U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Promoting Continuous Improvement and Accountability in Community Corrections

NCJ Number
204568
Journal
Corrections Today Volume: 66 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2004 Pages: 44-47
Author(s)
John Criswell; Eleese Davis
Date Published
February 2004
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Florida has taken the lead nationally in developing a statewide quality assurance system that promotes continuous improvement and accountability in one of the Nation's largest juvenile justice systems.
Abstract
Florida's Department of Juvenile Justice quality assurance system was implemented in October 1994. It was mandated by the State legislature to set standards for all juvenile justice programs operated by or under contract with the department. Florida is unique in having its juvenile justice department responsible for all programs and services in juvenile justice, either through contract or direct operations. This means it must develop standards for every operation from prevention programs through probation, detention, residential commitment, and aftercare. In developing standards for all these operations, the agency invited every program provider in the State to meet with administrators and discuss all areas of best practice in their program type. The new standards were piloted statewide in 1994. During this year, quality assurance staff and peer teams evaluated 330 programs. The 28 quality assurance staff members serve as lead reviewers on program visits and are responsible for a team of juvenile justice professionals who assist in the program reviews. Every year, quality assurance standards are reviewed and improved by service providers, both State-operated and contractor operated. Issues addressed in the standards and in the quality assurance reviews are how programs can be more responsive to the needs of youths and how the value of the program can be increased for legislators and community stakeholders. A third objective is to determine how the system can change to better comply with standards. The majority of programs tend to be rated in the mid-range of performance. Each year since 1995 the curve has skewed slightly toward the higher performance ranges. The quality assurance system depends primarily on the updating of standards and the training of quality assurance personnel in reasonably objective assessments of programs in accordance with these standards. 4 tables