each measure.