Skip navigation

FL DOC Department and Policy Review, Florida Law and Order Transition Team, 2010

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Governor-Elect Rick Scott
Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Executive Summary, Review and Report
Henree Martin
Linda Mills
Robert Woody
Paula Hoisington
List of Exhibits
1. Proposed DOC Organizational Chart
2. Current DOC Organizational Charts
3. PRIDE Materials
a. Inmate Workstations Count / Annual Revenues, 1984 – 2010
b. Employees Paid $50,000 per year or more
c. Consultancy (Lobbying) Contract A
d. Consultancy (Lobbying) Contract B
e. Correctional Industries Development Plan
4. Current Department Divisions and Bureaus
5. Total number of physical offices and locations by city
6. Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force, November 2006
7. Key Findings and Recommendations Based on the Governor’s Executive Order Requiring an
Inventory of Florida’s Employment Restrictions, January 2007
8. Smart Justice, February 2010
9. Florida TaxWatch Government Cost-Saving Task Force Report, December 2010
10. Right on Crime Statement of Principles, December 2010
INTRODUCTION
The transition team assigned to the Department of Corrections submits the attached report for your
consideration. This report reflects our findings and recommendations based on our interviews of
more than twenty people in senior management positions, as well as our review of scores of
documents and reports.
Our team had the distinct advantage of those who have gone before us and alongside us in seeking
reform of criminal justice and corrections policies and practices over the last six years. We endorse
and recommend the recommendations made by Governor Bush’s Ex-Offender Task Force, the
Department of Corrections Reentry Advisory Council, the Smart Justice Report of the Collins Center
for Public Policy, and the report of Florida TaxWatch’s Government Cost-Savings Task Force, which
was released this month. (Exhibits 6 through 9)

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 2

Each of the reports of these groups builds upon that
of the others and sounds the same theme: We are
spending billions of tax dollars locking people up
and getting very little value on the dollar. Sixty-six
percent of those incarcerated will be back within
three years and we will have to pay for that, too.
This, too, is the theme be sounded by the Right on
Crime campaign launched this month.
Conservatives, many of whom were instrumental in
passing the laws that have led to filling our prisons
at great cost, are re-evaluating such policies and
calling for criminal justice reforms that reduce
crime and reduce costs.
Right on Crime is lifting up the examples of states
across the country where conservatives have led
criminal justice reforms. Those states, including
Texas, South Carolina and Mississippi, have each
been assessing what has been driving their prison
growth and then enacted new laws and policies to
reverse that growth. Florida, however, has not.

Right on Crime
Conservatives are known for being tough on
crime, but we must also be tough on criminal
justice spending. That means demanding more
cost-effective approaches that enhance public
safety. A clear example is our reliance on
prisons, which serve a critical role by
incapacitating dangerous offenders and career
criminals but are not the solution for every type
of offender. And in some instances, they have
the unintended consequence of hardening
nonviolent, low-risk offenders—making them a
greater risk to the public than when they
entered.
Newt Gingrich, American Solutions for Winning the Future
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Edwin Meese, III, Former U.S. Attorney General
William J. Bennett, Former U.S. Secretary of Education and
Federal ”Drug Czar”
Asa Hutchinson, Former U.S. Attorney and Federal ”Drug
Czar”
Pat Nolan, Justice Fellowship
David Keene, American Conservative Union
Richard Viguerie, ConservativeHQ.com
Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries
Brooke Rollins, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Paul Gessing, Rio Grande Foundation
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
George Liebmann, Calvert Institute for Policy Research
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, American Alliance of Jews and
Christians
Kelly McCutchen, Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America
Ward Connerly, American Civil Rights Institute and former
Regent of the University of California
John J. DiIulio, Jr., University of Pennsylvania
Kevin Kane, Pelican Institute for Public Policy
Bob Williams, State Budget Solutions
J. Robert McClure, III, James Madison Institute
Gary Palmer, Alabama Policy Institute
Matt Mayer, Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions
Viet Dinh, Georgetown University Law Center and former
U.S. Assistant Attorney General
John S. McCollister, Platte Institute
Michael Carnuccio, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
Ronald F. Scheberle, American Legislative Exchange Council
Eli Lehrer, Heartland Institute
David Barton, WallBuilders

Full Right on Crime Statement of Principles
attached as Exhibit 11.
There is no better illustration of Florida’s
failure to move into the 21st Century on
criminal justice and corrections reform than
the Right on Crime’s map on this page.
Significantly, Florida is not painted red. There are no reforms to in Florida for the website’s
(http://www.rightoncrime.com/) visitors to find about. It’s time to do the work necessary get
Florida painted red.

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our team found that DOC is broken. It is lacking leadership, vision and courage. Its organizational
structure currently is confusing, diminishes accountability and is not cost-effective. We found that
the existing performance measures and standards adopted by the Legislature are inadequate and
do not align with critical functions of the agency. (See Recommendation #1 Governor Bush’s ExOffender Task Force at Exhibit 6) We found that a pattern of promoting from within has created an
entrenched culture resistant to creativity and innovation. We further found this culture discourages
and even intimidates those who want to see progress rather than continued calcification.
That said, while DOC is flawed as an organization and its leaders may not lead all that well, it also
boasts many very hard working employees dedicated to their mission. If it were not for those
people in middle management and at staff levels, this organization would have collapsed long ago.
The mere fact they still manage to maintain custody of more than 100,000 inmates and to supervise
over 180,000 people in the community with minimal major incidents is a tribute to those in the
trenches. Note, too, that this has been accomplished even as the Legislature has ignored pleas for
modernization and reform.
DOC does not exist in a vacuum; its ever-growing prison population, now more than 102,000
prisoners at a cost of over $2.4 billion to taxpayers, is the direct result of policy choices the state has
made and retained over the last thirty years.

1. Top-Down Review of Criminal Justice and Corrections: We encourage the new
administration to continue to study the policies driving correctional costs by creating a
commission to do a top to bottom review of corrections and the criminal justice system, as
recommended by Florida TaxWatch. This is long overdue and essential to long-term cost
savings.
2. Decentralization: We concluded that the agency and the state of Florida would be best
served with a more decentralized agency, one in which decision-making is not confined to a
few senior Central Office staff, but rather where authority is moved down to the regional
level. It is our recommendation that the total number of Regional Directors be reduced
from four Institutional Regional Directors and four Community Corrections Directors to a
total of three Regional Directors. Each Regional Director would have dual responsibility of
both Institutions and Community Corrections and empowered to take care of key operating
decisions and the day-to-day problem solving of his/her Region. It is our opinion that this
change will smooth operations by promoting more flexibility in managing the daily
operations thus allowing faster decisions, greater efficiency and improved response times
to operational functions. (See proposed organizational chart, Exhibit 1)
The new organization chart that we prepared reflects our suggested changes; it reduces
numerous senior management positions and places new responsibility in the deputy

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 4

secretary and the three regional directors. These four individuals will be the foundation of
the culture change and must be highly qualified, not simply promoted. In the past the
regional directors were often the next person up for a promotion. We are asking and
expecting these people to manage their budget, be responsible for all the institutions in
their region and also manage the community corrections duties in the region. Also, we
recommend aligning the regions for institutions and community corrections.
3. External oversight.
a. The Corrections Inspector General currently reports to the Secretary. We
recommend that IG be made independent of the agency and be moved outside the
Department. Instead of reporting to the Secretary, the IG would report to the
Governor, Legislature and a Corrections and Juvenile Justice advisory council.
b. An advisory council overseeing the Departments of Corrections and Juvenile Justice
should be created.
c. The Governor should also appoint a Special Advisor or Deputy Chief of Staff for
Public Safety to coordinate with the advisory council and oversee criminal justice
and corrections. This person should have a track record in working to reform the
criminal justice system with an emphasis on reentry and should also have a good
working relationship with the legislature as well as with local governments and
reentry networks throughout the state. This person will act as a liaison for the
Governor with all executive agencies, commissions, task forces and oversight boards
as well as the legislature as it pertains to public safety issues.
4. Ombudsman. We recommend that an ombudsman be appointed to resolve problems with
families and members of the community, including DOC’s community partners.
5. The PBA contracts: These agreements encourage stagnation and insure that no culture
change can occur when officers are promoted regardless of their qualifications and
suitability for the position. This also does not allow the wardens to insure that the officers
have accepted the modified mission statement of corrections which now includes successful
reentry of the offenders into their community. The current contract is due to expire in June
2011 and needs immediate attention. The current contract and DOC procedures gives too
much weight to tenure and too little to performance, education, training and other missioncritical factors.
6. The PRIDE Agreement: PRIDE is making a few people very wealthy while operating
Florida prison industries in a manner entirely inconsistent with its mission.
PRIDE is a nonprofit authorized by the Legislature to manage prison industries and has a
statutory monopoly to do so; under its governing law, no other entity can compete with
PRIDE in the operation of prison industries. Its primary statutory mission is “To provide a
joint effort between the department, the correctional work programs, and other vocational

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 5

training programs to reinforce relevant education, training, and post-release job placement
and help reduce recommitment,” 946.501, F.S., yet nearly every year a smaller percent of the
prison population is able to secure PRIDE jobs or job training (See Exhibit 3.a.) and most
PRIDE workers will either never be released from prison or will not for many years to come
(See below).
The PRIDE annual report states that 1,655 inmates completed PRIDE training programs –
out of an inmate population of 102,203, which amounts to 1.6 percent of prisoners
completing training. Contrast this with the percent of inmates working in prison
industries in other states in 2007.

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Georgia
Illinois
Kansas
Maryland
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
Tennessee
Texas

Inmates
1,500
1,882
500
5,900
336
1,400
950
1,100
1,608

Population
29,148
35,795
12,643
172,561
18,568
47,304
44,669
9,316
22,736

Percentage
5.15%
5.26%
3.95%
3.42%
1.81%
2.96%
2.13%
11.81%
7.07%

2,000

37,352

5.35%

2,233
711
4,314

23,375
19,341
135,283

9.55%
3.68%
3.19%

Further, 16% of the inmates working for PRIDE are serving life sentences; the
average sentence for the remaining workers is 15.1 years; and 28% of the PRIDE
workforce has 10 years or more to serve before being released. This means that
few in the PRIDE workforce are being rehabilitated for purposes of reducing recommitment
to prison because these workers are not being released to Florida communities at all or any
time soon.

Inmates in PRIDE assignment on 11-30-2010

PRIOFF(PRIMARY OFFENSE

Life Sentence

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 6

CODE)

1 -MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER
2 -SEXUAL/LEWD BEHAVIOR
3 -ROBBERY
4 -VIOLENT, OTHER
5 -BURGLARY
6 -PROPERTY
THEFT/FRAUD/DAMAGE
7 -DRUGS
8 -WEAPONS
9 -OTHER
Total

No

Yes

Total

177 216
287 75
226 25
196
8
302 13
129
0

393
362
251
204
315
129

356
1
55
0
84
0
1812 338

357
55
84
2150

Avg
Sentence of
Non-Lifers
25.5
21.3
21
12.4
14.1
6.8
8.5
10.9
8.7
15.1

Moreover, the average sentence length of those in Florida’s prisons is 4.7 years, which
means that the vast majority of inmates do not fit the profile of a PRIDE employee. We
recommend that PRIDE (or any successor organization) be forbidden from hiring any
workers with life sentences and forbidden from hiring any worker with fewer than 5 years
left of their sentence to serve.
This year, PRIDE is paying its President and their two lobbyists more than $521,000,
plus all expenses, including telephone, copying, travel and entertainment. (See
Exhibits 3.b., c. and d.) The President has also been paid $38,846 in bonus pay over the last
three years. One of the lobbying contracts also authorizes additional payments at the rate of
$350 per hour if hours per month exceed 57 (13 hours per week); that individual is also on
the PRIDE board. Additionally, PRIDE pays 56 employees more than $50,000 per year.
Contrast PRIDE’s salaries and compensation to that of the state employees:
Governor

$130,273

Secretary of Corrections

129,245

Average State Career Service

$34,651

Average All State Personnel

$38,540

Source: DMS 2009-2010 Annual Workforce Report and the General Appropriations Act of 2010

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 7

The transition team is not the first entity seeking a major overhaul or PRIDE or replacement
of PRIDE as the prison industries manager. At least four reports on PRIDE, one by Florida’s
Corrections Commission in 2002, two by OPPAGA in December 2003 and again in October
2006, and a fourth, an audit by the Auditor General in 1997 were very critical of PRIDE. The
studies come to the same key conclusion. PRIDE has not increased prison industry jobs in
Florida and has actually radically decreased the percentage of employed prisoners.
In 2007, a major overhaul plan was developed by DOC, the primary features of which were
to transfer authority of prison industries to DOC. (See Exhibit 3.e.) Unfortunately, PRIDE
has been able to obstruct and quell all legislative efforts at reforming or replacing PRIDE.
We endorse the approach recommended in 2007 and encourage the Governor to start the
process by having the Chief Inspector General conduct a top to bottom review of this entity.
We also must question the controlled purchase of certain goods and services through PRIDE
without competitive bidding. The purpose of PRIDE was to train inmates in job skills that
would translate into jobs upon release. We feel strongly that we need to reassess this long
term agreement and consider putting these services out for a national competitive bid. We
recommend that the state should control the PIE Certificate and it should not be handed
over to one provider.
7. Sentencing laws: It is clear that the current criminal laws do not allow for the judiciary to
use prudent judgment in sentencing recommendations that could and would reduce the
ballooning population of corrections. Best practice standards show that innovative
sentencing, especially split sentencing, is more effective and certainly more cost efficient.
The state has taken away post release supervision by eliminating parole and therefore most
inmates exit at the end of their sentences with no supervision. This is a major contributor
to recidivism. We strongly recommend a thorough examination of the 85% rule and the
impact it has had on the radical increase in the number of people released with no
supervision whatever. We also recommend seeking diversionary sentences alternatives
that have proven themselves in other states.
8. Borrowing to Pay for Prisons: Lawmakers can face prison growth with vision and courage
and address the underlying causes, as they are in the majority of states, or they can borrow
the problem away. Thus far, in Florida, the solution has been to borrow – by floating bonds
for the construction and expansion of prisons. At this point the state’s prison debt exceeds
$1 billion. This is precisely the wrong way to address prison growth.
Bonding is popular because it appears to provide an easy way out of a complex problem.
But it does nothing but build debt. It does not build a more accountable and responsible
criminal justice system.
As noted above, “Conservatives are known for being tough on crime, but we must also be
tough on criminal justice spending. That means demanding more cost-effective approaches
that enhance public safety.” Bonding prisons is not being tough on criminal justice spending.

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 8

Florida avoided borrowing to build state prisons until the early nineties and instead built
and expanded scores of prisons with fixed capital appropriations of general funds.
In 1993, the Legislature created the Correctional Privatization Commission “for the purpose
of entering into contracts for the design, construction, and operation of private prisons in
Florida.”1 Bonding to finance private prisons followed. The specific financing mechanism
that is used is Certificates of Participation (COPs), which is a form of lease revenue bond
that permits the investor to participate in a stream of lease payments relating to the
acquisition or construction of specific equipment, land or facilities, and which is commonly
used to finance schools. Fourteen prisons have been constructed through COPs since 1993
or a mix of COPs and capital appropriations. The most recent issuance of these bonds was
authorized by the Legislature in 2009 and added $337 million to the state’s debt.
Because bonding adds to the state’s long term debt and because bonding provides a
relatively easy tool to avoid addressing the factors driving prison growth, Florida should
pledge to stop bond financing prisons and prison expansions.

9. Mission-focused prisons. We strongly support the creation of a position overseeing
specialty institutions, by which we mean mission-focused institutions. This position is
critical to the goal of reducing recidivism. Currently, the department has faith and
character-based and reentry institutions. This is the area where innovations and proven
ideas will be implemented and expanded upon. We recommend converting some prisons to
institutions that focus on chemical dependency (therapeutic communities), literacy and voctech. We further recommend putting greater emphasis on community outreach. A culture
change cannot occur without engaging the communities where these facilities are located.
In past periods the communities provided valuable assistance to the facilities through
volunteers and mentoring. The department has not encouraged those relationships and
each regional director, warden and other staff should be encouraged and rewarded for
community involvement. We must have our communities understand that 88 percent of the
population will be going home to someone’s neighborhood and disengagement is not an
option.
We are excited and encouraged about the vision of the new administration.

Department of Corrections Overview
2010-2011 Department budget
2010-2011 Division budget
1

OPPAGA, Report 02-27, Correctional Privatization Commission Improved Management of South Bay Contract;
More Savings Possible; Chapter 93-406, Laws of Florida.

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 9

We understand the administration has this information and providing it here would be
redundant.
List each Division of the Department; and provide a 5-7 sentence summary of each. (see
attached, Exhibit 4)
Total personnel: 29,340 FTEs, which includes 16,000 institutional staff for the
incarcerated population of 102,203; 3,185 in community corrections supervising 180,000
people on probation and other forms of supervision. (See Proposed Organizational Chart
and Current Organizational Charts, Exhibits 1 and 2)
Total number of physical offices and locations by city: 154 offices (list attached;
Exhibit 5)
Overlapping with other agencies (include other State departments, Sheriff's offices and
police departments)




Health care shared with Correctional Medical Authority, Agency for Health Care
Administration, DCF, DOH.
Legal services shared with AG, FDLE, and outside contract counsel.
Inspector General shared with FDLE, Chief IG, local law enforcement and FBI.

Identify private sector overlap for areas under review:
 GEO, CCA and MTC building and operating private prisons.
 PRIDE – prison industries
 Health care contracts – e.g., kidney dialysis
Short term issues (likely to be faced in the first 6 months) - List in bullet format to include
a 3-4 sentence explanation
 Close the Sumter male youth boot camp and the Lowell female boot camp
(with a staff of 14 and 3 inmates)


Substantial senior management changes
The review team found a lack of chain of command from the top and
permeating throughout the entire organization, which leads to inertia, a lack
of focus on mission, and a failure to adhere to mission. It also found that
individuals in certain areas far exceeded the parameters of their jobs and had
undue influence over blocking new initiatives and the close adherence to

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 10

mission. It further found that the lines of authority are regularly breached in
order to avoid those who would either not respond or would try to block
getting the job done. Many have been promoted from within to jobs for which
they are not nearly qualified and there is a lack of recruitment from outside
the agency, let alone the state. There is little accountability to mission or to
outcomes. Most failure is blamed on two to three people in leadership.


Organizational change
The review team found that the organizational structure is based on
personalities and undue influence exerted from within and outside the
agency and fails to establish meaningful lines of authority or accountability.
Moreover, it is not a structure conducive to adherence to mission, to
innovation or to change.



Contract renegotiation: PRIDE, PBA, health care
The review team found that the contracts with PBA, PRIDE (indirect cost to
the state by virtue of failure to train sufficient numbers of inmates as
opposed to direct outlays) and perhaps certain health care providers are
such that they not only cost the state way too much money, but undermine
mission and thus warrant review and renegotiation.



Administrative changes in DOC gain-time policies
DOC can cut costs by revising two policies that do not need changes in state
law in awarding gain time. The first is that which fails to count the period of
time spent in jails after sentencing while awaiting transfer to a DOC facility.
The second is that practice which virtually automatically imposes the
maximum gain-time loss as a sanction for a prison disciplinary violation. It
can also cut costs by allowing prisoners to recover previous gain-time
forfeitures.



In-depth departmental review.
Order a full departmental operations, policy and management audit by a
consulting firm that understand the principles of lean government, e.g.,
McKinsey & Co.



Independent IG

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 11

Immediately move the IG out of DOC and reestablish it as an independent
entity with a citizen oversight board accountable to the Governor and
Legislature.


Criminal Justice Review Commission
The costs of Corrections are primarily driven by laws, policies and practices
adopted over many years and they have never been comprehensively
reviewed to determine more cost-effective alternatives that improve public
safety. We recommend that the Governor organize a commission to do a topto-bottom data-driven assessment of Florida’s corrections and criminal
justice system -- from sentencing to reintegration -- with a focus on costeffective ways to improve public safety while slowing prison growth. This
commission should be required to produce comprehensive, actionable
reforms in time for consideration by the legislature in 2012.



Adopt and implement the attached recidivism-reduction proposals as adopted
by the Governor Bush’s Ex-Offender Task Force, the DOC Reentry Advisory
Council and the Collins Center for Public Policy. (Exhibits 6,7, 8 and 9)

Long term issues (likely to be faced beyond 6 months) - List in bullet format to include a
3-4 sentence explanation






Adopt TaxWatch Cost-Saving Task Force sentencing reform recommendations
(Exhibit 9)
Make changes in organization and operations pursuant to comprehensive
agency audit (see above)
Close prisons
Assess program efficiency, effectiveness and duplication
Allow prisoners to use secured virtual education programming

Proposals and Outlook for the Department
New Organizational Chart - Describe your changes, why they are beneficial and how this
will create efficiency and effectiveness (See attached Exhibits 1 and 2)

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 12

Cost Saving Opportunities and Department Recommendations - Include consolidation
measures (if possible) to create efficiency and effectiveness, list in bullet format (see
above – short and long term objectives)
Summary of Budget (Legislative Budget Review) See OPB recommendations
Summary of Legislative Priorities (Legislative Review Policy Programs)
 Award PIE certificate to DOC
 Florida TaxWatch criminal justice reforms (Exhibit 9)
 Mandate convening of local Public Safety Coordinating Councils

Policy Proposals Related to Recidivism Reduction
A. Establish Institutions with Defined Missions and Goals (e.g., basic
education, chemical dependency, vocational training, veterans).
Key Elements of Proposal





With 50% of the inmate population reading below a 6th grade level we need to establish
Education Institutions where all activity and programming is directed to GED completions.
With major chemical dependency issues, we must establish therapeutic institutions where
all activity is focused on the substance issues. This type of facility could allow an inmate a
period of three to six months upon admission to address perhaps their most critical
inhibitor to success.
With job training and skills being a major deterrent to a successful re-entry we can devise
criteria for an inmate to go to an urban institution and through a joint agreement have
vocational training taught by the local Voc-tech school.

Fiscal Impact: There would be no difference in cost that disbursing such programming throughout
various institutions.
Operational Impact: Relocation of personal would be necessary in some instances. Careful
selection of the Administrative staff would be essential. The major obstacle to overcome would be
the current classification policy. This policy does not allow flexibility or creativity in inmate
placement but mandates strict standards based on the offenders charges, time of sentence, violent
or not violent classification and institutional convenience. Clearly some offenders would not fit into
these programs but historically we let the exception become the rule.
Legislative Requirements: Again, budget concerns would be considered. This plan would require
broader inter-agency agreements that could need legislative approvals.

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 13

Legislative Opposition: This approach is innovative and requires the legislator to understand that
public safety will not be compromised. The population of these targeted institutions will be
required to meet certain criteria and all of these institution’s beds should got to those who desire
change and strict adherence to rules and policies will be required.
Pros and Cons:
Pro:

Address the individual inmate’s needs to elevate their chance of not recidivating

Cons: The public perception that the inmate is getting free education, job training, substance
abuse intervention and any other advantages.

B. Expand the Faith and Character-Based Institutions. Florida has operated
Faith and Character Based Facilities since early 2000. The original units were dorms within
an Institution and later the complete Institution was converted. These reduced recidivism
because of the large volunteer base that integrates prisoners with people in the community.
No one has even considered raising First Amendment objections to these facilities because
they were carefully planned with no government money being provided for faith-related
activities. Wakulla F & C Institution consistently shows a 15% reduction in recidivism.
Key Elements of Proposal


Establish an operational model with clear curriculum, programming and measurable
performance standards.



Appoint a faith and character-based coordinator to ensure compliance with programming
standards and the thoughtful expansion of the model.



Establish a goal of providing F & C beds for all inmates who meet the prescribed criteria.
These individuals should have exhibited by their actions an unquestionable desire for
change in their lives.



Work with DOC classification standards to remove barriers to expansion of these
institutions.

Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impacts are exhibited by the 15% lower recidivism rate:
Average sentence: 4.7 years
Cost averaging $20,000 annual x 4.7 = $94,000 annual
15% of current recidivism annual class equals 4, 900 inmates

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 14

4,900 x $94,000 = $4,606.00.00
F & C Institutions are revenue neutral. The only extra staff required is an outside/volunteer
coordinator. This often falls to the Chaplain but this is an unrealistic burden and diminishes
effectiveness.
Expanded programming, locations and times could require evening staffing increases.
Legislative Requirements: No legislative action is required if this becomes an Executive mandate.
Pros and Cons:
Pros: Increasing the availability of a proven program exhibits an attitude of approaches and a
culture shift at DOC.
Cons: We must be careful to honor inmate preference.
Future Research:
OPPAGA Report for Faith and Character Based Facilities in Florida.
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/0938rpt.pdf

C. Mandate that the Local Public Safety Coordinating Councils
Establish Reentry Coalitions within Their Area.
Key Elements of Proposal


Over 88% of the inmate population will return to the community. The local Public Safety
Councils are the obvious legislated body to assist the inmate in successful re-entry.



The Council Re-Entry Coalition must be required to inventory, publish and annually update
a local re-entry guides that provide the name, address, phone number and contact
information for all government, social service or private provider of re-entry services.



The Coalition should be responsive to inmates 60 days prior to release when seeking
information to facilitate their reentry.



The implementation of the services component would be done in conjunction with existing
state and county community corrections offices and the regional outreach coordinators.

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 15

Fiscal Impact: Minimal fiscal impact outweighed by reduced costs due to reduced recidivism. The
impacts to the inmate and the community are immeasurable.
Operational Impact: The Councils should currently exist under a legislative mandate. In fact some
counties have not constituted their councils. Staffing would be required to publish the guide and
provide an office for the inmates to seek guidance and education.
Legislative Requirements: Mandate the creation of the Re-Entry Coalitions. Some of these
currently exist such as the Broward County Coalition. Their examples of success stories are
convincing and could serve as models.
Legislative Opposition: This will be viewed by the Florida Association of Counties as an unfunded
mandate and many legislators will concur. Funding to minimum standards would be advised.
Pros and Cons:
Pros:

Inmates would come home or to a community with the ability to connect and find the
survival services necessary.

Cons: There are no cons. These agencies operate within every community and yet the returning
inmate has no transportation, no knowledge of the interworking of each group and no one
to direct them unless they are one of the few who have transition housing, a helpful parole
officer or family.

D. Individualized Inmate Reentry Plans
A key to reduced recidivism is using the time of incarceration for positive
change for the inmate by diagnostically identifying the inmate’s individual
needs, creating an Inmate Re-entry Plan and providing the services and
supports in the plan.

Key Elements of Proposal


The core of this proposal rests on having inmate success upon reentry trump “institutional
convenience” in placing and keeping inmates in facilities that have programs commensurate
with their needs.



At reception, through testing, DOC can identify needs and design an Inmate Re-Entry Plan.
This plan should be reviewed and modified when needed and assessed annually.

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 16



The inmate should be assigned to the facility that best meets his/her needs such as
education, job training, or chemical dependency. With 50% of our inmate population
testing below a 6th grade reading level inmates often take years to obtain a GED. This is
often because of their placement at or in an Institution.



The goal would be to structure this plan to have a realistic change of completion and
success.

Operational Impact: The major impact would be providing more front end personal for testing
and assisting the inmate in plan development. Existing personnel made need to be augmented
within a facility for annual evaluation. No inmate should be released without his file containing the
necessary documentation for success such as a Social Security card, Drivers Licenses or State
Identification. Training Certificates, GED Diplomas and should be provided if possible.
Legislative Requirements: Provide adequate budgeting for the positions needed for this vital
policy whether through new or reallocated funds.
Legislative Opposition: It could also be argued by FDC that this is occurring currently. It is not
occurring consistently and with no clear policy or plan.
Pros and Cons:
Pros:

Inmate idleness is rampant in today’s system and it can strongly be argued that a large
number of inmates became part of the system because of lack of direction and this system
will teach that.

Cons: Some inmates will reject adhering to any plan and current State and Federal guidelines may
limit enforcing this. The tendency to let that control this action is to allow the minority to
limit our determinate for change.

E. Review and Revise Florida’s Employment Restrictions for ExOffenders
Key Elements of Proposal



There is no consistency or predictability in the rules, laws or policies that impose these
restrictions.
Most restrictions are not closely related to the safety, trust and responsibly required of the
job.

Governor-Elect Rick Scott Law and Order Transition Team
DEPARTMENT AND POLICY REVIEW
Florida Department of Corrections
Page 17

Fiscal Impact: Gainful employment is essential to any strategy to reduce recidivism, and thus to
reduce crime save costs for taxpayers.
Legislative Requirements: Legislative actions are needed to repeal/preempt existing statutory
requirements and policy based bans that do not allow a consideration of rehabilitation.
Legislative Opposition: Through proper education this concept should be embraced by the
legislature. A case must be built that these restrictions are major contributors to recidivism and
have no impact on public safety. Clearly certain restrictions are essential but must be correlated
with a public safety purpose.
Pros and Cons:
Pros:

Reduced recidivism increases the chances of stronger family structure and therefore
reduces generational incarceration.

Cons: With proper implementation there should be no negative effects.
Please refer to the Florida Employment restrictions report dated January, 2007 (Exhibit 7).

Proposed Organizational Chart
Florida Department of Corrections

GOVERNOR

DOC INSPECTOR
GENERAL

SECRETARY

DEPUTY
SECRETARY

GENERAL
COUNSEL

SPECIAL
INSTITUTIONS

REGIONAL
DIRECTORS (3)

for Successful Reentry

COMMUNITY
OUTREACH

EVIDENCE-BASED
PROGRAMS

OMBUDSMAN

HEALTH/MENTAL
HEALTH

ASSISTANT
SECRETARY
ADMINISTRATION

CLASSIFICATION/
COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS

ASSISTANT
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
for Institutions

ASSISTANT
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
for Community Corrections

POLICY/RESEARCH

HUMAN
RESOURCES

WARDENS

COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS CIRCUIT
ADMINISTRATORS

BUDGET

COMMUNICATIONS

LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS

CHIEF
INFORMATION
OFFICER

STAFF
DEVELOPMENT

12/15/2010: (Proposed by Governor-Elect Scott’s Transition Team)
Exhibit 1

'llll.W

......
-~

_.- _.- ---_.
---,
....
------....
_-.
_-.
_-.
_....
---.
--". --.
~-

~--

,

•

_Il100

,

•

,

-

,

-.-

_ 0_ _

,

·'d~

Do_::;'

--_.
0' n •
r

I

./4/

I·T-,.eII·DorioI .......
lV· _ _ _

._0."'_"_

--.
0F,_IO_

,

--_.
......
-.eo-oa.

0-

F.-_M.o

--.,

cZ ,""'/41
,1.,,-,"'-

._CM_

lib ' ..... , TIIdrIc*9

__ '.

~ a

_
.....
_.
_.....
-.. "." •

.AiI"I·

~

lV _ _ _

CIoIII"._'

.~

" ,

,

"

1_00. _ _
• _Do. RonoI<I

._01........ _

",_Do Do.IO R_k
RloIC _ Do Pogoo _

Exhibit 2

PRIDE Inmate Worker SNAPSHOT 1984 - 2010

# inmates
engaged in PRIDE

DC inmate

# PRIDE

Percent workstations to

Year

population

workstations

population

Sales Revenue

1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
YTD103110

26,471
28,310
29,712
32,764
33,681
38,059
42,733
46,233
47,012
50,603
56,052
61,992
64,333
64,713
66,280
68,599
71,233
72,007
73,553
77,316
81,974
84,901
88,576
92,844
98,192
100,894
102397

1295
1626
1900
2194
2516
2600
2887
2437
2397
2660
2630
2721
2659
2487
2481
2659
2637

5%
6%
6%
7%
7%
7%
7%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%

$12,712,055
$36,167,749
$39,776,805
$46,980,191
$57,369,802
$67,384,216
$75,724,404
$75,731,338
$67,835,677
$71,181,068
$77,617,583
$84,732,580
$72,846,749
$83,208,233
$81,220,930
$78,452,030
$93,677,025
$62,093,958
$60,930,006
$64,714,397
$66,346,840
$72,756,795
$79,020,703
$79,973,171
$76,042,792
$74,887,872
$54,953,014

2616

1946
2043
1990
2117
2093
2241
2368
2261
2268

labor

1735
2521
4470
6433
6507
5722
5434
5035
5571
4293
4637
4870
4909
4916
4160
3346
3718
3794
3502
3440
3640
3961
4140
3744

Exhibit 3.a.

PRlDE ENTt:RPRlSES EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE OVER 550,000 ANNUALLY

/8/2010
EMPLOYEE NAME
[DC J:.\1 ('l:'-: , JACK

JOB TTTIX
rRJ:SI DI:NT
CHJI:J' FlSA0:C!I\1 l"FFlCER
1\1i\NAl~l:R,

Staff names redacted by the DOC
Transition Team

AGRIC 8:. SI::RVICF.S
GENERAL ,\11\0:Ala.:R. SJ:W01 PRc'lDlXTS
DEVf.LOFMC-':T ,\1A:'-:i\GER
GCN£RAL 1\1A0:Al.LR, GRAPHICS SLH'
CIIlfT AL'DIT l:XEU 'TIV[
CHIU AD,"HNISTRATIVl OITICT:R
I;\1FRASTRUCTlJRI: MA0:ANGER
<...WIKAL ISf1USTRY MGR
PII\LCrOR, HR & T0:l;
DlR£CTOR ,''v1ISSI()N I'ROGR1\,\1S
!\1ANUFACrt'RI:'-:<.... ,\1GR
MI:TAL 8:. WOOD I'I{()DL'CTS S;\I.f~S I~Nl;I0:HR
OPr.RXrll)NS M<....R
DIRFc-rOR, ENGI0:rr.RINC & fACILITIr.S
DIRn..ll.")R or SALCS
INDUSTRY,\1GR
Or[l{ATll.)01S ,\1l~I~, SEWN PRODI.'CIS
SR BlISINr:SS ANALYST
<...WER1\TIOSS ,\1l;R
l.'lPI:RATIONS .\ 11\:'\'\(-;I:R, GE8 J\ 1f{~
INDUSTRIAL [l\:GI;,\f:£R
,\CC('lI'NTING .\1<...-;1\
(W[I\:\Tll.)i\S 1\1;\N;\CER, AGRICl'LTUI\E
,\1(;R. COST Acel")l T"'TINC
INDl:STRY MCR
MGR, f-'RODl 'er I::\GI.:'\EERING
SR STAff "CCl"l ';'\1'1\;'\1'
GE:'-:I::RAL

SALARY

Incentive/Bonus Paid to £mployees
Over $75,000 Over Last 3 Years

$207,72:-;

$:~8,84G

Slg~I,190

$14,374

5 12S,~~~(,
51] I ,~4:-\
$107,14l"1
5 I OS ,l'l(ll1
$1 0:~,0(l0

$G,X 10

$100,78:~

SSS,OOO

S81,%6
$81,783
SS I ,60~
S8l),797
S8l),Ol'lO
S7~,77(~

$7:,),:~

II

$75,000

57,5:.1,7
5G,367

so
$7,974
$7,8(1,1

$0
53,1 S7
SG,~~~)]

$G,87G
SG,SG7
53,000
$2,%7

$4,304
$0

$72,{)(,f)

$71,630
$71,325

57l\7%
570,700

570,:>20
SG7,Z38
5(,(;,4 97

$G5,85:,
$<'5,59:-\
$Gfi, 120
5G~,02!)

IEXhibit 3.b.

I

12/8/2010

EMPLOYEE NAME

JOR TITLE
DE0:TAL LAB

j\1l~R

INDl'STRY MANAGER
~R nr:SICN ENCINEER
.\1CR ()F SAfETY & [0:VIl\.l)0:.'\1I~TAL SCICNCES
SALES/0:[W BUSI0:ES~ [1E\TlorMf:NT REP
t\[J,\1INISTRATIVE/Cl:ST s\'c 1\1l~R
F!0:ISII10:C surv
FAC1LlTlf,S MGR
.\1CR, s/\u:s sun'ORT crXrt:R
Sl TV 1 FORESTRY TECH
PROI )lJCTI00: MGR
PRC\[)l'CrtON MGR
MJ\ILI~C SLTERVISOR

!0:nl'STRY MANAGER
INDl'STRY 1'\1GR
I0:DlrSTRY MGR
PRom lCTION MeR
IKDllSTRY 1\1CR
INnUSTRY MCR
f.O.J. I\1MERCt:; CRArllIC

SALARY
$GZ,OI_
$GO,OOO
$GO,Ol)('1
$59,7S~)

$S9,G7G
$57,201
SSG,GSO
$5(;,374
S5(;,342
S;i5~99S
SS5,~)%

S55,897
$35,%5
S55, I ZO
$5:',008
$54,:~~G

S54,23F.
$54,OSO
$5:~,G97

n[SIl~KLR

CUSTOMI::R SERVIn MeR
~'R()Dl'C·TION SlTV,UATA

I::NTRY

$52,000
$51,723
$51 ,3~ 1

PRClnl'CTI();,\ MeR

$5ll,~)l){

0:fTWOR K ADMI0: lSTRA TO R

$50,000
$;-;0,000
$50,000
$50,l)()0

rROnUCn00: .',1ANACF:R
fROnt'CI'ION

1\1ANAl~r:R

PRODl:CTI()N

Ml~R

Illccntive/Rorl1ls Paid 10 F.mployc(·s
Over $75,000 Over Last 3 Years

BREWTON PLANTE P.A.
PROFESSIONAl ~TION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 250

225 SOUTM "l)AMS STREET

TALLAHASSEE.

FL

32301

TEUJI'HONE 850-Z22-n,IS
a.wlING ADDRESS.

FA)( 1S5O-222.Q22

E _ .o.ooRESS;

POST OfFICE BOX 103611

Wl,8UR E. BREWTON, ESOUIRE

T"'1.1.AK'$SEE. FL :12)02·2369

OotlfewlOtlCbpI.wlirTTl./'oCl

July 1,2010
Jack Edgemon, President
Prison Rehabilitative Industries
& Diversified Entelprises, Inc.
12425 North 28 th Street
Suite 300
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Re:

Our Files I25002.all matters

Dear Jack:
You asked that we represent Prison Rehabilitative Industries & Diversified
Entelprises, Inc. d/b/a PRIDE Entelprises, (the "Company"), in connection with
various consulting services, lobbying representation and related and necessary
legal representation for the period ofJuly 1,2010 to and including June 30, 2011.
Over the years, it has been our experience that things go more smoothly if
we have a clear understanding of the Company's needs and the role we need to
play. The pUlpose of this engagement letter is to confirm an agreement concerning
representation and the payment of our fees and expenses. This engagement letter
will govern all subsequent matters in which we may become involved on the
Company's behalf unless a separate arrangement is made.
We will do our very best to meet the Company's needs in any matters we
undertake for the Company, but as you know, we cannot and do not make any
representations or warranties concerning the outcome. We will give the Company

Exhibit 3.c.

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2010
Page 2 of8

our best advice, render opinions, and seek to obtain the desired result. In this
regard, it is most important that we communicate regularly.
We have attached a copy of the Firm's Policy Regarding Fees and
Expenses. All conditions in that document are incorporated by reference as part of
this engagement letter. As we are sure the Company recognizes, we have a
legitimate business concern in being paid in a timely fashion.
In the event that the Company disagrees with or questions any amount due
under an invoice, the Company agrees to pay the amount not in disagreement, and
communicate such disagreement to us, in writing, within thirty (30) days of the
invoice date. Any claim not made within that period shall be deemed waived.
This will confirm our Agreement whereby the undersigned will
provide the Company with consulting services, lobbying representation and related
and necessary legal representation in the State of Florida, for the period of July 1,
2010 through June 30, 20 II. It is understood and agreed that either party may
terminate this Agreement by the giving of sixty (60) days written notice to the
other party, provided that if the Company shall terminate this Agreement, it shall at
all times be liable for the yearly retainer through the term of this Agreement,
regardless of the reasons for such termination.
(I)

(2) For services of the undersigned and the Firm, the Company agrees to
pay a minimum annual retainer in the amount of Two Hundred Forty Thousand
Dollars ($240,000.00), payable at the rate of Twenty Thousand Dollars
($20,000.00) per month:
(a)
The undersigned will submit monthJy time records
detailing all time expended for the period July 1, 2010 through
June 30, 20 11; and
Annually, the Company and the undersigned will review
the previous twelve (12) months statements and to the extent
the time records demonstrate more time expended than the
minimum annual retainer, the Company shall pay the
difference; likewise in the event the time records demonstrate
(b)

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2010
Page 3 of8

less time expended, than the minimum annual retainer then the
Company shall receive a credit.
(c) The Firm, may at its option, forego the monthly retainer
of $20,000.00 and bill monthly for its services, which will be
paid by the Company. The provisions of this paragraph 2(b)(c)
do not apply to the circumstances under paragraph (5) of this
Agreement.
(3) In addition, the Company shall reimburse the undersigned for
reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses on behalf of the Company,
included but not limited to telephone calls, copying costs, facsimile costs, lobbying
registration fees, travel, entertainment and other expenses which are normal and
usual in carrying out the representation of the Company. Any unusual or
extraordinary expenditures must be cleared with the Company, in advance.
(4) The minimum annual retainer, coupled with the hourly rate fee
schedule set forth on Exhibit A, is to be paid by the Company for services rendered
or to be rendered in legislative and regulatory activities relating to the preparation,
introduction and/or surveillance of legislation pertaining to the Company and
related activities as well as representation before any Executive agency. The
undersigned will keep the Company informed of activities at the legislative and
Executive level as is feasible, and shall report directly to the President and
Chairman of the Company in a manner similar to such activities over the past
years. The undersigned agrees to properly register as a lobbyist representing the
Company in the Legislature of Florida, as well as all Departments of state
government as may be required, and to forward all necessary reports required of
such lobbyist to the appropriate authorities.
(5) In the event the Company shall give notice of intent to terminate this
Agreement pursuant to paragraph (1), the Company shall be required to make the
minimum annual retainer payments, monthly, from the date of termination through
the end of the term of this Agreement, to the undersigned. Such payment shall
operate to extinguish any and all liability of the Company to the undersigned;
provided that the undersigned shall not be required to provide any representation

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2010
Page 4 of8

from the date of the receipt of the notice of intent to terminate until the end of the
term of this Agreement.
If this meets with the Company's approval, please indicate by having the
extra copy of this letter signed in the space provided below, and return it to our
offices. The Company's approval of this letter will include agreement regarding
the fees and costs arrangement, and Exhibits A and B.
When our representation is concluded, the firm has a file retention policy. If
at the conclusion of this representation, you desire to have the file(s) rather than
having it go to storage, please affirmatively notify us in writing of that choice at
the time you execute the engagement letter or at the time that representation is
closed.
We appreciate the confidence and trust the Company has reposed in us in
asking us to represent it and encourage the Company to communicate with me if at
any time you have questions on the status or progress of your matters. I look
forward to working with the Company and staff on any matters it deems
appropriate. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(850) 222-7718.

Wilbur E. Brewton
Individually and on behalf
of the Firm
WEB/art
Enclosures

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2010
Page 5 of8

The terms of this representation are accepted this I" day of July, 20 IO.

BY:A~:4;~~~-;:!.·l::.· ~=-_
ac E emon, President
Prison Rehabilitation Industries &
Diversified Enterprises, Inc.
12425 North 281!> Street
3'" Floor
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2010
Page 6 of8

EXHIBIT A

HOURLY RATES

Wilbur E. Brewton
Kelly B. Plante
Kenneth J. Plante
Tana D. Storey
Paralegal/Law Clerk
Other

$350.00
$350.00
$300.00
$300.00
$ 85.00
TBD

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2010
Page 70f8

EXHIBITB
POLICY REGARDING FEES AND EXPENSES
FEES:
Quality legal services and good results require ability and effort. These are our
"stock in trade." Generally, our fees are based on our skill, the time expended, the
responsibility involved, and the results obtained. While our fee in most cases will
be based mainly on the time devoted to the matter and the professional skill
involved, the Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that where a favorable result has
been obtained for a client, a reasonable attorney's fee may include consideration of
that favorable result and may result in a fee greater than one based solely on a
nonnal hourly rate. We will charge such a fee where we believe it is justified and
in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidelines. Those guidelines involve
factors other than the amount of time required, such as the uniqueness and
complexity of the questions involved, the skill required to provide proper legal
representation, familiarity with the specific area of law involved, the preclusion of
other engagements caused by the acceptance of this engagement, the magnitude of
the matter, the results achieved, customary fees for similar legal services, and the
nature and length of our relationship. All these factors have a significant bearing
on the reasonable value of the services perfonned.

EXPENSES:
You will be charged a reasonable rate for computerized document production,
postage, reproduction, telecopies, couriers, express mail, long-distance telephone,
travel costs and other costs. We may also use computerized research services to
assist in handling your matters. This service will be used when we believe that it
will save you money to do so. Expenses incurred or advanced on your behalf will
be itemized on the statement.

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2010
Page 8 of8

BILLING
You will be billed periodically, usually monthly. There will be a service charge of
1-1/2% per month on all accounts not paid within 30 days of the date the statement
is mailed to you. Interest charges will be added on to any outstanding balance and
will be reflected in subsequent statements.
In the event you should disagree with or question any amount due under an
invoice, you agree to communicate such disagreement to us, in writing, within
thirty (30) days of the invoice date. Any disagreement you may have with a bill
that is not communicated to us within that period shaJl be deemed waived.

COMMENCEMENT OF REPRESENTATION:
Our representation will not commence until we receive a signed copy of the letter
to which this statement is attached, together with payment of any retainer specified
therein.

WITHDRAWAL FROM REPRESE TATION:
We reserve the right to withdraw as your counsel in the event you fail to honor
your agreement with respect to our legal fees or for any just reason as permitted or
required under the Florida Code of Professional Responsibility or as permitted by
the rules of courts of the State of Florida. In the event of our withdrawal, you will
promptly pay for all services rendered by us in accordance with paragraphs (I)
through (6).

BREWTON PLANTE P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

"""''"

22S SOUTli ADAMS STREET

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301
TELEPHONE 8.50-222·7718

FAX eso-m.am

MAILING ADDRESS:
POSTOFFlCE SOX 10310

--

E-MAil AOORESS,

WIl8Uft E. IlREWTON. ESQUIRE

...........

TAl.1.AHASSEE. Ft 323Q2.236$

July 1,2009
Jack Edgemon, President
Prison Rehabilitative Indusnies
& Diversified Enterprises, Inc.
12425 North 28 th Street
3" Floor
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Re:

Our Files I25002.all matters

Dear Jack:
You asked that we represent Prison Rehabilitative Indusnies & Diversified
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a PRJDE Enterprises, (the "Company"), in connection with
various consulting services, lobbying representation and related and necessary
legal representation for the period ofJuly I, 2009 to and including June 30, 2010.
Over the years, it has been our experience that things go more smoothly if
we have a clear understanding of the Company's needs and the role we need to
play. The purpose of this engagement letter is to confirm an agreement concerning
representation and the payment of our fees and expenses. This engagement letter
will govern all subsequent matters in which we may become involved on the
Company's behalf unless a separate arrangement is made.
We will do our very best to meet the Company's needs in any matters we
undertake for the Company, but as you know, we cannot and do not make any
representations or warranties concerning the outcome. We will give the Company

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July I, 2009
Page 2 of8

our best advice, render opinions, and seek to obtain the desired result. In this
regard, it is most important that we communicate regularly.
We have attached a copy of the Firm's Policy Regarding Fees and
Expenses. All conditions in that document are incorporated by reference as part of
this engagement letter. As we are sure the Company recognizes, we have a
legitimate business concern in being paid in a timely fashion.
In the event that the Company disagrees with or questions any amount due

under an invoice, the Company agrees to pay the amount not in disagreement, and
communicate such disagreement to us, in writing, within thirty (30) days of the
invoice date. Any claim not made within that period shall be deemed waived.
(I) This will confirm our Agreement whereby the undersigned will
provide the Company with consulting services, lobbying representation and related
and necessary legal representation in the State of Florida, for the period of July I,
2009 through June 30, 2010. It is understood and agreed that either party may
terminate this Agreement by the giving of sixty (60) days written notice to the
other party, proyjded that if the Company shall terminate this Agreement, it shall at
all times be liable for the yearly retainer through the term of this Agreement,
regardless of the reasons for such termination.
(2) For services of the undersigned and the Firm, the Company agrees to
pay a minimum annual retainer in the amount of Two Hundred Forty Thousand
Dollars ($240,000.00), payable at the rate of Twenty Thousand Dollars
. ($20,000.00) per month:
(a) The undersigned will submit monthly time records
detailing all time expended for the period July I, 2009 through
June 30, 20 I0; and
(b) Annually, the Company and the undersigned will review
the previous twelve (12) months statements and to the extent
the time records demonstrate more time expended than the
minimum annual retainer, the Company shall pay the
difference; likewise in the event the time records demonstrate

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July I, 2009
Page 3 of8

less time expended, than the minimum annual retainer then the
Company shall receive a credit. The provisions of this
paragraph 2(b) do not apply to the circumstances under
paragraph (5) of this Agreement.
(3) In addition, the Company shall reimburse the undersigned for
reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses on behalf of the Company,
included but not limited to telephone calls, copying costs, facsimile costs, lobbying
registration fees, travel, entertainment and other expenses which are normal and
usual in carrying out the representation of the Company. Any unusual or
extraordinary expenditures must be cleared with the Company, in advance.
(4) The minimum annual retainer, coupled with the hourly rate fee
schedule set forth on Exhibit A, is to be paid by the Company for services rendered
or to be rendered in legislative and regulatory activities relating to the preparation,
introduction and/or surveillance of legislation pertaining to the Company and
related activities as well as representation before any Executive agency. The
undersigned will keep the Company informed of activities at the legislative and
Executive level as is feasible, and shall report directly to the President and
Chairman of the Company in a manner similar to such activities over the past
years. The undersigned agrees to properly register as a lobbyist representing the
Company in the Legislature of Florida, as well as all Departments of state
government as may be required, and to forward all necessary reports required of
such lobbyist to the appropriate authorities.
(5) In the event the Company shall give notice of intent to terminate this
Agreement pursuant to paragraph (I), the Company shall be required to make the
minimum annual retainer payments, monthly, from the date of termination through
the end of the term of this Agreement, to the undersigned. Such payment shall
operate to extinguish any and all liability of the Company to the undersigned;
provided that the undersigned shall not be required to provide any representation
from the date of the receipt of the notice of intent to terminate until the end of the
term of this Agreement.
If this meets with the Company's approval, please indicate by having the
extra copy of this letter signed in the space provided below, and return it to our

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2009
Page 4 of8

offices. The Company's approval of this letter will include agreement regarding
the fees and costs arrangement, and Exhibits A and B.
When our representation is concluded, the finn has a file retention policy. If
at the conclusion of this representation, you desire to have the file(s) rather than
having it go to storage, please affinnatively notifY us in writing of that choice at
the time you execute the engagement letter or at the time that representation is
closed.
We appreciate the confidence and trust the Company has reposed in us in
asking us to represent it and encourage the Company to communicate with me if at
any time you have questions on the status or progress of your matters. I look
forward to working with the Company and staff on any matters it deems
appropriate. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(850) 222-7718.
,Very truly yours,

UJ .

~

Wilbur . BreWton
Individually and on behalf
of the Finn

WEB/art
Enclosures

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July I, 2009
Page 5 of8

The terms of this representation are accepted this 1" day of July, 2009.

Jack E emon, President
Pris n Rehabilitation Industries &
Diversified Enterprises, Inc.
12425 North 28 1h Street
3'· Floor
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2009
Page 6 of8

EXHIBIT A

HOURLY RATES
Wilbur E. Brewton
Kelly B. Plante
Kenneth J. Plante
Tana D. Storey
ParalegallLaw Clerk
Other

$350.00
$350.00
$300.00
$275.00
$ 85.00
TBD

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2009
Page 7 of8

EXHlBITB
POLICY REGARDING FEES AND EXPENSES
FEES:
Quality legal services and good results require ability and effort. These are our
"stock in trade." Generally, our fees are based on our skill, the time expended, the
responsibility involved, and the results obtained. While our fee in most cases will
be based mainly on the time devoted to the matter and the professional skill
involved, the Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that where a favorable result has
been obtained for a client, a reasonable attorney's fee may include consideration of
that favorable result and may result in a fee greater than one based solely on a
normal hourly rate. We will charge such a fee where we believe it is justified and
in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidelines. Those guidelines involve
factors other than the amount of time required, such as the uniqueness and
complexity of the questions involved, the skill required to provide proper legal
representation, familiarity with the specific area oflaw involved, the preclusion of
other engagements caused by the acceptance of this engagement, the magnitude of
the matter, the results achieved, customary fees for similar legal services, and the
nature and length of our relationship. All these factors have a significant bearing
on the reasonable value of the services performed.

EXPENSES:
You will be charged a reasonable rate for computerized document production,
postage, reproduction, telecopies, couriers, express mail, long-distance telephone,
travel costs and other costs. We may also use computerized research services to
assist in handling your matters. This service will be used when we believe that it
will save you money to do so. Expenses incurred or advanced on your behalf will
be itemized on the statement.

J.ack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2009
Page 8 of8

BILLING
You will be billed periodically, usually monthly. There will be a service charge of
1-1/2% per month on all accounts not paid within 30 days of the date the statement
is mailed to you. Interest charges will be added on to any outstanding balance and
will be reflected in subsequent statements.
In the event you should disagree with or question any amount due under an

invoice, you agree to communicate such disagreement to us, in writing, within
thirty (30) days of the invoice date. Any disagreement you may have with a bill
that is not communicated to us within that period shall be deemed waived.

COMMENCEMENT OF REPRESENTATION:
Our representation will not commence until we receive a signed copy of the letter
to which this statement is attached, together with payment of any retainer specified
therein.

WITHDRAWAL FROM REPRESENTAnON:
We reserve the right to withdraw as your counsel in the event you fail to honor
your agreement with respect to our legal fees or for any just reason as permitted or
required under the Florida Code of Professional Responsibility or as permitted by
the rules of courts of the State of Florida. In the event of our withdrawal, you will
promptly pay for all services rendered by us in accordance with paragraphs (1)
through (6).

BREWTON PLANTE P.A.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

""",.,

225 SOUflt AtW.CS STRfeT

TAlI.AHASS[[. FL 32301
TELEPHONE ll6O-W.n18

MAA.lNG AOORI:SS.
POOl OFFICE BOX :03I!l9
TI.1.lAHASSEE, Ft 323ll2-236lii

FAX$5G-222-8222

E........ AOORES$.

[INSERT NAME}. ESQUIRE
.....,,~

July 1,2008
Jack Edgemon, President
Prison Rehabilitative Industries
& Diversified Enterprises, Inc.
12425 North 28"' Street
3'" Floor
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Re:

Our Files I25002.all matters

Dear Jack:
You asked that we represent Prison Rehabilitative Industries & Diversified
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a PRIDE Enterprises, (the "Company"), in connection with
various consulting services, lobbying representation and related and necessary
legal representation for the period ofJuly I, 2008 to and including June 30, 2009.
Over the years, it has been our experience that things go more smoothly if
we have a clear understanding of the Company's needs and the role we need to
play. The purpose of this engagement letter is to confirm an agreement concerning
representation and the payment of our fees and expenses. This engagement letter
will govern all subsequent matters in which we may become involved on the
Company's behalf unless a separate arrangement is made.
We will dQ our very best to meet the Company's needs in any matters we
undertake for the Company, but as you know, we cannot and do not make any
representations or warranties concerning the outcome. We will give the Company

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2008
Page 2 of8

our best advice, render opinions, and seek to obtain the desired result. In this
regard, it is most important that we communicate regularly.
We have attached a copy of the Firm's Policy Regarding Fees and
Expenses. All conditions in that document are incorporated by reference as part of
this engagement letter. We are sure the Company recognizes that we have a
legitimate business concern in being paid in a timely fashion.
In the event that the Company disagrees with or questions any amount due
under an invoice, the Company agrees to pay the amount not in disagreement, and
communicate such disagreement to us, in writing, within thirty (30) days of the
invoice date. Any claim not made within that period shaJl be deemed waived.
(I) This will confirm our Agreement whereby the undersigned will
provide the Company with consulting services, lobbying representation and related
and necessary legal representation in the State of Florida, for the period of July I,
2008 through June 30, 2009. It is understood and agreed that either party may
terminate this Agreement by the giving of sixty (60) days written notice to the
other party, provided that if the Company shall terminate this Agreement, it shaJl at
all times be liable for the yearly retainer through the term of this Agreement,
regardless of the reasons for such termination.
(2)
For services of the undersigned and the Firm, the Company agrees to
pay a minimum annual retainer in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars
($300,000.00), payable at the rate of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00)
per month:
(a)
The undersigned will submit monthJy time records
detailing all time expended for the period July I, 2008 through
June 30, 2009; and
(b) AnnuaJly, the Company and the undersigned will review
the previous twelve (12) months statements and to the extent
the time records demonstrate more time expended than the
minimum annual retainer, the Company shaJJ pay the
difference; likewise in the event the time records demonstrate

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2008
Page 3 ofS

less time expended than the minimum annual retainer, then the
Company shall receive a credit. The provisions of this
paragraph 2(b) do not apply to the circumstances under
paragraph (5) of this Agreement.
(3) In addition, the Company shaJJ reimburse the undersigned for
reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses on behalf of the Company,
included but not limited to telephone calls, copying costs, facsimile costs, lobbying
registration fees, travel, entertainment and other expenses which are normal and
usual in carrying out the representation of the Company. Any unusual or
extraordinary expenditure must be cleared with the Company, in advance.
(4) The minimum annual retainer, coupled with the hourly rate fee
schedule set forth on Exhibit A, is to be paid by the Company for services rendered
or to be rendered in legislative and regulatory activities relating to the preparation,
introduction and/or surveiJIance of legislation pertaining to the Company and
related activities ali well as representation before any Executive agency. The
undersigned will keep the Company informed of activities at the legislative and
Executive level as is feasible, and shaJJ report directly to the President and
Chairman of the Company in a manner similar to such activities over the past
years. The undersigned agrees to properly register as a lobbyist representing the
Company in the Legislature of Florida, as well as all Departments of state
government as may be required, and to forward all necessary reports required of
such lobbyist to the appropriate authorities.
(5) In the event the Company shall give notice of intent to terminate this
Agreement pursuant to paragraph (I), the Company shall be required to make the
minimum annual retainer payments, monthly, from the date of termination through
the end of the term of this Agreement, to the undersigned. Such payment shall
operate to extinguish any and all liability of the Company to the undersigned;
provided that the undersigned shall not be required to provide any representation
from the date of the receipt of the notice of intent to terminate until the end of the
term of this Agreement.
If this meets with the Company's approval, please indicate by having the
extra copy of this letter signed in the space provided below, and return it to our

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2008
Page 4 of8

offices. The Company's approval of this letter will include agreement regarding
the fees and costs arrangement, and Exhibits A and B.
When our representation is concluded, the finn has a file retention policy. If
at the conclusion of this representation, you desire to have the file(s) rather than
having it go to storage, please affinnatively notifY us in writing of that choice at
the time you execute the engagement letter or at the time that representation is
closed.
We appreciate the confidence and trust the Company has reposed in us in
asking us to represent it and encourage the Company to communicate with me if at
any time you have questions on the status or progress of your matters. I look
forward to working with the Company and staff on any matters it deems
appropriate. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(850) 222-7718.

WEB/art
Enclosures

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2008
Page 5 of8

The tenns of this representation are accepted this I" day of July, 2008.

on, President
Prison ehabilitation Industries &
Diversified Enterprises, Inc.
12425 North 28 th Street
3"' Floor
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2008
Page 6 of8

EXHIBIT A
HOURLY RATES
Wilbur E. Brewton
Kclly B. Plante
Kenneth J. Plante
Tana D. Storey
ParalegallLaw Clerk
Other

$350.00
$300.00
$300.00
$275.00
$ 85.00
TBD

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2008
Page 7 of8

EXHIBITB
POLICY REGARDING FEES AND EXPENSES
FEES:
Quality legal services and good results require ability and effort. These are our
"stock in trade." Generally, our fees are based on our skill, the time expended, the
responsibility involved, and the results obtained. While our fee jn most cases will'
be based mainly on the time devoted to the matter and the professional skill
involved, the Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that where a favorable result has
been obtained for a client, a reasonable attorney's fee may include consideration of
that favorable result and may result in a fee greater than one based solely on a
normal hourly rate. We will charge such a fee where we believe it is justified and
in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidelines. Those guidelines involve
factors other than the amount of time required, such as the uniqueness and
complexity of the questions involved, the skill required to provide proper legal
representation, familiarity with the specific area of law involved, the preclusion of
other engagements caused by the acceptance of this engagement, the magnitude of
the matter, the results achieved, customary fees for similar legal services, and the
nature and length of our relationship. All these factors have a signi ficant bearing
on the reasonable value of the services performed.

EXPENSES:
You will be charged a reasonable rate for computerized document production,
postage, reproduction, telecopies, couriers, express mail, long-distance telephone,
travel costs and other costs. We may also use computerized research services to
assist in handling your matters. This service will be used when we believe that it
will save you money to do so. Expenses incurred or advanced on your behalf will
be itemized on the statement.

Jack Edgemon, President
Re: Legal Representation
July 1,2008
Page 8 of8

BILLING

You will be billed periodically, usually monthly. There will be a service charge of
1-1/2% per month on all accounts not paid within 30 days of the date the statement
is mailed to you. Interest charges will be added on to any outstanding balance and
will be reflected in subsequent statements.
In the event you should disagree with or question any amount due under an
invoice, you agree to communicate such disagreement to us, in writing, within
thirty (30) days of the invoice date. Any disagreement you may have with a bill
that is not communicated to us within that period shall be deemed waived.

COMMENCEMENT OF REPRESENTATION:
Our representation will not commence until we receive a signed copy of the letter
to which this statement is attached, together with payment of any retainer specified
therein.

WITHDRAWAL FROM REPRESENTATION:
We reserve the right to withdraw as your counsel in the event you fail to honor
your agreement with respect to our legal fees or for any just reason as permitted or
required under the Florida Code of Professional Responsibility or as permitted by
the rules of courts of the State of Florida. In the event of our withdrawal, you will
promptly pay for all services rendered by us in accordance with paragraphs (1)
through (5).

SPEARMAN MANAGEMENT, INC.
516 Delannoy Avenue· Cocoa, FL 32922 • (321) 631-2750 • Fax (321) 632-2334

June 29, 2010

Mrs. Dee Kiminki
PRIDE Enterprises
12425 28 th Street, N
Suite 300
SI. Petersburg, FL 33716

Dear~
Attached please find an executed copy.
With Warm Personal Regards,
Sincerely,

GMS III/des
Attach

GUY M. SPEARMAN III
President

Exhibit 3.d.

SPEARMAN MANAGEMENT, INC.
516 Delannoy Avenue, Cocoa, FL 32922. (321) 631-2750. Fax (321) 632-2334

July 1,2010

Jack Edgemon, President
Prison Rehabilitative Industries
& Diversified Enterprises, Inc.
12425 North 28" Street
Suite 300
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Re:

20 I0 - 20 II Legislative Issues and Appropriations

Dear Jack:

This will confirm our agreement whereby the undersigned (the "Firm"), will provide
Prison Rehabilitative Industries & Diversified Enterprises, Inc. (the "Client") with consulting
services and representation in the State of Florida before the Florida Legislature for the
period July I, 2010 through June 30, 2011.
It is understood by both the Client and the Firm that Florida Law strictly prohibits
contingency fees in reference to the passage or defeat of Legislation. For our services, the

Client agrees to pay the retainer sum of Seventy-Four Thousand Dollars ($74,000.00),
payable monthly at Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Six Cents
($6,166.66) per month.

The Client agrees to reimburse the Finn for reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket
expenses on your behalf, such as telephone calls, copies, lobbying registration fees, local
travel and things of that nature, upon presentation of the Firm's itemized statement. Any
expenditures which the Finn judges may be necessary, including L1-}ose involving
entertainment, must be approved in advance, provided that entertainment or travel costs are
not in excess of $2,500 during the term of this Agreement shall be deemed to be approved.
Documented charges for itemized expense statements with supporting receipts must

be submined to qualify for payment. State lobbying costs are not deductible for purposes of
lhe Client's federal income taxes. Lobbying is defined as follows:

I.

Meetings, telephone conversations and correspondence with the governor,
members of the Legislature, their staffs or committee staffs in an attempt to
advocate the passage or defeat of legislation.

2.

Testimony before legislative committees, unless compelled by subpoena.

GUY M. SPEARMAN, III

President

3.

Distribution to the governor, members of the Legislature, their staffs or
committee staffs, of reports or studies in an attempt to advocate the passage or
defeat of legislation.

4.

Monitoring the progress of legislation does not constitute lobbying, provided
the Client never advocates their passage or defeat.

5.

Efforts to comply with existing legislation or regulations and efforts to sell to
government agencies are not lobbying.

6.

Activity with state executive agencies may not be considered lobbying.
Communications with certain high level, federal executive agency officials is
lobbying.

7.

Lobbying of cities or counties is not considered lobbying for these purposes.

The above retainer will be paid by the Client for services rendered or to be rendered
in legislative activities relating to preparation, introduction and/or surveillance of legislation
relating to Corrections.
I understand that policy prohibits using the Client's corporate funds paid to my Firm
to make political contributions of any kind to political parties or candidates running for local,
state or federal office. All of the compensation to be paid to my Finn is for services to be
rendered and is not paid pursuant to any agreement or understanding between my Finn and
the Client that I will make any contribution to a political party or candidate.
I agree to properly register all employees of my Firm, if necessary, as a lobbyist(s)
representing the Client in the Legislature in the State of Florida, and to make all necessary
reports in a timely manner to the proper authorities, forwarding a copy of same to your
attention.
This Agreement is subject to termination by either party upon sixty (60) days prior
written notice to the other party provided, however, that tennination by the Client shall not
relieve the Client of the obligation to pay the retainer in full.
If the foregoing reflects the Client's understanding of our agreement, please sign the
duplicate copy in the space indicated below and return to my attention.

GMS/tbm

IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the undersigned accepts this Agreement, and
that this Agreement constitutes an Agreement for the rendering of Lobby Services.
Prison Rehabilitative Industries & Diversified Enterprises, Inc.
resident

SPEARMAN MANAGEMENT, INC.
516 Delannoy Avenue' Cocoa, FL 32922 • (321) 631-2750 • Fax (321) 632-2334

July 22, 2009

Mrs. Dee Kiminki
PRIDE Enterprises
12425 28th Street, N
Suite 300

:~:~' FL 33716
Attached please find my reduced fee contract for 2009-2010.
With Warm Personal Regards,
Sincerely,

~MS III/des
Attach

GUY M. SPEARMAN III
President

SPEARMAN MANAGEMENT, INC.
516 DelannoyAvenue· Cocoa, FL32922. (321) 631-2750. Fax (321) 632-2334

July 22, 2009
Jack Edgemon, President
Prison Rehabilitative Industries
& Diversified Enterprises, Inc.
12425 North 28~ Street
3" Floor
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Re:

2009 - 2010 Legislative Issues and Appropriations

Dear Jack:
This will confirm our agreement whereby the undersigned (the "Firm"), will
provide Prison Rehabilitative Industries & Diversified Enterprises, Inc. (the "Client")
with consulting services and representation in the State of Florida before the Florida
Legislature for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010.
It is understood by both the Client and the Firm that Florida Law strictly
prohibits contingency fees in reference to the passage or defeat of Legislation. For
our services, the Client agrees to pay the retainer sum of Seventy-fouf Thousand

Dollars ($74,000.00), payable monthly at Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Six
Dollars and 66/100 ($6,166.66) per month.

The Client agrees to reimburse the Firm for reasonable and necessary

out~of­

pocket expenses on your behalf, such as telephone calls, copies, lobbying registration
fees, local travel and things of that nature, upon presentation of the Firm's itemized
statement. Any expenditures which the Firm judges may be necessary, including
those involving entertainment, must be approved in advance, provided that
entertairunent or travel costs are not in excess of $2,500 during the term' of this
Agreement shall be deemed to be approved.
Documented charges for itemized expense statements with supporting receipts

must be submitted to qualify for payment. State lobbying costs are not deductible for
purposes of the Client's federal income taxes. Lobbying is defined as follows:
1.

Meetings, telephone conversations and correspondence with the
governor, members of the Legislature, their staffs or committee staffs
in an attempt to advocate the passage or defeat of legislation.

GUY M. SPEARMAN III
President

.-

2.

Testimony before legislative committees,
subpoena.

unless compelled by

3.

Distribution to the governor, members of the Legislature, their staffs or
committee staffs, of reports or studies in an attempt to advocate the
passage or defeat of legislation.

4.

Monitoring the progress of legislation does not constitute lobbying,
provided the Client never advocates their passage or defeat.

5.

Efforts to comply with existing legislation or regulations and efforts to
sell to government agencies are not lobbying.

6.

Activity with state executive agencies may not be considered lobbying.
Communications with certain high level, federal executive agency
officials is lobbying.

7.

Lobbying of cities or counties is not considered lobbying for these
purposes.

The above retainer will be paid by the Client for services rendered or to be
rendered in legislative activities relating to preparation, introduction and/or
surveillance of legislation relating to Corrections.
I understand that policy prohibits using the Client's corporate funds paid to my
Firm to make political contributions of any kind to political parties or candidates
running for local, state or federal office. All of the compensation to be paid to my
Finn is for services to be rendered and is not paid pursuant to any agreement or
understanding between my Finn and the Client that I will make any contribution to a
political party or candidate.
I agree to properly rcgister all employees of my Firm, if necessary, as a
lobbyist(s) representing the Client in the Legislature in the State of Florida, and to
make all necessary reports in a timely manner to the proper authorities, forwarding a
copy of same to your attention.
This Agreement is subject to termination by either party upon sixty (60) days
prior written notice to the other party provided, however, that tennination by the
Client shall not relieve the Client of the obligation to pay the retainer in full.
If the foregoing reflects the Client's understanding of our agreement, please
sign the duplicate copy in the space indicated below and return to my attention.

With Warm Personal Regards,
Sincerely,

IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the undersigned accepts this Agreement,
and that this Agreement constitutes an Agreement for the rendering of Lobby
Services.

Prison Rehabilitative Industries & Diversified Enterprises, Inc.

SPEARMAN MANAGEMENT, INC.
516 Delannoy Avenue, Cocoa, FL 32922. (321) 631-2750. Fax (321) 632-2334

•

July 1,2008

Jack Edgemon, President
Prison Rehabilitative Industries
& Diversified Enterprises, Inc.
12425 North 28'" Street
3rd Floor
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Re:

2008 - 2009 Legislative Issues and Appropriations

Dear Jack:

This will confirm our agreement whereby the undersigned (the "Finn"), will provide
Prison Rehabilitative Industries & Diversified Enterprises, Inc. (the "Client") with consulting
services and representation in the State of Florida before the florida Legislature for the

period July 1,2008 through June 30.. 2009.
It is understood by both the Client and the Finn that Florida Law strictly prohibits
contingency fees in reference to the passage or defeat of Legislation. For our services, the

Client agrees to pay the retainer sum of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00),
payable monthly at Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($6,250.00) per month.
The Client agrees to reimburse the Firm for reasonable and necessary out-oF-pocket
expenses on your behalf, such as tclephone calls, copies, lobbying registration fees, local
travel and things of that nature, upon presentation of the Firm'$ itemized statement. Any
expenditure whieh the Finn judges may be necessary, including thosc involving
entertainmcnt, must be approved in advance, providcd that entertainment or travel costs arc
not in excess of$2,500 during the term of this Agreement shall be deemed to be approved.
Documented charges for itemized expense statements with supporting receipts must

be submitted to qualify for payment. State lobbying costs are not deductible for purposes of
the Client's federal income taxes. Lobbying is defined as follows:
I.

Meetings, telephone conversations and correspondence with the govcrnor,
members of the Legislature, their staffs or committee staffs in an attempt to
advocate the passage or dcfeat of Icgislation.

2.

Testimony before legislative committees, unless compelled by subpoena.

GUY M. SPEARMAN, III

President

3.

Distribution to the governor, members of the Legislature, their staffs or
committee staffs, of reports or studies in an attempt to advocate the passage or
defeat of legislation.

4.

Monitoring the progress of legislation does not constitute lobbying, provided
the Client never advocates their passage or defeat.

s.

Efforts to comply with existing legislation or regulations and efforts to sell to
government agencies are not lobbying.

6.

Activity with state executive agencies may not be considered lobbying.
Communications with certain high level, federal executive agency officials is
lobbying.

7.

Lobbying of cities or counties is not considered lobbying for these purposes.

'The above retainer will be paid by the Client for services rendered or to be rendered
in legislative activities relating to preparation, introduction and/or surveillance of legislation
relating to Corrections.
I understand that policy prohibits using the Client's corporate funds paid to my rirm
to make political contributions of any kind to political parties or candidates running for local,
state or federal office. All of the compensation to be paid to my Finn is for services to be
rendered and is not paid pursuant to any agreement or understanding between my finn and
the Client that J will make any contribution to a political party or candidate.
I agree to properly register all employees of my Firm, if necessary, as a lobbyist(s)
representing the Client in the Legislature in the State of Florida, and to make all necessary
reports in a timely marmcr to the proper authorities, forwarding a copy of same to your
attention.
This Agreement is subject to termination by either party upon sixty (60) days prior
written notice to the other party provided, however, that tennination by the Client shall not
relieve the Client of the obligation to pay the retainer in full.
If the foregoing reflects the Client's understanding of our agreement, please sign the
duplicate copy in the space indicated below and return to my attention.
Very truly yours,

£!t~'-------President

GMSltbm

IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the undersigned accepts this Agreement, and
that this Agreement constitutes an Agreement for the rendering of Lobby Services.
Prison Rehabilitative Industries & Diversified Enterprises, Inc.

-~~~
rdgcmJ
resident

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Means:

Problem: PRIDE employs only 2% of the inmate
population, a percentage that has existed for over 25
years while Florida’s prison population has steadily
increased.

In order to see out this vision, the following
statutory changes must be made:

Florida's Inmate Population vs. PRIDE workstations
100,000

1) The Department is given the authority to
lease correctional work programs to more
than one organization.
2) The preferential purchasing entitlement
(section 946.515(2)) be repealed.

90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000

PRIDE Workstations
Total Inmate Population

50,000
40,000

3) Establish a Board of Directors, separate
from the PRIDE’s existing board, to
maintain transparency and accountability.

30,000

4) The Department of Corrections receives the
federal Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE)
certificate.

20,000
10,000
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2007

Organization:
Solution: Increase the percentage of inmates
working by expanding opportunities of prison
industry through private sector competition.
Vision: Employ at least 10% of inmates in paid
inmate labor programs no later than 2012.

Under the proposed plan, the structure of
correctional industries would consist of four
components: (1) The Department of Corrections, (2)
a Board of Directors, (3) industry recruiters, and (4)
contractor(s).

Objectives:
1) Train inmates for a successful reentry into
society.

Board of
Directors

Department
of Corrections

Industry Recruiters:
Enterprise Florida,
OTTED, Faith-Based…

PRIDE

Construction

Agriculture

Manufacturing

2) Reduce the future occurrence of crime.
3) Reduce future victimization by criminals.
4) Reduce inmate idleness.
5) Increase the contributions to victim
restitution.
6) Prevent the reoccurrence of financial risks to
Florida’s taxpayers.
7) Enable competition through true, freemarket correctional industries.

The Department of Corrections would act as the
contract manager, providing the personnel to secure
contracts, and assist the Board of Directors in the
oversight process. The Board of Directors would be
the authorizing agent for the Department to enter
into contracts with the private sector for the
operation of correctional industries. In addition,
organizations such as Enterprise Florida and the
Governor’s Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic
Development (OTTED), would assist the Board of
Exhibit 3.e.

public debate concerning correctional industries
and, expectantly, a subsequent resolution.
Assuming the proposed plan is enacted, Phase II
would consist of a year transition period to form a
Board of Directors, and to bid and establish
contracts for current correctional industry
operations. Finally, Phase III would be a continual
phase for the expansion of and creation of
correctional industries.

Directors and the Department in attracting business
enterprises in order to open new industries and
increase inmate workstations.
Timeline:
The transition from the existing correctional
industry structure to the proposed would consist of a
three-phased plan. Phase I would consist of the

2

into their communities. In Florida alone, 33,348
people were released from state prison last year.1
Unfortunately, many of these “ex-cons” leave
Florida’s prison system only to return a short time
later. With the current recommitment rate (those
returning to prison after 3 years) at 33%, the
Department estimates that over 10,000 of the
inmates released in fiscal year 2005-2006 will
return to Florida’s prison system.

II. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
A. Introduction
The Department of Corrections protects the public
by operating a safe, secure, humane and efficient
corrections system. The goals of the agency are to
protect the public, staff and inmates, develop staff
committed to professionalism and fiscal
responsibility, ensure victims and stakeholders are
treated with dignity, sensitivity and respect in
making and executing administrative and
operational decisions, and to prepare offenders for
reentry and release into society.

Consequently based on this estimate, 10,000 more
crimes will be committed and thousands more will
be made victims of new crimes. Every crime has at
least one victim, thus recidivism has a negative
impact on the safety of Florida’s citizens. While
public safety is strained with recidivism, the
Department of Corrections is placed under great
pressure not only to construct new prisons (at a
price of approximately $100 million), but also
provide an infrastructure (at an annual operating
cost of $40 million per year per prison) to meet the
mission of public safety. Current construction plans
along with a prison population which is estimated to
exceed 100,000 by November 2008 presents a grave
financial predicament for managing prisons in
Florida.

B. Organization
The Florida Department of Corrections is the third
largest state prison system in the country with a
recurring budget of $2.3 billion, almost 95,000
inmates incarcerated and another 153,000 offenders
on some type of community supervision.
The Department has 137 facilities statewide,
including 60 prisons, 41 work/forestry camps, one
treatment center, 30 work release centers and five
road prisons. About three quarters of its staff of
more than 27,000 employees are either certified
correctional officers or probation officers.

In response to the staggering statistics in the
projected inmate population, the Department of
Corrections has made reducing recidivism a major
focus. In May of 2007, the Department of
Corrections changed its mission to state, “To protect
the public, ensure the safety of Department
personnel, and provide for the proper care and
supervision of all offenders under our jurisdiction
while assisting, as appropriate, their reentry into
society.” Coupled with this change to the mission
statement, the Department set a goal to “Bring the
recidivism rate down from its present rate of 32% to
20% or less by 2012.” The Department envisions
that, if accomplished, the criminal justice system
will see a significant reduction in the demands that
repeat offenders exert and provide safer
communities for the citizens of Florida and those
who visit the state.

Prisons are generally managed by state government,
but Florida does have six privately run prisons.
Inmates in Florida’s prisons have sentences of more
than a year for serious felony offenses.
In Fiscal Year 2006-07, about 37,000 inmates were
admitted into Florida prisons and another 35,000
were released; while more than 107,000 offenders
were placed on community supervision and another
104,000 were released from supervision. Given the
fact that most of those who serve time in prison and
on supervision will eventually be free, the
Department must focus on equipping its inmates
and offenders with the tools they will need to
become productive citizens.

D. Vocational Education
C. Recidivism
A key tool in reducing recidivism is equipping
offenders with marketable skills enabling them to
be productively employed. An offender’s ability to

This year, as in other recent years, America’s
prisons will release more than 600,000 inmates back
3

find employment upon release is closely related to
reducing the likelihood that an offender will commit
a crime. Research has shown that higher levels of
job instability lead to higher arrest rates.2
Furthermore, the Urban Institute indicates that
former prisoners who have legitimate work after

they return to the community are less likely to
commit new crimes.3 Within the Department,
statistics show that inmates who earn a vocational
certificate are 16% less likely to recidivate than
those who do not complete a program (Figure 1).
Figure 1

CERTIFICATE (GED-HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA-VOCATIONAL) RECIDIVISM
(Recidivism = Return to Prison for New Offense or Technical Violation)
Chart Reflects 15.8% Reduction in Recidivism Rate w/in 36 Months of Release
for Inmates Earning a Vocational Certificate

0.6

n = 180,526

0.5

n = 13,777
Recidivism Rate

0.4
n = 10,608
0.3

Salient Points
0.2
* Releases who earn a GED/HSD or Vocational Certificate recidivate at a much lower rate than the
'No Certificate Group'
0.1

0
1

6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131

Months After Release
No Certificate

With GED/HSD

With Vocational Certificate

The chart provided reflects recidivism rates (percent returned to prison for a new offense or technical violation, within a specified
time period after release) for releases from 1/1/1995 through 12/31/2005 (over an 11-year period).

In 1976, the Legislature appropriated $11 million to
expand the correctional industries with a projected
completion date of 1983.7 By 1981, this funding
resulted in the Department establishing a total of:

E. Correctional Industries
As part of vocational education, correctional
industries serve as an excellent opportunity for
reducing recidivism by providing inmates desirable
job skills, decreasing inmate idleness by offering
work, and offsetting the cost of state government by
utilizing inmate labor.

•
•

History

•

Although the use of inmate labor in Florida dates
back to more than 100 years, correctional industries
were not officially established until 1957.4 In that
year, the Department of Corrections' Correctional
Industries Program was authorized with an
appropriation of $250,000 along with the creation of
an Industrial Trust Fund.5 Under this authorization,
statute dictated the products and services that could
be sold as well as the customers to whom the
products and services may be sold.6

62 industry programs at 16 correctional
institutions.
2,000 inmate workstations, representing 9.7
percent of the total inmate population
(19,722).
$23 million annual gross income from
sales.8

During that same year, significant changes were
made to correctional industries in Florida. Senate
Bill 97 was signed into law providing for the
establishment of an incorporated, private, non-profit
business organization to operate the prison
industries program. As a result, by June 30th, 1985,
the Department of Corrections transferred virtually
all industrial facilities and related-land to this
corporation, Prison Rehabilitative Industries and
4

in Florida Statutes. PRIDE, in that year, received
the PIE certificate (formerly in the Department’s
possession).9 Consequently, PRIDE was given the
privilege to operate correctional industries and to
sell commodities across state lines according to
federal law and while not resulting in the significant
displacement of employed workers in the
community.

Diversified Enterprises, Inc. (PRIDE). As part of
this transfer, PRIDE was given specific duties by
the Legislature (listed in priority):
•

To provide a joint effort between the
department, the correctional work programs,
and other vocational training programs to
reinforce relevant education, training, and
post-release job placement and help reduce
recommitment.

•

To serve the security goals of the state
through the reduction of idleness of inmates
and the provision of an incentive for good
behavior in prison.

•

To reduce the cost of state government by
operating enterprises primarily with inmate
labor, which enterprises do not seek to
unreasonably compete with private
enterprise.

•

To serve the rehabilitative goals of the state
by duplicating, as nearly as possible, the
operating activities of a free-enterprise type
of profit making enterprise.

With all of the opportunities afforded to PRIDE
over the past 26 years, PRIDE now operates 37
diverse industrial training programs in 20
correctional institutions (see Section V.). However,
only 2% of Florida’s prison population is employed
by PRIDE and the number of jobs has remained
utterly stagnate for years. Furthermore, according
to a 2003 and 2006 OPPAGA report, between 1996
and 2005 PRIDE actually reduced the number of
inmate workstations by almost 500.10
Consequently, with the increase in Florida’s prison
population since 1996, the percentage of the inmate
population employed by PRIDE has decreased
proportionately by 40 percent. The non-existence
growth in inmate workstations occurred even while
the PRIDE sales have increased (Figure 2).
Figure 2

In 1999, significant changes to law were again
made to correctional industries. Section 946.006,
F.S., which allowed the Department to put into
effect an agricultural and industrial production and
marketing programs for inmates, was repealed.
Section 946.519, F.S., was also repealed. This
statute allowed, “Any service or item manufactured,
processed, grown, or produced by the Department
of Corrections in its present programs or in its
future programs and not required for use therein
may be furnished or sold to any legislative,
executive, or judicial branch agency, department, or
institution of the state; political subdivision of the
state; other state; or agency of the Federal
Government.” In addition, section 946.008, F.S.,
which allowed the Department to explore new
financing arrangements, including the involvement
of private industry and expertise in order to finance
correctional work programs, was eliminated.

PRIDE Workstations
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

(Millions)

PRIDE Sales

While the Department of Corrections lost many of
its opportunities for correctional industry expansion,
PRIDE saw many additional benefits to the change

$80
$78
$76
$74
$72
$70
$68
$66
$64
$62
$60
2002

5

2003

2004

2005

2006

Looking at the past 7 years, correctional industries
have seen a decline in sales within the state market
(Figure 4). Issues such as constrained budgets and
privatization have contributed to a decrease in sales;
however, efforts could be made to resolve
purchasing disputes through the Department of
Management Services and to initiate a more
competitive nature in state sales.

III. MARKET ANALYSIS
Since 1999, PRIDE sales had seen a decline and
subsequent rebound (Figure 3). Much of the early
decline in sales can be attributed to the dependency
on a single market sector for revenue.
Consequently, as stated in PRIDE’s 2006 Annual
Report, “continued state government budget
constraints and outsourcing trends, coupled recently
with declining tax revenues, has prompted PRIDE
Enterprises to focus on a balanced market sector
sales approach.” These market sectors can be
categorized into three markets, state, non-state and
private.

Figure 4
Sales to State Agencies
75%

75%

73%

70%
Percen t o f Sales

A. State Sector
Over the years, the bulk of sales for correctional
industries have come from state agencies. In 2006,
over $34 million dollars or roughly 46% of PRIDE
sales were made to state agencies. A major
advantage given to correctional industries within the
state market is that under Florida law, no similar
product or service of comparable price and quality
found necessary for use by any state agency may be
purchased from any source other than correctional
industries if the industry certifies that product (s.
946.515(2)). An unintended consequence of this
statute is that state purchasing agents are not pushed
to compare prices before buying PRIDE products;
furthermore, often purchases are made at a reduced
hassle rather than always a reduced price.
Consequently, PRIDE has cornered the market on
many products/services consumed by state agencies.

65%

65%
60%

55%

55%
52%

51%

50%

50%
46%

45%
40%
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

B. Non-State Sector
In the past 7 years, correctional industries have seen
a slight increase in the percentage of sales within
this market sector (Figure 5). Major contributors to
this market are counties and municipalities. While
county and municipalities are not subject to the
same statutory regulations for purchasing as with
state agencies, sufficiency of the product/service at
less expensive prices are attractive to financially
constrained local governments.

Figure 3
Correctional Industries Sales

Figure 5

78

Sales to Non-State Sector

74
100%

72

90%

70

80%

68

Percentage of Sales

S a le s (M illio n s )

76

66
64
62
60
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

70%
60%
50%
30%

40%
30%
20%

18%

22%

22%

21%

25%

11%

10%
0%
2000

6

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

require a commitment of more than $1.73 billion (in
construction costs alone) through fiscal year 20112012. In the near term, the Department’s 2008
Legislative Budget Request contains a $650 million
request for new prison construction. We must be
cognizant that every new prison creates an
additional $40 million recurring in operational costs
to run it. The reality is capital expenditures (nonrecurring costs) create operational commitments
(recurring costs).

C. Private Sector
Under section 946.523, F.S., PRIDE may operate or
contract with the private sector for substantial
involvement in a prison industry enhancement (PIE)
program that includes, but is not limited to,
contracts for the operation of a direct private sector
business within a prison and the hiring of inmates.
Since 1999, PRIDE has been given the ability to
operate such programs, yet compared to other states
employs substantially less. At the end of June 30,
2007, PRIDE was employing fewer inmates than
South Carolina, Kansas, and Nevada and employing
similar numbers as Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Utah,
and Idaho – all smaller states with significantly
smaller inmate populations.

The Means
If we are going to build more prisons, we must be
equally prepared to consider any means by which
we can reduce the rate of growth in the prison
population. Data demonstrates that Florida’s prison
population, as a labor force, is an opportunity to
address the very problems that enabled its abundant
supply.11 In addition the Department has land
available to house current and future correctional
industries.

IV. A NEW APPROACH
The greatest opportunities occur when
conventional wisdom and reality fail to align.
A. Reason, Need, and Means

B. Proposal
Florida’s rising prison population is an issue beyond
the control of policy makers and budgetary
personnel. However, an examination of the facts
paints the reality that there is a reason, a need and a
means to use correctional industries to help
overcome larger policy questions.

The Department of Corrections consists of a
potential workforce of over 72,000 inmates. Yet,
everyday, thousands remain idle in state prisons,
ready and willing to learn desirable job skills, gain
job experience while in prison, and pay their debt to
society.

The Reason
It is important that these inmates be given the
opportunity to learn job skills. Studies verify that
offenders who leave prison with marketable,
desirable job skills are much less likely to re-offend.
Less recidivism means fewer victims and less tax
dollars spent on the criminal justice system.
Correctional work programs provide the
opportunity for inmates to obtain desirable job
skills.

First, we need to establish one key fact – Florida’s
taxpayers are already the ultimate investor in
correctional industries. The taxpayers pay both
when an inmate fails to successfully reenter society
($19,000 per inmate per year), and when current
operations fail to produce savings for governmental
entities that purchase commodities through
correctional industries. Therefore, Florida’s
taxpayers deserve a substantial return on their
investment.

For over a quarter of a century, correctional
industries have been given to one entity, Prison
Rehabilitative and Diversified Enterprises, Inc.
(PRIDE), to manage inmate labor and operate these
industries without the benefit of open competition.
When created in 1981, PRIDE held an ambitious
vision with every intention to help reduce
recidivism and inmate idleness through vocational
training and employment. However, the

The Need
Second, there is a massive growth in our prison
population, causing impacts in the way of both
recurring and nonrecurring costs. Recent projections
show that by 2011-2012, Florida will have 120,283
inmates. In total, prison population estimates will
7

organization has created an era of stagnation and a
lack of innovation in increasing inmate labor. The
lack of persistence by PRIDE to fulfill its statutory
obligations demonstrates the need for change.

workstations will be created at a cost savings to
Florida’s taxpayer.

The Department of Corrections proposes it be given
the statutory authority to contract with more than
one organization to operate the various correctional
industries across Florida. The Department is
determined to elevate Florida’s correctional
industries to a degree in scale and scope hoped for
but so far not realized. Its vision is to employ at
least 10% of inmates in paid inmate labor
programs no later than 2012. The Department
believes that in order for correctional industries to
be successful and meet the needs of its mission,
industries must:

A major advantage to correctional industries under
this proposed structure is financial stability. Under
the current structure providing PRIDE sole access
to employing inmates and operating correctional
industries presents a financial risk to the taxpayers
of Florida. If this corporation were to go bankrupt,
the state of Florida could incur a significant cost in
order to rectify the financial losses and to resurrect
a defunct correctional industry. Under current
budgetary times, correctional industries could thus
be terminated or suspended resulting in an increase
to inmate idleness and a detriment to antirecidivism efforts.

Financial Stability

1) Train inmates for a successful reentry into
society.

Unfortunately, this risk almost turned into reality
between 2003 and 2005. According to a 2005 audit
of PRIDE conducted by the Office of the Chief
Inspector General, PRIDE’s system of internal
controls were inadequate to ensure effective,
efficient, and proper use of resources. As a result,
PRIDE incurred a loss of approximately $19.2
million in resources that would have otherwise
benefited the state. Consequently, PRIDE "initiated
its own clean-up" to resolve its near bankruptcy.12
This near-missed disaster clearly demonstrates the
potential financial risk with one entity running all
correctional industries.

2) Reduce the future occurrence of crime.
3) Reduce future victimization by criminals.
4) Reduce inmate idleness.
5) Increase the contributions to victim
restitution.
6) Prevent the reoccurrence of financial risks to
Florida’s taxpayers.
7) Enable competition through true, freemarket correctional industries.

Victim Restitution
Inmates serve their sentence in state prison in order
to pay their debt to society. Yet, many are not
paying their debt to the person(s) their crime has
hurt the most: the victim. Victim restitution
contributions over the past four years have been less
than $400,000 per year. By increasing the number
of inmate workstations, expanding industries, and
opening new industries, more victims will be paid.

The proposed plan is rooted in the founding
principles of capitalism. Under the proposed plan,
each correctional industry would function like any
normal business activity, but organizations
(including PRIDE) would compete for the operating
privileges. If given the contract, these organizations
would also be forced to compete in markets that
demand efficiency resulting in innovative ideas and
practices. The Department of Corrections and a
Board of Directors would oversee the industries in
order to meet the mission of public safety and in
order to protect the workers (inmates) and
stakeholders (taxpayers) in these correctional
industries. Under this structure more inmate

While victim contributions will increase, so will the
chances for inmates to have their civil rights
restored. By October 18th, 2007 the Department of
Corrections had conducted 286,146 historical case
reviews for the new civil rights restoration process.
Of those reviews, 112,879 were deemed ineligible
for automatic rights restoration. Thirty-six percent
8

the field of vocational training. The other two
members would be the Secretary of Corrections and
the Assistant Secretary of Institutions. The Board
of Directors would have the following specific
duties:

of those cases were considered ineligible due partly
or wholly because the person owed restitution. By
providing more inmate workstations and preparing
inmates in job skills for long-term, stable
employment, civil rights may be restored to
thousands that pay their debt.

1. Coordinate a correctional work program
which follows the objectives and guidelines
set forth by Florida Statutes.
2. Provide direct oversight and approval for all
contracted correctional work programs.
3. Provide an annual report to the Governor
and the Legislature prior to July 1 of each
year.

C. Organizational Structure
Under the proposed plan, the structure of
correctional industries would consist of four
components: (1) The Department of Corrections, (2)
a Board of Directors, (3) industry recruiters and (4)
contractor(s) (Figure 6).
The Department of Corrections would act as the
contract manager, providing the personnel to secure
contracts, and staff assistance to the Board of
Directors in the oversight process.

Industry recruiters, organizations such as Enterprise
Florida and the Governor’s Office for Tourism,
Trade and Economic Development (OTTED),
would lend a hand to the Board of Directors and the
Department in attracting business enterprises in
order to open new industries and increase inmate
workstations. Industry recruiters represent an
important part in expanding correctional industries.

Figure 6
Board of
Directors

Department
of Corrections

Industry Recruiters:
Enterprise Florida,
OTTED, Faith-Based…

PRIDE

Construction

Agriculture

Manufacturing

The Contractor would provide, under the terms of
the contract, the managing of operations within an
industry. As an incentive to the contractor, the
Department would not remove an inmate once
assigned to the contractor, except upon request of or
consent of the contractor or for the purposes of
population management. As standard for every
contract, the Department would establish a
compensation plan that provides for a specific
amount to be credited to the account for an inmate
performing labor and a portion to be used to make
any court-ordered payments, including restitution to
the victim, and a specific amount to be paid to the
Prison Industries Trust Fund. The contractor would
be liable for inmate injury to the extent specified in
section 768.28, F.S.; however, the members of the
Board of Directors would not be individually liable
to any inmate for any injury sustained in any
correctional work program operated by the
contractor.

The Department of Corrections would contract with
the private sector (including PRIDE) for the
operation of a correctional industry. Any contract in
a PIE industry authorized by the Board of Directors
would be in compliance with federal law governing
inmate work programs and would be mindful of the
displacement of employed workers in the
community.
Under this proposal, the Board of Directors would
consist of a 6-person panel. Four members would
be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the
Senate. These four members would consist of
members of Florida enterprises and/or members in

9

Figure 7

D. Timeline
(including PRIDE) for operating new/expanding
industries. After July 1st, 2009, the new
correctional industry structure would be in place.

The transition from the existing correctional
industry structure to the proposed would consist of a
three-phased plan (Figure 7). Phase I would consist
of the public debate concerning correctional
industries and, expectantly, a subsequent resolution.

E. Competition
To reaffirm the competitiveness of an industry,
under this proposed structure, Florida section
946.515(2), F.S., would be repealed. Through the
repeal of this language, current industries which
have historically cornered the market on state sales
would now be open to competition; furthermore,
these industries would be forced to provide quality
products at competitive prices.

Assuming, the Department’s proposed plan is
enacted July 1st, 2008, the transition phase (Phase
II) would be initiated and continue until July 1st,
2009. During Phase II, the Board of Directors
would be formed. Once the board is formed,
contract bidding and establishment of contracts for
current correctional industries would begin. Also in
between this time, the Department of Corrections
and PRIDE would conduct a thorough inventory of
all property relating to correctional work programs
including all buildings, land, furnishings,
equipment, and other chattels. This inventory
would provide the basis for defining which items
revert to whom (the Department, PRIDE, Board of
Trustees). For those industries that do not result in
a contract between PRIDE and the Department, the
Department would exert its best efforts to ensure
personnel in those industries have employment
opportunities under the new industry operator.

F. Contracts
Under the proposed plan, the Department of
Corrections would be exempt from requirements of
Chapter 287 (Florida Statutes) when entering into
contracts or leases with private business for the
operation of correctional work programs. Where
prudent and at the approval of the Board of
Directors, revenue generating contracts would be
established between the Department and
organizations for the operation of correctional
industries. Under these contracts, a percentage of
sales generated by the industry would be deposited
into the Prison Industries Trust Fund and would be
limited to reimbursing the Department for room and
board, compensating crime victims, paying for the
support of inmate’s families, and enhancing and

Overlapping Phase II, Phase III (Contracting) would
begin after the Board of Directors is formed. In
Phase III, the Department and Board of Directors
would begin negotiating and securing contracts
between the Department and the private sector
10

and local governments and, most importantly, do so
at a reduced cost. Last but not least, with the
current funding for active state fixed capital outlay
projects just over $300 million, there is a
particularly attractive incentive for potential
investors.

expanding correctional industry programs. These
monies would represent a key component in
attracting new and current investors. Looking at
correctional industry sales in 2006, a 3% deduction
would result in over $2 million deposited into the
trust fund. Based on current construction estimates
and utilizing inmate labor to assist in construction,
the Department could offer approximately a 1/3 of
the construction costs for a 100,000 square foot
facility.

Figure 8

G. New Industries
While the Department of Corrections would
contract existing industries, the Department and the
Board of Directors, with the assistance of Enterprise
Florida, the Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic
Development and other organizations, would pursue
business enterprises in order to open new industries
and increase inmate workstations. The following
represent some of the ideas for potential industries.
It is important to note that due to current statute and
structure of correctional industries, the Department
of Corrections remains in a premature stage in
identifying new markets for correctional industries.
Assuming the proposed concept is implemented,
more defined markets with specific investors along
with precise projections would be realized.

Active State Fixed Capital Outlay
Projects
th

(Snapshot Oct. 24 , 2007)

1-20
21-50
> 50
Inactive
Projects

Manufacturing
Another potential industry in the construction field
is modular home building. Companies have shown
interest in the building a facility adjacent or within
an institution in order to employ inmate roofers,
framers, and plumbers. Consequently, this potential
industry could employ over 200 inmates at a single
institution.

General Construction
According the Department of Management
Services, in an October 24th, 2007 snapshot, there
were 568 active fixed capital outlay projects
statewide out of a total of 5,151 projects in
existence (Figure 8). Many of these projects consist
of roof repairs, heating and air condition repairs,
and electrical repairs to state facilities. At the same
time, almost 24,000 job vacancies in Florida’s
construction industry exist in 165 occupations.13
The top four construction vacancies in Florida last
year were in carpentry, construction labor,
electrical, and heating and air conditioning.14 By
reaching out to interested and experienced
construction companies, the Department of
Corrections could contract with an organization to
establish a general contracting industry. By
harnessing experienced inmates in construction and
by training inmates in construction trades, a general
contracting industry would consist of a strong labor
force to help meet the construction needs of state

V. CURRENT INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Correctional industries operate 37 industrial training
programs located at 20 correctional facilities. These
programs can be classified into several categories:
Agriculture, Imaging, Graphics, Furniture, Services,
and Sewn Products. The following is an overview
of the current correctional work industries. They
represent just a small portion of the type of industry
and service that the Department contemplates it
could undertake by entering into contracts with
other entities under this proposal.
A. Agriculture
Agricultural industries operate in 5 correctional
institutions across the State of Florida.
11

several products including bleach products, carpet
care products, floor care products, food service
products, cleaners/polishers, laundry products,
personal care products, restroom care products,
brooms and brushes, and wood care products. At
the same time, sanitary maintenance also offers coin
laundry, equipment inspection, and equipment
installation. 36 inmates are approximately employed
in this program.

Sugarcane
Located in heart of Florida’s sugarcane industry,
Glades C.I. hosts a sugarcane production industry
working on approximately 3,878 acres of land
employing approximately 50 inmates.
Citrus
A well-known Florida crop, citrus, is grown on
approximately 1000-acres and harvested at Hendry
C.I. This industry employs some 35-40 inmates offseason and 56 inmates during the picking season.

Baker Paint
The paint industry produces traffic paint goods
employing approximately 10 inmates.

Forestry
Broward Optical
In the areas surrounding Union C.I., Florida State
Prison, and New River C.I. timber is harvested, cut,
and treated employing close to 100 inmates.

Operating at one of the six female state correctional
facilities, the optical industry manufactures adult
and children frames in many styles and fashions. 46
inmates are approximately employed in this
program.

Cattle
From Apalachee C.I. in the Panhandle, to Union
C.I. in Central Florida, and Hendry C.I. in South
Florida, beef cattle are raised and tended to by
approximately 10 inmates.

Tomoka Heavy Vehicle Renovation
The heavy vehicle renovation industry offers
O.E.M. and custom body fabrication, command
center fabrication, bus repair and renovation, E.V.T.
certified technical support and custom work. 87
inmates are approximately employed in this
program.

B. Services
The Services Industry employs over 500 inmates in
a variety of business located at 7 correctional
facilities

Union Dental
ACI Business Services
Located outside of Apalachee’s West Unit, this
warehouse hosts a defacing and repackaging
operation employing approximately 11 inmates.

The dental industry provides an array of products
and services to include orthodontics, partials,
complete dentures, crowns, and repairs. The dental
program employs approximately 50 inmates.

Avon Park Tire

New River Food Processing

The tire program offers tire retreading, disposal,
recapping, mounting, dismounting, rim cleaning,
rim painting, and nail hole and section repair. 66
inmates are approximately employed in this
program.

This USDA certified and inspected industry
employs approximately 73 inmates.
Union Tag
The tag plant produces licenses plates for the State
of Florida and also to a few foreign countries. The
tag plant also produces vanity plates for fundraising
events, school support, and more. Approximately
105 inmates are employed at the tag plant.

Avon Park Sanitary Maintenance
The sanitary maintenance program offers a host of
products and services. Sanitary maintenance sells
12

C. Sewn Products

F. Digital Services

The sewn product industry is divided among 6
institutions around the State of Florida. Many
products are made to include: mattresses, pillow and
pillow cases, sheets and blankets, laundry bags,
towels, recreational clothing, work apparel, work
gloves, jail sets, coveralls, dresses, shirts and tshirts, sweatshirts, jackets, pants, undergarments,
hats, belts, bags, footwear, socks, and uniforms. In
addition, the sewn product industry offers screen
printing and embroidery. This industry combined
employs approximately 450 inmates statewide.

The digital service business, located at Liberty C.I.
offers services in the imaging, conversion, capturing
and indexing of data. Approximately 80 inmates are
employed in the program currently.
1

2005-2006 Annual Report. The Florida Department of
Corrections.
2
Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. “Turning points in
the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime,”
Criminology 31 (1993): 301-325.
3
Solomon, Amy L., Johnson, Kelly Dedel, Travis, Jeremy,
and Elizabeth C. McBride, “From Prison to Work: The
Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry,” Urban
Institute Justice Policy Center(2004): 4
4
Florida Corrections Commission 2002 Annual Report.
Florida Corrections Commission
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.

D. Furniture
The furniture industry offers an array of products
and services. These products include office
furniture, park furniture, metal detention furniture,
case goods, tables, benches, desks, beds, barbeque
grills, conference tables, lockers, tables, panel
systems, shelving, trash receptacles, office seating,
fire and rescue lockers, dormitory furniture, lounge
seating, hose racks, and school lockers. The
furniture industry also offers custom products,
refurbishing, design and installation. Located at
Polk C.I., Sumter C.I., and Union C.I., the furniture
industry employs some 360 inmates.

9

The Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE) certificate is issued by the
federal government and monitored by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA). The BJA certifies the certificate holder that local
or state prison industry programs meet all the necessary requirements
to be exempt from federal restrictions on prisoner-made goods in
interstate commerce. The program places inmates in realistic work
environments, and pays them prevailing wages. More information is
available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/piecp.html

10

Florida Corrections Commission 2002 Annual Report.
Florida Corrections Commission
11
Visit http://edr.state.fl.us/conferences.htm and
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/index.html.
12
Prison chief wants control of inmate training program,”
Gainesville Sun, 9 Oct., 2007.
13
“Help Wanted results from Florida 2006 Construction Job
Vacancy/ Hiring Needs Survey.” Agency for Workforce
Innovation.
14
Ibid.

E. Graphics
The graphics industry is located at 5 institutions
including the recent addition of a printing program
at South Bay Correctional Facility. The graphics
industry itself consists of two businesses, printing
and boxes. Printing services offer specialty printing
(signage, vehicle graphics, bookmarks, etc.) and full
service printing (pocket folders, books, brochures,
etc.). In addition, the printing program offers an
array of services to include bindery, design services,
screen printing, and foil stamping. The box
manufacturing program, located at Marion C.I.,
produces standard slotted, shipping, record storage
boxes as well as customized corrugated paperboard
boxes and logo printing. Boxes are available in wax
or water-based emulsion coating, stapled or glued,
and can be made of recycled material to fit the
customer’s needs. The graphics industry employs
over 450 inmates statewide.

13

DOC Divisions and Bureaus

Office of Institutions Key Contacts/Responsibilities
Deputy Secretary of Institutions and Re-Entry
George Sapp
(850) 488-4757
Sapp.George@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Assistant Secretary of Institutions
Wendel Whitehurst
(850) 410-4570
Whitehurst.Wendel@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Institutions
John Hancock
(850) 410-4379
Hancock.John@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Security Operations
James Upchurch
(850) 410-4390
Upchurch.James@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Provides oversight of security practices and procedures at all prisons through
security audits and security consulting.
Assists in the establishment of standards by which security and operational
management of all Department facilities are monitored.
Identifies critical security deficiencies and proposal of budget recommendations for
correction of deficiencies.
Tracks the levels of illicit contraband and weapons entering or being manufactured
in institutions.
Reports any unusual occurrence and provides fugitive verification to all facilities,
law enforcement agencies, and the general public on a twenty-four hour basis.
Monitors the daily utilization of security staff through continual review of existing
and proposed post charts, quarterly rosters, etc.
Coordinates disaster preparedness and coordination of relief efforts, etc., for the
Office of Institutions. The Department has established a Disaster Preparedness Plan
and made provisions to activate an Emergency Operations Center when a disaster
threatens. Coordinating issues, such as preparing facilities for a potential threat of
disaster, possible evacuation of facilities, and recovery efforts, are the main
functions of this operation.
Manages the response team operations for the Rapid Response Teams (RRT)
consisting of baton, munitions squads, CERT, and crisis negotiation teams.

Exhibit 4

Classification & Central Records
Rusty McLaughlin
(850) 488-9859
McLaughlin.Rusty@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Provides case management of each inmate from reception through release and the
record keeping of documents resulting from all classification processes as well as
some processes from other bureaus and entities. Inmate case management covers a
wide variety of areas including, but not limited to, the application of gain time,
visitation, transfers, work release and transition center placements, reentry facility
placements and the assessment of inmates to determine their internal and external
security requirements, program and work assignments.
Develops and administers the Corrections Integrated Needs Assessment System
(CINAS) which identifies the inmate‟s likelihood to recidivate and determines each
inmate‟s program and criminogenic needs. The focal point of this system is to
target the right group of inmates with the right amount of programming to reduce
the overall recidivism rate for the Florida Department of Corrections.
Classification, in concert with the Department‟s Information Technology team, is at
the forefront of state-of-the-art developments in inmate assessment and case
management systems. Case management is a continuous process throughout an
inmate‟s incarceration and classification staff plays a major role in an inmate‟s
appropriate and timely release and their successful reentry to the community.

Facility Services
Steve Grizzard
(850) 410-4111
Grizzard.Stephen@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Manages the construction of new institutions, annexes, work camps, and buildings
by both outside contractors and inmate laborers.
Designs new institutions and buildings using in-house architects and engineers.
Coordinates environmental permitting and site design for new institutions and
renews existing environmental permits.
Selects sites for constructions of new prison facilities.
Coordinates the design and operations of the department's wastewater, water
treatment facilities, and preventive maintenance and energy conservation programs.
Oversees the repair and renovation of existing facilities using inmate labor.
Assists institutions and service centers regarding construction and maintenance
issues; and provides construction services to other state agencies.

Institutional Support Services
Charlie Terrell
(850) 410-4278
Terrell.Charlie@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Provides contract management expertise and monitoring of statewide contracts

managed by the bureau including the inmate telephone system, inmate canteens, fire
safety, and prime vendor food services contracts. Provide specific monitoring
reports, and verify invoices for payment pursuant to the provisions of the contract.
Fleet Management monitors the statewide fleet activities; supervise acquisitions,
disposals, distribution, and maintenance of the fleet; supervise the department‟s
EMIS system, issue fuel credit and toll pass cards, and submit LBR requests.
Monitors the inmate work programs and provide contracts to various agencies and
municipalities requesting inmate labor.
Provides statewide guidance and expertise for Environmental Health, Safety and
Risk Management in the scheduling of Fire Marshal inspections. Acts as the liaison
with the Department of Management Services and the Department of Insurance in
areas of safety and risk management.
Oversee statewide records management training of staff to ensure proper retention
and storage of records. Maintain the Records Management Access Database to
easily identify and track storage and disposition within each region.
Issues Central Office Identification Badges, oversight of mailroom operations, copy
and printing operations, inmate janitorial operations, and interaction with the
owner‟s representative for maintenance and repairs.
Provides central oversight of food service operations at 140 kitchens throughout the
state for the management of food service operations and programs provided to the
inmate population ensuring compliance with Department policy and procedures as
well as state and federal guidelines.

Institutions Regions
The Department‟s major institutions (seven privately run) are geographically grouped
into fourregions. The Tallahassee Central Office provides direction, policy, and
operational andprogram oversight through the regional directors and their staff to all the
facilities. Thesefacilities incarcerate felons convicted and sentenced to more than a year.
Region I
Randall Bryant
2015 West Unit Dr.
Sneads, Florida
32460
(850) 482-1381
Institutions 19
Work Camp,
Forestry Camp &
Road prisons 16
Work Release
Centers 4

Region 2
Timothy Cannon
7765 South County
Road 231
Lake Butler, Florida
32054
(386) 496-6000
Institutions 16
Work Camp,
Forestry Camp &
Road prisons 11
Work Release
Centers 5
Region 3
Gerald Abdul-Wasi
19225 U.S. Hwy 27
Clermont, Florida
34715
(352) 989-9111
Institutions 14
Work Camp,
Forestry Camp &
Road prisons 10
Work Release
Region 4
Marta Villacorta
20421 Sheridan St.
Pembroke Pines,
Florida 33029
(954) 252-6509/10
Institutions 15
Work Camp,
Forestry Camp &
Road prisons 9
Work Release
Centers 9

Program: Community Corrections
The Office of Community Corrections assists the administration in carrying out its
mission for public safety by providing appropriate supervision to offenders placed on
community supervision programs including pre-trial intervention, probation, community
control, drug offender probation, sex offender probation, and post release supervision.
Correctional Probation Officers provide referrals to resources necessary to assist
offenders in successfully completing the conditions of supervision.

Bureau of Probation and Parole Field Services
The Bureau of Probation and Parole Field Services is responsible for developing,
implementing, revising and monitoring supervision programs in the areas of
probation, post release supervision, community control, drug offender probation,
career offenders, sexual offenders/predators, and pretrial intervention. This bureau
is responsible for other field supervision operations including sentencing guidelines,
probation databases, and court-ordered payments. Employees in this bureau are also
responsible for developing statewide policy for 3,300 staff members, including over
2500 correctional probation officers and supervisors, monitoring and coordinating
operational review and ACA accreditation, grant reporting and development,
analysis, formulation, and preparation of legislative proposals relating to probation
and parole.

Bureau of Interstate Compact
The Bureau of Interstate Compact is responsible for the statewide administration of
the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. Reciprocal agreements
between all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U. S. Virgin
Islands, allow for the controlled movement and transfer of adult probationers and
parolees across state lines for reasons of employment, education and reunification
with family in accordance with uniform rules promulgated by the Interstate
Commission for Adult offender Supervision. Currently, Florida supervises
approximately 5800 other state probationers and parolees. Approximately 4900
Florida probationers and parolees are supervised by other states.

Bureau of Community Programs
The Bureau of Community Programs is responsible for developing, implementing,
revising and monitoring programs within the Office of Community Corrections.
Bureau staff provide technical assistance and oversight for professional development,
in service certification and re-certification for active and auxiliary CPO and staff. Staff
provide information and liaison with local, state and federal law enforcement
agencies in an effort to clear pending warrants (absconders) for offenders on
community supervision. Bureau staff provide management and oversight of the
electronic monitoring program, and provide statewide emergency operations
management for the Office of Community Corrections.

PROBATION AND PAROLE SERVICES
Region I
Region I Office
Barry Groves, Regional Director
Susan Bissett-Dotson, Operations Manager
14107 US Hwy 441, Suite 300
Alachua, FL 32615-6392
(386) 418-3451
Fax: (386) 418-3450
010 - PENSACOLA - CIRCUIT
3101 North Davis Highway
Pensacola, Florida 32503-3558
(850) 595-8953
Fax: (850) 595-8864

011 - MILTON
6738 Caroline Street, S.E.
Milton, Florida 32570-4974
(850) 983-5300
Fax: (850) 983-5306

012 - CRESTVIEW
250 Pine Avenue, Suite A
Crestview, Florida 32536
(850) 689-7804
Fax: (850) 689-7874

013 - SHALIMAR
74-3rd Street
Shalimar, Florida 32579-1377
(850) 833-9132
Fax: (850) 833-9148

014 - DEFUNIAK SPRINGS
2338 Hwy 90 West
Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433
(850) 892-8075
Fax: (850) 892-8084

015 - PENSACOLA WEST
3100 West Fairfield Drive
Pensacola, Florida 32505-4966
(850) 595-8900
Fax: (850) 595-8671

016 – PENSACOLA NORTH
3101 N. Davis Hwy.
Pensacola, FL 32503
(850) 595-8845
Fax: (850) 595-8860

017 - PENSACOLA BAYSIDE
315 South "A" Street
Pensacola, Florida 32502
(850) 595-8460
Fax: (850) 595-8469

018 - PENSACOLA CENTRAL
3101 North Davis Hwy.
Pensacola, Florida 32503-4945
(850) 595-8845
Fax: (850) 595-8860

020 - TALLAHASSEE MAIN / INTAKE
1240-A Blountstown Highway
Tallahassee, Florida 32304-2715
(850) 488-3596
Fax: (850) 922-6299

021 - CRAWFORDVILLE
3278 Crawfordville Highway
Unit A-2, Mill Creek Plaza
Crawfordville, FL 32327-3139
(850) 926-0052
Fax: (850) 926-0044

022 - QUINCY
305-G West Crawford Street
Quincy, Florida 32351-3121
(850) 875-9644
Fax: (850) 875-8993

023 - MONTICELLO
260 West Washington Street
Monticello, Florida 32344-1442
(850) 342-0272
Fax: (850) 342-0274

024 - TALLAHASSEE NORTH
2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C & E
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(850) 487-6509
Fax: (850) 488-2809

025 - TALLAHASSEE SOUTH
1815 South Gadsden Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5507

026 - TALLAHASSEE CIRCUIT
1250-H Blountstown Hwy.
Tallahassee, Florida 32304-2762

(850) 414-7224
Fax: (850) 414-7231

(850) 922-3623
Fax: (850) 488-4790

03C - LAKE CITY CIRCUIT
1106 S.W. Main Blvd.
Lake City, Florida 32025
(386) 758-0448
Fax: (386) 758-0677

030 - LAKE CITY MAIN
1435 US Highway 90 West, Suite 120
Lake City, FL 32055
(386) 754-1000
Fax: (386) 754-1002

031 - LIVE OAK
506 N.W.Houston Avenue, Suite B
Live Oak, Florida 32064-1630
(386) 362-2869
Fax: (386) 364-4936

032 - MADISON
126 SW Sumatra Avenue, Suite C
Madison, Florida 32340
(850) 973-5096
Fax (850) 973-5098

033 - PERRY
121 North Jefferson Street
Perry, Florida 32347-0540
(850) 223-4555
Fax: (850) 223-4566

034 - OLD TOWN
25815 SE Hwy 19
Old Town, FL 32680
(352) 542-0286
Fax:(352) 542-0695

035 - JASPER
Intersection of US 41 & US 129
1632 US Hwy 41 NW
Jasper, Florida 32052-1558
(386) 792-3447
Fax: (386) 792-2053

040 - JACKSONVILLE - CIRCUIT / MAIN
592 Ellis Road, Suite 114
Jacksonville, Florida 32254-3574
(904) 695-4045
Fax: (904) 695-4019

041 - JACKSONVILLE NORTH
10646 Haverford Road, Suite 5
Jacksonville, Florida 32218-6203
(904) 696-5970
Fax: (904) 696-5979

042 - JACKSONVILLE SOUTH
4613 Phillips Highway, Suite 221
Jacksonville, Florida 32207-9502
(904) 448-4373
Fax (904) 448-4395

044 - YULEE
86058 Pages Dairy Road
Yulee, FL 32097
(904) 548-9380
Fax: (904) 548-9393

045 - ORANGE PARK
302 College Drive
P.O. Box 65355
Orange Park, Florida 32065-0006
(904) 213-2930
Fax (904) 213-3095

046 - JACKSONVILLE S.W.
1945 Lane Avenue South
Jacksonville, Florida 32210-2781
(904) 693-5000
Fax: (904) 693-5034

047 - JACKSONVILLE WEST
580 Ellis Road, Suite 118
Jacksonville, Florida 32254-3553
(904) 695-4180
Fax: (904) 695-4187

070 - DAYTONA BEACH - MAIN
1023 Mason Avenue
Daytona Beach, Florida 32117-4611
(386) 947-3520
Fax: (386) 947-3556

071 - DELAND
334 E. New York Ave.
DeLand, Florida 32724-5510
(386) 740-2693
Fax: (386) 740-6976

072 - DAYTONA BEACH - CIRCUIT
9 West Granada Boulevard
Ormond Beach, Florida 32174
(386) 615-6330
Fax: (386) 615-6333

073 - PALATKA
423 St. Johns Avenue
Palatka, Florida 32177-4724
(386) 329-3757
Fax: (386) 329-3755

074 - ST. AUGUSTINE

075 - BUNNELL

Lightner Museum Bldg.
75 King Street, Suite 310
St. Augustine, Florida 32084-4377
(904) 825-5038
Fax: (904) 825-6804

2405 East Moody Blvd., Ste 301
Bunnell, Florida 32110
(386) 437-7575
Fax: (386) 437-8211

076 - DAYTONA BEACH - NORTH
9 West Granada Boulevard
Ormond Beach, Florida 32174
(386) 676-4020
Fax: (386) 676-4029

077 - DAYTONA BEACH - CENTRAL
1051 Mason Avenue
Daytona Beach, Florida 32117
(386) 226-7868
Fax: (386) 226-7876

080 - GAINESVILLE MAIN
110 S.E. First Street, Second Floor
Gainesville, Florida 32601-6925
(352) 955-2023
Fax: (352) 955-3042

081 CHIEFLAND
224 N. Main Street, Suite 1
Chiefland, Florida 32626-0802
(352) 493-6760
Fax: (352) 493-6764

082 STARKE
1200 Andrews Circle Drive, North
Starke, Florida 32091-2132
(904) 368-3600
Fax: (904) 368-3075

083 GAINESVILLE WEST
7020 N.W. 11th Place
Gainesville, Florida 32605-2144
(352) 333-3640
Fax: (352) 333-3644

085 - GAINESVILLE - CIRCUIT
7020 N.W. 11th Place
Gainesville, FL 32605-2144
(352) 333-3677
FAX: (352) 333-3676

140 – PANAMA CITY WEST / INTAKE
1013 Beck Avenue
Panama City, Florida 32401-1454
(850) 872-4139
FAX: (850) 747-5167

141 - MARIANNA
2863 Green Street
Marianna, Florida 32446
(850) 482-9524
Fax: (850) 482-9686

142 - PORT ST. JOE
504 3rd Street
Port St. Joe, Florida 32456-1736
(850) 227-1132
Fax: (850) 227-3592

143 - CHIPLEY
713 3rd Street
Chipley, Florida 32428-1822
(850) 638-6234
Fax: (850) 638-6213

144 - PANAMA CITY EAST
204 N. Tyndall Pkwy.
Panama City, Florida 32404-6432
(850) 872-7375
Fax: (850) 872-7382

145 - PANAMA CITY - CIRCUIT
3621 West Highway 390
Panama City, Florida 32405-2723
(850) 872-7590
Fax: (850) 872-7594

Region II
Region II Office
Barbara Scala, Regional Director
Patrice Bryant, Operations Manager
2301 Meeting Place
Orlando, FL 32814
(407) 623-1026
FAX: (407) 623-1292
050 - OCALA EAST
24 NE 1st ST

051 - TAVARES-CIRCUIT / MAIN
105 S Rockingham Ave.

Ocala, Florida 34470-6651
(352) 732-1215
Fax: (352) 732-1720

Tavares, Florida 32778-3819
(352) 742-6242
Fax: Circuit--(352) 742-6163
Main--(352) 742-6469

052 - BUSHNELL
4420 S Hwy 301
Bushnell, Florida 33513-3624
(352) 793-2131
Fax: (352) 793-5033

053 - INVERNESS
601 US HWY 41S
Inverness, Florida 34450-6074
(352) 560-6000
Fax: (352) 860-5155

054 - BROOKSVILLE
20144 Cortez Blvd
Brooksville, Florida 34601-3832
(352) 754-6710
Fax: (352) 544-2305

055 - BELLEVIEW
4785 SE 102 Place
Belleview, FL 34420-2914
(352) 307-9582
Fax: (352) 307-9587

056 - OCALA WEST
5640 SW 6th Place, Suite 100
Ocala, Florida 34474-9321
(352) 732-1324
Fax: (352) 732-1312

057 - LEESBURG
3330 W. Main ST
Leesburg, Florida 34748-9712
(352) 360-6564
Fax: (352) 360-6726

09A - ORLANDO SOUTHWEST
31 Coburn Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32805-2137
(407) 245-0854
Fax: (407) 245-0922

09B - ORLANDO METRO
3201-C West Colonial Drive
Orlando, Florida 32808-8009
(407) 297-2000
Fax: (407) 297-2069

090 - ORLANDO CIRCUIT
400 W. Robinson Street
Suite 709S
Orlando, Florida 32801
(407) 245-0267
Fax: (407) 245-0270

091 - ORLANDO NORTH
27 Coburn Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32805
(407) 245-0770
Fax: (407) 245-0840

092 - ORLANDO WEST
3201-B W. Colonial Drive
Orlando, Florida 32808
(407) 578-3500
Fax: (407) 445-5261

093 - ORLANDO MIDTOWN
400 W. Robinson Street
Suite 709S
Orlando, Florida 32801
(407) 245-0274
Fax: (407) 245-0585

094 - KISSIMMEE
1605 North John Young Parkway
Kissimmee, Florida 34741
(407) 846-5215
Fax: (407) 846-5248

096 - ORLANDO CENTRAL
29 Coburn Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32805
(407) 245-0701
Fax: (407) 245-0751

097 - ORLANDO SOUTH
3201-A West Colonial Drive
Orlando, Florida 32808
(407) 445-5305
Fax: (407) 445-5313

100 - BARTOW - MAIN / INTAKE
970 East Main Street
Bartow, Florida 33830-4905
(863) 534-7010
Fax: (863) 534-7247

10A - LAKELAND - CIRCUIT ADMIN
200 North Kentucky Avenue, Suite 516
Lakeland, Florida 33801
(863) 413-3305
Fax: (863) 413-3309

101 - LAKELAND NORTH
200 North Kentucky Avenue
Suite 506
Lakeland, Florida 33801-4978
(863) 413-2242

Fax: (863) 413-2070
102 - WINTER HAVEN
1289 First Street South
Winter Haven, Florida 33880
(863) 298-5570
Fax: (863) 298-5597

103 - LAKE WALES
608 State Road 60
Lake Wales, Florida 33853-4419
(863) 679-4366
Fax: (863) 679-4382

104 - SEBRING
171 U.S. Highway 27 North
Sebring, Florida 33870-2100
(863) 386-6018
Fax: (863) 386-6023

105 - WAUCHULA
124 S. 9th Ave. Suite 200
Wauchula, Florida 33873-2832
(863) 773-4777
Fax: (863) 773-9783

106 - LAKELAND SOUTH
3939 US Highway 98 South
Suite 105
Lakeland, Florida 33812
(863) 668-3000
Fax: (863) 614-9181

107 - HAINES CITY
233 North 9th Street
Haines City, Florida 33844
(863) 419-3344
Fax: (863) 419-3359

180 - TITUSVILLE
1431 Chaffee Drive, Suite 5
Titusville, Florida 32780
Phone: (321) 264-4073
Fax: (321) 264-4081

181 - MELBOURNE
1500 West Eau Gallie Blvd., Suite B
Melbourne, Florida 32935-5367
(321) 752-3145
Fax: (321) 752-3153

182 - COCOA
801 Dixon Blvd, Ste 1104
Cocoa, Florida 32922
(321) 634-3570
Fax: (321)634-3559

183 - PALM BAY
4031 US Hwy 1, South
Palm Bay, Florida 32905
(321) 726-2825
Fax: (321) 726-2835

184 - CASSELBERRY
101 Sunnytown Road, Suite #103
Casselberry, Florida 32707-3862
(407) 262-7400
Fax: (407) 262-7405

185 - SANFORD - CIRCUIT
2698 Orlando Drive
Sanford, Florida 32773
(407) 302-3811
Fax: (407) 302-3819

186 - SANFORD MAIN
Seminole County Intake
2688 Orlando Drive
Sanford, Florida 32773-5339
(407) 330-6737
Fax: (407) 330-6924

190 FT. PIERCE- CIRCUIT / INTAKE
3552 Okeechobee Road
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947-4597
(772) 468-3933
Fax: (772) 595-1310 (Intake)
Fax: (772) 467-4115 (C.A.)

191 - STUART
2015 S. Kanner Hwy
Stuart, Florida 34994-2237
(772) 221-4010
Fax: (772) 221-4999

192 - VERO BEACH
1470 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3773
(772) 778-5015
Fax: (772) 778-5076

193 - OKEECHOBEE
127 Northwest 36th Street
Okeechobee, Florida 34972-1701
or: P.O. Box 1803
Okeechobee, Florida 34973-9408
(863) 462-5304
Fax: (863) 462-5176

194 - FT. PIERCE EAST
3214 South U.S. Highway 1, Suite 7
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-8113
(772) 468-4064
Fax: (772) 467-3150

Region III
Region III Office
Cliff Rowan, Regional Director
David Rice, Operations Manager
1313 N. Tampa Street
Suite 813
Tampa, Florida 33602-3330
(813) 233-2572
FAX: (813) 272-3810
06A - PINELLAS PARK
6655 - 66th Street North, Suite 1
Pinellas Park, Florida 33781-5047
(727) 547-7670
Fax: (727) 547-7694

06C - PINELLAS / PASCO INTAKE
11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 232
Largo, Florida 33778
(727) 518-3532
Fax: (727) 518-3540

06E - HUDSON
12370 U.S. Highway 19
Hudson, FL 34667-1948
(727) 861-5200
Fax: (727) 861-5224

06F - CLEARWATER -CIRCUIT
11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 237
Largo, Florida 33778
(727) 518-3571
Fax: (727) 518-3520

06G - PINELLAS CO. COURT UNIT
14250 49th Street North, Rm. 1930
Clearwater, Florida 33762-2800
(727) 464-6349
Fax: (727) 464-6450

060 - ST. PETERSBURG
525 Mirror Lake Drive, #117
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727)552-2583
Fax: (727)552-2598

061 - CLEARWATER
634 Park Street
Clearwater, Florida 33756-5404
(727) 469-5900
Fax: (727) 469-5909

062 - NEW PORT RICHEY
7619 Little Road, Suite C150
New Port Richey, Florida 34654-5533
(727) 841-4131
Fax: (727) 841-4129

063 - DADE CITY
14450 7th Street
Dade City, Florida 33523-3404
(352) 521-1214
Fax: (352) 523-5017

064 - LARGO
11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 200
Largo, Florida 33778-1631
(727) 588-3583
Fax: (727) 588-4013

066 - TARPON SPRINGS
1501 S. Pinellas Ave., Suite L
Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689-1951
(727) 942-5411
Fax: (727) 942-5415

067 - ST. PETERSBURG SOUTH
525 Mirror Lake Drive, #116
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727)552-2603
Fax: (727)552-2611

120 SARASOTA - CIRCUIT
2074 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 23
Sarasota, Florida 34237-7008
(941) 361-6322
Fax: (941) 373-3718

121 - BRADENTON
399 6th Avenue, West
Bradenton, Florida 34205-8820
(941) 741-3066
Fax: (941) 741-3073

122 - ARCADIA
301 North Brevard Avenue
Suite F
Arcadia, Florida 34266-4550
(863) 993-4631

123 - HOLIDAY HARBOR
658 South Tamiami Trail
Osprey, Florida 34229-9209
(941) 918-2780
Fax: (941) 918-2784

Fax: (863) 993-4652
124 - BAYSHORE GARDENS
6416A Parkland Drive
Sarasota, Florida 34243-4038
(941) 751-7611
Fax: (941) 751-7616

125 - SARASOTA NORTH
4123 North Tamiami Trail, Ste. 101
Sarasota, Florida 34234-3587
(941) 359-5610
Fax: (941) 359-5629

13A - TAMPA EAST
4510 Oakfair Boulevard, Suite 250
Tampa, Florida 33610-7371
(813) 744-6313
Fax: (813) 744-6323

13C - TAMPA INTAKE
1313 N. Tampa Street
Suite 124 Annex
Tampa, FL 33602-3328
(813) 233-3450
Fax: (813) 233-3487

13D - TAMPA HILLDALE
7829 N. Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 108
Tampa, Florida 33614-3267
(813) 975-6511
Fax: (813) 975-6522

13F - TAMPA - EASTLAKE
7402 North 56th Street
Building 100, Suite 100
Tampa, Florida 33617-7735
(813) 987-6846
Fax: (813) 987-6854

130 - TAMPA-CIRCUIT
ADMINISTRATION
1313 Tampa Street, Suite 809
Tampa, Florida 33602-3330
(813) 233-2382
Fax: (813) 272-3291

131 - PLANT CITY
712 West MLK Jr. Blvd.
Plant City, Florida 33563-5158
(813) 757-9080
Fax: (813) 757-9084

132 - RIVERVIEW
11112 US Hwy 41 South
Gibsonton, Florida 33534
(813) 672-5670
Fax: (813) 672-5678

133 - TAMPA NORTHEAST
7402 North 56th Street
Corporate Square, Suite 750
Tampa, Florida 33617-7731
(813) 987-6717
Fax: (813) 987-6730

134 - TAMPA NORTH
12421 North Florida Avenue,
Suite A-110
Tampa, Florida 33612-4220
(813) 975-6542
Fax: (813) 975-6543

135 - TAMPA CENTRAL
1313 N. Tampa St. Suite 207
Tampa, Florida 33602-3329
(813) 233-3747
Fax: (813) 233-3761

136 - TAMPA NORTHWEST
1313 N. Tampa Street, #219S
Tampa, Florida 33602-3337
(813) 233-3480
Fax: (813) 233-3485

138 - TAMPA GULF SOUTH
7825 N. Dale Mabry Avenue, Suite 200
Tampa, Florida 33614-3267
(813) 975-6524
Fax: (813) 975-6532

200 FT. MYERS-CIRCUIT
4415 Metro Parkway, Suite 310
Ft. Myers, Florida 33916-9408
(239) 278-7240
Fax: (239) 278-7243

201 - NAPLES SOUTH
2500 Airport Road, Suite 114
Naples, Florida 34112-2884
(239) 417-6300
Fax: (239) 417-6309

202 - LABELLE
90 North Main St., P.O. Box 117
LaBelle, Florida 33975-0117
(863) 674-4017
Fax: (863) 674-4654

203 - PUNTA GORDA
121 E. Marion Avenue, Suite 125
Punta Gorda, Florida 33950-3635
(941) 575-5740
Fax: (941) 575-5743

205 - FT. MYERS CENTRAL
1943 Maravilla Avenue
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
(239) 938-1900
Fax: (239) 938-1835

204 - FT. MYERS SOUTH
1943 Maravilla Avenue
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
(239) 938-1900
Fax: (239) 938-1835
207 - LEE COUNTY INTAKE
2234 Cleveland Avenue
Ft. Myers, FL 33901
(239) 338-2349
FAX (239) 338-2453

Region IV
Region IV Office
Beth Atchison, Regional Director
Karla Felton, Operations Manager
189 SE 3rd Avenue Ste 5
Delray Beach, Florida 33483-4531
(561) 279-1937
Fax: (561) 279-1943
11B - MIAMI - INTAKE
7900 N.W. 27 Avenue
149 N Court, Suite D-6
Miami, Florida 33130
(305) 693-2320
Fax: (305) 693-2324

11C - COCONUT GROVE
7900 N.W. 27 Avenue
149 N Court, Suite D-6
Miami, Florida 33130
(305) 693-2325
Fax: (305) 693-2329

110 MIAMI-CIRCUIT
1150 N.W 72nd Avenue, Suite 200
Miami, Florida 33126
(305) 470-6840

111 - MIAMI NORTHWEST
3601 Northwest 167th Street
Miami, Florida 33056-4102
(305) 628-6805
Fax: (305) 628-6848

112 - MIAMI EAST
401 Northwest 2nd Avenue -S607
Miami, Florida 33128-1789
(305) 377-5270
Fax: (305) 377-5576

113 - MIAMI SOUTH
12295 Southwest 133rd Court
Miami, Florida 33186-6427
(305) 252-4400
Fax: (305) 252-4485

114 - MIAMI NORTH
3601 Northwest 167th Street
Miami, Florida 33056-4102
(305) 626-4960
Fax: (305) 626-4888

115 - HOMESTEAD
1448 North Krome Avenue #102
Florida City, Florida 33034-2402
(305) 246-6326
Fax: (305) 246-6392

116 - BISCAYNE
7900 N.W. 27 Avenue
149 N Court, Suite D-6
Miami, Florida 33130
(305) 693-2330
Fax: (305) 693-2334

117 - MIAMI - HIALEAH
3601 Northwest 167th Street
Miami, Florida 33056-4102
(305) 626-4900
Fax: (305) 626-4956

118 - MIAMI LAKES
3601 Northwest 167th Street
Miami, Florida 33056-4102
(305) 626-4905
Fax: (305) 626-4996

150 - WEST PALM BEACH - CIRCUIT
423 Fern Street, Suite 100
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5939
(561) 837-5175
Fax: (561) 837-5278

151 - BELLE GLADE
2976 State Road 15
Belle Glade, Florida 33430-5308
(561) 996-4860
Fax: (561) 992-2048

152 - DELRAY BEACH
189 Southeast 3rd Avenue,
Suite 2
Delray Beach, Florida 33483-4541
(561) 279-1650
Fax: (561) 279-1614

153 - WEST PALM BEACH CENTRAL
4480 South Tiffany Drive,
Suite 1001
Magnonia Park, Florida 33407
(561) 881-5001
Fax: (561) 840-4884

154 - LAKE WORTH
3444 South Congress Avenue
Lake Worth, Florida 33461-3022
(561) 434-3960
Fax: (561) 434-3972

160 - KEY WEST
Professional Building
1111 12th Street, Suite 402
Key West, Florida 33040-4086
(305) 292-6742
Fax: (305) 292-6767

161 - MARATHON - CIRCUIT
5192 Overseas Highway, Second Floor
Marathon Shores, Florida 33050
(305) 289-2340
Fax: (305) 289-2379

162 - TAVERNIER
88005 Overseas Highway
Islamorada, Florida 33036-3067
(305) 853-3262
Fax: (305) 853-3260

17A - TAMARAC
4200 Northwest 16th St., 4th Floor
Lauderhill, Florida 33313-5879
(954) 497-4121
Fax: (954) 497-4133

170 - FT. LAUDERDALE-INTAKE /
CIRCUIT
3708A West Oakland Park Blvd.
Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33311-1134
Circuit: (954) 677-5913
Fax: (954) 677-5918
Intake: (954) 677-5595
Fax: (954) 677-5672

171 - POMPANO BEACH
140 East McNab Road
Pompano Beach, Florida 33060-9240
(954) 786-5466
Fax: (954) 784-4535

172 - PEMBROKE PARK
1050 North Federal Highway
Hollywood, Florida 33020
(954) 924-3800
Fax: (954) 924-3809

174 - CYPRESS
1700 Northwest 64th Street, Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309-1836
(954) 267-4948
Fax: (954) 267-4967

175 - SUNRISE EAST
2928 North State Road 7
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33313-1912
(954) 677-5900
Fax: (954) 677-5912

177 - PLANTATION
3520 West Broward Boulevard
Kingston Building, Second Floor
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312-1038
(954) 797-1762
Fax: (954) 797-1795

178 - HOLLYWOOD
1050 North Federal Highway
Hollywood, Florida 33020-3540
(954) 924-3800
Fax: (954) 924-3809

17A - TAMARAC
4200 n.w. 16TH Street, 4th Floor
Lauderhill, FL 33313
(954) 497-4121
Fax: (954) 497-4133

Office of Re-Entry
Assistant Secretary for Re-Entry
Franchatta Barber
(850) 410-4250
Barber.Franchatta@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Re-entry
Pam Denmark
(850) 488-5602
Denmark.Pam@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Admission and Release
Hugh "Buddy" Ferguson
(850) 922-4610
Ferguson.Hugh@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Admission and Release is comprised of two major operational units, Admission and
Release Management and Specialized Sentence Structure Applications. Admission and
Release ensures that each commitment to prison is served in full pursuant to the order of
the sentencing court and applicable statutes and case law decisions. The bureau also
performs a final audit of the inmate record prior to release. Specific responsibilities
include:
Testing, maintaining and updating the automated release date calculator to ensure the
general availability of an accurate release date for decisions relating to risk, program
assignment, security, and post-release planning. Auditing the Uniform Commitment to
Custody. This centralized process ensures that the Department detains only lawfully
committed persons whose legal sentence of incarceration has not expired. Commitments 42,516 audits of
116,174 individual sentences
Re-calculation of release dates and sentence structure updates in accordance with court
orders modifying the original commitment. Court orders processed 5,767 processes with 26,011 individual sentences
Re-calculation of release dates based on orders issued by the Parole Commission. Parole
Commission Actions FY 09/10– 2,213 Orders Processed
Protection of the Department’s interest in prisoners committed to state custody but not
received in a state facility by filing of detainers and monitoring inmate movement. Not in
Department Custody Tracking - 368 inmates.
Prepare affidavits for litigation and respond to inmate administrative appeals.
Assist field staff in understanding and responding to inquires about complex sentence
structure and release date calculation issues. Affidavits/appeals completed – 994
Calculate release dates and update the automated record in accordance with court
decisions, legal advice, and policy decisions by executive staff.
Structures/Reviews Pursuant to Case Law – 6,490

Conduct a final, pre-release review of the inmate record to ensure compliance with
numerous statutory requirements, resolve questions or problems, and coordinate release
issues between facility staff and community interests. This includes issues relating to
supervision status and notice to law enforcement and the community. Pre-release reviews
- 35,151
Place, withdraw and cancel detainers to protect the interests of other agencies and provide
an accurate risk assessment record for use by Department staff.
Also, coordinate release pick-up between DOC facility staff and the detaining authority.
Detainer actions - 9,462
Review and coordinate referral of inmates with convictions for sexually violent offenses
to Children and Families for review under the Ryce Act. Referrals 3,279
Develop user profiles, provide user access, and ensure maintenance of security standards
for 6 data systems used by Department staff, and provide access to the
DOC data base by external users. Currently approximately 20,000 total users.
Serve as the liaison between other states, central office and the housing facility to
coordinate transfers under the interstate agreement on detainers.
Office of Education and Initiatives
Eric Gaines
(850) 922-3621
Gaines.Eric@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Manages and oversees education, library, wellness and chaplaincy services programs, and
for administration of the department’s victims and citizens services offices.
Education Services provides quality programs to inmates, equipping them with the
competencies necessary to become productive, crime-free members of society. Education
Services includes: academic and special education, vocational education, library services
and wellness programs. Education Services also coordinates Teacher Certification
activities for the department’s correctional educators.
Chaplaincy Services organizes and manages the provision of religious services for
inmates and a wide variety of religious volunteer support programs. The department’s
Chaplaincy Services is actively involved in defining and maintaining the personal
religious freedoms of every inmate.
Victim Services provides statutorily required information and notification to all victims
or their families in an effort to empower and protect and provide community linkages for
assistance and services, while also assisting the law enforcement community.
VINE (Victim Information Notification Everyday) –The VINE system is
a 24-hour-a-day toll-free automated notification and information line, enabling victims to
access information regarding an inmate’s location, transfer, release, escape, or death.
Victims may also request assistance via the Department’s public web site or via
telephonic contact with program staff that responds to more than 1,200 calls a month.

Citizens Services provide professional, courteous and accurate customer-related services
on issues relative to the Department. These services are conducted with an effort to
provide responses to questions and requests in a prompt and efficient manner.
Substance Abuse
Kim Riley
(850) 488-9169
Riley.Kim@mail.dc.state.fl.us
The Bureau of Substance Abuse Program Services is responsible for contract and grant
management, coordination, implementation, and delivery of re-entry services for
offenders under community supervision and inmates that are under the care and custody
of the Department of Corrections.
Program oversight and contract management responsibilities for over 135 contracts. This
oversight includes –
o Institutional substance abuse treatment programs including contracted and Department
operated - 24 sites with 2,393 treatment slots
o Statewide offender drug testing program - 1 contract
o Residential Substance Abuse; Nonsecure (Short Term) and Secure
Substance Drug Treatment Programs - 26 contracts with a total of 1,061 funded beds
o Prison diversion programs - 1 contract, 1 RFP Pending
o Residential probation and restitution programs (PRC) – 4 contracts with a total of 130
beds
o Post-release faith-based transitional housing programs – 18 contracts with a total of
195 funded beds
o Outpatient mental health and sex offender treatment contracts that provide services to
offenders on community supervision – 58 contracts
o Statewide offender drug testing program – 566All contracted and Department operated
substance abuse programs are licensed by the Department of Children and Families.

One of the Bureau’s accomplishments in FY 2009-10 was the implementation of the
Prison Diversion Pilot Program in Hillsborough County. The Prison
Diversion Program provides programming and an alternative to prison sanction for
eligible felony offenders who would otherwise be incarcerated. The program increases
the continuum of supervision options available to the judiciary and offers a variety of
adult corrections programs that have a demonstrated ability to achieve reductions in
recidivism. It is customized to address each individual „risk & needs‟. Services are
primarily offered in a nonresidential setting, but may include brief residential/housing
services. The goal of the program is to refocus the offender’s attitudes and behaviors, and
provide skill building training to assist them to successfully complete supervision.
Inmate Transition
Shila Salem
(850) 414-2781
Salem.Shila@mail.dc.state.fl.us
Forge and cultivate partnerships with local communities and public safety agencies
statewide. Through these partnerships, the Bureau serves as the primary source for

community educational outreach to enhance citizens' awareness of services available
through the Department.
Develops and operates several programs that seek to provide inmates with the knowledge
and skills necessary for a successful return to society. These partnerships and programs
create pathways for the Department to effectively operate a safe and secure correctional
system while providing support to communities throughout the state.
One of the Bureau’s most high-profile accomplishments is the 2009 Second Chance
Grant award. By design, this project serves 500 inmates releasing to
Duval County, Florida by connecting them with the Jacksonville Reentry Center
(JREC). The Department has contracted with the City of Jacksonville to provide postrelease services to inmates upon release. The critical design strategies of this project are
comprehensive assessment and planning, prerelease program services, individualized
transition planning, and linkage to community services.
Operates the statutorily mandated (944.7065) 100-Hour Transitional Skills Program
which every inmate receives prior to release. The program covers job readiness and life
management skills.
Manages all contracted work release centers.
o Three Federal Grants

HUMAN RESOURCES
OVERVIEW

Background
Human Resources (HR) currently comprises the Director’s Office including Labor
and Employee Relations and the Central Office Bureau of Personnel. In addition,
the department has oversight responsibility for 4 Regional Personnel Offices
(RPO’s) which provide personnel services statewide. The RPO’s fall under the
authority of Institutions.

Current Status


98 personnel positions provide services to over 28,000 employees,
resulting in a staffing ratio of .003 per 100 employees. The industry
standard is 1 per 100 employees.



Current staffing consists of 72 positions in the RPO’s (for which HR has
oversight responsibility but no direct authority), and 26 positions in Central
Office Personnel.

Director’s Office
Glory Parton, Director
Angela Hunter, Executive Secretary

Employee & Labor Relations
Cathy Leggett, HR/Labor Relations Consultant
Labor Relations
Michael Lewis, Human Resource Analyst
Function:
Coordinates department’s collective bargaining initiatives and
responsibilities, such as grievances and negotiations. In concert with Office of the
General Counsel, approves consistent, fair and defensible actions to suspend,
demote or dismiss employees statewide for just cause (approximately 1200
actions annually).

Employee Relations
Allen Chapman, Human Resource Analyst
Pat Linn, Human Resource Analyst
Function: Administers the statewide employee relations program (all complaints
of discrimination statewide), as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity
program, liaise with EEOC, FCHR, and legal advisers representing the agency.
Responds to all Requests for Productions/Interrogatories and provides required
documents to attorneys representing DC in Title VII lawsuits.

Bureau of Personnel Gail Thompson, Bureau Chief
Rena Gilliam, Personnel Technician I
Section Functions/Staffing
Recruitment and Payroll
Mary Huff, Assistant Chief of Personnel, Payroll and Recruitment
Recruitment
Gwen Colston, Human Resource Analyst, Recruitment
Jack Howdeshell, Human Resource Analyst (Statewide Recruiter – housed at
Region II Personnel Office – Mayo Correctional Institution)
Eugenia Burns, Personnel Tech III
Javar Cross, Personnel Tech II
Paula Scott, Personnel Tech I (overlapped with Stephanie Lilly, Payroll &
Benefits)
Coordinates with People First to advertise vacancies and print
Function:
applications. Coordinates with supervisors to ensure that selection modules, and
recruitment and selection packets are complete. Assists supervisors with
eligibility determination and processes Personnel Action Requests (PAR’s).
Provides guidance and assists with the background investigation using
FCIC/NCIC, employment references, educational verification, and other
appropriate documentation.
Payroll and Benefits
Dolores Alcorn, Human Resource Analyst
Winton McClendon, Personnel Tech III
Stephanie Lilly, Personnel Tech I (overlapped with Paula Scott, Recruitment)
Function: Processes payroll for over 1,000 Central Office employees in addition
to providing guidance to field staff. Maintains and updates personnel files and
employee records. Updates and maintains all employee data in People First.

Administers employee benefit programs including but not limited to; insurance,
retirement, attendance and leave, and workers compensation. Additional
responsibilities include performance evaluations, fingerprinting, officer
certification, service pins and tuition waivers.

Management Services and Employee Programs
Libby Wilkerson, Assistant Chief of Personnel, Management Services &
Employee Programs
Employee Programs
Sarah Terrell, Human Resource Analyst
Kim Kirkland, Human Resource Specialist
Pat Finan, Correctional Program Consultant
Function:
Develops, implements, administers, and monitors employee
programs and procedures including statewide employee and applicant drug
testing and physical examinations and the Post Trauma Staff Support, Domestic
Violence, Employee Assistance, and Mentoring Programs. Coordinates the
agency’s Florida State Employees Charitable Campaign. Manages agency
service awards, and other agency supported initiatives. Evaluates requests to
campaign or hold public office.

Management Services
Celena Grant, Human Resource Analyst
Grace Griffin, Human Resource Specialist
Function: Develops, and ensures the accuracy, consistency and maintenance,
of all Bureau of Personnel procedures, policies, and forms. Reviews, analyzes,
and reports on human resource related legislation and coordinates actions
responsive to legislation. Coordinates human resource related special projects.
Analyzes recommendations for cost savings/avoidances and coordinates
implementation. Prepares management analyses of, and processes, rehire
requests, criminal records reviews, tuition waivers and PAR exceptions. Assist
with production of documents response to litigation and union grievances when
excessive workloads require.
Classification and Pay
Helen Reese, Assistant Chief of Personnel, Classification and Pay
(All classification section functions are performed out of Central Office.
There are no staff in the RPO’s with classification duties.)
Christie Green, Human Resource Analyst
Brenda Williams, Human Resource Analyst
Lillie McGriff, Personnel Services Specialist
Pam Mills, Personnel Technician III - SES

Function:
This section is responsible for the statewide functions of
administering, analyzing, and processing all classification activities and
component activities for 28,425 FTE positions and 1,154 OPS positions in the
department. This includes establishing and maintaining all position descriptions;
1,100 organizational charts; maintaining the position side of the People First
system; agency reorganizations; agency codes/structure; establishing and
maintaining timekeeper groups (646 groups); producing Personnel Information
Memorandums and providing technical assistance to staff and management at all
levels; DMS liaison for Classification and Pay issues; pay administration
pertaining to pay grades, broad bands, pay additives; production of ad-hoc
reports.

Service Centers

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER-REGION I
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER-REGION II
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER-REGION III
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER-REGION IV

EMP_TYPE
OPS
Regular
N
N
7
124
11
136
8
136
5
110

All
N
131
147
144
115

REGION I-INSTITUTIONS

REGION II-INSTITUTIONS

APALACHEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
BAY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
BLACKWATER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
CALHOUN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
CENTURY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
FRANKLIN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
GADSDEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
GULF CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
HOLMES CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
JACKSON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
JEFFERSON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
LIBERTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
GRACEVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
NORTHWEST FLORIDA RECEPTION CENTER
OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
SANTA ROSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
WAKULLA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
WALTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
BAKER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
CROSS CITY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
FLORIDA STATE PRISON
GAINESVILLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
HAMILTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
LAKE CITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY-PRIVATE
LANCASTER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
LAWTEY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
MADISON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
MAYO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
NEW RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
RECEPTION AND MEDICAL CENTER
SUWANNEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
TAYLOR CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
UNION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

EMP_TYPE
OPS
20
0
0
8
13
6
0
18
3
10
16
17
0
32
3
19
17
7
7
28
9
27
8
21
0
10
5
9
15
9
67
15
11
30

REGION I-INSTITUTIONS
REGION III-INSTITUTIONS

REGION IV-INSTITUTIONS

APALACHEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
AVON PARK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
BREVARD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
CENTRAL FLORIDA RECEPTION CENTER
DEMILLY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
HERNANDO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
HILLSBOROUGH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
LAKE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
LOWELL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
LOWELL RECEPTION CENTER
MARION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
POLK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
PUTNAM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
SUMTER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
TOMOKA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
ZEPHYRHILLS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
BROWARD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
CHARLOTTE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
DADE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
DESOTO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
EVERGLADES CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
GLADES CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
HARDEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
HOMESTEAD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
INDIAN RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
MARTIN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
MOORE HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
OKEECHOBEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
SOUTH BAY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIY
SOUTH FLORIDA RECEPTION CENTER

EMP_TYPE
OPS
20
16
16
35
2
12
13
28
44
6
15
10
5
12
17
28
4
5
4
6
4
9
6
7
3
7
3
0
1
0
8

EMP_TYPE
Regular
595
1
1
342
397
334
10
594
327
395
288
419
1
664
289
765
619
340
322
609
315
762
222
554
1
340
233
325
359
342
1008
723
592
718

All
615
1
1
350
410
340
10
612
330
405
304
436
1
696
292
784
636
347
329
637
324
789
230
575
1
350
238
334
374
351
1075
738
603
748

EMP_TYPE
Regular
595
327
377
738
152
135
154
347
820
0
332
380
145
410
386
263
275
407
409
412
297
440
370
316
198
187
364
1
275
1
760

All
615
343
393
773
154
147
167
375
864
6
347
390
150
422
403
291
279
412
413
418
301
449
376
323
201
194
367
1
276
1
768

COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS
REGION I

COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS
REGION II

COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS
REGION III
COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS
REGION IV

DAYTONA BEACH CIR 7 OFFICE
GAINESVILLE CIR 8 OFFICE
JACKSONVILLE CIR 4 OFFICE
LAKE CITY CIR 3 OFFICE
PANAMA CITY CIR 14 OFFICE
PENSACOLA CIR 1 OFFICE
TALLAHASSEE CIR 2 OFFICE
FT PIERCE CIR 19 OFFICE
LAKELAND CIR 10 OFFICE
ORLANDO CIR 9 OFFICE
SANFORD CIR 18 OFFICE
TAVARES CIR 5 OFFICE
CLEARWATER CIR 6 OFFICE
FT MYERS CIR 20 OFFICE
SARASOTA CIR 12 OFFICE
TAMPA CIR 13 OFFICE
FT LAUDERDALE CIR 17 OFFICE
KEY WEST CIR 16 OFFICE
MIAMI CIR 11 OFFICE
WEST PALM BCH CIR 15 OFFICE

EMP_TYPE
OPS
REG
0
145
0
71
0
129
0
72
0
95
0
153
0
96
0
92
0
145
0
212
2
148
0
166
0
234
0
119
0
90
0
255
0
288
0
25
0
296
1
136

All
145
71
129
72
95
153
96
92
145
212
150
166
234
119
90
255
288
25
296
137

All

EMP_TYPE
Regular
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REGION I
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REGION II
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REGION III
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS REGION IV
INSTITUTIONS REGION I
INSTITUTIONS REGION II
INSTITUTIONS REGION III
INSTITUTIONS REGION IV

10
9
10
9
6
9
8
7

10
9
10
9
6
9
8
7

EMP_TYPE All
OPS Regular
ADMINISTRATION

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

PROGRAM SERVICES

SECRETARY'S OFFICE

ORG_NAME_LVL4
BUDGET & MGMT EVALUATION
FACILITIES SERVICES
FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES
FINANCE & ACCOUNTING
FOOD SERVICE
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
HUMAN RESOURCES/PERSONNEL
PURCHASING
ABSCONDER'S UNIT
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS
INTERSTATE COMPACT
PROBATION & PAROLE FIELD SERVICES
CONTRACTS
DENTAL SERVICES
MEDICAL ECONOMICS & DECISION
SUPPORT
MEDICAL SERVICES-AIDS
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
NURSING SERVICES
PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
RECRUITMENT
CHAPLAINCY SERVICES
EDUCATION SERVICES
PROGRAMS, TRANS,POST RELEASE GRANTS
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
CORRECTIONS INTELLIGENCE
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
DRUG INTERDICTION & INTELLIGENCE
INMATE GRIEVANCE APPEALS
INTERNAL AUDIT
LEGAL SERVICES
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
RESEARCH & DATA ANALYSIS
STATE INVESTIGATIONS
VICTIM'S ASSISTANCE

0
2
0
14
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2

13 13
41 43
23 23
79 93
23 23
17 17
182 182
26 26
43 45
4
4
5
5
12 12
10 10
11 12
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
4
4
19
0

6
4
4
3
3
4
4
22
1

13 14
2
2
6
6
26 26
25 25
12 12
34 34
4
4
4
4
4
4
17 17
131 135
6
8

EMP_TYPE All
OPS Regular
SECURITY & INSTITUTIONAL
OPERATIONS

ORG_NAME_LVL4
CLASSIFICATION & CENTRAL RECORDS
INSTITUTION OPERATIONS (ACA)
SECURITY OPERATIONS
SENTENCE STRUCTURE &
TRANSPORTATION

0
39

13
58

13
97

0
0
5

2
18
52

2
18
57

Department of Corrections
Institutions Offices
Central Office
2601 Blairstone Rd
Tallahassee FL 32399-2500
Park House
Inpsector General
1126 East Park Ave.
Tallahassee FL 32301
Bureau of Finance and Accounting
Mahan Station
1711 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee FL 32399
Region I - Personnel
Former Marianna WRC
2980 State Correctional Road
Marianna, FL 32447
(850) 482-9532
Fax: (850) 482-9074
Region I Training Center at Vernon
3242 Mosshill Road
Vernon, FL 32462
Region II Florida Corrections Academy
P.O. Box 128 - Raiford, FL 32083
7071 N.W. 237th St.
Raiford, FL 32083
Regional Personnel Office -- Region II
7819 Northwest 228th Street
Raiford, FL 32026
(386) 431-2603
Regional Distribution Center - Region II
7819 Northwest 228th Street
Raiford, FL 32026
Region III - Personnel,
Former Pine Hills WRC
7504 Laurel Hills Road

Exhibit 5

Orlando, FL 32818
1-877-545-6903
(407) 521-2526
Region III Florida Corrections Academy at Orlando
2301 Meeting Place
Orlando, FL 32814
(904) 368-3703
Region IV - Personnel
Former Pompano WRC
5610 N.W. 9th Avenue (Powerline Road )
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309-3752
(954) 202-3924
Region IV Florida Corrections Academy South
31101 Nafi Drive
Immokalee, FL 34142

Region I Facility List
as of 11-29-10
Apalachee Correctional Institution (Male)
East Unit
35 Apalachee Drive
Sneads, Florida 32460-4166
(850) 718-0688
Fax: (850) 593-6445

Franklin Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
1760 Highway 67 North
Carrabelle, Florida 32322
(850) 697-1100
Fax: (850) 697-1108

Century Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
400 Tedder Road
Century, Florida 32535-3659
(850) 256-2600
Fax: (850) 256-2335

West Unit
52 West Unit Drive
Sneads Florida 32460-4165
(850) 718-0577
Fax: (850) 593-6445

Annex
1760 Highway 67 North
Carrabelle, Florida 32322
(850) 697-1100
Fax: (850) 697-1108

Work Camp
400 Tedder Road
Century, Florida 32535
(850) 256-2600
Fax: (850) 256-5005

River Junction Work Camp
300 Pecan Lane
Chattahoochee, FL 32324-3700
(850) 663-3366
Fax: (850) 663-4773

Bay City Work Camp
1001 West Highway 98
Apalachicola, Florida 32320-1272
(850) 653-1020
Fax: (850) 653-2592

Berrydale Forestry Camp
6920 Highway 4
Jay, Florida 32565-2204
(850) 675-4564
Fax: (850) 675-0801

Calhoun Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
19562 SE Institution Drive
Blountstown, Florida 32424-5156
(850) 237-6500
Fax: (850) 237-6508
Work Camp
19564 SE Inst. Drive
Blountstown, Florida 32424
(850) 674-5901
Fax: (850) 674-2503

Gulf Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
500 Ike Steele Road
Wewahitchka, Florida 32465-0010
(850) 639-1000
Fax: (850) 639-1182
Annex
699 Ike Steele Road
Wewahitchka, Florida 32465-0010
(850) 639-1000
(850) 639-1508
Gulf Forestry Camp
3222 DOC Whitfield Road
White City, Florida 32465
(850) 827-4000
Fax: (850) 827-2986

Pensacola WRC
3050 North L. Street
Pensacola, Florida 32501
(850) 595-8920
Fax (850) 595-8919

Region I Facility List
as of 11-29-10

Holmes Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
3142 Thomas Drive
Bonifay, Florida 32425-0190
(850) 547-8700
Fax: (850) 547-0522
Work Camp
3182 Thomas Drive
Bonifay, Florida 32425-4238
(850) 547-8553
Fax: (850) 547-3169

Jackson Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
5563 10th Street
Malone, Florida 32445-3144
(850) 569-5260
Fax: (850) 569-5996
Work Camp
5607 10th Street
Hwy 71 North
Malone, Florida 32445-9998
(850) 569-5260
Fax: (850) 569-1266
Graceville Work Camp
5230 Ezell Street
Graceville, FL 32440
(850) 263-9230
Fax: (850) 263-9235

Jefferson Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
1050 Big Joe Road
Monticello, Florida 32344-0430
(850) 342-0500
Fax: (850) 997-0973

Liberty Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
11064 N.W. Dempsey Barron Road
Bristol, Florida 32321-9711
(850) 643-9400
Fax: (850) 643-9412

Tallahassee Road Prison
2628 Springhill Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32310
(850) 488-8340
Fax: (850) 414-9032

Work Camp
11064 NW Dempsey Barron Road
Bristol, Florida 32321
(850) 643-9542
Fax: (850) 643-9412

Tallahassee WRC
2616A Springhill Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32310
(850) 488-2478
Fax (850) 922-6240

Quincy Annex
2225 Pat Thomas Parkway
Quincy, Florida 32351
(850) 627-5400
Fax: (850) 875-3572

Santa Rosa Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
5850 East Milton Rd.
Milton, Florida 32583-7914
(850) 983-5800
Fax (850) 983-5907

Wakulla Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
110 Melaleuca Drive
Crawfordville, Florida 32327-4963
(850) 410-1895
Fax: (850) 410-0203

Annex
5850 East Milton Rd.
Milton, Florida 32583-7914
(850) 983-5800
Fax (850) 983-5907

Annex
110 Melaleuca Drive
Crawfordville, Florida 32327-4963
(850) 487-4341
Fax: (850) 410-0203

Work Camp (No Inmates)
5850 East Milton Rd.
Milton, Florida 32583-7914
(850) 983-5800
Fax (850) 983-5907

Work Camp
110 Melaleuca Drive
Crawfordville, FL 32327
(850) 413-9663
Fax: (850) 421-1261

Region I Facility List
as of 11-29-10

Okaloosa Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
3189 Little Silver Rd.
Crestview, Florida 32539-6708
(850) 682-0931
Fax: (850) 689-7803
Work Camp
3189 Little Silver Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
(850) 682-0931
Fax: (850) 682-4578
Walton Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
691 Institutional Road
DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433-1831
(850) 951-1300
Fax: (850) 951-1750
Work Camp
301 Institutional Road
De Funiak Springs, Florida 32433
(850) 951-1355
Fax: (850) 951-1766

NW Florida Reception Center (Male)
Main Unit
4455 Sam Mitchell Drive
Chipley, Florida 32428-3501
(850) 773-6100
Fax: (850) 773-6252
Annex
4455 Sam Mitchell Drive
Chipley, Florida 32428-3501
(850) 773-6100
Fax: (850) 773-6252
Caryville Work Camp
P.O. Box 129
1005 Waits Ave
Caryville, Florida 32427
(850) 548-5321
Fax: (850) 548-5305
Panama City WRC
3609 Highway 390
Panama City, Florida 32405
(850) 872-4178
Fax (850) 747-5739

Region II Facility List
as of 11-29-10
Baker Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
20706 US 90 W.
Sanderson, Florida 32087-0500
(386) 719-4500
Fax: (386) 758-5759
Work Camp
P.O. Box 500
US 90 E.
Sanderson, Florida 32087
(386) 719-4500
Fax: (386) 758-5759
Florida State Prison (Male)
Main Unit
7819 N.W. 228th Street
Raiford, Florida 32026-1000
(904) 368-2500
Fax: (904) 368-2732
West Unit
7819 N.W. 228th Street
Raiford, Florida 32026-3000
(904) 368-3000
Fax: (904) 368-3205
Hamilton Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
10650 SW 46th Street
Jasper, Florida 32052-1360
(386) 792-5151
Fax: (386) 792-5159
Annex
10650 SW 46th Street
Jasper, Florida 32052-1360
(386) 792-5151
Fax: (386) 792-5159
Work Camp
10650 SW 46th Street
Jasper, Florida 32052-3732
(904) 792-5409
Fax: (904) 904-5159

Columbia Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
216 S.E. Corrections Way
Lake City, Florida 32025-2013
(386) 754-7600
Fax: (386) 754-7602
Annex
216 S.E. Corrections Way
Lake City, Florida 32025-2013
(386) 466-3000
Fax: (386) 754-7602
Work Camp
216 S.E. Corrections Way
Lake City, Florida 32025
(386) 754-7688
Fax: (386) 719-2770
Lake City WRC
1099 N.W. Dot Gln
Lake City, Florida 32055
(386) 758-0535
Fax: (386) 758-1559
Lancaster Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
3449 S.W. State Road 26
Trenton, Florida 32693-5641
(352) 463-4100
Fax: (352) 463-3476
Work Camp
3449 SW SR 26
Trenton, Florida 32693
(352) 463-4100
Fax: (352) 463-3476

Cross City Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
568 NE 255th Street
Cross City, Florida 32628
(352) 498-4444
Fax: (352) 498-4333 or 4334
Work Camp
568 NE 255th Street
Cross City, Florida 32628-1500
(352) 498-4330
Fax: (352) 498-4338
Gainesville Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
2845 NE 39th Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32609-2668
(352) 955-2001
Fax: (352) 334-1675
Work Camp
1000 NE 55th Blvd.
Gainesville, Florida 32609
(352) 955-2045
Fax: (352) 955-3119
Santa Fe WRC (Male)
2901 Northeast 39th Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32602
(352) 955-2070
Fax: (352) 955-3162
Madison Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
382 Southwest MCI Way
Madison, Florida 32340
(850) 973-5300
Fax: (850) 973-5339
Work Camp
382 SW MCI Way
Madison, Florida 32340
(850) 973-5302
Fax: (850) 973-5358

Region II Facility List
as of 11-29-10
Lawtey Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
7819 N.W. 228th Street
Raiford, Florida 32026-2000
(904) 782-2000
Fax: (904) 782-2005
Dinsmore WRC
13200 Old Kings Road
Jacksonville, Florida 32219
(904) 924-1700
Fax: (904) 924-1704
Regional Medical Center (Male)
Main Unit
7765 S. CR 231
P.O. Box 628
Lake Butler, Florida 32054-0628
(386) 496-6000
Fax: (386) 496-3287
West Unit
8183 SW 152nd Loop
P.O. Box 628
Lake Butler, FL 32054-0628
(386) 496-4689
Fax: (386) 496-4689
Work Camp
7765 S. CR 231
P.O. Box 628
Lake Butler, Florida 32054-0628
(386) 496-6000
Fax: (386) 496-3287

Mayo Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
8784 US Highway 27 West
Mayo, Florida 32066-3458
(386) 294-4500
Fax: (386) 294-4534
Annex (No Inmates)
8784 US Highway 27 West
Mayo, Florida 32066-3458
(386) 294-4500
Fax: (386) 294-4534
Work Camp
8976 US 27 West
Mayo, FL 32066
(386) 294-4752
Fax: (386) 294-4532
Taylor Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
8501 Hampton Springs Road
Perry, Florida 32348-8747
(850) 838-4000
Fax: (850) 838-4024
Annex
8501 Hampton Springs Road
Perry, Florida 32348-8747
(850) 838-4002
Fax: (850) 838-4024
Work Camp
8501 Hampton Springs Road
Perry, Florida 32348-0000
(850) 223-4501
Fax: (850) 838-4024

New River Correctional Institution (Male)
East Unit
7819 N.W. 228th Street
Raiford, Florida 32026-3000
(904) 368-3000
Fax: (904) 368-3205
West Unit
7819 N.W. 228th Street
Raiford, Florida 32026-1000
(904) 368-2500
Fax: (904) 368-2732
Union Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
7819 N.W. 228th Street
Raiford, Florida 32026-4000
(386) 431-2000
Fax: (386) 431-2016
Suwannee Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
5964 US Hwy 90
Live Oak, FL 32060
(386) 963-6100
Fax: (386) 963-6103
Annex
5964 US Hwy 90
Live Oak, FL 32060
(386) 963-6100
Fax: (386) 963-6103
Work Camp
5964 US HWY 90
Live Oak, FL 32060
(386) 963-6100
Fax: (386) 963-6103

Region III Facility List
as of 11-29-10
Avon Park Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
P.O. Box 1100
County Road 64 East
Avon Park, Florida 33826-1100
(863) 453-3174
Fax: (863) 453-1511
Work Camp
Post Office Box 1100
County Road 64 East
Avon Park, Florida 33826-1100
(863) 453-3174
Fax: (863) 453-1511
Central Florida Reception Center (Male)
Main Unit
7000 H C Kelley Rd
Orlando, FL 32831-2518
(407) 207-7777
Fax: (407) 249-6570
East Unit
7000 H C Kelley Rd
Orlando, FL 32831-2518
(407) 207-7777
Fax: (407) 249-6570
South Unit
7000 H C Kelley Rd
Orlando, FL 32831-2518
(407) 207-7777
Fax: (407) 249-6570
Kissimmee WRC
2925 Michigan Avenue
Kissimmee, Florida 34744
(407) 846-5210
Fax: (407) 846-5368
Orlando WRC (Female)
7300 Laurel Hill Road
Orlando, Florida 32818
(407) 578-3510
Fax: (407) 578-3509

Brevard Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
855 Camp Road
Cocoa, Florida 32927-3709
(321) 634-6000
Fax: (321) 637-7728

Demilly Correctional Institution (Male)
Main Unit
10980 Demilly Road
Polk City, FL 33868
(863) 984-9170
Fax: (863) 984-9176

Work Camp
855 Camp Road
Cocoa, Fl 32927-3700
(321) 634-6130
Fax: (321) 634-6051

Bartow WRC
550 N. Restwood Avenue
Bartow, Florida 33830
(863) 534-7037
Fax (863) 534-0016

Cocoa WRC
585 Camp Road
Cocoa, Florida 32927
(321) 690-3210
Fax: (321) 634-6002

St. Petersburg WRC (Male)
4237 8th Avenue, South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33711-2000
(727) 893-2289
Fax: (813) 893-1182

Hernando Correctional Instituiton (Female)
Main Unit
16415 Springhill Drive
Brooksville, Florida 34604-8167
(352) 754-6715
Fax: (352) 797-5794
Brooksville Road Prison
16415 Spring Hill Dr.
Brooksville, FL 34609
(904) 754-6715
Fax: (904) 754-6715
Hillsborough Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
11150 Highway 672
Riverview, Florida 33569-8402
(813) 671-5022
Fax: (813) 671-5037

Tarpon Springs WRC
566 Brady Road
Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689
(727) 942-5420
Fax (727) 942-5469

Lake Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
19225 U.S. Highway 27
Clermont, Florida 34715-9025
(352) 394-6146
Fax: (352) 394-3504

Region III Facility List
as of 11-29-10
Marion Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
3269 NW 105th Street
Lowell, Florida 32663-0158
(352) 401-6400
Fax: (352) 840-5657
Work Camp
Post Office Box 158
3269 NW 105th Street
Lowell, Florida 32663-0158
(352) 401-6865
Fax: (352) 401-6443
Sumter Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit and BTU
9544 County Road 476B
Bushnell, Florida 33513-0667
(352) 569-6100
Fax: (352) 569-6196
Work Camp
9544 County Road 476B
Bushnell, Florida 33513(352) 569-6106
Fax: (352) 569-6196
Tomoka Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
3950 Tiger Bay Road
Daytona Beach, Florida 32124-1098
(386) 323-1070
Fax: (386) 323-1006
Work Camp
3950 Tiger Bay Road
Daytona Beach, FL 32124
(386) 323-1220
Fax: (386) 323-1227
Daytona Beach WRC
3601 U.S. Highway 92
Daytona Beach, Florida 32124
(386) 238-3171
Fax: (386) 947-4058

Polk Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
10800 Evans Road
Polk City, Florida 33868-6925
(863) 984-2273
Fax: (863) 984-3072

Lowell Correctional Instituiton (Female)
Main Unit
11120 NW Gainesville Rd
Ocala, Florida 34482-1479
(352) 401-5359
Fax: (352) 401-5331

Work Camp
10800 Evans Road
Polk City, Florida 33868-6925
(941) 984-2273
Fax: (941) 984-3072

Annex
11120 NW Gainesville Rd
Ocala, Florida 34482-1479
(352) 401-5359
Fax: (352) 401-5331

Largo Road Prison
5201 Ulmerton Road
Clearwater, Florida 33760-4091
(727) 570-5135
Fax: (727) 570-3201

Work Camp
11120 NW Gainesville Rd
Ocala, Florida 34482-1479
(352) 401-5359
Fax: (352) 401-5331

Pinellas WRC (Female)
5205 Ulmerton Road
Clearwater, Florida 33760
(727) 570-5138
Fax: (727) 570-3187

BTU
11120 NW Gainesville Rd
Ocala, Florida 34482-1479
(352) 401-5359
Fax: (352) 401-5331

Putnam Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
128 Yelvington Road
East Palatka, Florida 32131
(386) 326-6800
Fax: (386) 312-2219
Zephyrhills Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
2739 Gall Boulevard
Zephyrhills, Florida 33541-9701
(813) 782-5521
Fax: (813) 780-0134

Levy Forestry Camp
1251 NE CR 343
Bronson, Florida 32621-6934
(352) 486-5331
Fax: (352) 486-5335
Tri County Work Camp
4055 NW 105th Street
Lowell, FL 32663

Region IV Facility List
as of 11-29-10
Broward Correctional Instituiton (Female)
Main Unit
20421 Sheridan Street
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33332-2300
(954) 252-6400
Fax: (954) 680-4168
Everglades Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
1601 S.W. 187th Ave.
Miami, Florida 33185-3701
(305) 228-2000
Fax: (305) 228-2039
Glades Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
500 Orange Ave. Circle
Belle Glade, Florida 33430-5222
(561) 829-1400
Fax: (561) 992-1355
Work Camp
2600 State Road 15
Belle Glade, Florida 33430
(561) 829-1800
Fax: (561) 992-1355
Loxahatchee Road Prison
230 Sunshine Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33411-3616
(561) 791-4760
Fax: (561) 791-4763
Atlantic WRC (Female)
263 Fairgrounds Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
(561) 791-4187
Fax: (561) 791-4749
West Palm Beach WRC
261 West Fairgrounds Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
(561) 791-4750
Fax: (561) 791-4018
Sago Palm Work Camp
15500 Bay Bottom Rd
Pahokee FL 33476
(561) 924-4300

Hendry Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
12551 Wainwright Drive
Immokalee, Florida 34142-4797
(239) 867-2100
Fax: (239) 867-2255
Work Camp
11569 Wainwright Drive
Immokalee, Florida 34142
(239) 867-2251
Fax: (239) 867-2256

Dade Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
19000 S. W. 377th Street
Florida City, Florida 33034-6409
(305) 242-1900
Fax: (305) 242-1881
Big Pine Key Road Prison
P.O. Box 430509
Big Pine Key, Florida 33043
(305) 872-2231
Fax: (305) 872-9417

Ft. Myers Work Camp
P.O. Box 51107
2575 Ortiz Avenue
Fort Myers, Florida 33994-1107
(239) 332-6915
Fax: (239) 332-6992

Homestead Correctional Instituiton (Female)
Main Unit
19000 S. W. 377th Street
Florida City, Florida 33034-6409
(305) 242-1700
Fax: (305) 242-2424

Copeland Road Prison
20201 State Road 29
P.O. Box 97
Copeland, FL 33926
(941) 695-2401
Fax: (941) 695-3095

Hardee Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
6901 State Road 62
Bowling Green, Florida 33834-9505
(863) 767-4500
Fax: (863) 767-4504

Indian River Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
7625 17th Street, S.W.
Vero Beach, Florida 32968-9405
(772) 564-2814
Fax: (772) 564-2880
Okeechobee Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
3420 N.E. 168th St.
Okeechobee, Florida 34972-4824
(863) 462-5474
Fax: (863) 462-5402
Work Camp (No Inmates)
3420 N.E. 168th St.
Okeechobee, Florida 34972-4824
(863) 462-5474
Fax: (863) 462-5402

Work Camp
6899 State Road 62
Bowling Green, Florida 33834-9810
(863) 767-4500
Fax: (863) 767-4743
Charlotte Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
33123 Oil Well Road
Punta Gorda, Florida 33955-9701
(941) 833-2300
Fax: (941) 575-5747

Region IV Facility List
as of 11-29-10
South Florida Reception Center (Male)
Main Unit
14000 NW 41st Street
Doral, Florida 33178-3003
(305) 592-9567
Fax: (305) 470-5628

Desoto Correctional (Male) (No Inmates)
Main Unit
13617 S.E. Highway 70
Arcadia, Florida 34266-7800
(863) 494-3727
Fax: (863) 494-1740

Martin Correctional Instituiton (Male)
Main Unit
1150 S.W. Allapattah Road
Indiantown, Florida 34956-4397
(772) 597-3705
Fax: (772) 597-3742

South Unit
13910 NW 41st Street
Doral, Florida 33178-3014
(305) 592-9567
Fax: (305) 470-5628

Annex
13617 S.E. Highway 70
Arcadia, Florida 34266-7800
(863) 494-3727
Fax: (863) 494-1740

Work Camp
100 SW Allapattah Road
Indiantown, Florida 34956
(772) 597-3705
Fax: (772) 597-3547

Hollywood WRC (Female)
8501 W. Cypress Drive
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33025
(954) 985-4720
Fax: (954) 967-1251

Work Camp
13617 S.E. Highway 70
Arcadia, Florida 34266-7800
(863) 494-3727
Fax: (863) 494-1740

Ft. Pierce WRC
1203 Bell Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-6599
(772) 468-3929
Fax: (772) 467-3140

Miami North WRC
7090 Northwest 41st Street
Miami, Florida 33166
(305) 470-5580
Fax (305) 470-5584

Arcadia Road Prison
2961 N.W. County Road 661
Arcadia, Florida 34266
(863) 993-4628
Fax: (863) 993-4630

Opa Locka WRC
5400 Northwest 135th Street
Opa Locka, Florida 33054
(305) 827-4057
Fax: (305) 364-3188

Region IV Facility List
as of 11-29-10

Community Corrections Offices

Region I Office
Barry Groves, Regional Director
Susan Bissett-Dotson, Operations Manager
14107 US Hwy 441, Suite 300
Alachua, FL 32615-6392
(386) 418-3451
Fax: (386) 418-3450

010 - PENSACOLA - CIRCUIT
3101 North Davis Highway
Pensacola, Florida 32503-3558
(850) 595-8953
Fax: (850) 595-8864

011 - MILTON
6738 Caroline Street, S.E.
Milton, Florida 32570-4974
(850) 983-5300
Fax: (850) 983-5306

012 - CRESTVIEW
250 Pine Avenue, Suite A
Crestview, Florida 32536
(850) 689-7804
Fax: (850) 689-7874

013 - SHALIMAR
74-3rd Street
Shalimar, Florida 32579-1377
(850) 833-9132
Fax: (850) 833-9148

014 - DEFUNIAK SPRINGS
2338 Hwy 90 West
Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433
(850) 892-8075
Fax: (850) 892-8084

015 - PENSACOLA WEST
3100 West Fairfield Drive
Pensacola, Florida 32505-4966
(850) 595-8900
Fax: (850) 595-8671

016 – PENSACOLA NORTH
3101 N. Davis Hwy.
Pensacola, FL 32503
(850) 595-8845
Fax: (850) 595-8860

017 - PENSACOLA BAYSIDE
315 South "A" Street
Pensacola, Florida 32502
(850) 595-8460
Fax: (850) 595-8469

018 - PENSACOLA CENTRAL
3101 North Davis Hwy.
Pensacola, Florida 32503-4945
(850) 595-8845
Fax: (850) 595-8860

020 - TALLAHASSEE MAIN / INTAKE
1240-A Blountstown Highway
Tallahassee, Florida 32304-2715
(850) 488-3596
Fax: (850) 922-6299

021 - CRAWFORDVILLE
3278 Crawfordville Highway
Unit A-2, Mill Creek Plaza
Crawfordville, FL 32327-3139
(850) 926-0052
Fax: (850) 926-0044

022 - QUINCY
305-C West Crawford Street
Quincy, Florida 32351-3121
(850) 875-9644
Fax: (850) 875-8993

023 - MONTICELLO
260 West Washington Street
Monticello, Florida 32344-1442
(850) 342-0272
Fax: (850) 342-0274

024 - TALLAHASSEE NORTH
2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C & E
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(850) 487-6509
Fax: (850) 488-2809

025 - TALLAHASSEE SOUTH
1815 South Gadsden Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5507
(850) 414-7224
Fax: (850) 414-7231

026 - TALLAHASSEE CIRCUIT
1250-H Blountstown Hwy.
Tallahassee, Florida 32304-2762
(850) 922-3623
Fax: (850) 488-4790

03C - LAKE CITY CIRCUIT
1106 S.W. Main Blvd.
Lake City, Florida 32025
(386) 758-0448
Fax: (386) 758-0677

030 - LAKE CITY MAIN
1435 US Highway 90 West, Suite 120
Lake City, FL 32055
(386) 754-1000
Fax: (386) 754-1002

031 - LIVE OAK
506 N.W.Houston Avenue, Suite B
Live Oak, Florida 32064-1630
(386) 362-2869
Fax: (386) 364-4936

032 - MADISON
126 SW Sumatra Avenue, Suite C
Madison, Florida 32340
(850) 973-5096
Fax (850) 973-5098

033 - PERRY
121 North Jefferson Street
Perry, Florida 32347-0540
(850) 223-4555
Fax: (850) 223-4566

034 - OLD TOWN
25815 SE Hwy 19
Old Town, FL 32680
(352) 542-0286
Fax:(352) 542-0695

035 - JASPER
Intersection of US 41 & US 129
1632 US Hwy 41 NW
Jasper, Florida 32052-1558
(386) 792-3447
Fax: (386) 792-2053

040 - JACKSONVILLE - CIRCUIT / MAIN
592 Ellis Road, Suite 114
Jacksonville, Florida 32254-3574
(904) 695-4045
Fax: (904) 695-4019

041 - JACKSONVILLE NORTH
10646 Haverford Road, Suite 5
Jacksonville, Florida 32218-6203
(904) 696-5970
Fax: (904) 696-5979

042 - JACKSONVILLE SOUTH
4613 Phillips Highway, Suite 221
Jacksonville, Florida 32207-9502
(904) 448-4373
Fax (904) 448-4395

044 - YULEE
86058 Pages Dairy Road
Yulee, FL 32097
(904) 548-9380
Fax: (904) 548-9393

045 - ORANGE PARK
302 College Drive
P.O. Box 65355
Orange Park, Florida 32065-0006
(904) 213-2930
Fax (904) 213-3095

046 - JACKSONVILLE S.W.
1945 Lane Avenue South
Jacksonville, Florida 32210-2781
(904) 693-5000
Fax: (904) 693-5034

047 - JACKSONVILLE WEST
580 Ellis Road, Suite 118
Jacksonville, Florida 32254-3553
(904) 695-4180
Fax: (904) 695-4187

070 - DAYTONA BEACH - MAIN
1023 Mason Avenue
Daytona Beach, Florida 32117-4611
(386) 947-3520
Fax: (386) 947-3556

071 - DELAND
334 E. New York Ave.
DeLand, Florida 32724-5510
(386) 740-2693
Fax: (386) 740-6976

072 - DAYTONA BEACH - CIRCUIT
9 West Granada Boulevard
Ormond Beach, Florida 32174
(386) 615-6330
Fax: (386) 615-6333

073 - PALATKA
423 St. Johns Avenue
Palatka, Florida 32177-4724
(386) 329-3757
Fax: (386) 329-3755

074 - ST. AUGUSTINE
Lightner Museum Bldg.
75 King Street, Suite 310
St. Augustine, Florida 32084-4377
(904) 825-5038
Fax: (904) 825-6804

075 - BUNNELL
2405 East Moody Blvd., Ste 301
Bunnell, Florida 32110
(386) 437-7575
Fax: (386) 437-8211

076 - DAYTONA BEACH - NORTH
9 West Granada Boulevard
Ormond Beach, Florida 32174
(386) 676-4020
Fax: (386) 676-4029

077 - DAYTONA BEACH - CENTRAL
1051 Mason Avenue
Daytona Beach, Florida 32117
(386) 226-7868
Fax: (386) 226-7876

080 - GAINESVILLE MAIN
110 S.E. First Street, Second Floor
Gainesville, Florida 32601-6925
(352) 955-2023
Fax: (352) 955-3042

081 CHIEFLAND
224 N. Main Street, Suite 1
Chiefland, Florida 32626-0802
(352) 493-6760
Fax: (352) 493-6764

082 STARKE
1200 Andrews Circle Drive, North
Starke, Florida 32091-2132
(904) 368-3600
Fax: (904) 368-3075

083 GAINESVILLE WEST
7020 N.W. 11th Place
Gainesville, Florida 32605-2144
(352) 333-3640
Fax: (352) 333-3644

085 - GAINESVILLE - CIRCUIT
7020 N.W. 11th Place
Gainesville, FL 32605-2144
(352) 333-3677
FAX: (352) 333-3676

140 – PANAMA CITY WEST / INTAKE
1013 Beck Avenue
Panama City, Florida 32401-1454
(850) 872-4139
FAX: (850) 747-5167

141 - MARIANNA
2863 Green Street
Marianna, Florida 32446
(850) 482-9524
Fax: (850) 482-9686

142 - PORT ST. JOE
504 3rd Street
Port St. Joe, Florida 32456-1736
(850) 227-1132
Fax: (850) 227-3592

143 - CHIPLEY
713 3rd Street
Chipley, Florida 32428-1822
(850) 638-6234
Fax: (850) 638-6213

144 - PANAMA CITY EAST
204 N. Tyndall Pkwy.
Panama City, Florida 32404-6432
(850) 872-7375
Fax: (850) 872-7382

145 - PANAMA CITY - CIRCUIT
3621 West Highway 390
Panama City, Florida 32405-2723
(850) 872-7590
Fax: (850) 872-7594

Region II Office
Barbara Scala, Regional Director
Patrice Bryant, Operations Manager
2301 Meeting Place
Orlando, FL 32814
(407) 623-1026
FAX: (407) 623-1292
050 - OCALA EAST
24 N. E. 1st Street
Ocala, Florida 34470-6660
(352) 732-1215
Fax: (352) 732-1720

051 - TAVARES-CIRCUIT / MAIN
105 S. Rockingham Ave.
Tavares, Florida 32778-3876
(352) 742-6242
Fax: Circuit--(352) 742-6163
Main--(352) 742-6469

052 - BUSHNELL
4420 South Hwy 301
Bushnell, Florida 33513
(352) 793-2131
Fax: (352) 793-5033

053 - INVERNESS
601 Highway 41 South
Inverness, Florida 34450-6029
(352) 560-6000
Fax: (352) 860-5155

054 - BROOKSVILLE
20144 Cortez Boulevard
Brooksville, Florida 34601-2503
(352) 754-6710
Fax: (352) 544-2305

055 - BELLEVIEW
4785 S.E. 102 Pl.
Belleview, FL 34420-2914
(352) 307-9582
Fax: (352) 307-9587

056 - OCALA WEST
5640 S.W. 6th Place, Suite 100
Ocala, Florida 34474-9378
(352) 732-1324
Fax: (352) 732-1312

057 - LEESBURG
3330 W. Main Street
Leesburg, Florida 34748
(352) 360-6564
Fax: (352) 360-6726

09A - ORLANDO SOUTHWEST
31 Coburn Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32805-2137
(407) 245-0854
Fax: (407) 245-0922

09B - ORLANDO METRO
3201-C West Colonial Drive
Orlando, Florida 32808-8009
(407) 297-2000
Fax: (407) 297-2069

090 - ORLANDO CIRCUIT
400 W. Robinson Street
Suite 709S
Orlando, Florida 32801
(407) 245-0267
Fax: (407) 245-0270

091 - ORLANDO NORTH
27 Coburn Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32805
(407) 245-0770
Fax: (407) 245-0840

092 - ORLANDO WEST
3201-B W. Colonial Drive
Orlando, Florida 32808
(407) 578-3500
Fax: (407) 445-5261

093 - ORLANDO MIDTOWN
400 W. Robinson Street
Suite 709S
Orlando, Florida 32801
(407) 245-0274
Fax: (407) 245-0585

094 - KISSIMMEE
1605 North John Young Parkway
Kissimmee, Florida 34741
(407) 846-5215
Fax: (407) 846-5248

096 - ORLANDO CENTRAL
29 Coburn Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32805
(407) 245-0701
Fax: (407) 245-0751

097 - ORLANDO SOUTH
3201-A West Colonial Drive
Orlando, Florida 32808
(407) 445-5305
Fax: (407) 445-5313

100 - BARTOW - MAIN / INTAKE
970 East Main Street
Bartow, Florida 33830-4905
(863) 534-7010
Fax: (863) 534-7247

10A - LAKELAND - CIRCUIT ADMIN
200 North Kentucky Avenue, Suite 516
Lakeland, Florida 33801
(863) 413-3305
Fax: (863) 413-3309

101 - LAKELAND NORTH / CIRCUIT
200 North Kentucky Avenue
Box #5, Suite 506
Lakeland, Florida 33801-4978
(863) 413-2242
Fax: (863) 413-2070

102 - WINTER HAVEN
1289 First Street South
Winter Haven, Florida 33880
(863) 298-5570
Fax: (863) 298-5597

103 - LAKE WALES
608 State Road 60 Westt
Lake Wales, Florida 33853-4419
(863) 679-4366
Fax: (863) 679-4382

104 - SEBRING
171 U.S. Highway 27 North
Sebring, Florida 33870-2100
(863) 386-6018
Fax: (863) 386-6023

105 - WAUCHULA
124 S. 9th Ave. Suite 200
Wauchula, Florida 33873-2832
(863) 773-4777
Fax: (863) 773-9783

106 - LAKELAND SOUTH
3939 US Highway 98 South
Suite 105
Lakeland, Florida 33812
(863) 668-3000
Fax: (863) 614-9181

107 - HAINES CITY
620 East Main Street
Haines City, Florida 33844-4344
(863) 419-3344
Fax: (863) 419-3359

180 - TITUSVILLE
1431 Chaffee Drive, Suite 5
Titusville, Florida 32780
Phone: (321) 264-4073
Fax: (321) 264-4081

181 - MELBOURNE
1500 West Eau Gallie Blvd., Suite B
Melbourne, Florida 32935-5367
(321) 752-3145
Fax: (321) 752-3153

182 - COCOA
801 Dixon Blvd, Ste 1104
Cocoa, Florida 32922
(321) 634-3570
Fax: (321)634-3559

183 - PALM BAY
4031 US Hwy 1, South
Palm Bay, Florida 32905
(321) 726-2825
Fax: (321) 726-2835

184 - CASSELBERRY
101 Sunnytown Road, Suite #103
Casselberry, Florida 32707-3862
(407) 262-7400
Fax: (407) 262-7405

185 - SANFORD - CIRCUIT
2698 Orlando Drive
Sanford, Florida 32773
(407) 302-3811
Fax: (407) 302-3819

186 - SANFORD MAIN
Seminole County Intake
2688 Orlando Drive
Sanford, Florida 32773-5339
(407) 330-6737
Fax: (407) 330-6924

190 FT. PIERCE- CIRCUIT / INTAKE
3552 Okeechobee Road
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947-4597
(772) 468-3933
Fax: (772) 595-1310 (Intake)
Fax: (772) 467-4115 (C.A.)

191 - STUART
2015 S. Kanner Hwy
Stuart, Florida 34994-2237
(772) 221-4010
Fax: (772) 221-4999

192 - VERO BEACH
1470 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3773
(772) 778-5015
Fax: (772) 778-5076

193 - OKEECHOBEE
127 Northwest 36th Street
Okeechobee, Florida 34972-1701
or: P.O. Box 1803
Okeechobee, Florida 34973-9408
(863) 462-5304
Fax: (863) 462-5176

194 - FT. PIERCE EAST
3214 South U.S. Highway 1, Suite 7
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-8113
(772) 468-4064
Fax: (772) 467-3150

Region III Office
Cliff Rowan, Regional Director
David Rice, Operations Manager
1313 N. Tampa Street
Suite 813
Tampa, Florida 33602-3330
(813) 233-2572
FAX: (813) 272-3810
06A - PINELLAS PARK
6655 - 66th Street North, Suite 1
Pinellas Park, Florida 33781-5047
(727) 547-7670
Fax: (727) 547-7694

06C - PINELLAS / PASCO INTAKE
11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 232
Largo, Florida 33778
(727) 518-3532
Fax: (727) 518-3540

06E - HUDSON
12370 U.S. Highway 19
Hudson, FL 34667-1948
(727) 861-5200
Fax: (727) 861-5224

06F - CLEARWATER -CIRCUIT
11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 237
Largo, Florida 33778
(727) 518-3571
Fax: (727) 518-3520

06G - PINELLAS CO. COURT UNIT
14250 49th Street North, Rm. 1930
Clearwater, Florida 33762-2800
(727) 464-6349
Fax: (727) 464-6450

060 - ST. PETERSBURG
525 Mirror Lake Drive, #117
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727)552-2583
Fax: (727)552-2598

061 - CLEARWATER
634 Park Street
Clearwater, Florida 33756-5404
(727) 469-5900
Fax: (727) 469-5909

062 - NEW PORT RICHEY
7619 Little Road, Suite C150
New Port Richey, Florida 34654-5533
(727) 841-4131
Fax: (727) 841-4129

063 - DADE CITY
14450 7th Street
Dade City, Florida 33523-3404
(352) 521-1214
Fax: (352) 523-5017

064 - LARGO
11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 200
Largo, Florida 33778-1631
(727) 588-3583
Fax: (727) 588-4013

066 - TARPON SPRINGS
1501 S. Pinellas Ave., Suite L
Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689-1951
(727) 942-5411
Fax: (727) 942-5415

067 - ST. PETERSBURG SOUTH
525 Mirror Lake Drive, #116
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727)552-2603
Fax: (727)552-2611

120 SARASOTA - CIRCUIT
2074 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 23
Sarasota, Florida 34237-7008
(941) 361-6322
Fax: (941) 373-3718

121 - BRADENTON
399 6th Avenue, West
Bradenton, Florida 34205-8820
(941) 741-3066
Fax: (941) 741-3073

122 - ARCADIA
301 North Brevard Avenue
Suite F
Arcadia, Florida 34266-4550
(863) 993-4631
Fax: (863) 993-4652

123 - HOLIDAY HARBOR
658 South Tamiami Trail
Osprey, Florida 34229-9209
(941) 918-2780
Fax: (941) 918-2784

124 - BAYSHORE GARDENS
6416A Parkland Drive
Sarasota, Florida 34243-4038
(941) 751-7611
Fax: (941) 751-7616

125 - SARASOTA NORTH
4123 North Tamiami Trail, Ste. 101
Sarasota, Florida 34234-3587
(941) 359-5610
Fax: (941) 359-5629

13A - TAMPA EAST
4510 Oakfair Boulevard, Suite 250
Tampa, Florida 33610-7371
(813) 744-6313
Fax: (813) 744-6323

13C - TAMPA INTAKE
1313 N. Tampa Street
Suite 124 Annex
Tampa, FL 33602-3328
(813) 233-3450
Fax: (813) 233-3487

13D - TAMPA HILLDALE
7829 N. Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 108
Tampa, Florida 33614-3267
(813) 975-6511
Fax: (813) 975-6522

13F - TAMPA - EASTLAKE
7402 North 56th Street
Building 100, Suite 100
Tampa, Florida 33617-7735
(813) 987-6846
Fax: (813) 987-6854

130 - TAMPA-CIRCUIT ADMINISTRATION
1313 Tampa Street, Suite 809
Tampa, Florida 33602-3330
(813) 233-2382
Fax: (813) 272-3291

131 - PLANT CITY
712 West MLK Jr. Blvd.
Plant City, Florida 33563-5158
(813) 757-9080
Fax: (813) 757-9084

132 - RIVERVIEW
11112 US Hwy 41 South
Gibsonton, Florida 33534
(813) 672-5670
Fax: (813) 672-5678

133 - TAMPA NORTHEAST
7402 North 56th Street
Corporate Square, Suite 750
Tampa, Florida 33617-7731
(813) 987-6717
Fax: (813) 987-6730

134 - TAMPA NORTH
12421 North Florida Avenue,
Suite A-110
Tampa, Florida 33612-4220
(813) 975-6542
Fax: (813) 975-6543

135 - TAMPA CENTRAL
1313 N. Tampa St. Suite 207
Tampa, Florida 33602-3329
(813) 233-3747
Fax: (813) 233-3761

136 - TAMPA NORTHWEST
1313 N. Tampa Street, #219S
Tampa, Florida 33602-3337
(813) 233-3480
Fax: (813) 233-3485

138 - TAMPA GULF SOUTH
7825 N. Dale Mabry Avenue, Suite 200
Tampa, Florida 33614-3267
(813) 975-6524
Fax: (813) 975-6532

200 FT. MYERS-CIRCUIT
4415 Metro Parkway, Suite 310
Ft. Myers, Florida 33916-9408
(239) 278-7240
Fax: (239) 278-7243

201 - NAPLES SOUTH
2500 Airport Road, Suite 114
Naples, Florida 34112-2884
(239) 417-6300
Fax: (239) 417-6309

202 - LABELLE
90 North Main St., P.O. Box 117
LaBelle, Florida 33975-0117
(863) 674-4017
Fax: (863) 674-4654

203 - PUNTA GORDA
121 E. Marion Avenue, Suite 125
Punta Gorda, Florida 33950-3635
(941) 575-5740
Fax: (941) 575-5743

204 - FT. MYERS SOUTH
1943 Maravilla Avenue
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
(239) 938-1900
Fax: (239) 938-1835

205 - FT. MYERS CENTRAL
1943 Maravilla Avenue
Ft. Myers, Florida 33901
(239) 938-1900
Fax: (239) 938-1835

207 - LEE COUNTY INTAKE
2234 Cleveland Avenue
Ft. Myers, FL 33901
(239) 338-2349
FAX (239) 338-2453

Region IV Office
Beth Atchison, Regional Director
Karla Felton, Operations Manager
189 SE 3rd Avenue Ste 5
Delray Beach, Florida 33483-4531
(561) 279-1937
Fax: (561) 279-1943
11B - MIAMI - INTAKE
7900 N.W. 27 Avenue
149 N Court, Suite D-6
Miami, Florida 33130
(305) 693-2320
Fax: (305) 693-2324

11C - COCONUT GROVE
7900 N.W. 27 Avenue
149 N Court, Suite D-6
Miami, Florida 33130
(305) 693-2325
Fax: (305) 693-2329

110 MIAMI-CIRCUIT
1150 N.W 72nd Avenue, Suite 200
Miami, Florida 33126
(305) 470-6840

111 - MIAMI NORTHWEST
3601 Northwest 167th Street
Miami, Florida 33056-4102
(305) 628-6805
Fax: (305) 628-6848

112 - MIAMI EAST
401 Northwest 2nd Avenue -S607
Miami, Florida 33128-1789
(305) 377-5270
Fax: (305) 377-5576

113 - MIAMI SOUTH
12295 Southwest 133rd Court
Miami, Florida 33186-6427
(305) 252-4400
Fax: (305) 252-4485

114 - MIAMI NORTH
3601 Northwest 167th Street
Miami, Florida 33056-4102
(305) 626-4960
Fax: (305) 626-4888

115 - HOMESTEAD
1448 North Krome Avenue #102
Florida City, Florida 33034-2402
(305) 246-6326
Fax: (305) 246-6392

116 - BISCAYNE
7900 N.W. 27 Avenue
149 N Court, Suite D-6
Miami, Florida 33130
(305) 693-2330
Fax: (305) 693-2334

117 - MIAMI - HIALEAH
3601 Northwest 167th Street
Miami, Florida 33056-4102
(305) 626-4900
Fax: (305) 626-4956

118 - MIAMI LAKES
3601 Northwest 167th Street
Miami, Florida 33056-4102
(305) 626-4905
Fax: (305) 626-4996

150 - WEST PALM BEACH - CIRCUIT
423 Fern Street, Suite 100
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5939
(561) 837-5175
Fax: (561) 837-5278

151 - BELLE GLADE
2976 State Road 15
Belle Glade, Florida 33430-5308
(561) 996-4860
Fax: (561) 992-2048

152 - DELRAY BEACH
189 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Suite 2
Delray Beach, Florida 33483-4541
(561) 279-1650
Fax: (561) 279-1614

153 - WEST PALM BEACH CENTRAL
4480 South Tiffany Drive,
Suite 1001
Magnonia Park, Florida 33407
(561) 881-5001
Fax: (561) 840-4884

154 - LAKE WORTH
3444 South Congress Avenue
Lake Worth, Florida 33461-3022
(561) 434-3960
Fax: (561) 434-3972

160 - KEY WEST
Professional Building
1111 12th Street, Suite 402
Key West, Florida 33040-4086
(305) 292-6742
Fax: (305) 292-6767

161 - MARATHON - CIRCUIT
5192 Overseas Highway, Second Floor
Marathon Shores, Florida 33050
(305) 289-2340
Fax: (305) 289-2379

162 - TAVERNIER
88005 Overseas Highway
Islamorada, Florida 33036-3067
(305) 853-3262
Fax: (305) 853-3260

17A - TAMARAC
4200 Northwest 16th St., 4th Floor
Lauderhill, Florida 33313-5879
(954) 497-4121
Fax: (954) 497-4133

170 - FT. LAUDERDALE-INTAKE / CIRCUIT
3708A West Oakland Park Blvd.
Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33311-1134
Circuit: (954) 677-5913
Fax: (954) 677-5918
Intake: (954) 677-5595
Fax: (954) 677-5672

171 - POMPANO BEACH
140 East McNab Road
Pompano Beach, Florida 33060-9240
(954) 786-5466
Fax: (954) 784-4535

172 - PEMBROKE PARK
1050 North Federal Highway
Hollywood, Florida 33020
(954) 924-3800
Fax: (954) 924-3809

174 - CYPRESS
1700 Northwest 64th Street, Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309-1836
(954) 267-4948
Fax: (954) 267-4967

175 - SUNRISE EAST
2928 North State Road 7
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33313-1912
(954) 677-5900
Fax: (954) 677-5912

177 - PLANTATION
3520 West Broward Boulevard
Kingston Building, Second Floor
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312-1038
(954) 797-1762
Fax: (954) 797-1795

178 - HOLLYWOOD
1050 North Federal Highway
Hollywood, Florida 33020-3540
(954) 924-3800
Fax: (954) 924-3809

17A - TAMARAC
4200 n.w. 16TH Street, 4th Floor
Lauderhill, FL 33313
(954) 497-4121
Fax: (954) 497-4133

Vicki LopezLukis, Chairman

Final Report to the Governor

November 2006

Exhibit 6

This report may be accessed on the website of the Task Force at
http://exoffender.myflorida.com/
Task Force Chairman Vicki Lopez Lukis may be contacted at vickilukis@mac.com.

Vicki Lopez Lukis
836 Madrid Street
Coral Gables, FL 33134
_________________________________________________________________________________

November 30, 2006
Dear Governor Bush,
On behalf of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force, I am proud to present to you our final report, which was
adopted unanimously at our meeting on November 14, 2006. Our recommendations are the result of your exemplary
leadership in focusing on prisoner reentry and its impact on public safety.
We began our work by studying the magnitude of the challenge of making reentry successful and quickly learned
that Florida has the third largest prison population in America and over 30,000 people returning home from prison
each year. The continual growth of imprisonment in our State has created an unprecedented challenge for our State
and for the local communities who must absorb these individuals upon their return home.
We found that, under the current conditions, most ex-offenders will fail at leading law-abiding lives when they
return home. This will result in new crimes being committed with new victims unnecessarily traumatized at a huge
cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers and their communities. Accordingly, we concentrated much
of our work in studying what it will take to keep people coming home from prison from committing another crime.
How, we asked, might prisoners be best prepared for their foreseeable return home? To answer this, we identified
and referenced many promising programs, innovative practices and ongoing interventions that are working both in
Florida and elsewhere. These examples have guided our recommendations and assisted us in establishing a formal
reentry framework for our State that can reduce recidivism.
Most importantly, we found that there is an urgent need for the corrections community to adopt reentry as part of
their broader public safety mission. Therefore, many of our recommendation concern the steps that should be taken
by the Department of Corrections to improve the prospects of prisoners succeeding in living law abiding lives upon
release
We also found that after release, ex-offenders must be reconnected to positive and productive activities in their
communities.
Successful reentry depends on the development and execution of a safety plan for each ex-offender to provide a safe
transition. Implementing these safety plans must begin in prison, but must also involve other state agencies, local
governments, law enforcement agencies, the ex-offender’s families, community organizations, service providers and
faith-based institutions. The Task Force has begun to cultivate relationships with many such partners in the local
communities to which most ex-offenders return. But this is just the beginning. There are scores of other issues that
must be studied as we have just scraped the surface of addressing this very complex and complicated issue.
We must seize this opportunity to rethink the relationship between prisoner reentry and public safety assuring we
meet our goal of crime reduction. We believe the implementation of our recommendations will represent a major
step in achieving the goal of making Florida’s communities safer, stronger and more productive.

Sincerely,

Vicki Lopez Lukis

Chairman

TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Chairman Vicki Lopez Lukis
Vice Chairman Robert P. Blount III

STAFF
Jean Maynard Gonzalez
Executive Director
Latrese King
Administrative Assistant

Ira L. Barbell, PhD
Franchatta J. Barber (designee of FDC
Secretary James McDonough)

CONSULTANTS

Michael A. Bernstein

Linda Mills, Esq.
Annie E. Casey Foundation

Monica A. David
Bernard "Bernie" DeCastro
Diamond Litty
Henree D. Martin
Ralph P. Martin
Annette R. Martinez
Wayne E. Rawlins
Anthony J. Schembri
Mike Switzer

Katherine Burns
Community Partnerships Initiative
Nancy LaVigne, PhD
Amy Soloman, PhD
Urban Institute Justice Policy Center
Rod Petrey, Esq.
April Young, PhD
Collins Center for Public Policy
Randall Berg, Esq.
Cullin O’Brien, Esq.
Florida Justice Institute
Cathie Hawke, Esq.
Annie E. Casey Foundation

Jason L. Welty (for DJJ Secretary
Schembri)
James L. Williams

PRO BONO ATTORNEYS
Holland and Knight: Julie Tappendorf,
Andrea Briski, Andrew Fiske, Hal Flowers, Grant
McCorkill, Kevin Packman, Joe Seely, David
Shahoulian, Connie Shivers, Matt Singer

FORMER TASK FORCE MEMBERS
The Hon. T. Edward Austin
Jose M. Boscan
Carol Law
Stephen R. MacNamara, Esq.
Susan E. Pareigis

FUNDING
The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Table of Contents
Executive Summary of the Task Force’s Recommendations

1

Introduction

4

Chapter One
The Prison Experience:
Successful Reentry Must Start at Prison Entry

7

Chapter Two
Coming Home: Reentry at the Community Level
19
Chapter Three
Organizing Reentry Reform Work in 2007 and Beyond
23
Acknowledgements

28

Appendix
A.
B.
C.
D.

Background on Task Force members
Executive Order 05-28 establishing the Task Force
Executive Order 06-89 on employment restrictions
Executive Order 06-237 extending the term of the Task Force
43

Final Words, Governor Jeb Bush

34
36
39

44

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Executive Summary of the
Task Force’s Recommendations
ALMOST NINETY PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE NOW IN FLORIDA’S PRISONS WILL ONE
DAY BE RELEASED. Within three years of release, over a quarter of those people will go
back to prison for a new crime. This rate of recidivism is unacceptably high and
unacceptably expensive. For each new crime, there is a new victim, and new costs to
Florida communities. This trend must be reversed.
This Executive Summary distills the recommendations that have been unanimously
adopted by the Task Force, each of which is designed to address this problem and make our
communities safer.
The recommendations reflect a paradigm shift from what we once expected from the
correctional system and what we and others across the country are coming to expect of it. We
cannot continue to release people from prison who are unprepared to return home and succeed
in living a crime-free life. And we cannot continue to fail our communities by leaving them
unprepared to help them succeed.
The recommendations are arranged in three categories: Recommendations related to
the state’s prison system; recommendations related to reentry at the community level; and
recommendations related to continuing the work of reform in 2007 and beyond.
The recommendations that are italicized and in bold print are the Task Force’s highest
priorities.
The Task Force embraces the Florida Department of Corrections’ (FDC) new
commitment to reducing recidivism and recognizes that a good deal of money can be saved by
achieving this goal. Still, the Task Force acknowledges that making this commitment is not, at
the start, a budget neutral proposition. Thus, some of its recommendations are made with the
understanding that they will require the reallocation and reinvestment of state resources, and
present opportunities to invest additional resources.

I. The P rison Experience:
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1
Introduction
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Successful Reentry Must Start at P rison Entry
1. The FDC mission statement should be revised to explicitly address successful reentry. To
assess performance in achieving the goal of successful reentry, performance measures should
be adopted for FDC, its facilities, and wardens and staff.
2. A minimum of six more facilities should be transformed into faith and character-based
facilities with three completed by December 31, 2007 and three more by December 31, 2008.
3. FDC should use a validated instrument for evaluation and assessment at reception for both
security classification and reentry programming needs and develop an inmate program handbook
describing available FDC inmate programs, and the rules and guidelines governing selection and
eligibility and termination from programs.
4. FDC’s capacity for basic and functional literacy, GED preparedness and vocational education
should be expanded.
5. FDC’s capacity for the treatment of substance abuse and of co-occurring disorders should be
expanded.
6. FDC should improve and expand job training through the maximization of third-party
resources.
7. FDC should help inmates increase family contact and reduce financial strain on inmates’
families.
8. FDC should expand work release by outsourcing additional work release facilities.
9. FDC should begin pre-release planning with inmates starting on their first day of
incarceration and develop individualized reentry plan for each inmates, and:


Assist inmates being released from prison in obtaining Social Security cards and state
identification cards or driver licenses.



Assist disabled inmates in applying for disability and Medicaid benefits prior to their
release.



Develop an inmate discharge handbook that contains the inmate’s individualized reentry
plan and the programs and services available in his home community.

10. FDC should transform existing facilities in the communities to which the most inmates will
be released into transition release centers that comprehensively prepare inmates for release;
and as prisoners near the end of their sentence, FDC should transfer prisoners to facilities
close to their homes.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2
Introduction
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

II. Coming home: Reentry at the Community Level
11. The State should create a “transition authority” that coordinates a seamless planning
process and a continuum of services from FDC custody to the community to facilitate the
successful reentry of people leaving FDC custody; it would develop policies and
interagency agreements that spell out the roles of state agencies in this process and help
coordinate the work of reentry at the community level.
12. The State should support the development and work of reentry at the community level to
help local reentry planning and service delivery, test new ideas and approaches, and
promote and replicate what is found to work in producing measurable outcomes, such as
reduced recidivism, by:


Partnering and collaborating with Florida communities in the development of local
reentry councils to coordinate reentry planning and services at the local level.



The Governor’s Office appointing a reentry point-person charged with
coordinating, with the transition authority and relevant state agencies, the
continuum of services from FDC facilities through release to the community.

13. The Legislature should prohibit the requirement that one have their civil rights restored as
a condition for employment or licensing and instead create a single background check law,
such as Chapter 435, with lists of disqualifying offenses relevant to the occupation, license
or place of employment.

III. Organizing Reentry Reform Work in 2007 and Beyond
14. The Legislature or Governor should re-commission the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task
Force to continue the work it began in 2005.
15. The re-commissioned Task Force should study critical populations such as sex offenders
female, juvenile and mentally ill inmates and ex-offenders and additional issues such as
community supervision, graduated sanctions, the loss of civil rights upon conviction of a
felony, and the over-representation of African Americans among the inmate population
with the aim of additional reform recommendations.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3
Introduction
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Introduction to the Report
Successful reentry and reintegration in one’s community is a matter of
critical import to the public’s safety.
Without successful re-entry into one's community, recidivism is likely to occur, to
the great detriment to the public safety, Florida's communities, families,
taxpayers, and individual ex-offenders.
Governor Bush, Executive Order 05-28

Issuance of Executive Order and Appointment of the Task Force
ON FEBRUARY 7, 2005, GOVERNOR JEB BUSH ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDER 05-28
CREATING THE GOVERNOR’S EX-OFFENDER TASK FORCE for the purpose of helping to
“improve the effectiveness of the State of Florida in facilitating the re-entry of exoffenders into their communities so as to reduce the incidence of recidivism.”
The basis of the Order was expressed in the preamble, which states that
“successful reentry and reintegration in one’s community is a matter of critical import
to the public’s safety; but reentry is often not a success due to the barriers exoffenders face upon their release” and that “without successful re-entry into one's
community, recidivism is likely to occur, to the great detriment to the public safety,
Florida's communities, families, taxpayers, and individual ex-offenders.”
The Governor also emphasized the critical link between employment and
successful reentry. “The ability of ex-offenders to obtain employment after
incarceration and become productive members of their communities is essential to
reducing recidivism rates, but due to employers’ concerns about liability, the honest
completion of job applications often results in ex-offenders being unable to find
work.”
In April, he appointed the first seventeen members of the Task Force; with
resignations, three more members were added in 2006. This diverse group has
included five business people; three ex-offenders; three tireless prison volunteers;
four people who run programs for offenders and ex-offenders, a former mayor and
prosecutor, a public defender, a law professor; officials representing the Florida
Department of Corrections (FDC), Department of Juvenile Justice, the Florida Parole
Commission, and the Agency for Workforce Innovation; and a representative of the
Annie E. Casey Foundation, which has been supporting the work of the Task Force.

The Work of the Task Force
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4
Introduction
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
The Governor spelled out his charge to the Task Force in the Executive Order
establishing the Task Force as follows:
1. Identification of legal, policy, structural, organizational, and practical
barriers to successful reentry;
2. Provide recommendations regarding such reforms that will eliminate
barriers to successful reentry, including, but not limited to, reforms that may offer
employers greater flexibility and confidence in hiring ex-offenders;
3. Provide recommendations regarding implementation of the reforms; and
4. Provide recommendations regarding measuring the effectiveness of the
reforms, such as through reduced recidivism; increased attachment to the workforce
and earnings; increased family attachment; and savings to the state from incarceration
cost avoidance.
Eighteen months have passed since the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
first convened in June 2005. During that time, the Task Force has held weekly
conference calls, and has formally met fourteen times. It has heard testimony from
state and local experts, reviewed scores of reports and studies, deliberated with state
and local political and agency officials, held focus groups with ex-offenders and with
inmates, and conducted site visits to prisons and a work release facility.
The Task Force hewed closely to its charge. It identified scores of barriers to
successful reentry; the findings in this report reflect many of those barriers. And it
has developed a set of comprehensive recommendations, including recommendations
as to implementation and measurement of their effectiveness; these, too, are detailed
in this report.

The K ey Recommendation: Reform the Mission of Corrections
Of its fifteen recommendations, one stands front and center. The Task Force
members agreed that this recommendation was the predicate for all the rest. It is
simply this: Successful reentry and the rehabilitation of inmates must be made
an explicit part of the mission of the Department of Corrections. And FDC’s
performance should be measured on how well it adheres to this mission, as
gauged by such factors as reduced recidivism.
Focusing only on custody and control does not reduce recidivism. This focus
protects the public safety by segregating people who have committed crimes from the
public for a period of time and by preventing escapes, but those are not the only
public safety concerns. After all, 88.5% of the inmates in Florida’s facilities
eventually will be released. The Task Force has been concerned, since its first
convening, with what happens upon release.
Accordingly, the Task Force has focused on protecting the public safety in the
larger sense of preparing the inmate for a successful, crime-free return to the
community.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5
Introduction
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
The Task Force recognizes that moving from a mission of care, custody and
control to one of successful reentry will require changes at many levels – from
shifting priorities, to changing the culture of the department and its institutions, and
to reallocating state resources and to collaborating with other state and local agencies
to operate the programs recommended in this report, . FDC recognizes this, too, and
has already begun some of these changes. The Task Force endorses those changes.

Organization of the Report
The report contains the Task Force’s key findings; its endorsements of policy
changes already being made by FDC or recommended by its consultant, MGT of
America; and its reform recommendations. The findings are footnoted, so that the
reader can look to the sources, especially for the data in the report.
The report is divided into three sections. The first concerns “behind the
fence” issues under the jurisdiction of FDC. This section contains the bulk of the
recommendations for two reasons. First, the Task Force focused on what FDC
should be doing to reduce recidivism because this has not been its priority in recent
years. Second, the state’s role is more limited after release. Almost two-thirds of
prisoners are released without subsequent state supervision and the state has no
formal role in relation to those former inmates.
The second chapter concerns what happens upon release; and here the Task
Force addresses the lack of a coordinated release-to-community system and the
absence of a state role after release. Its recommendations address that problem and
other barriers to successful reentry at the community level.
The third chapter concerns what is to happen to this work that has barely
begun but is now set to expire on February 28, 2007. In addition to recommending
the re-commissioning of this work, the Task Force has outlined a significant number
of issues it did not have time to address but that it finds to be critical.
In the Appendix, the reader will find the background statements on each Task
Force member, the Executive Order establishing the Task Force, the Executive Order
on employment restrictions, and the Executive Order extending the term of the Task
Force to February 28, 2007.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6
Introduction
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Chapter One
The Prison Experience:
Successful Reentry Must Start at Prison Entry
ALMOST

NINETY PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE NOW IN FLORIDA’S PRISONS
WILL ONE DAY BE RELEASED. Within three years of release, over a quarter of

those people will go back to prison for a new crime. This rate of recidivism is
unacceptably high and unacceptably expensive. For each new crime, there is a
new victim, and new costs to Florida communities. This trend must be reversed.
From the first day of the Task Force’s deliberations, the members recognized
that for reentry and reintegration to be successful for the more than 30,000 people
who are released from Florida’s state prisons each year, the work toward that
success upon discharge had to begin upon arriving at the prison gate.
The Task Force embraces the Florida Department of Corrections’ new
commitment to reducing recidivism and recognizes that a good deal of money can
be saved by achieving this goal. Still, the Task Force acknowledges that making this
commitment is not, at the start, a budget neutral proposition. Thus, some of its
recommendations are made with the understanding that they will involve
expenditures not currently being made. The actual costs have not been stated in this
report because the Task Force has not undertaken a detailed fiscal analysis of each
its recommendations.
I. R EDUCING R ECIDIVISM AS CENTRAL TO THE FDC MISSION
THE TASK FORCE FINDS:
88.5%1 of the 89,5132 people now in Florida’s state prisons will one day be
released.
1

FDC Annual Report 2004-2005, Inmate Population, at 31. The Task Force is aware that the often-cited national percent of
prisoners that will one day be released is 97%. The Florida figure is lower due to its stricter sentencing laws. However, of the
inmates admitted in 2004-05, 98.5% have sentences shorter than natural life (or death). Id., Inmate Admissions, at 11.
2

September 2006 Total of FDC Inmate Population by Facility Fiscal Year 2006-2007, prepared by FDC on October 6, 2006.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
44% of the people in Florida’s prisons have been there before.3
Over a quarter of those released from prison are coming back to prison within
three years. If the current pattern holds, within three years of release from state
prisons in Florida, of the 31,5374 released in 2004-05, 39.5% (12,457 people) will be
convicted for a new crime and 25.7% (8,105 people) of those released will be reimprisoned for a new crime.5
Still others come back to prison on technical violations of the conditions of
community supervision. In FY 2004-05, of the 9,994 people on probation sent to
prison for a technical violation of the conditions of supervision, 1,887 were returned
to prison (the remaining 8,107 had not initially been given a sentence of
imprisonment).6 These 1,887 individuals are not among the 25.7% who would be
predicted to return to prison because the reimprisonment of these 1,887 people is not
based on their being convicted of new crime.
Those returning inmates will cost Florida taxpayers $147,765,3407 for their first
year of reconfinement. This is based on the cost of $18,108 per year to house an
inmate8 (excluding capital costs; this also does not include the cost of those
reimprisoned for technical violations.)
If these repeat offenders are sentenced to the current 4.6 year average length of
sentence for new admissions,9 the cost of these repeat offenses will total $670
million.10
FDC’s mission (“The Department of Corrections protects the public by
operating a safe, secure, humane, and efficient corrections system.”) does not
address recidivism or reentry. At least fourteen other states have amended their
mission statements in recent years to address recidivism, successful reentry and/or
rehabilitation.11 The mission of a department of corrections impacts both the work
3

FDC Annual Report 2004-2005, Inmate Admission, at 15.

4

FDC Annual Report 2004-2005, Inmate Releases, at 38.

5

FDC Recidivism Report, (Inmates Released from Florida Prisons July 1995 to June 2001), July 2003.

6

Email correspondence to the Task Force from FDC Research & Data Analysis, 10/26/06.

7

8,105 (25.7% of 31,537) x $18,108 = $147,765,340.

8

FDC Annual Report 2004-2005, Budget Summary, at 19.

9

FDC 2004-05 Annual Report, Inmate Admissions, at 11.

10

$147,765,340 x 4.6 = $679,720,564. This cost does not include associated costs both to victims and to taxpayers that these new
crimes will create.
11

E.g., Texas: “The mission of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is to provide public safety, promote positive change in
offender behavior, reintegrate offenders into society, and assist victims of crime;” and Nevada: “It is the mission of the

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
and the culture of correctional institutions. It sets the tone for the operation of the
agency and its facilities.
FDC is not measured on its effectiveness in reducing recidivism. This is
arguably the most important goal of the system after inmate and public safety. FDC
reports this data, but facilities and staff are not rated or ranked according to their
performance. Nor is FDC measured on critical related measures.
THE TASK FORCE ENDORSES:
a.

FDC’s anti-crime crime strategies, including its targets of reduction in the rate of
recidivism initially by 10% and then by an additional 10% for a total of 20%. The
savings that would be realized from 10% of the predicted 8,105 people released
going back to prison in FY 2004-05 not committing new crimes and being sent back
to prison would be $14.7 million; if 20% don’t go back to prison, the savings would
be $28.4 million. With 20% of each year’s releasees not going back to prison, the
savings mount.

THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS:
1.

That FDC revise its mission statement to explicitly address successful
reentry. The mission of a department of corrections impacts both the work and the
culture of correctional institutions. It sets the tone for the operation of the agency and
its facilities. To assess performance in achieving the goal of successful reentry,
performance measures should be adopted for FDC, its facilities and wardens
and staff.
The measures should include, but not be limited to, reductions in recidivism;
disciplinary reports; incidents of violence; staff and inmate injuries; use of force;
number of days on lock-down; contagious diseases; contraband; and increases in
comprehensive assessments at reception; inmates’ educational attainment; issuance
of state photo IDs and Social Security cards prior to release; and, upon release,
longitudinal success as measured by job retention, earnings gains, educational
credentials and other positive outcomes reported by the Florida Education and
Placement Information Program (FETPIP). Staff promotions and transfers should be
based on these indicators. [By Agency, Executive or Legislative Action]

II. P RISON CULTURE
THE TASK FORCE FINDS:
Department to provide professional staff to protect the community through safe, humane, and efficient confinement of offenders;
provide opportunities for offenders to successfully reenter the community through: education, training, treatment, work, and
spiritual development; and be sensitive to the rights and needs of victims.”

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

The transformation of the prison culture in faith and character-based prisons
shows promise for prisons across the state. Much of the change in these prisons is
due to leadership changes, increased mutual respect among staff, inmates and
volunteers, the increased engagement of volunteers, and a focused emphasis on
rehabilitation.
State prisons can better serve all Floridians when they are safe environments
characterized by a culture of respect, responsibility, and rehabilitation.
Prisons such as Lawtey CI, where such a culture has been cultivated, are able
to maintain security to protect against immediate threats to public safety (i.e.,
escapes), while also providing a supportive and non-violent atmosphere in which
prisoners can prepare for release.
Faith and character-based institutional transformations are budget-neutral and
appear to be achieving some good outcomes. Although it is too soon to measure
recidivism rates of the people leaving the transformed facilities, the disciplinary
rates of these facilities are about half of similar profiles of inmates in other facilities.
THE TASK FORCE ENDORSES:
b. MGT of America’s12 recommendation and FDC’s plans to transform additional
facilities into faith and character based institutions.
c. The reform efforts that FDC began in 2006, including adding “civility” to the Code of
Conduct, rooting out corruption, setting new programming priorities, and the work
being done to transform the culture at Lowell CI (the facility that MGT of America
identified as needing the most attention), to improve its physical plant and to tap the
local community to bring in needed programming.
THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS:
2. That a minimum of six more facilities be transformed into faith and characterbased facilities with three completed by December 31, 2007, and three more by
December 31, 2008, with the highest priority given to facilities in the counties to
which the largest number of inmates return home. These facilities should also serve
as transition facilities, which prepare inmates for release. FDC should document the
steps involved in faith and character-based facility transformations to facilitate the
transition of additional facilities and report quarterly on reaching the target. Facility
transformation should not be limited to minimum and medium security institutions,
12

MGT of America MGT is a national consulting firm that did an operational analysis of the Department of Corrections that was
completed in July, 2006. Agency-Wide Operational Analysis Summary, at 3-8.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
but include all facility security levels. [By Agency, Executive or Legislative
Action]

III. P RISON P ROGRAMMING
THE TASK FORCE FINDS:
Reallocation of resources has the potential for improved outcomes, Of the $1.9
billion Corrections budget for FY 2004-05, less than 2% ($32.4 million) is allocated
for inmate programs.
Inmate idleness has sharply increased over time. In 2004, OPPAGA reported
that “Since 2000, inmate idleness has doubled from 18% to 33%.”13 In 2006, MGT
of America reported that “The assessment teams found an extremely high level of
inactivity and idleness within the institutions of the FDOC. The elimination of most
of the education, vocational, and recreational funding has left the institutions with an
absence of constructive activities to occupy inmates. The elimination of the practice
of using canteen profits for the purchase of recreational equipment has impaired the
institutions’ ability to provide adequate recreational activities. The assessment teams
believe idleness is directly connected to the safety and security of the institutions
and the potential for instability within the inmate population.”14

Primary programming needs are education and substance abuse:
Inmates are reading at the 6th grade level. As reported by FDC15, based on
literacy testing of inmates being admitted to its facilities, 69.5% of inmates
admitted that year tested below the level necessary to begin studying for a GED
(which is the 9th grade). 28.9% tested below the fifth grade level. 55.3% of all
new inmates tested at the sixth grade level or below. In FY 2004-05, 740 inmates
obtained GEDs.16

13

OPPAGA Progress Report: Corrections Program Still Challenged by Inmate Idleness, Prison Planning, and Fleet
Maintenance, Report No. 04-60, August 2004
14

MGT of America, Agency-Wide Operational Analysis Summary, at 3-8.

15

FDC 2004-05 Annual Report, Inmate Admissions, at 18.

16

FDC 2004-05 Annual Report, Education at M-23.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
“Over half of the inmates have substance abuse issues,” reported OPAGGA in
October 2004. It also reported that “Since 2000, due to major state revenue
shortfalls, correctional substance abuse program funding has been reduced by
nearly 47% and about 71% of substance abuse program sites have been
eliminated. This was a reduction from 4,554 to 1,880 treatment slots.” OPPAGA
also found that 25 of the 123 FDC facilities have treatment programs.17 According
to FDC, the current capacity is 2,117 treatment slots. In FY 2005-06, of the
32,654 people released, 24,284 (74.4%) needed treatment and 19,724 (81% of
those needing it) did not receive it.18
Inmates are not always able to complete programs. In 2004, OPPAGA
reported that in 2000 it had noted “that approximately half the number of
inmates who are placed in correctional education and rehabilitation programs do
not successfully complete the courses because they are transferred or released
before graduating.” In the 2004 report, in discussing the less than ten percent of
inmates in programs, it found that “in Fiscal Year 2002-03, 51% of inmates exited
mandatory literacy programs before completion, 88% did not complete GED
courses, and 59% exited vocational courses before completing them.”19
Over time, prison programming has been cut. Education, job training, work
experience, substance abuse and mental health treatment have been cut in recent
years, as shown in chart on the next page.
Appropriations

FY 2000-01

FY 2004-05

Substance Abuse
Treatment

$14,761,833

$7,830,618

Percent
change
- 47%

Basic education
skills (academic,
vocational,
special education
and library
services)

$36,749,036

$24,555,358

- 33%

Total Treatment
and Education
Total for FDC
Percent of FDC
budget for

$51,510,869

$32,385,976

- 37%

$1,634,173,161

$1,898,232,425

+ 13%

3.2%

1.7%

- 47%

17

OPPAGA Information Brief: Correctional Substance Abuse Programs, While Few, Are Reasonably Efficient and Effective,
Report No. 04-69, October 2004.
18

Data provided to the Task Force by the FDC Office of Community Corrections, 10/24/06.

19

OPPAGA Progress Report: Corrections Education and Rehabilitative Programs Significantly Reduced, Report No. 04-59,
August 2004.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
Treatment and
Education
Inmate
population
Annual
Treatment and
Education Dollars
per Inmate

72,007

84,901

+ 18%

$715

$381

- 47%

Research shows that such programming has proven to enhance safety and
security and to reduce recidivism.20
As OPPAGA reported, Florida TaxWatch found that for every dollar invested
in inmate programs, there was a return of $1.66 in the first year and $3.20 in
the second year.21
THE TASK FORCE ENDORSES:
d. MGT of America’s recommendation that “the Office of Institutions needs to develop
a strategic approach to reduce idleness throughout the institutions” and its

20

See, e.g., Florida Corrections Commission 1999 Annual Report, which found, based on FDC data:



Lower Major Disciplinary Report Rate for inmates who completed vocational, transition, or life skills training.
For FY 1995-96, 719 major disciplinary reports were issued per 1,000 inmates who completed these programs as
compared to 1,025 major disciplinary reports per 1,000 of the remaining inmate population.



Fewer Major Disciplinary Reports for inmates who were enrolled in educational courses. For FY 1995-96, 684
major disciplinary reports were issued per 1,000 inmates who were enrolled in educational courses as compared to 917
major disciplinary reports per 1,000 of the remaining inmate population.

And see also: FDC Recidivism Report: Inmates Released from Florida Prisons, July 1995 to June 2001; July 2003:
“Academic Programs (GED): The recidivism rate for the 1,788 inmates who received a GED was 29.8% compared to 35.4%
for those who did not complete a program. This reduction in recidivism (5.6%) translates into approximately 100 inmates not
returning to prison. Avoiding the cost of their re-incarceration for one year would amount to cost savings of approximately $1.9
million.
Vocational Programs: The recidivism rate for the 1,793 inmates who earned a vocational certificate was 26.0% compared to
35.4% for those who did not complete a program. This reduction in recidivism (9.4%) translates into approximately 169 inmates
not returning to prison. Avoiding the cost of their re-incarceration for one year would amount to cost savings of approximately
$3.2 million.
Substance Abuse Programs: The recidivism rate for the 3,129 inmates who completed a substance abuse program was 31.4%
compared to 35.4% for those who did not complete a program. This reduction in recidivism (4.0%) translates into approximately
125 inmates not returning to prison. Avoiding the cost of their re-incarceration for one year would amount to cost savings of
approximately $2.4 million.
21

OPPAGA Review of the Department of Corrections, Report No. 00-23 December 2000, Revised April 2001, at 48.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
recommendations regarding job training in furtherance of the objective of reducing
idleness.
e. FDC’s plans to expand educational opportunity with the goal of teaching 20,000
inmates to read.
f. FDC’s objective of reducing the rate of recidivism by deploying evidence-based
substance abuse, health, and mental health treatment; and educational, vocational
and reentry-preparedness services and programming.
g. Reinvestment of the cost-of-incarceration savings, including the avoidance of the
additional capital costs of new prison beds, into additional evidence-based programs
that will further reduce recidivism.
h. The findings of OPPAGA, the Corrections Commission and the Auditor General that
PRIDE has not adhered to its mission of providing work opportunities for inmates22
and FDC’s target of increasing the number of work stations from the current 2,117,
which allows work opportunity for 2% of inmates, to work stations sufficient to
provide work opportunities to 30% of the inmates within 10 years.
i. Given Florida’s construction boom and its need for construction workers to repair or
replace storm-damaged properties, FDC’s efforts to partner with Habitat for
Humanity to build prefab homes and to teach marketable construction skills to
inmates.
j. The recommendations contained in the 1998 Florida House of Representatives report,
Maintaining Family Contact When a Family Member Goes to Prison.
THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS:
3. That FDC use a validated instrument for evaluation and assessment at reception
for both security classification and reentry programming needs, including
identifying the need for ID and benefits upon release; compiling all relevant reports
on the inmate to facilitate accurate and comprehensive assessments. Annual inmate
re-assessments also be required and that re-assignments be made, if indicated by the
re-assessment; and that transition plan programming changes, as indicated; and stepdown be based on the assessments. [By Agency Action]

22

Florida Corrections Commission 2002 Annual Report, Section 3; OPPAGA Report No. 12228, Performance Audit of the
Prison Industries Program, January 1994; OPPAGA Special Report: PRIDE Benefits the State But Needs to Improve
Transparency in Operations, Report No. 03-68, December 2003; Florida Auditor General Operational Audit of the Prison
Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified Enterprises, Inc, for the Period July 1, 1994, Through February 29, 1996, Dated
December 12, 1996.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 14
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
4. That FDC’s capacity for basic and functional literacy, GED preparedness and
vocational education be expanded. [By Agency and Legislative Action]
5. That FDC’s capacity for the treatment of substance abuse and of co-occurring
disorders be expanded. [By Agency and Legislative Action]
6. That FDC maximize the use of outside resources for expanded job training by:


Leveraging funds and resources from the private sector and from publicly
funded workforce programs to expand job training and work experience in the
prisons in order for inmates to learn marketable skills.



Ensuring that job training be demand-driven and focus on jobs in growth
industries such as construction and that FDC’s Memorandum of Understanding
with the Agency for Workforce Innovation be revised to reflect this focus.



Partnering with business associations and businesses willing to do “behind
the fence” job training within their industries and then employing the former
inmates upon their release.



Coordinating training with transition assessment / planning and the postrelease community/workforce linkage recommendations in this report.



Tracking employment, earnings, continuing education and other post-release
outcomes, and reporting and evaluating outcomes with the help of the Florida
Education, Training and Placement Information Program (FETPIP).
[All by Agency Action]

7.

That FDC increase family contact and reduce financial strain on inmates’
families through:









Promotion of the maintenance of or restoration of family ties.
Development and implementation of family-friendly prison policies, including
visitation, telephone calls, and physical plant issues.
Include families, as appropriate, in the preparation for release.
Development and implementation of forms and procedures that allow for
modification of child support at reception or shortly thereafter to reflect the
inability to pay while incarcerated and to avoid the accumulation of unpayable
arrears.
Use of inmate calling cards as used in federal prisons.
Development of an inmate email system as is in place in federal prisons.
Distribution of a family handbook specifying the rules governing inmate contact
and other matters of concern to families.
[All by Agency Action]

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 15
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

That FDC develop an inmate program handbook describing (1) available FDC
inmate programs, (2) the rules and guidelines governing selection and eligibility and
termination from programs. [By Agency Action]

IV. WORK RELEASE
THE TASK FORCE FINDS:
With a prison population of over 88,000, 88.5% of whom will be released one
day, there are 2,997 work release beds, which is enough to place 3.4% FDC
inmates in work release prior to release. FDC’s practice is to allow no more than
4% of the FDC population to be assigned to work release; this is based on its
assessment of its ability to absorb inmates back into the institutions if problems arise
in work release facilities.
Work release is cost-effective and supports the goal of successful reentry.
According to FDC, its institutional per diem is $48.23. The FDC work release per
diem is $26.16 for its own 2,616 beds. The outsourced work release per diem is
$19.74, for 864 beds, of which 360 are located in FDC facilities and 504 are located
in vendor-owned facilities. Work release is substantially cheaper than prison
confinement and it facilitates the successful transition from prison to the community,
while reducing recidivism.
Eligibility criteria based on the length of time left on the sentence and a lack of
work release beds make work release unavailable to most inmates who are
about to be released. Today, according to FDC, 3,834 inmates are currently in
community custody status and meet the eligibility requirements for work release but
are not in work release. Of those, approximately 1,000 inmates have been found
qualified by FDC and are waiting for a work release bed. The current assignments of
those 3,834 are: 40% are in work squads outside prison grounds or in the
community; 30% are doing institutional maintenance within the facilities; 22% are
not assigned at this time; and 14% are in some kind of programming.
THE TASK FORCE ENDORSES:
k. MGT of America’s recommendation that “the Department should aggressively pursue
expansion of the Work Release Program.”
THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS:
8. That FDC expand work release by outsourcing additional work release
facilities through:
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 16
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
 Setting specific targets on the expansion, with the first target being creating
enough new work release beds to accommodate the 3,000 now eligible for work
release but still confined in a prison.
 Adjusting the criteria for admission to work release so that more prisoners
are eligible.
 And reporting on the number of additional beds to be created, the time line
for their creation, and reporting quarterly on reaching the targets.
[All by Agency Action]

V. DISCHARGE P LANNING
THE TASK FORCE FINDS:
Inmates are not equipped upon release to succeed. They leave prison with $100;
sometimes, but not always, 30-days of medication; and a bus ticket. They often do
not have necessary identification cards, they do not always have a residence lined
up, and often do not know how to find a job or have the skills to get a job.
THE TASK FORCE ENDORSES:
l. FDC’s plans to ensure that prior to release, inmates are schooled in basic life skills,
money management and banking.
m. FDC’s efforts to get inmates the proper identification documents they will need to
secure housing, employment, bank accounts and care upon release.
n. MGT of America’s findings and recommendation concerning restoration of
transition officers: “The elimination of the transition officers have significantly
impacted the release programming within the institutions. . . [and] the mechanics
and processes of the release function have fallen solely on the lap of the release
officers. This has adversely impacted release preparation and also stretched the
workload of the designated release officers. It also has limited contacts with the
community corrections representatives who provide the post-release supervision of
the inmates. . . . The Department should consider restoring transition officers to
those institutions with the highest percentage of releases.”
THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS:
9. That pre-release planning begin on the first day of incarceration and include
the development of an individualized reentry plan that addresses education;
employment, including resume preparation, job seeking and interviewing; health,
mental health and substance abuse challenges; managing family conflict; mentoring;
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
and strategies to develop pro-social behavior and desistance from crime. In
furtherance of developing and implementing the plan:


FDC should assist inmates being released from prison in obtaining Social
Security cards and state identification cards or driver licenses.



In instances when inmates are determined to be disabled, the FDC
medical staff should provide the clinical diagnostic reports needed by the
Social Security Administration to award disability benefits upon release,
which then also establishes eligibility for Medicaid benefits.



FDC should develop an inmate discharge handbook that contains the
inmate’s individualized reentry plan and the programs and services available
in his home community.
[All by Agency Action]

10. That FDC transform existing prison facilities in the communities to which the
most inmates will be released into transition release centers that
comprehensively prepare inmates for release; and that as prisoners near the end of
their sentence, that FDC transfer prisoners to facilities close to their homes.
[By Agency Action]

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 18
Chapter One: Prison
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Chapter Two
Coming home:
Reentry at the Community Level
THE TASK FORCE

HAS STUDIED BEST PRACTICES IN OTHER STATES AND BASED ON
THAT RESEARCH HAS DEVELOPED A COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS INITIATIVE, WHICH
IS A PROMISING EFFORT TO DEVELOP LOCAL REENTRY COUNCILS AND LOCAL
REENTRY PLANS TO ADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES.

THE TASK FORCE FINDS:
In FY 2004-05, FDC released 33,464 inmates from its facilities.23
44% of the people being released from prison go home to 7 counties. These
counties are, in order of number of people returning home, Hillsborough, Broward,
Dade, Orange, Duval, Pinellas and Polk. Next are Volusia and Palm Beach.24
No Florida community has a comprehensive system responding to the
challenges of people coming home from prison. Some Florida communities have
established task forces, councils or committees to address the barriers to successful
reentry and the need to reduce recidivism among returning prisoners, but the
services coordinated by these entities are still fragmented.
The State’s investment in its delivery of services to ex-offenders at the
community level is significant. The state has oversight authority over many of the
services that ex-offenders need such as job training and workforce services,
substance abuse, health and mental health care, and public benefits.

23

FDC 2005-06 Annual Report.

24

FDC 2005-06 Annual Report.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 19
Chapter Two: Community
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
THE TASK FORCE ENDORSES:
o. The Parole Commission’s efforts to help in the transition process through its
proposed “Post Release Offender Re-entry Initiative.”
THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS:
That the state create a “transition authority,” by statute, that coordinates a
seamless planning process and a continuum of services from FDC custody to
the community to facilitate the successful reentry of people leaving FDC
custody; it would develop policies and interagency agreements that spell out
the roles of state agencies in this process and help coordinate the work of
reentry at the community level.25
The relationship of the transition authority to other entities is illustrated in the
diagram below.

Local
Reentry
Councils

Florida Parole
Commission

Faith &
Community
orgs

Probation
and
Parole

REENTRY

Department of
Corrections

Transition
Authority

Stateprovided
services

Families &
Community
Support

Employers
&
Business

11. That the state support the development and work of reentry at the community
level to help local reentry planning and service delivery, test new ideas and
approaches, and promote and replicate what is found to work in producing
measurable outcomes, such as reduced recidivism, by:


25

Partnering and collaborating with Florida local governments and faith and
community-based organizations in supporting local reentry councils by
putting in place a reentry coordinator in each of Duval, Miami-Dade,
Broward, Hillsborough and Palm Beach Counties; and the Nineteenth Judicial

The Task Force considered the idea of reconstituting the Parole Commission to become the transition authority.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 20
Chapter Two: Community
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
Circuit (Okeechobee, Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River Counties), with a
five-year target of developing such councils in every major community
starting with Orange, Pinellas, Polk and Volusia Counties. [By Legislative
Action]


The Governor’s Office appointing a reentry point-person charged with
coordinating, with the transition authority and relevant state agencies, the
continuum of services from FDC facilities through release to the community.
[All by Executive Action]

THE TASK FORCE FINDS:
People coming home from prison face many barriers to employment.
Many jobs in the Florida economy are affected by formal restrictions
based on criminal records. There are state-created restrictions on state
jobs; on jobs in places and facilities that the state licenses, funds or
regulates; and on occupations that the state licenses.
In order of severity, based on the responses from the agencies to Executive
Order 06-89, the Task Force found the following types of employment
restrictions:









Lifetime bars for any felony.
Lifetime bars unless civil rights are restored for any felony.
Lifetime bar for certain felonies.
Lifetime bar unless civil rights are restored for certain felonies.
Time-limited bars for any felony.
Time-limited bars for certain felonies.
Lifetime bars for certain felonies, with exemptions possible after 3 years
from the date of offense.
Time-limited bars for certain felonies, and waiver of the bar possible.

Jobs with similar kinds of trust and responsibility often have widely varying
types of restrictions.
Among the restrictions is that which requires restoration of rights. It has the
effect of putting jobs off-limits for many years for the hundreds of thousands
of people in Florida who have not had their civil rights restored, which may
affect their ability to seek employment.

THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS:
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 21
Chapter Two: Community
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
12. That state laws, rules and policies that require a person to have his or her civil
rights restored as a condition of employment or licensing be repealed and that
employment restrictions for those occupations currently subject to restoration
of civil rights requirements instead be built into a single background check
law, such as Chapter 435.
[By Legislative Action]

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 22
Chapter Two: Community
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Chapter Three
Organizing Reentry Reform Work in
2007 and Beyond
ON OCTOBER 26, 2006, THE GOVERNOR EXTENDED THE TERM OF THE TASK FORCE,
WHICH WAS SET TO EXPIRE ON JANUARY 1, 2007, TO FEBRUARY 28, 2007.

THE TASK FORCE FINDS:
Reforms that will measurably prevent crime, reduce recidivism and improve
public safety by making reentry successful for the men and women leaving
prison is a multi-year project.
THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS:
13. The re-commissioning of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force to continue
the work it began in 2005 with structures that address the following goals and
core results:
Goals:


Further identification of barriers to reentry and recommend system, policy and
practices reforms to make reentry more successful for more people coming home
from prison.



Coordination with the transition authority and help to cohere a rational delivery
system of federal, state and local resources to maximize the effectiveness of
existing resources.



Further identification of best practices and promote their adoption at the state and
local levels.



Support for the efforts of local reentry councils to develop local reentry plans, the
seeding promising new approaches, replicating them, and coordinating the
delivery of services.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 23
Chapter Three: 2007 and Beyond
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________


Addressing the additional items of unfinished business as set forth in the next
recommendation.
Core results:



Performance outcomes against which this work will be measured, including, but
not limited to, reduced recidivism; increased prison programming, indicia of
transformation of prisons; and, upon release, employment, job retention, and
increased earnings.
[All by Executive or Legislative Action]

THE TASK FORCE FINDS:
Both special populations and certain complex issues warrant further study.
Such study was beyond the time limitations of the Task Force, and they require
additional partners to do a proper job of making findings and recommendations.
THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS:
14. Further study with the aim of additional reform recommendations on the
following issues and populations:
Prison culture and conditions of confinement: The culture of a prison and the
conditions of confinement impact programming success within prison and success
upon reentry, including recidivism.
Study and address: The Task Force has seen models of transformed prisons
that have demonstrated their success with improved outcomes, but more needs
to be learned both about the conditions of other prisons not yet visited and
about how to transform prisons that need help.
Sex-Offenders’ lack of viable housing and employment options upon release
from prison. With an increasing array of employment and housing restrictions,
sex-offenders are often either sent back to prison because they cannot find a legal
housing or employment, or they disappear and do not register.
Study and address: A thoughtful re-examination of employment and housing
restrictions that are leading to some sex-offenders unnecessarily going back to
prison or failing to identify their residence and to register, thus putting
communities at risk.
Women: Both MGT of America and the Task Force’s own prison site visits and
focus groups with prisoners found that women prisoners face unique challenges,
and have unique needs.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 24
Chapter Three: 2007 and Beyond
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Study and address: The challenges faced by women in prison and upon
release, and promising models that achieve good results for system changes
and successful reentry.
Mentally ill prisoners and ex-offenders: Although not designed to be a mental
health system, prisons have become the default provider of mental health services
and of housing for people with mental illness. The correctional system’s
assumption of the responsibility for confining a growing percentage of mentally ill
inmates impacts both the kind of care that the mentally ill obtain and the
environment of other inmates.
Study and address: The challenge of providing proper mental health care in a
correctional environment and in insuring an uninterrupted continuum care
upon release.
Step-down: Increasing attention has turned to the importance of decreasing
restrictions on movement and personal choices and increasing personal
responsibility with the passage of time (called “step-down’) in correctional
facilities. Those who urge this approach are demonstrating that moving from a
highly restricted environment to the community makes recidivism more likely.
Study and address: Formalizing step-down policies including increased
reliance on work release prior to release.
Supervision: Most prisoners are released without subsequent supervision. 19,839
(62.9%) of the inmates were released pursuant to the completion of their sentence;
none of these former inmates are under any kind of state or local supervision.
Supervised release is limited: 5,198 (16.5%) were released on conditional release;
4,767 (15%) were released to community control; 50 people (0.2%) were paroled.26
Study and address: The impact of the fact that since repeal of parole in 1983,
68.3% of people leaving prison are under no form of continued supervision.
Zero tolerance community supervision policies. People under community
supervisions, such as probation or community control, are often sent to prison or
back to prison for technical violations at a cost of $18,108 per year per person
incarcerated.
Study and address: The impact of zero tolerance policies and alternatives to
incarceration for technical violators.

26

FDC 2004-05 Annual Report, Inmate Releases, at 36, 38.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 25
Chapter Three: 2007 and Beyond
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
Juveniles: Juveniles face obstacles and challenges that are similar to those
experienced by the adult population, such as difficulty with documentation, lack of
employment readiness skills, and lack of housing options. However, the
complexities and unique characteristics of youth facing these challenges and others
require tailored recommendations. Also, the additional and distinct challenges of
subpopulations of youth, such as girls and juveniles with mental health problems,
also must be addressed.
Study and address: The challenges faced by youth considering age, maturity
level, gender, mental health, physical health, familial circumstances,
educational levels, and operational structure of the juvenile justice system.
Over-representation of African Americans. Blacks make-up 15.7% of Florida’s
total population27 yet makeup 51.0% of the inmate population in Florida’s
prisons.28
Study and Address: African Americans in prisons, and the impact of their
prison experience and their reentry experiences on them, their families and
their communities.
County jails and federal prisons. Not all ex-offenders are coming home from
state prisons. The majority is coming home from county jails, and they face much
the same challenges as those being released from prisons. Many others come home
from federal prisons.
Study and address: Customized strategies to improve transition and re-entry
outcomes for the very large number of ex-offenders incarcerated at countylevel jails and released to the community that are not later sentenced to “state
time” and look at collaborative strategies for former federal prisoners.
Loss of civil rights upon conviction of a felony. Hundreds of thousands of people
in Florida have lost their civil rights, which has an impact on their range of
employment opportunities, as well as voting, jury service, seeking public office and
other matters.
Study and address: The constitutional, statutory and regulatory barriers to
the restoration of civil rights.
Employment restrictions. From the agencies’ responses to Executive Order 06-89,
the Task Force has learned that in addition to the requirement for some occupations

27

U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts.

28

FDC 2004-05 Annual Report, Inmate Admissions, at 11.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 26
Chapter Three: 2007 and Beyond
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
that civil rights be restored, there are many other types of employment restrictions
based on criminal records.
Study and address: The feasibility of a single background check act that would
streamline, organize and cohere employment restrictions based on the nature
of the job or place and employment its type of trust and responsibility.
Other collateral sanctions. People returning home from prison face new and
additional kinds of sanctions related to their criminal convictions. Neither the Task
Force nor any other entity has systematically inventoried all of these sanctions, but
they include both public and private restrictions on housing, driver licenses, credit,
public service and service on boards and commissions, civic life, including voting,
and access to public benefits.
Study and address: Using the employment restrictions inventory done
pursuant to Executive Order 06-89 as a model, identify the other collateral
sanctions associated with criminal records, other than employment, such as
housing, driver licenses, and public benefits, that serve as unnecessary
barriers to successful reentry.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 27
Chapter Three: 2007 and Beyond
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Acknowledgements
THE TASK FORCE

IS PROUD THAT ITS MEMBERS PUT IN WHAT MAY BE AN
UNPRECEDENTED NUMBER OF VOLUNTEER HOURS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CHARGE
GOVERNOR BUSH HANDED THE GROUP. In addition, many individuals and

organizations helped inform and illuminate the work of the Task Force.
The Task Force first wants to thank Governor Jeb Bush for his leadership
and vision in addressing the issue of prisoner reentry and appointing the Task
Force.
The Governor’s Office has provided tremendous support to the Task
Force. Chief of Staff Mark Kaplan, Former Deputy Chief of Staff William Large,
Deputy Chief of Staff Carol Gormley, Public Safety Policy Coordinator Randy
Ball, Mike Manguso, Policy Chief Analyst, Renee Harris, Assistant to the Director
of Administration, and others working in the Governor’s Administrative Office all
were supportive and went out of their way to help make the work of the Task Force
successful.
Senator Stephen Wise, his legislative aide Steven Richardson, Dee
Alexander, Senior Legislative Aid, and Amanda Cannon, Staff Director of the
Senate Criminal Justice Committee have been deeply engaged in the issues the
Task Force addressed and provided very helpful insight and guidance.
From the first Task Force meeting forward, the Department of Corrections
has provided the Task Force with research, data and staff support. Franchatta
Barber, serving on the Task Force as the designee of the Secretary coordinated this
work. In addition, the Task Force has been aided by Dr. Laura Bedard, Deputy
Secretary; Paula Hoisington, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary, Community
Corrections; Pam Denmark, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Community Corrections –
Programs; Kim Riley, Bureau Chief, Community Corrections – Substance Abuse;
Bernard Cohen, Chief, Bureau of Research, Planning and Support – Staff
Development; Allen Overstreet, Chief, Bureau of Institutional Programs; Sirene
Johnson, Senior Management Analyst Supervisor, Bureau of Institutional
Programs; Kerensa N. Pate, Correctional Programs Consultant, Bureau of
Institutional Programs; Fred Roesel, Chief, Bureau of Classification, Central
Records; Rusty McLaughlin, Assistant Bureau Chief, Bureau of Classification; Lee
Adams, Correctional Programs Administrator, Bureau of Classification; and David
Ensley, John L. Lewis and Neal Fitch from the Bureau of Data Research. Secretary
McDonough not only has made his staff available to the Task Force, he has
personally met with the Task Force a number of times and his leadership served as
an inspiration to the Task Force.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 28
Acknowledgements
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Lawtey CI’s Former Warden Max Denson hosted a Task Force meeting
with the help of Brad Carter, Former Region II Director, Former Assistant Warden
John Hancock (Current Warden at Wakulla CI), the head of Lawtey security, Major
Wailon Haston, and Senior Pastor Steve McCoy, Beaches Chapel Church, who did
a presentation for the Task Force about his congregation’s volunteer services at
Lawtey. Thanks to them, the Task Force was able to see how a faith and characterbased facility operated.
The Department of Juvenile Justice’s Secretary Schembri provided the Task
Force with research and data and his experiences from his long history in
corrections. Agency staff from, including Steve Chapman, Coordinator, DJJ What
Works Initiative, and Jason L. Welty, Senior Legislative Analyst, who served at the
behest of Secretary Schembri have also been a constant source of insight and
information for the Task Force.
The Parole Commission has been represented by its Chairman, Monica
David. She and her staff, including Fred Schuknecht, Director of Administration;
Janet Keels, Coordinator, Office of Executive Clemency, Gina Giacomo, Director
of Operations, and Kim Fluharty, General Counsel helped the Task Force
enormously.
The Governor made it clear from his Executive Order creating the Task
Force that employment was a key to successful reentry. Accordingly, the Agency
for Workforce Innovation’s then-Secretary Susan Pareigis was appointed to the
Task Force. She and Workforce Florida’s Chairman, Curtis Austin, and the laterappointed Task Force member Mike Switzer, Vice President for Programs and
Performance at Workforce Florida, gave the Task Force the tools and data it needed
so it could focus on getting ex-offenders jobs in high-demand occupations. David
Bryson of Workforce Florida, and George Foster, Bill Dobson, and Director
Rebecca Rust of AWI Labor Market Statistics also made invaluable contributions.
OPPAGA’s reports were a source of good, solid background for the Task
Force and Senior Legislative Analyst Sabrina Hartley did an excellent job of
summarizing and synthesizing the findings from those reports in a presentation to
the Task Force.
When the Task Force turned to the issue of child support arrears accruing
while people were in prison and had no means to pay support, Katherine
Pennington, who is responsible for the coordination and administration of child
support education and outreach programs for the Department of Revenue’s Child
Support Enforcement Program helped the Task Force understand this challenge.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 29
Acknowledgements
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
Steven Fielder, from the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles,
helped the Task Force understand the challenges involved in securing driver
licenses and state ID cards prior to release from prison.
Cynthia Holland, MSW, with the Department of Children and Families’
Mental Health Program helped the Task Force in its work related to the needs of
mentally ill prisoners and ex-offenders.
Maria Bello and Sandra Rothman with the Social Security Administration,
and Bernita Kincaid with the Office of Disability Benefits Eligibility, helped the
Task Force understand disability benefits and what it would take to have eligibility
determined prior to release from prison.
At the first meeting, Chief Tim Ryan, the head of the Orange County
Department of Corrections (and recently named to head The Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation in Miami-Dade County), presented on behalf of the
Council of State Government’s (CSG) Reentry Policy Council, on which he served.
CSG staffers Mike Thompson and Katherine Brown also provided tremendous
assistance to the work of the Task Force.
Nancy LaVigne of the Urban Institute provided an overview of FDC data,
which was made possible through the cooperation of FDC research and data staff.
The Collins Center for Public Policy was contracted to help the Task Force
with focus groups of inmates and ex-offenders and in inventorying the resources
available to ex-offenders in the communities to which the largest numbers of
people are returning home from prison. Its President, Rod Petrey, directed this
effort, and its Director of Community Development, April Young, was responsible
for this work.
The Florida Justice Institute was contracted to do a preliminary inventory of
the state-created restrictions on employment. Randy Berg, the director of FJI, and
staff attorney Cullin O’Brien were responsible for this work.
Warden Carlyle Holder, of Coleman Federal Correctional Institution,
graciously hosted one of the Task Force meetings, gave the Task Force a tour of his
facilities, introduced the members to inmates and staff, and shared an evening with
the Task Force and inmates celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month at a lively inmate
dance performance and party. This experience allowed the Task Force to see
promising reentry approaches in place in this facility.
Leslie Neal, Artistic Director for ArtSpring, Inc., Raeanne Hance, of Prison
Fellowship Ministries, John Andrews with Transition, Inc., Hugh MacMillan, of
Kairos Horizons, and Cindy Schwartz, Program Director for the 11th Judicial
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 30
Acknowledgements
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
Circuit Criminal Mental Health Project Jail Diversion Program all served to deepen
the Task Force’s understanding of the issues it was addressing.
Two men who served time in Florida correctional facilities, Ralph Waccary
and John Maxwell shared their stories with the Task Force and helped the group
better understand the challenge of succeeding upon being released, as well as what
helps make success within reach.
Jean Maynard Gonzalez, the Task Force’s Executive Director helped the
Task Force by making meeting and conference call arrangements, posting notices
of the meetings, facilitating the Task Force’s communications and travel, and
serving as a liaison with the Governor’s Office. Her assistant, Latrese King,
managed the minutes and also helped with communications.
Katherine Burns has helped to coordinate the work of the Community
Partnerships Initiative, which has been led by Chairman Vicki Lopez Lukis and
Vice Chairman Robert P. Blount III, with partners in Duval, Miami-Dade,
Broward, Hillsborough and Palm Beach Counties; and the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit (Okeechobee, Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River Counties). In each of
these communities, scores of people have come together to form reentry councils
and develop a reentry planning process that will seamlessly weave services and
supports for people coming home from prison. In a number of these jurisdictions,
planning efforts had already been underway, and from those leaders and organizers,
the Task Force learned a great deal.
In Broward County, Newton Sanon, Executive Director of OIC Broward;
Mason Jackson, Executive Director, Workforce One; Thomas Lanahan,
Community Job Development Coordinator; members of the Broward County
Sheriff’s Office; and the members of the Broward Re-entry Coalition have been
leading the effort to bring people together to address reentry.
In Duval County, Kevin Gay, Executive Director of Operation New Hope,
a prisoner reentry program in Jacksonville, served as an inspiration for the White
House in developing the Ready4Work Program and for the Task Force in
developing its Community Partnerships Initiative. Kevin, along with Senator Wise
and his staff; Task Force member, Jim Williams; Gordon Bass, Director
Department of Corrections; and Stephanie J. Sloan-Butler, Chief Prisons Division,
Office of the Sheriff Consolidated City of Jacksonville continue to provide strong
and determined leadership to make reentry successful in their community.
In Hillsborough County, Task Force member Robert Blount; Paul I. Perez,
U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida; his staffers Donna Schultz, Law
Enforcement Coordination Manager; William Daniels, Law Enforcement
Coordinator and Erio Alvarez, Criminal Justice Specialist; The Hillsborough
County Administrator Office; and the members of the Hillsborough Ex-Offender
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 31
Acknowledgements
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
Re-entry Network (HERN) have been coming together to provide leadership and
support on the issue of reentry for a number of years. The Task Force was able to
learn a lot from them. Although Pinellas County was not included in this initiative,
the Pinellas Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition (PERC), under the leadership of Frank
Kopczynski, lent much expertise and assistance to the Hillsborough County
initiative.
In Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade Mayor, Carlos Alvarez, and his Chief
of Staff, Denis Morales and Legal Counsel, Luis Gazitua; Mayor Manny Diaz, City
of Miami and his Chief of Staff, Jose Mallea, and Chante Sweet, staffing his Faith
& Community Based Initiative; David Lawrence, President of the Early Childhood
Initiative Foundation and Chairman of the Children’s Trust; Mark Buckbinder,
Executive Director, Lisa Pittman Ph.D., Coordinator of Evaluations and Cross
Systems Planning from the Alliance For Human Services; the Children’s Trust, the
Donor’s Forum of South Florida; Daniella Levine, CEO of the Human Services
Coalition of Miami Dade and her staff; Task Force members Wayne Rawlins and
Ralph Martin; and Rod Petrey and April Young, Ph.D. from the Collins Center
have all come together to address the complex challenge of coordinating and
cohering the reentry process in this diverse county.
In Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel, Public
Defender Judicial Circuit 15, Carey Haughwout and staff Jennifer Loyless; Palm
Beach County Criminal Justice Commission member Max Davis and Executive
Director Diana Cunningham, Becky Walker, Youth Violence Prevention Planning
Coordinator are leading the effort in developing a reentry planning process.
In the Treasure Coast, Task Force member Diamond Litty, 19th Judicial
Circuit Public Defender, and Program Coordinator Kristen Webster, who acted as
Ms. Litty's designee at some Task Force meetings, are providing the leadership to
develop a reentry council. In addition, Chief Judge, William L. Roby; St. Lucie
County Sheriff Ken Mascara; Martin County Sheriff, Robert L. Crowder;
Okeechobee County Sheriff, Paul C. May; Indian River County Sheriff, Roy
Raymond; St. Lucie County Criminal Justice Coordinator, Mark Godwin; Florida
Department of Correction, Circuit Administrator Thomas Mark; Vero Beach,
Chief of Police Don Dappen; Sebastian Chief of Police Jim George Woodley
Davis; Ft. Pierce Chief of Police Sean Baldwin; Stuart Chief of Police Edward M.
Morley; and Dr. George Woodley from Department of Children and Family
Services, District 9, and the staff of each of these leaders are strong supporters and
partners in this work.
Since its inception, the work of the Task Force has been supported by the
Annie E. Casey Foundation, which funded its work with a grant to the Office of the
Governor. Gary MacDougal, Foundation Trustee, brought the idea of the Task
Force to Governor Bush and continued his interest in the work of the Task Force by
providing guidance in its deliberations. Ira Barbell, a Senior Associate at the
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 32
Acknowledgements
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
Foundation who served on the Task Force, coordinated Casey’s relationship with
the Governor’s Office and with the Task Force. Linda Mills, a consulting attorney
to the Foundation, provided the Task Force with legal and policy research and
analysis and wrote its reports. Jim Dickinson, a Casey consultant, provided
research support to the Task Force.
And the remaining Task Force members, not previously mentioned herein,
Michael A. Bernstein, Bernard "Bernie" DeCastro, Henree D. Martin, Annette R.
Martinez, and former Task Force members, T. Edward Austin, Jose M. Boscan,
Carol Law, and Stephen R. MacNamara must be saluted. Many of them, in
addition to attending meetings spent thousands of hours advancing the work of the
Task Force.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Page 33
Acknowledgements
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Appendix A

Task Force Members
Chairman Vicki Lopez Lukis, 48, of Coral Gables, community volunteer.
Ira L. Barbell, 59, of Columbia, Maryland, Senior Associate with Annie E. Casey
Foundation.
Franchatta J. Barber, 45, of Tallahassee, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Institution
Programs with the Florida Department of Corrections. [Designee of Secretary
McDonough].
Michael A. Bernstein, 52, of Seminole, President and Chief Executive Officer of Gulf
Coast Jewish Family Services, Inc.
Robert P. Blount, III, 32, of Tampa, President of Abe Brown Ministries, Inc. and
Program Coordinator with Hillsborough Community College.
Monica A. David, 45, of Tallahassee, Chairman of the Florida Parole Commission.
Bernard "Bernie" DeCastro, 60, of Ocala, Executive Director of Time for Freedom,
Inc.
Diamond Litty, 49, of Ft. Pierce, the 19th Judicial Circuit's Public Defender since
1992, composed of 4 offices in Ft. Pierce, Stuart, Vero Beach and Okeechobee;
served as Asst. State Attorney for the 19th Judicial Circuit for 6 years.
Henree D. Martin, 59, of Tallahassee, owner of Developers Realty and Investment
Properties, Inc.
Ralph P. Martin, 29, of Miami, paralegal with Duane Morris, LLP.
Annette R. Martinez, 40, of Lakeland, Fire Operations Manager with State Farm
Insurance Companies.

______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 34
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
Wayne E. Rawlins, 45, of Pembroke Pines, community justice consultant.
Anthony J. Schembri, 62, of Tallahassee, Secretary of the Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice.
Mike Switzer, 62, of Tallahassee, VP, Performance and Programs of Workforce
Florida, the Workforce Policy Board that oversees 24 Regional Workforce Boards;
Attorney; current member of the FL Homelessness Council, state worker for 24
years.
Jason L. Welty, 27, of Tallahassee, Senior Legislative Analyst of the Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice [designee for Secretary Schembri].
James L. Williams, 69, of Jacksonville, Chairman, Allstate Electrical Contractors; FL
Dept. of Corrections volunteer for 31 years and DOC Volunteer of the Year for faithbased work in prisons.
Former Task Force Members
T. Edward Austin, 78, of Jacksonville, former state attorney, public defender and
mayor of the City of Jacksonville.
Jose M. Boscan, 35, of Winter Garden, Manager with Walt Disney World Company.
Carol Law, 64, of Pensacola, president of Drug Free Workplace, Inc.
Stephen R. MacNamara, 52, of Tallahassee, Former Associate Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Associate Professor with Florida State University.
Susan E. Pareigis, 45, of Tallahassee, Former Director of the Agency for Workforce
Innovation.

______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 35
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Appendix B

STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 05-28
WHEREAS, according to the Department of Corrections, there are currently
86,000 inmates in Florida's prisons, of which over 26,000 are expected to be released
within the coming year; and
WHEREAS, Florida is committed to the ideal of America being the land of
second chance, as expressed by the President of the United States who declared: “When
the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life;” and
WHEREAS, successful reentry and reintegration in one’s community is a matter
of critical import to the public’s safety; but reentry is often not a success due to the
barriers ex-offenders face upon their release, including, but not limited to, a lack of
education and job skills, employment discrimination, mental health and substance abuse
problems, access to drivers licenses, child support enforcement regulations, access to
public housing and other public benefits, and frayed or fragile family and community
ties; and
WHEREAS, the ability of ex-offenders to obtain employment after incarceration
and become productive members of their communities is essential to reducing recidivism
rates, but due to employers’ concerns about liability, the honest completion of job
applications often results in ex-offenders being unable to find work; and
WHEREAS, without successful re-entry into one's community, recidivism is
likely to occur, to the great detriment to the public safety, Florida's communities,
families, taxpayers, and individual ex-offenders;

______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 36
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
NOW THEREFORE, I, JEB BUSH, Governor of the State of Florida, by the
powers vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida, do hereby
promulgate the following Executive Order, effective immediately:

Section 1.
A. There is hereby created the Governor's Ex-Offender Task Force ("Task Force"),
formed to help improve the effectiveness of the State of Florida in facilitating the re-entry
of ex-offenders into their communities so as to reduce the incidence of recidivism.
B. The Task Force shall be advisory in nature and is created for the following purposes:
1. Identification of legal, policy, structural, organizational, and practical barriers
to successful reentry;
2. Provide recommendations regarding such reforms that will eliminate barriers to
successful reentry, including, but not limited to, reforms that may offer employers greater
flexibility and confidence in hiring ex-offenders;
3. Provide recommendations regarding implementation of the reforms; and
4. Provide recommendations regarding measuring the effectiveness of the
reforms, such as through reduced recidivism; increased attachment to the workforce and
earnings; increased family attachment; and savings to the state from incarceration cost
avoidance.
Section 2.
A. The Task Force shall be comprised of no more than eleven (11) members, and
shall include, but not be limited to, the Executive Director of the Agency for Workforce
Innovation, or her designee, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections, or his
designee, and preferably at least one representative from the law enforcement, business,
education, insurance/risk management, and legal professions; each of whom shall be
appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Governor. I will also appoint a Chair of the
Task Force.
B. The Task Force shall be staffed by an Executive Director, appointed by the
Governor, and housed administratively within the Agency for Workforce Innovation.
C. Each executive agency is directed, and all other agencies are requested, to
render assistance and cooperation to the Task Force so that the purpose of this Executive
Order may be accomplished.
______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 37
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

D. Task Force members shall receive no compensation, but shall be entitled to per
diem and travel expenses while attending meetings of the Task Force to the extent
allowed by Section 112 .061, Florida Statutes. Invited guests and speakers shall also be
entitled to per diem and travel expenses while participating in meetings of the Task Force
to the extent allowed by Section 112.061, Florida Statutes.
E. The Task Force shall meet at the call of the chairperson. The Task Force shall
act by a vote of the majority of its members present, either in person or via
communication technology. No member may grant a proxy for his or her vote to any
other member or member designee, except with the prior approval of the chairperson. I
will fill by appointment any vacancy that occurs on the Task Force.
Section 3.
A. To aid its study of the issues and the development of its recommendations, the
Task Force may take public testimony from experts and stakeholders. In addition, the
Task Force is encouraged to take whatever other steps are necessary to gain a full
understanding of legal, policy, practical, structural, organizational, insurance and related
issues involved in reducing the barriers to successful reentry.
B. The Task Force shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure effective
liaison with the Florida Legislature and with providers of relevant services to exoffenders.
Section 4.
A. The Task Force shall provide a preliminary report to the Governor by
December 30, 2005 and a final report setting forth its recommendations, including any
recommendations for legislative action, to the Governor no later than December 29,
2006.
B. The Task Force shall continue in existence until January 1, 2007, unless
extended by further Executive Order.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand and have caused the
Great Seal of the State of Florida to be
affixed at Tallahassee, the Capitol, this
th

7 day of February, 2005.
ATTEST:
______________________________
SECRETARY OF STATE

______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 38
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Appendix C

STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 06-89
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2005, I issued Executive Order 05-28 establishing
the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force (Task Force) to improve the effectiveness of the
State of Florida in facilitating the reentry of ex-offenders into our communities and
reduce the incidence of recidivism; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force has found that gainful employment after release
from prison is one of the critical elements necessary to achieve successful reentry after
prison and that employment has been shown to reduce recidivism and, thus, to make our
communities safer; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force has found many state laws and policies that impose
restrictions on the employment of people who have been to prison and has estimated that
these restrictions may affect more than one-third of Florida’s 7.9 million non-farm jobs,
including state and local government jobs, jobs in state-licensed, regulated and funded
entities, and jobs requiring state certification; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force has further found that no comprehensive review of
these restrictions has been undertaken to evaluate whether the restrictions are related to
the safety, trust and responsibility required of the job or to determine whether a less
restrictive approach could protect the public while preserving employment opportunities;
and
WHEREAS, the Task Force has further found that the disqualifications for many
kinds of jobs can be lifted through exemptions and other mechanisms that allow a case______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 39
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
by-case showing of rehabilitation, yet the disqualifications for many other jobs requiring
a similar level of safety, trust and responsibility cannot be lifted, exempted or relieved;
and
WHEREAS, the State’s executive agencies can assume a leadership role in
providing employment opportunities to ex-offenders by reviewing their employment
policies and practices and identifying barriers to employment that can safely be removed
to enable ex-offenders to demonstrate their rehabilitation;
NOW THEREFORE, I, JEB BUSH, as Governor of the State of Florida, by
virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida,
do hereby promulgate the following Executive Order, effective immediately:
Section 1. Terms of Employment Disqualifications.
A. All executive agencies shall produce a report for the Task Force that describes
the employment restrictions and disqualifications that are based on criminal records for
each occupation under the agency’s jurisdiction and that of its boards, if any, including,
but not limited to, employment within the agency; employment in facilities licensed,
regulated, supervised, or funded by the agency; employment pursuant to contracts with
the agency; and employment in occupations that the agency licenses or provides
certifications to practice. For each occupation subject to an ex-offender restriction or
disqualification, the agency shall set forth the following:
1. The job title, occupation or job classification;
2. The cause of the disqualification (statutory, regulatory, policy or practice) and
the substance and terms of the disqualification, including a listing of the
disqualifying offenses, the recency of the disqualifying offenses, and the
duration of the disqualification;
3. The year the disqualification was adopted and its rationale;
4. In instances where the disqualification is based upon conviction of any offense
“related to” the practice of a given profession, the criteria the agency has
adopted to apply the disqualification to individual cases;
5. The source of any requirement (statute, rule, policy, or practice) for an
individual convicted of a felony to have his civil rights restored to become
qualified for the job; and
6. The exemption, waiver, or review mechanisms available to seek relief from the
disqualification, based on a showing of rehabilitation or otherwise. This
should include the terms of the exemption, waiver or review, the nature of the
______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 40
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
relief it affords, and whether an administrative and judicial appeal is
authorized.
B. The agency shall also describe, for each occupation subject to ex-offender
disqualification, the procedures used to determine and review the disqualification, and
shall provide to the Executive Office of the Governor copies of the forms, rules, and
procedures that it employs to provide notice of disqualification, to review applications
subject to disqualification, and to provide for exemptions and appeals of disqualification.
C. Agencies are strongly encouraged to adopt such policy reforms and changes as
will achieve the goals of this Order. Agencies shall report to the Executive Office of the
Governor reform efforts including eliminated or modified ex-offender employment
disqualifications, draft legislation for a case-by-case exemption or review mechanism,
and modified criteria and procedures used in relation to ex-offender employment
restrictions.
Section 2. Data.
The second part of the review involves the collection of data to determine the impact of
the disqualifications on employment opportunities for ex-offenders in Florida and the
effectiveness of existing case-by-case review mechanisms that list the disqualifications.
For each occupation under the jurisdiction of the agency for which there are employment
disqualifications based on criminal records, the agency must provide, for the previous
two-year period, the number and percentage of individuals who underwent a criminal
history background check, the number who were merely required to disclose their
criminal history without a criminal history background check, the number and percentage
found disqualified based on criminal records; the number and percentage found
disqualified because their civil rights had not been restored; the number and percentage
who sought review and exemption from or reversal of the disqualification, the number
and percentage that were found qualified for the initial review, and the number and
percentage that were found qualified for any subsequent level of review. If the agency
maintains records of active licenses or certifications, the agency shall provide the total
number of employees in occupations subject to criminal history restrictions.
Section 3. Time Frame for Provision of Information.
The terms of each of the agency’s employment disqualifications described in Section 1 of
this Order shall be provided to the Executive Office of the Governor no later than 60 days
from the issuance of this Order. The data described in Section 2 shall be provided no later
than 90 days from the issuance of this Order.
Section 4. Other State Agencies and Private Sector.

______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 41
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
I strongly encourage all other state agencies, counties, municipalities and political
subdivisions of the State to likewise conduct an inventory of employment
disqualifications as described herein, to eliminate or modify such disqualifications that
are not tailored to protect the public safety, and to create case-by-case review
mechanisms to provide individuals the opportunity to make a showing of their

rehabilitation and their qualifications for employment. I encourage private employers, to
the extent they are able, to take similar actions to review their own employment policies
and provide employment opportunities to individuals with criminal records.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand and have caused the
Great Seal of the State of Florida to be
affixed at Tallahassee, the Capitol, this
25th of April, 2006.
_____________________________________
GOVERNOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
SECRETARY OF STATE

______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 42
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Appendix D

STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 06-237
(Extension of Executive Order 05-28, as Amended by Executive Order 05-81)
WHEREAS, by Executive Order 05-28, as amended by Executive Order 05-81, the
Governor created the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force to help improve the effectiveness of
the State of Florida in facilitating the re-entry of ex-offenders into their communities so as to
reduce the incidence of recidivism;
NOW THEREFORE, I, JEB BUSH, Governor of Florida, by virtue of the authority
vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, do hereby promulgate the
following executive order:
Section 1.
Executive Order 05-28, as amended by Executive Order 05-81, is hereby amended to
provide that the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force shall continue in existence until February
28, 2007, or until such earlier time as this Executive Order is amended or rescinded by further
executive order.
Section 2.
Except as amended herein, Executive Order 05-28, as amended by Executive Order 0581, is hereby ratified and reaffirmed.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the
State of Florida to be affixed at Tallahassee, the
Capitol, this 26th day of October, 2006.
______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 43
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________
_____________________________________
GOVERNOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
SECRETARY OF STATE

______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 44
Appendices
November 2006

Final Report of the Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
____________________________________________________

Florida is committed to the ideal
of America being the land of second
chance, as expressed by the President
of the United States who declared:
“When the gates of the prison open,
the path ahead should lead to a better
life.”
Governor Bush, Executive Order 05-28

______________________________________________________________________________
_
Page 45
Appendices
November 2006

Key Findings and Recommendations
Based on the Task Force’s Analysis of the
State Agency Responses to Executive Order 06-891
Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
Vicki Lopez Lukis, Chairman
January 18, 2007

KEY FINDINGS



A complete and accurate inventory of all restrictions may be impossible because the
restrictions are found not just in the laws, but in rules, formal and informal policies and on
applications.



The restrictions, adopted over time, vary widely – from lifetime restrictions to restrictions
that can be lifted upon a showing of rehabilitation.



Jobs with similar characteristics and types of trust and responsibility often have very
different restrictions.



Some restrictions, like those requiring good moral character or not having committed crimes
of moral turpitude, are not clear to either applicants or administering officials.

REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS
Preemptions and Repeals:



Enacting a law that repeals / preempts existing statutory requirements and authority for
imposing restoration of rights requirements for employment and licensing and that
prohibits state agencies and boards from requiring the restoration of rights for employment
or licensing. (Task Force Recommendation in Final Report).



Enacting a law that preempts and repeals statutory, regulatory and policy-based bans that
do not allow a showing of rehabilitation to lift the ban.



Enacting a law that, for purposes of weighing criminal backgrounds, preempts and repeals
laws and policies using standards of “good moral character,” crimes or acts of “moral
turpitude,” and crimes “related to” the occupation.

In Lieu of Such Laws:


1

Require agencies that employ and license people who deal with vulnerable populations to
use the Chapter 435 Background Screening Act as their review mechanism for past crimes.

See Appendix A.

1
Exhibit 7



Create, for other agencies and occupational classifications, additional chapters in the Florida
Labor Law that mirror Chapter 435, with each such chapter listing disqualifying offenses
related to particular occupational groups (e.g. finance, consumer, law enforcement).

Due Process / Transparency



Add a section to the Background Screening Act (and the new / additional Labor Law
chapters) that requires agencies to provide people, at the time of initial application for
employment and licensure, and to post on their websites:

•
•

A list of the disqualifying offenses;

•
•
•

A statement explaining the criteria used to grant an exemption;

An explanation of the exemption process, including the fact that an exemption may be
sought after three years have passed from the date of the offense;
A list of the materials that should be included with an exemption application; and
A statement that an appeal of a denial of the exemption may be filed.

OVERVIEW OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND THE FINDINGS
The Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force recommended that the Governor “issue an
Executive Order for a justification review of state agencies’ laws, policies and practices that
disqualify individuals from employment.” Underlying this recommendation were certain key
findings and goals:


Recidivism can be reduced and the public safety enhanced by increasing employment
opportunity for ex-offenders.



Sound state policies can set an example for the private sector, thus further increasing
employment opportunities.



No comprehensive inventory of employment restrictions had ever been undertaken.



No evaluation of the restrictions had ever been undertaken to determine whether the
restrictions are closely related to the safety, trust and responsibility required of the job
or whether a less restrictive approach could protect the public while also creating
employment opportunities..



Opening up employment opportunities to ex-offenders who can establish that they are
living law-abiding lives, have been rehabilitated, and thus are appropriate candidates
for employment, provides an incentive to succeed after release from prison.

All Executive Agencies responded to the Executive Order and the Task Force independently
inventoried the restrictions administered by Agriculture and Consumer Services, Financial
Services, and Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

2

The Scope of the Impact of Employment Restrictions on Floridians
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement reported that its Computerized Criminal
History database contains records on 5,104,618 individuals, representing 28.7% of the 17.8
million people currently residing in Florida. The database, which began being built in 1971,
however, does not include people convicted of federal crimes, crimes committed out-of-state or
outside the U.S.; and it does not exclude people who have left the state or died.



1,673,797 individuals in the database have criminal convictions identified as either a felony
or misdemeanors, broken down as follows:






804,554 people with felony convictions, including people with both felony and
misdemeanor convictions.
869,243 people with misdemeanor convictions and no felony convictions.
The convictions of 261,228 individuals in the database are for an “Unknown Charge
Level” only; these cannot be identified as felonies or misdemeanors.

The remaining 3,169,593 people have a disposition other than conviction (e.g., adjudication
withheld, acquitted), a mixture of unknown levels and misdemeanor convictions; or no
disposition reflected in the criminal history file.

Number of Jobs Affected by State-created Restrictions
The Task Force attempted a rough count of restricted jobs. Rather than look at all
restricted jobs, this effort concentrated on certain occupational groups that have large numbers
of jobs in Florida. However, it could not count the occupations with place-based restrictions,
e.g., unlicensed direct-patient-contact positions at, e.g., health facilities, Jessica Lunsford school
vendor jobs, or jobs at seaports.
Even with so many occupations excluded from the count, the Task Force has estimated
that of the 7.6 million jobs in the Florida economy, at least 39.2% of the jobs in Florida appear
to be subject to state-created criminal background checks or restrictions based on criminal
history.
Official State Employment Policy
It is the policy of the State of Florida to encourage and contribute to the
rehabilitation of felons and to assist them in the assumption of the responsibilities
of citizenship.
The opportunity to secure employment or to pursue, practice or engage in a
meaningful and profitable trade, occupation, vocation, profession or business is an
essential ingredient to the assumption of the responsibilities of citizenship.
Preamble to Ch. 71-115, at 304, Laws of Fla., now Section 112.011, F.S.

3

Findings
Three types of job restrictions:
 Based on the occupation -- both licensed and unlicensed occupations, e.g., bar tenders,
security guards, real estate agents.
 Based on the place of employment – e.g., seaports, schools, nursing homes.
 Based on both, e.g., nurses, teachers.
Source of the restrictions.
 The Legislature:
 Enacted as state statutes (both mandatory and providing discretionary authority)
 State agencies and state licensing boards:
 Promulgated through rulemaking
 Adopted as a matter of agency / board policy
 Adopted by putting them on application forms and instructions
Range of severity of the restrictions:
• Lifetime bans for any felony.
• Lifetime bans unless civil rights are restored for any felony.
• Lifetime bans for certain felonies.
• Lifetime bans -- unless civil rights are restored for certain felonies.
• Good Moral Character and Crimes of Moral Turpitude restrictions.
• Time-limited bans for any felony.
• Time-limited bans for certain felonies.
• Lifetime bans for certain felonies, but may seek an exemption after 3 years from the date
of offense.
• Time-limited bans for certain felonies, but may seek waiver of the ban.

Lifetime bans.

One example of a lifetime ban applies to pilots of watercraft. If the person has ever been
convicted of felony drug sales or trafficking, he is barred from piloting certification for life. By
contrast, even after the federal Aviation & Transportation Security Act amendments enacted by
Congress and signed on November 19, 2001, just two months after September 11, airline pilots
and airport personnel are only prohibited from employment if the disqualifying offense
(including drug trafficking) occurred within the prior ten years.

Occupations requiring restoration of civil rights for employment or licensing.
The Task Force found quite a few license applications that state:
If you have been convicted of a felony,
you must submit proof of reinstatement of civil rights.
Sometimes, but not often, this requirement has been mandated by the Legislature. Some
examples are as follows:

4







Private investigator, private security and repossession services
Notary Public
Labor union business agent license
Horseracing or dog racing permit or jai alai fronton permit holders and employees
Permit for ether distribution or manufacture

In other instances, the Legislature has given state agencies and licensing boards the
authority and discretion to impose this requirement, and the agencies or boards have chosen to
impose it. Some examples are as follows:
 Dept of Health

Registered Nurse
Licensed practical Nurse
Certified Nursing Assistant

 Dept. of Agriculture
Pest control operators
 Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
Dealers of motor vehicles, mobile homes,
recreational vehicles

In still other instances, agencies, without legislative authority, impose the restoration of
rights requirement on certain occupations.

 DBPR
 Construction, electrical and asbestos abatement contractor licenses2
 Auctioneer3
 Department of Highway Safety & MV
 Wrecker Operators
 Dept. of Financial Services
 Licensure for mortgage broker
 Mortgage broker business Mortgage lender
 Correspondent mortgage lender
 Title loan lender
 Motor vehicle retail installment seller
 Retailer installment seller
 Sales finance company
 Home improvement finance seller
 Consumer finance
 Fire Equipment and Protection System Contractors
Despite recent court rulings requiring the boards’ rescission of this policy, the applications for licensure, as of
1/16/07, “If you have been convicted of a felony, you must submit proof of reinstatement of civil rights”. See, e.g.,
Yeoman v. Construction Industry Licensing Board, State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 919
So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Vetter v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors
Licensing Board, 920 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Daniel Scherer v. Department of Business and Professional, Etc., 919 So.
2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
3
In this case, Board minutes, e.g., 3/9/04, indicate civil rights restoration is required.
2

5



Explosives License

The requirement that civil rights be restored poses a significant barrier to employment,
in part because of the difficulty in securing restoration. The Parole Commission provided data
to the Task Force on the disposition of restoration of rights cases over the last five years:
Restoration of rights (FY ’01 – ’06):
 324,855 cases processed
 Of those, 65,472 people (20%) granted restoration of civil rights.
 13,284 who were required to seek a Clemency Board hearing and did so.
 Of those, 1,519 people (11.4%) were granted restoration.

Proven less restrictive approaches
The Background Check Act, Chapter 435, F.S.:

 Lists disqualifying offenses relevant to care of vulnerable populations;
 2 levels of screening; (Level 1 – fewer offenses, FDLE check only; Level 2 – More
offenses, FDLE and FBI check);
 After 3 years have passed since the disqualifying offense, allows a disqualified person to
seek an exemption based on rehabilitation; and
 Authorizes appeals of denials of exemptions.
Examples of Chapter 435 Implementation:
 Employees of DJJ and their providers’ staff
 School personnel
 Direct care workers at health care facilities
 Child care workers
However, agencies do not always use the Background Check Act, even when the
occupation involves the vulnerable populations that the Act seeks to protect, especially for
licensing of professions.
Thus while policies and licensing applications for some health care occupations use
Level One or Level Two background checks under the Act, and allow applications for
exemption from disqualification, others require restoration of civil rights; still others are subject
to case-by-case reviews without requiring restoration; and some are not subject to any statecreated restrictions because the neither the jobs nor the facilities are licensed.

6

Restoration of Rights

“Case by case” Review + Evidence of Rehab

Registered Nurse, LPN, CNA
Dental Hygienists
Optician
Mental Health Counselors and Clinical Social Workers
Physical and Occupational Therapists & Assistants
Hearing Aid Specialists
Orthotist & Prosthetist
Electrologist

Physicians Assistant
Midwifery
Optometrist
Psychologist; School Psychologist
Speech Language Pathologists & Audiologists
Acupuncturist
Massage Therapists
Respiratory Therapist
Anesthesiologist Assistants

Ch. 435 Background Check

Unrestricted

Home Health Aid
Unlicensed Nursing Home staff w/ patient contact
Child Care Workers
Substance Abuse Counselors
Psychiatric Aids
Owners, CEOs, CFOs of licensed health facilities
Early Learning Staff
School personnel and vendor employees
DOH & DJJ staff

Dental Assistants in dentists’ offices
Medical Assistants in doctors’ offices
Optometric Assistant
Pharmacy Technician
Recreational Therapist

Widely varying restrictions for similar occupations.
Other occupational groups have varying approaches similar to those in the health care
field. For example, law enforcement and security-related positions are also subject to very
different requirements.
Barred for any felony unless civil rights are
restored

Barred for life, but only if convicted of perjury or false
statements

Private investigator, private security and repossession
services
Alarm system contractor
Lawyers & therefore judges, etc.

Law enforcement, probation, and correctional officers &
bailiffs

Financial and brokerage services occupations have equally diverse restrictions:
Restoration of rights - by rule
Licensure for mortgage broker
Mortgage broker business Mortgage lender
Correspondent mortgage lender
Title loan lender
Motor vehicle retail installment seller
Retailer installment seller
Sales finance company
Home improvement finance seller
Consumer finance

Barred for life for any felony- by law
Bail bond agents and employees
Time-Limited
Telemarketers – by rule
Pawnshop dealers - law
May deny for financial crimes – by law
Real Estate

Good Moral Character – by law
Certified Public Accountants

7

Other Less Restrictive Approaches.
Time-limited restrictions.
The Legislature listed offenses that may disqualify a person from being a telemarketer.
Administered by the Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the agency put time limits on
the disqualifications:
 Must complete sentence and supervision if convicted of listed crime, then,
disqualification lifted after:
 5 years for racketeering, fraud, theft, embezzlement, fraudulent conversion, or
misappropriation of property, or any other crime involving moral turpitude.
 7 years for felony racketeering, etc.– above.
 10 years for a capital offense

Other time-limited restrictions – by law.
These restrictions apply to any felony:
 Beverage law licenses – 15 years
 People who serve or sell liquor (e.g., hotels, restaurants, bars, convenience stores)– 5 years
 Florida Lottery employees, vendors and retailers – 10 years (Can be lifted with restoration of

civil rights)
 Boxing-related jobs – 10 years
These restrictions apply only to some felonies – by law:





Electrical or Alarm System Employee – 3 years
Lodging and Restaurant Licenses – 5 years
Seaport employment – 7 years
Pawnshop Dealers – 10 years

Restrictions based on “Good Moral Character” or acts or crimes of “Moral Turpitude.”
Often, Florida laws state, in addition to other restrictions, that one must have “good
moral character” or not have committed crimes of “moral turpitude.”
What is “good moral character?”
 Not defined by statute.
 Up to agencies and courts to determine case-by-case.
 Florida courts’ attempts to define:
 “Not only the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, but the character to
observe the difference; the observance of the rules of right conduct, and conduct which
indicates and establishes the qualities generally acceptable to the populace for positions
of trust and confidence."

8

“Lack of good moral character requires an inclusion of acts and conduct which would
cause a reasonable man to have substantial doubts about an individual's honesty,
fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation.”
 Prior criminal act is not proof of lack of good moral character but one factor to be
considered.


Factors considered:
 Circumstances surrounding the criminal offense;
 Time elapsed since the commission of the crime;
 Nexus between the offense and the occupation sought.
 History of the applicant since the criminal offense.
 Disclosure of details of past offense(s) to character witnesses.
Can a lack of “good moral character” be used to deny a license when the crime is not
disqualifying?
Not according to the Attorney General. The Florida employment law (112.011, F.S.) says
that once one’s civil rights have been restored, the person can only be denied a license when the
crime is “related to” the licensed occupation.
Therefore, “licensing agencies may not disqualify such an applicant due to a lack of
moral character and base such disqualification solely upon such prior conviction. To decide
otherwise would allow licensing authorities to do indirectly what they are clearly prohibited by
the statute, Ch. 73-109, from doing directly.” 1973 Op. Atty Gen. Fla. 596.
What Is Moral Turpitude?
It is not defined in Florida laws and crimes of moral turpitude are not listed, but 66
Florida employment-related laws create restrictions or penalties based on acts or crimes of
moral turpitude.
“Moral turpitude’ is an elusive, vague and troublesome concept in the law, incapable of
precise definition; such is evidenced by the myriad of definitions and interpretations in judicial
opinions.” Wilson, The Definitional Problems with “Moral Turpitude,” 16 J. Legal Prof. 261 (1991).
“Time has only confirmed Justice Jackson’s powerful dissent in the De George case, in
which he called “moral turpitude” an “undefined and undefinable standard.” 341 U.S. at 235.
The term may well have outlived its usefulness.” Mei v. United States, 393 F.3d 737, 741 (7th Cir.
2005).
Still many have tried to define it:
“Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being
inherently base, vile, or depraved." Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F. 3d 254, 259 (CA5 2002)

9

“Unless the offense is one which its very commission implies a base and depraved
nature, the question of moral turpitude depends not only on the nature of the offense, but also
on the attendant circumstances; the standard is public sentiment, which changes as the moral
opinions of the public change.” Opinion of the Florida Attorney General, AGO 75-201.

What crimes involve moral turpitude?
Examples of crimes of moral turpitude per Florida courts:
 Sale by a physician of fraudulent licenses and diplomas
 Bookmaking (gambling),
 Manslaughter by culpable negligence
 Aggravated battery
 Aggravated sexual abuse
 Embezzlement
Not moral turpitude per Florida courts:
 Issuing a worthless check without the intent to defraud
 Possession of a controlled substance,
 Misdemeanor battery
 Criminal mischief
 Possession of lottery tickets
 Setting off a smoke bomb as part of a political protest

Crimes “related to” an occupation.
Quite a number of occupations have restrictions that prohibit employment if the person
has been convicted of a crime “related to” that occupation. Typically, the related crimes are not
enumerated. Some of the occupations with statutory restrictions of this nature are architecture,
funeral directing, and fire protection equipment dealers.
These restrictions are, like those requiring no convictions of crimes evincing a lack of
good moral character or crimes of moral turpitude, give the potential applicant little notice of
what is and is not a bar to employment.

10

Appendix A

STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 06-89
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2005, I issued Executive Order 05-28 establishing the
Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force (Task Force) to improve the effectiveness of the State of
Florida in facilitating the reentry of ex-offenders into our communities and reduce the incidence
of recidivism; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force has found that gainful employment after release from prison
is one of the critical elements necessary to achieve successful reentry after prison and that
employment has been shown to reduce recidivism and, thus, to make our communities safer; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force has found many state laws and policies that impose
restrictions on the employment of people who have been to prison and has estimated that these
restrictions may affect more than one-third of Florida’s 7.9 million non-farm jobs, including state
and local government jobs, jobs in state-licensed, regulated and funded entities, and jobs
requiring state certification; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force has further found that no comprehensive review of these
restrictions has been undertaken to evaluate whether the restrictions are related to the safety, trust
and responsibility required of the job or to determine whether a less restrictive approach could
protect the public while preserving employment opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force has further found that the disqualifications for many kinds
of jobs can be lifted through exemptions and other mechanisms that allow a case-by-case
showing of rehabilitation, yet the disqualifications for many other jobs requiring a similar level
of safety, trust and responsibility cannot be lifted, exempted or relieved; and
WHEREAS, the State’s executive agencies can assume a leadership role in providing
employment opportunities to ex-offenders by reviewing their employment policies and practices
and identifying barriers to employment that can safely be removed to enable ex-offenders to
demonstrate their rehabilitation;
NOW THEREFORE, I, JEB BUSH, as Governor of the State of Florida, by virtue of
the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida, do hereby
promulgate the following Executive Order, effective immediately:
Section 1. Terms of Employment Disqualifications.
11

A. All executive agencies shall produce a report for the Task Force that describes the
employment restrictions and disqualifications that are based on criminal records for each
occupation under the agency’s jurisdiction and that of its boards, if any, including, but not
limited to, employment within the agency; employment in facilities licensed, regulated,
supervised, or funded by the agency; employment pursuant to contracts with the agency; and
employment in occupations that the agency licenses or provides certifications to practice. For
each occupation subject to an ex-offender restriction or disqualification, the agency shall set
forth the following:
1. The job title, occupation or job classification;
2. The cause of the disqualification (statutory, regulatory, policy or practice) and the
substance and terms of the disqualification, including a listing of the disqualifying
offenses, the recency of the disqualifying offenses, and the duration of the
disqualification;
3. The year the disqualification was adopted and its rationale;
4. In instances where the disqualification is based upon conviction of any offense “related
to” the practice of a given profession, the criteria the agency has adopted to apply the
disqualification to individual cases;
5. The source of any requirement (statute, rule, policy, or practice) for an individual
convicted of a felony to have his civil rights restored to become qualified for the job;
and
6. The exemption, waiver, or review mechanisms available to seek relief from the
disqualification, based on a showing of rehabilitation or otherwise. This should
include the terms of the exemption, waiver or review, the nature of the relief it
affords, and whether an administrative and judicial appeal is authorized.
B. The agency shall also describe, for each occupation subject to ex-offender
disqualification, the procedures used to determine and review the disqualification, and shall
provide to the Executive Office of the Governor copies of the forms, rules, and procedures that it
employs to provide notice of disqualification, to review applications subject to disqualification,
and to provide for exemptions and appeals of disqualification.
C. Agencies are strongly encouraged to adopt such policy reforms and changes as will
achieve the goals of this Order. Agencies shall report to the Executive Office of the Governor
reform efforts including eliminated or modified ex-offender employment disqualifications, draft
legislation for a case-by-case exemption or review mechanism, and modified criteria and
procedures used in relation to ex-offender employment restrictions.
Section 2. Data.
The second part of the review involves the collection of data to determine the impact of the
disqualifications on employment opportunities for ex-offenders in Florida and the effectiveness
of existing case-by-case review mechanisms that list the disqualifications. For each occupation
under the jurisdiction of the agency for which there are employment disqualifications based on
12

criminal records, the agency must provide, for the previous two-year period, the number and
percentage of individuals who underwent a criminal history background check, the number who
were merely required to disclose their criminal history without a criminal history background
check, the number and percentage found disqualified based on criminal records; the number and
percentage found disqualified because their civil rights had not been restored; the number and
percentage who sought review and exemption from or reversal of the disqualification, the
number and percentage that were found qualified for the initial review, and the number and
percentage that were found qualified for any subsequent level of review. If the agency maintains
records of active licenses or certifications, the agency shall provide the total number of
employees in occupations subject to criminal history restrictions.
Section 3. Time Frame for Provision of Information.
The terms of each of the agency’s employment disqualifications described in Section 1 of this
Order shall be provided to the Executive Office of the Governor no later than 60 days from the
issuance of this Order. The data described in Section 2 shall be provided no later than 90 days
from the issuance of this Order.
Section 4. Other State Agencies and Private Sector.
I strongly encourage all other state agencies, counties, municipalities and political subdivisions
of the State to likewise conduct an inventory of employment disqualifications as described
herein, to eliminate or modify such disqualifications that are not tailored to protect the public
safety, and to create case-by-case review mechanisms to provide individuals the opportunity to
make a showing of their
rehabilitation and their qualifications for employment. I encourage private employers, to the
extent they are able, to take similar actions to review their own employment policies and provide
employment opportunities to individuals with criminal records.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand and have caused the
Great Seal of the State of Florida to be
affixed at Tallahassee, the Capitol, this
25th of April, 2006.
_____________________________________
GOVERNOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
SECRETARY OF STATE

13

A Collins Center Special Report | February 2010

Smart Justice

Findings and Recommendations
for Florida Criminal Justice Reform

February 2010

www.collinscenter.org

1
Exhibit 8

www.CollinsCenter.org

About the Collins Center for Public Policy
Former Florida Governor LeRoy Collins’ legacy of uncompromising integrity in government and business continues
at the Collins Center for Public Policy. Established in 1988
by distinguished Floridians who envisioned the need for an
independent entity to find impartial solutions to controversial
problems, the Collins Center is known as a Think Tank with
muddy boots. With offices in Miami, Tallahassee, St. Petersburg and Sarasota, our mission is to find smart solutions to
important issues facing the people of Florida and the nation.
We are independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit and passionately committed to lasting results.
The Coalition for Smart Justice (www.smartjusticeflorida.
org) is a partnership created by the Collins Center with key
public and private organizations. In the interest of public
safety, fiscal responsibility, and criminal justice effectiveness,
the coalition has opened a public conversation to explore
better ways to achieve a safer, more just, and more effective
criminal justice system that will have the desired outcomes
of less crime, less public costs, and greater rehabilitative
effect on offenders. Learn more by visiting our web site or
by contacting:
Dr. April Young
Vice President of Criminal Justice Initiatives
ayoung@collinscenter.org
Steven Seibert
Senior Vice President and Director of Policy
sseibert@collinscenter.org

2	

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1.		 The call for reform................................................................... 5
2.		 Justice Summit 2009............................................................... 6
3.		 Florida’s ever-growing prisons................................................ 8
4.		 At what cost? $2.6 billion and growing................................... 8
5. The emerging reform agenda................................................. 10
6.		 Case Study: The case of the unexpected prisoners............. 11
7.		 We know more about what works: Building on success....... 12
8.		 Progress thus far................................................................... 12
9.		 Findings and Recommendations........................................... 12
10.		The time for change is now................................................... 13
11.		Looking to the future............................................................. 18
11.		Acknowledgements............................................................... 20

Council~

P~tlY!~~IP
lit~-'ch~
work'~" . . .

....

,Ct>less
1"'1' ,lit

'

offenses~
\. __ .. (=So,

0

a so

"!",,"cem

~~

toward-;'" \ Y

'IInl

O'QI'T ..,

February 2010

www.collinscenter.org

Editorial assistance was provided by Jay Goley, a journalist who
retired after a lengthy career at the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

Linda Mills, Esq., President of Policy Catalysts, LLC, is the author of this report. She serves as the criminal justice consultant to
the Collins Center for Public Policy and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, among others. She has been consulting on Florida justice
reform issues since 2005, when she did the research and writing
for the Casey-supported Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force. The
report was written under the direction of Steve Seibert, Senior
Vice President and Director of Statewide Policy at the Collins
Center, with feedback provided by Roderick Petrey, President of
the Center, and April Young, PhD, Vice President for Justice Initiatives. She can be reached at LMillsEsq@comcast.net.

... '

I

;;r
epoticv.
community
' ' ' ' ' ' :II<,

....'

-l

_. ~ Immed,ate

About the Author

oupetvision

12.	 Endnotes............................................................................... 23

VlDgS(l) 'r.n;;c' [

gro~hrelease~ ~
pi::enumbii ~_ coum

Incarcer3t10n,state'

beds

criffiinalt_

~

.....
'-.-.l

Ireform ,

, ' - ~t"

31

sentencmg

PUbticffiUSt
(V support
Summit
•• _
•

,JUstIce
I
cos ;sa
t

JustlCetreatment

t Ime 0..5
~systeJp..~ ~~t
people
low,lc\'c1
C')

Florida's"
1l.J_
l .§
M••

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

W

ith Florida’s prison population now surpassing the
100,000 mark, powerful voices, a growing number from
the business community, are speaking out about the
alarming rate of prison growth and the unsustainable spending necessary to maintain it. They are striking a chord of urgency, saying we
cannot continue on this path. We must find better ways to achieve a
safer, more rational and more cost-effective criminal justice system.
Over the past year, in response to this growing crisis, the Collins
Center for Public Policy worked closely with the state’s business
community as it became a new and vital voice for justice reform.
Together, we issued an “Open Letter to the Legislature, Governor
and People of Florida,” outlining the urgent need for change, and
we convened the November 2009 Justice Summit, which brought
together major players throughout the state to form a consensus on
how to make that change.
The Smart Justice report reflects the work undertaken to analyze
the growth of Florida’s corrections system and the policies driving
that growth. Based on that analysis, the following reform recommendations are made to chart a course for a sustainable criminal justice
system that costs less, in some cases immediately and in others, after
the passage of a short period of time, and achieves better outcomes:
1. Tallahassee must ensure that the Correctional Policy Advisory
Council and its Justice Reinvestment Subcommittee are up and
running and receive the support they need. The people attending the Justice Summit were unanimous on this point.
We must assess Florida’s criminal justice system as other
states have done, and we must open our doors to the Council
of State Governments and the Pew Public Safety Performance
Project to steer us toward successful evidence-based solutions
and models.
2. The Legislature should build on the kind of cost-saving
sentencing reforms it enacted in 2008 and 2009.
This includes diverting nonviolent offenders from prison and
requiring courts to show justification for imprisoning defendants with 22 or fewer points under the Criminal Punishment
Code. These measures have already had a significant impact
and should be expanded.
The Legislature should also revise prison penalties for lowlevel drug offenses and theft offenses. Those in place now
trigger state incarceration for relatively small quantities of
drugs and low dollar amounts. Lawmakers should also revisit
mandatory minimums and gain time, through which prisoners
can earn up to 10 days per month off their sentences. Under
current law, a prisoner must serve no less than 85 percent of
his sentence, no matter how much gain time he would have
earned.
3. Address the significant county-by-county sentencing disparities reported by the Legislature’s Office of Economic and
Demographic Research, especially those involving people convicted of low-level offenses. The Legislature should consider
shifting the financial incentives currently in place for state
incarceration toward local supervision and treatment. (Immediate cost-savings)
4	

4. The Legislature should support the expansion of drug courts
and split sentencing, in which drug treatment commences in
prison and continues upon release under drug court supervision. (Intermediate cost-savings)
5. The Legislature should increase the number of work release
and other less costly non-institutional prison beds and decrease
the number of more costly institutional beds. It should also
overrule the DOC policies of holding one prison bed in reserve
for every work release bed and capping work release at 4 percent of the inmate population. (Immediate cost-savings)
6. Faith and character-based prisons, proven to reduce recidivism
at no greater cost, should be expanded to accommodate the
10,000 inmates on the waiting list. (Intermediate cost-savings)
7. The Legislature should enact legislation that will divert
mentally ill and addicted individuals from the criminal justice
system to community-based treatment. (Intermediate costsavings)
8. The Legislature should require the Department of Corrections
and the Department of Management Services, as appropriate,
to provide essential information on each prison and prison
facility (both private and public) that is planned or under
construction.
It is time for our state to rethink thirty-year-old policies that may
have served the state well in their time. But their time has passed. We
know more now. We must be evidence-driven and fiscally conservative. Continuing to pour money into a bloated prison system in a time
of fiscal austerity is not only unsustainable, it confounds common
sense.

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

J

•

I'/

(r
L
l-

r

J

.. \

\

,

--jus1: 1:.he same
- - j us1:.'lV adv i'

jus-tice (ju.s'ti.s)
eous 2 -fairn.ess

The Call For Reform

W

ith Florida’s prison population now surpassing the 100,000
mark, powerful voices, a growing number from the
business ommunity, are speaking out about the alarming
rate of prison growth and the unsustainable spending necessary to
maintain it. They are striking a chord of urgency, saying we cannot
continue on this path. We must find better ways to achieve a safer,
more rational and more cost-effective criminal justice system.
Over the past year, with financial support from the Annie E.
Casey Foundation and the Florida Bar Foundation, the Collins
Center for Public Policy has spearheaded an effort that has fashioned
an unprecedented coalition of voices.
Last summer, these new voices issued an “Open Letter to the
Legislature, Governor and People of Florida.” In it they called for
action to “quickly and comprehensively reform the state prison
system and corrections policies.”
Organized by the Collins Center and the Steering Committee of
the “Coalition for Smart Justice,” the letter was signed by leaders
of Florida TaxWatch, Associated Industries of Florida, the Florida
Chamber Foundation, the Police Benevolent Association, the Florida
Association of Counties, social services and prisoner re-entry groups,
three former attorneys general, former legislative leaders, a former
governor and other government officials. The letter expressed their
consternation over the policy choice to continually expand the prison
system at the expense of other state priorities.
“At a time when Florida is in serious recession,” they wrote,
“and facing a deep state budget crisis, the $2+ billion budget of the
Florida Department of Corrections has grown larger; and without
reform, that budget will continue to grow at a pace that crowds out
other mission-critical state services such as education, human service
needs, and environmental protection.”
February 2010

The press took note. Across the state, editorials and columnists
noted the uniqueness of this new coalition and lent their own
endorsements of fundamental criminal justice reform.

Course Correction
Florida’s politicians have remained wary of reform efforts, equating reform with being soft on crime. But a new voice is calling
for an overhaul of the system over the next few years: the state’s
business community.
Leaders at the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Associated
Industries [say]) the idea is to focus not solely on today, but
on developing policies that will allow Florida to prosper in the
future.
They imagine a future of lower spending on prisons; a singledigit recidivism rate; the job-training for inmates targeted at the
needs of Florida businesses in 2020, 2030 and beyond.
“In the heyday, if we had $100 million, it was easier to build a
new prison than it was to work on this problem,” says Tony
Carvajal, executive vice president of the Florida Chamber
Foundation, the research arm of the Chamber of Commerce.
“We don’t have that option anymore. But at the end of this, we
don’t just want to balance the budget. We want to build a better
state.”
Florida Trend, May 2009

www.collinscenter.org

5

Justice Summit 2009

S

eeing the need for a statewide conversation about reform, the
Collins Center hosted a two-day Justice Summit in Tampa in
November that brought together nearly 300 public officials and
private professionals. In attendance were leaders from the state’s
most powerful business organizations, state and national criminal
justice experts, prosecutors, judges, legislators and officials from
corrections, juvenile justice and human services.
Summit participants discussed the progress being made in and
out of Florida, ideas to save money and achieve better outcomes.
They also recognized the miles to go before we reverse present
trends and restrict spending to what is necessary and wise to protect
and improve public safety.
They agreed on the following core recommendations:
n Establish a council to analyze all of the criminal justice
and corrections policies and make recommendations for
reforms. Fully implement Senate Bill 2000, passed in 2008,
establishing the Correctional Policy Advisory Council.
n Focus on securely locking up the most dangerous criminals
rather than nonviolent offenders who can be turned around
with treatment and services.
n Beef up existing drug, alcohol and mental health services,
both in and out of prisons, and create solid education and
job training programs, especially for young offenders.
n Enact other reforms that slow prison growth. Find opportunities for concrete changes that can reduce the numbers we
lock up and how often they return to prison.

6	

This report reflects those core reform recommendations,
the work undertaken over the past year to analyze the growth of
Florida’s corrections system, the policies driving that growth, and the
specific reforms we believe can reverse course.
Generally reflecting the insights, perspectives and objectives of
those who attended the Summit, it provides a snapshot of the criminal justice and corrections systems as they are today in Florida and
of how we got where we are. It takes note of the reforms made thus
far and sets forth its findings and reform recommendations. It seeks
to chart a course for a sustainable criminal justice system that costs
less and does more.
Tony Carvajal, Executive Vice President of the Florida Chamber
Foundation, summed up the sentiments of the conference and particularly the business community this way, “Tough on crime is one
thing – irrational is another. There’s a lot of waste in this system.
When one in ten dollars is going into corrections out of our general
fund, that’s a problem — when we could be making those investments in something else like education. And imagine the loss from
over 100,000 people not participating in our economy!”
“Corrections remains one of Florida’s few ‘growth industries,’ but it
is ultimately an unsustainable one. The fact that the state has now
given itself the option of exporting surplus prisoners elsewhere is a
damning admission that the state’s ‘lock-em-up-and-throw-awaythe key’ mind-set toward criminal justice is doomed to failure.
“The Coalition for Smart Justice has challenged Gov. Crist and the
Florida Legislature to find another way. Will Tallahassee accept that
challenge?”
Editorial: For Smart Justice, Gainesville Sun, Jun. 26, 2009

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

Justice Summit 2009

Less crime is better than more prisons

Better solutions than to build new prisons

Howard Troxler of the St. Petersburg
Times epitomized the response by the
press to the letter. He looked at what the
letter was calling for and wrote, “Old stuff,
really. Corrections experts have been saying this for years. But this was signed by
three former Florida attorney generals, the
directors of Florida TaxWatch, the Florida
Police Benevolent Association, the Florida
Chamber Foundation, Associated Industries of Florida, the Florida Association of
Counties. Not a bunch of bleeding-heart egghead academics,
but conservative leaders who can’t stand frittering away billions
on bad prison policy.”

In the past legislative session, in an effort
to bring the business community into this
effort, the Collins Center worked with Associated Industries of Florida, with Florida
TaxWatch and with the Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to stop the building
of prisons, which, at least in that session
registered. With a cost of a hundred
million dollars for each new prison and
$25-45 million a year to operate them,
it would seem we could come up with
better solutions than to build new prisons, which I think most
everyone can see are the most expensive and the least effective
way of dealing with offenders.

Howard Troxler
Less crime is better than more prisons,
St. Petersburg Times, Jul. 15, 2009

Parker Thomson
Board Chairman of the Collins Center for Public Policy speaking
at the Summit

February 2010

www.collinscenter.org

7

Florida’s ever-growing prisions

I

n 1980, there were 21,579
people in our state prisons.
By October 2009, the number
had reached 101,497.
The growth in the state’s
population does not nearly
account for the prison growth.
While Florida’s general population is not quite double what it
was in 1980, the prison population is five times larger

Yet the crime rate is down.
In 1980, the number of reported
serious crimes, also called index
crimes, (murder, rape, robbery
and aggravated assault, and the
property crimes of burglary,
larceny, and motor vehicle theft)
per 100,000 residents was 8,074; today it is 4,700. That is a drop of
42 percent over the past thirty years.
It is tempting to credit the increase in prison population with the
reduction in the crime rate, but that cause-and-effect scenario goes
just so far.
Research shows that while some decrease in crime is attributable
to incapacitating dangerous criminals, after a point, increased rates of
incarceration offer diminishing returns and a negative benefit-to-cost
ratio. This is especially true when we increasingly incarcerate people
for nonviolent drug offenses and other low-level crimes.
The Vera Institute for Justice examined the key studies on this
issue and found that “Analysts are nearly unanimous in their
conclusion that continued growth in incarceration will prevent
considerably fewer, if any, crimes — and at substantially greater
cost to taxpayers.”
Yet, instead of focusing our resources on dangerous people who
need to be locked up, where the cost is well worth the public safety
benefits, we are more and more filling Florida’s prisons with nonviolent offenders.
Over the past thirteen years, the share of violent offenses accounting for prison admissions decreased by 28 percent. During that
same period, the share of admissions for “other” offenses, i.e., offenses that are nonviolent, are not property crimes, and are not drug
crimes increased by 189 percent. One of those offenses was driving
with a suspended license — the very charge that recently landed a
78-year-old grandmother in the Broward County jail for 15 days.
Florida is not alone in grappling with an explosion of prison
growth corresponding with neither increases in population nor crime.
In the 1970s the nation incarcerated about 250,000 people; the figure
is now 2.4 million.
In response to this disturbing trend, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia introduced the National Criminal Justice Commission Act last
8	

 Source: Criminal Justice Trends, Criminal Justice Estimating Conference, 9/29/09,
Office of Economic and Demographic Research, The Florida Legislature

spring to address, as he puts it the “situation that has evolved over
time where we are putting far too many of the wrong people into
prison and we are still not feeling safer in our neighborhoods, we’re
still not putting in prison or bringing to justice those people who are
perpetrating violence and criminality as a way of life.”
Senator Webb’s analysis of the problem starts with this basic
premise, “We have 5% of the world’s population; yet we have 25%
of the world’s known prison population. We have an incarceration rate in the United States, the world’s greatest democracy, that
is five times as high as the average incarceration rate of the rest of
the world. There are only two possibilities here: either we have the
most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing
something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice.”
Of course we don’t have the most evil people in the world, but
we have made policy choices that have led to skyrocketing incarceration rates. As the Pew Public Safety Project has noted, “The remark-

Some of the policymakers who enacted laws that caused the
exploding growth are revising their opinions. Mark Earley, the
president of Prison Fellowship, served in the Virginia Legislature
in the late eighties and early nineties. He says, “I spent most of
my time in the Legislature working on how to put more people
in jail and keeping them there longer.” But now he says, “I was
wrong. I repent!”
Chris Suellentrop
“The Right Has a Jailhouse Conversion, NY Times Magazine,
Dec. 24, 2006.

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

Florida’s ever-growing prisions
Florida Crime Rate
Index Crimes per 100,000 Population

 Source: Criminal Justice Trends, Criminal Justice Estimating Conference, 9/29/09, Office of Economic and Demographic
Research, The Florida Legislature

able rise in corrections spending wasn’t fate or even the natural consequence of spikes in crime. It was the result of state policy choices
that sent more people to prison and kept them there longer.”

Crime Rates and Incarceation Rates: Florida and New York

Pat Nolan, once the minority leader of the California Assembly
and a former prison inmate, echoes this sentiment. “One of the mistakes I made as a legislator was that I thought we could put them in
prison and forget about them. But I forgot that 95 percent come back.
What kind of neighbors will they be?”
Increasingly, states are changing their policies to reverse this
trend. New York has been a national leader in reducing its crime rate,
but as it did so, it cut its incarceration rate, too, and has been closing
prisons. Florida has not been nearly as aggressive in examining and
revising former policy choices. While many states have responded
to explosions in prison growth and prison spending by changing
policies and practices to reverse the tide, in recent years Florida has
added more prisoners than any state in the nation.
The states reversing their prison growth are looking at whom
they incarcerate, for how long and for what offenses. And they are
looking at ways to reduce the number of people who are released
from prison and then continue to commit crimes. Now Floridians
have come together to urge the state’s lawmakers to do the same.

 

“We really needed to do a much better job of taking away the
symptom of locking ‘em up and throwing away the key,” Dominic
Calabro, CEO of Florida TaxWatch, said this week during the
conference, sponsored by the Collins Center.
“Because it became unsustainably expensive and increasingly a
training ground for prisoners to become better convicts, better
perpetrators of harm and evil against the people of Florida.”
The News Service of Florida, Nov. 18, 2009

February 2010

www.collinscenter.org

9

At what cost? $2.6 billion and growing

T

o maintain our spending on prisons, we must either increase
revenue (taxes) or spend less on other priorities. In 2008, we
slashed education funding by $332 million and added $308
million to the Corrections budget.

3,000

Growth
in Florida Corrections Spending
Growth in Florida Corrections Spending
Millions
ininMillions

2,500

The increased spending built two state prisons and one private
prison for a total of 10,200 new beds.

$2,571

2,000

But it is not just the state’s school system that absorbs cuts in
favor of prison construction. Within the Corrections budget, funds
for education, treatment and job training are cut as well, reducing
efforts to shut down the revolving door that leads many back to their
prison cells.

1,500

1,000

500

Florida is third in the nation in the share of state general funds
(10 percent) spent on corrections. And while the national average
of state employees in the correctional workforce is 11 percent, in
Florida it is 15.1 percent.

1988

2009

o

 

If we were making a good return on the amount spent on Corrections (and focused that spending on confining and rehabilitating
serious offenders), it would be money well spent. But the return is
not good. Within three years, 40.5 percent of the men released from
prison will offend again, and 26.7 percent will be re-imprisoned for a
new offense.
Dominic Calabro, President and CEO of Florida TaxWatch, says
that instead of accepting prison growth and recidivism as a given, we
should “find those prisoners who can be rehabilitated, particularly
nonviolent offenders, those that are not sexual predators, and find
ways to help them re-entering from the system or even preventing
them from going in.”

Bob Butterworth, a former Broward
sheriff, prosecutor and 20-year attorney general, said his two-year
stint as secretary of the Department
of Children & Families reinforced his
belief in the value of prevention dollars
— which are typically the first to be
cut during lean years.

We are spending our taxpayers’ money to lock up an increasing
percentage of non-violent offenders, but we are doing little to rehabilitate them. Meanwhile, our violent prisoners are seeing even less
effort at rehabilitation, but most of those, too, will be released. Last
year a quarter of the inmates leaving our prisons had been convicted
of violent offenses.
Without changes in the laws and policies driving prison growth,
the $2.6 billion we spend on Corrections will only go up. AIF’s
Barney Bishop is concerned that business will have to furnish the
money. At the Smart Justice Summit, he explained: “We don’t have
an income tax in Florida, so the business community is going to have
to pay for this investment.”
Bishop says, “In addition to the extraordinary costs, the business
community knows this is an important issue because we’re going to
need these kids and adults coming out of the juvenile justice system
and adult prison system in order to create a thriving economy in this
state. To the extent that we change the way that we’re doing business, spend less money with a better outcome, that’s in the business
community’s interest.”
For a full list of presenters and their topics please visit our Web
site at www.collinscenter.org/?page=CSJSummit.

“Sometimes the worst dollar we spend,’’
Butterworth said, “pays for bricks and
mortar.”
Florida still will need prisons for violent felons, Butterworth said.
But spending $1 billion over the next decade to build new prisons for drug addicts and people with mental illness, he added,
is ``nuts.”
“There’s just got to be a better way.’’
Miami Herald, Jun. 24, 2009

10	

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

The emerging reform agenda

F

lorida must look at whom we incarcerate, for how long and for what offenses; and we
must address what we are doing to reduce the number of people who return to prison
after release.

The costs are too great and the consequences are too dear to take off the table any
sound idea that can reduce costs and increase public safety.
Such reforms are not unknown to the Florida Legislature, which has made some
progress in improving the justice system. In 2008, for example, it responded to data
showing an increase in incarceration for low-level crimes by changing the law.
Consider the following example:

The case of the unexpected prisoners
It was a mystery. Not the Sherlock Holmes sort of mystery that ends,
after careful, insightful deduction, with the culprit’s unveiling and swift
incarceration. This mystery began after the bad guy was sentenced
and the heavy, barred door had clanged shut behind him.
We just didn’t know who he was. Or why there were so many just like
him.
He cropped up in 2003, and again in 2004. For a while he had the
state of Florida stumped.
The state’s prison population had been relatively stable, but started
zooming upward, and the numbers made no sense. The increase in
2001 had been really small — 1.1 percent — and 2002 had been
similar — 2.1 percent. Now the number was 10.8 percent, 3,700
more criminals than last year. Where did they come from?
The researchers first checked the crime rate, but it had gone down
2.1 percent. Fewer crimes and more criminals? It made no sense. But
wait. Crime rates are calculated by counting “index crimes”: murder,
sexual offenses, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and
motor vehicle theft.
It is commonly thought that prison time — “hard time” – is reserved
for people who have committed that sort of crime, the kind that gets
the headlines. While it’s true that only a felony conviction buys a ticket
to state prison, what’s less well known is the wide range of activities
the Legislature has made into felonies.
The researchers who count the state’s prison inmates for the Legislature suddenly realized why the numbers were going up.
The steep increases fell in a category that had been so insignificant in
the past that it had been called “other.” The people filling the prisons
­— the mystery man and his cohorts ­— were in prison for having committed “other.”

February 2010

“Other” offenses as a percent of all offenses increased from 10 percent in 2002 to 11.3 percent in 2004. In 1996, only 7.6 percent of the
people sent off to prison had committed these “other” offenses.
The new criminals, it turned out, didn’t rape, murder or steal. The
team drilled down further. What offenses in this category called
“other” were driving the growth? They discovered that a significant
increase was due to the “other” offense of driving with a suspended
license. Mystery solved.
As one of these researchers, Kathleen McCharen, explained at the
Justice Summit, the Legislature had made changes in the law that
made the failure to meet various financial obligations (for instance,
court fines and child support) cause to suspend a driver’s license.
With more such failures punishable by license suspension, there were
more felony convictions for driving a third time with a suspended license. In 2003 the increase was 10.8 percent; in 2004, it was another
10.4 percent.
The Legislature quickly responded, passing a law that changed what
had been a felony for repeated convictions for driving with a suspended license to a misdemeanor for many whose convictions resulted
from the inability to make payments on obligations.

www.collinscenter.org

11

We know more about what works: Building on success

T

he Legislature’s thoughtful probing of data underlying the
“other” spike in incarceration and its taking action to address
the problem are precisely what is needed across the board. A policy
choice that seems wise at the time sometimes produces unintended
consequences and unanticipated costs emerge.
The choice to make “driving with a suspended license” a felony
was probably intended to deter and punish such driving, but when
lawmakers realized the cost to taxpayers and to drivers who could
not afford the obligations they had incurred, they took a second look.
Upon assessing the costs, they realized state prison time was not
the best answer to the problem. They then set out to make a needed
course correction and accomplished it quickly.

In 2008 and 2009, the
Florida Legislature passed
laws designed to slow
the rate of admissions
for low-level offenders
such as offenders driving
on suspended driver’s licenses. If Florida wants to
continue to reduce prison
admissions by reducing
recidivism and diverting
non-violent offenders from prison, then more systemic policy
changes are needed.
Senate Committee on Criminal Justice, Interim Report 2010312, Sept. 2009, “Simple Purchase or Possession of Cocaine
and Cannabis: Other States’ Sentencing Alternatives to Incarceration”

The importance of this kind of analysis is clear; it is not an
analysis that is limited to sentencing.

Progress thus far

W

hat follows are other examples of reforms that have had an
impact and that were illuminated at the Justice Summit. Some
were legislative changes, some were policy changes and some may
have been simply the result of changes in the political winds.
Over the past few years Florida has started to re-examine its correctional policies, and more broadly, its criminal justice policies. At
the urging of Governor Jeb Bush’s Ex-Offender Task Force, which
was appointed in 2005 to facilitate effective re-entry from prison
and thus reduce recidivism, the Department of Corrections revised
its mission from one of exclusively “custody and control” to address
re-entry as well, with strategies that we hope will help to reduce
recidivism.
The Legislature, DOC and local courts have made adjustments
in sentencing laws, policies and practices in addition to the one noted
in the case study above. Florida, the first state to create a drug court,
has expanded its use and developed other specialized courts as well.

Last session, the Legislature addressed the problem of nonviolent offenders being sent to prison even though they scored only
half the Criminal Punishment Code’s recommended score for state
incarceration. It also created more diversion options for the courts.
At the county level, without any change in the law, there has
been a decline in the use of year-and-a-day sentences that shift corrections costs from the counties to the state. (A one-year sentence or
less is served in a county jail; those with longer sentences are sent
to state prisons.) Last year, year-and-a-day sentencing was down by
29.5 percent, but one county’s decline was largely due to its having
switched from a year and a day to a year and a month. And over the

12	

New Florida Corrections Mission
To protect the public safety, to ensure the safety of Department
personnel, and to provide proper care and supervision of all offenders under our jurisdiction while assisting, as appropriate,
their re-entry into society.

past two years, we saw a reduction in prison admissions for technical
probation violations – down last year by 19.4 percent.
Faith- and character-based prisons have been developed and
expanded.
Bush’s Ex-Offender Task Force found that more than 40 percent
of the jobs in the Florida economy carried state-created employment
restrictions based on criminal histories. For example, the state had
required people with felony convictions to first get their civil rights
restored to work at a number of jobs and places of employment. The
Legislature and state agencies have revised some of these policies.
But many other types of restrictions persist.
Florida has not gone as far in making changes as states like
Texas, which averted the construction of prison beds by investing in
treatment and diversion programs. By partnering with the Pew Public
Safety Performance Project and the Council of State Government’s
Justice Reinvestment Initiative, Texas found a way to avoid $523
million in prison construction costs with a $241 million investment
in diversion strategies.

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

Finding and Recommendations
FINDING: Florida has not done a comprehensive review of
the laws and policies driving prison growth and leading to
poor outcomes such as high rates of recidivism, probation
violations, and juveniles graduating to the adult system.

Correctional Policy Advisory Council
The Correctional Policy Advisory Council is created within the
Legislature for the purpose of evaluating correctional policies,
justice reinvestment initatives, and laws affecting or applicable
to corrections, and for the purpose of making findings and
recommendations on changes to such policy, reinvestment
initiatives, and laws.

States like Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Nevada and Nebraska
are performing top-to-bottom analyses of the policies and practices
that have driven prison growth. They are designing policies to manage that growth, improve accountability, and reinvest a portion of the
resultant savings.

1

	 Recommendation (intermediate and long-term cost-	

	 savings): Ensure that the Correctional Policy Advisory
Council and its Justice Reinvestment Subcommittee are
up and running and receive the support they need. The
people attending the Justice Summit were unanimous on
this point.
We must assess Florida’s criminal justice system as other states
have done, and we must open our doors to the Council of State Governments and the Pew Public Safety Performance Project to steer us
toward successful evidence-based solutions and models.
FINDING: Florida has met with success in making sentencing and diversion reforms that have had an impact on
reducing the prison population.
But states such as Colorado, Iowa, Arkansas, Alabama, Ohio,
Kansas, Pennsylvania, Washington and Massachusetts have redefined
and reclassified criminal offenses and changed sentence lengths in
a manner that has not undermined public safety and has reduced
correctional spending. The National Conference of State Legislatures recently reported that, “In 2009, at least 12 states eliminated or
decreased prison sentences for theft or drug offenses.” Florida was
not among them. Both the Legislature’s Office of Program Policy
Analysis and Government Accountability and the Senate staff have
developed reform recommendations over the last few years that align
with this approach.

921,0019, F.S.; SB 2000 (2008)

2

	 Recommendation (intermediate and long-term cost-

	 savings): The Legislature should build on the kind of
immediate cost-saving sentencing reforms it enacted in
2008 and 2009.
This includes diverting nonviolent offenders from prison and
requiring courts to justify imprisonment of defendants with 22 points
or fewer under the Criminal Punishment Code. These measures have
already had a significant impact and should be expanded.
The Legislature should also revise prison penalties for low-level
drug offenses and theft offenses. Those in place now trigger state
incarceration for relatively small quantities of drugs and low dollar
amounts. Lawmakers should also revisit mandatory minimums and
gain time, through which prisoners can earn up to 10 days per month
off their sentences for good behavior. Under current law, a prisoner
must serve no less than 85 percent of his sentence, no matter how
much gain time he would have earned.

Last month, a coalition of business leaders and law enforcement
professionals called on the Legislature to find ways to avoid
adding still more prison beds to Florida’s $2.2 billion and growing correctional system.
Certainly sentencing reform and parole restoration must be high
up on the agenda if lawmakers want to get a handle on runaway
correctional costs.
Otherwise, the day will come when Florida taxpayers will find
themselves footing the bill for a system of geriatric prisons to
support aging inmates who pose little or no danger to society.
Editorial: Geriatric jails
Gainesville Sun, Jun. 29, 2009

February 2010

www.collinscenter.org

13

Finding and Recommendations
FINDING: Drug courts and other specialized non-adversarial courts for people with addictions, mental illness
and other disorders, along with other diversion strategies,
reduce correctional costs in the near term and, through
reduced recidivism, in the long term.

Florida needs better rehabilitation programs for offenders before
they leave prison, and support afterwards. Too many inmates
are discharged abruptly, lacking the education and life skills to
lead successful, crime-free lives.
The state’s criminal-justice policy has become too costly, in
ruined lives and strained budgets alike. Reform should focus
attention on incarcerating truly dangerous criminals, providing
meaningful rehabilitation for the 90 percent of inmates who will
eventually be released and diverting people who don’t belong in
prison.

Such strategies, however, must rely largely on local funding and
federal grants. Counties have a financial incentive to avoid local
costs by steering low-level offenders to the state prison system. To
correct this, states such as Pennsylvania, California, Wisconsin,
Ohio, and Illinois have reversed this trend by providing financial
incentives to local governments that handle these offenders locally,
thus reducing prison admissions.

3

	 Recommendation (intermediate cost-savings):
	 Address the significant county-by-county sentencing disparities reported by the Legislature’s Office of
Economic and Demographic Research , especially those
involving people convicted of low-level offenses. Consider
shifting the financial incentives currently in place for state
incarceration toward local supervision and treatment.

4

	 Recommendation (intermediate cost-savings):
	 The Legislature should support the expansion of
drug courts and split sentencing, in which drug treatment
commences in prison and continues upon release under
drug court supervision.
FINDING: Work release costs far less than institutional
incarceration, but its use is far too limited.
It costs just $26.16 per day to house an inmate at a state work
release center and $20.13 per day at a contracted center. By contrast,
the average cost of “hard beds” in prison facilities is $52 per day.
The 50 percent savings of work release is enhanced by a DOC policy
requiring that 45 percent of the inmate’s earnings go to reimbursing
the center.

A rising voice for change
Daytona Beach News-Journal, Jun. 28, 2009

the Legislature will order all work release inmates back to prison.
They also argue that if more than 4 percent of inmates are in work
release centers, the risk to public safety increases.
In FY 07-08, 64.5 percent of inmates were released upon the
expiration of their sentences and received no supervision in the community. By contrast, all inmates on work release in the final months
of their sentences are supervised.
The risk to the community during the few months of supervised
work release is actually less than it would be upon release with no
supervision.

5

	 Recommendation (intermediate cost-savings):
	 The Legislature should increase the number of work
release and other less costly non-institutional prison beds
and decrease the number of more costly institutional
beds. It should also overrule the DOC policies of holding
one prison bed in reserve for every work release beds and
capping work release at 4 percent of the inmate population.

Despite the cost savings and recommendations to expand work
release, the Department of Corrections, by policy, requires a “hard”
prison bed for every work release bed. It also has a policy that no
more than 4 percent of the prison population can be in work release.
Corrections officials are concerned that if a major incident occurs,

The Legislature needs to consider alternatives to building prison
after prison. It might save money. It might save some of us from
being future victims of crime. It might even salvage some lives.
Howard Troxler
Less crime is better than more prisons,
St. Petersburg Times, Jul. 15, 2009

14	

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

Finding and Recommendations
FINDING: OPPAGA has found that faith and characterbased prisons improve institutional safety, achieve lower
recidivism rates and attract more volunteers.
Wakulla’s rate, for example, is 15 percent lower. Yet these
more effective prisons have a waiting list of 8,890 inmates for the
institution-based programs and 1,600 for the dorm-based programs.

6

	 Recommendation (intermediate cost-savings):
	 Faith and character-based prisons, proven to reduce recidivism at no greater cost, should be expanded to accommodate more of the 10,000 inmates on the
waiting list.
FINDING: Corrections does not have the ability to provide
sufficient substance abuse or mental health treatment to
meet the needs of inmates.
In 2008, of the 160,000 drug arrests made, 69,000 were for
felony drug crimes. 58,045 of those defendants were found guilty
and 10,735 of those found guilty were sent to state prison. Drug
crime convictions accounted for 30 percent of the 41,054 sent to
prison in FY07-08. But the percent of the prison population needing
drug treatment is much higher because many needing treatment were
convicted of other types of offenses. Over two-thirds of Florida’s
inmates need substance abuse treatment but there are drug treatment
slots for only 2 percent of the inmates.
In Florida, about 18.1 percent of the inmates receive ongoing
mental health care. As Judge Steven Leifman (Chair of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit of Florida’s Mental Health Committee) has pointed
out, “We have 125,000 people who are arrested every year in this
state who have such a severe mental illness that at the time of their
arrest they need acute mental health treatment.

“The fastest growing mental health dollar is not in our community mental health system, it’s in our forensic state hospital, which has
seen a dollar growth of 72 percent over the last eight years while our
community and we spend a quarter billion dollars a year on forensic
hospitals for the purpose of restoring competency so they can take a
plea.”

7

	 Recommendation (intermediate cost-savings):
	 Enact legislation that will divert mentally ill and
addicted individuals from the criminal justice system to
community-based treatment.
FINDING: We are not clear about what prisons are being
built right now which are underway? Under what contracts?
With enactment and implementation of the reforms suggested in
this report and recommended by the Correctional Policy Advisory
Council that will be made later, we can reverse the course of prison
growth while improving public safety. Slowing prison growth may
result in mothballing prisons or not completing the construction of
prisons in the pipeline. However, current reporting does not provide
the information the Legislature needs to take appropriate action.

8

	 Recommendation (intermediate cost-savings): The
	 Legislature should require the Department of Corrections and the Department of Management Services,
as appropriate, to report on each prison and prison
facility (both private and public) that is in the pipeline.
	

The reports should include such meaningful information as
the total cost, whether it will be paid for by general funds or bonds,
the stage of construction (e.g., site selection, architectural drawings,
water and sewage plans, groundbreaking, construction, staffing),
contracts let and anticipated, and the expected dates of completion
and operation.

The Legislature should “put more dollars
on the front end of the system in diverting
people. If we can divert some of the people
on the front end that don’t really need to be
going to prison but need mental health, substance abuse, or other services, we could
save money and produce better results.
Unlike several decades ago, we actually
know now what works, and if we implement programs that the research proves are
effective, we can spend fewer dollars to get a better result. The
people that we ought to be putting into prison are those that are
the most dangerous to society. For those that are not a danger
and their crime is not significant, we ought to divert them and
address the issues that they have.”
Barney T. Bishop, III
President of Associated Industries of Florida

February 2010

www.collinscenter.org

15

The time for change is now

T

he Justice Summit taught us that we must move beyond the simplistic descriptions of “hard on crime” and “soft on crime.”
It is time to be smart about crime:

“It used to be that the only issue for
state policymakers was, ‘How do I
demonstrate that I’m tough on crime?’”
Gelb said. “They’re starting to ask a
very different question, which is, ‘How
do I get taxpayers a better return on
their investment in public safety?’”

n Smart by being cost-efficient.
n Smart by adopting policies and practices that are supported by
sound evidence.
n Smart by putting our resources into protecting public safety
by focusing on those who have done us real harm and those at
great risk of harming again.
n Smart by recognizing that the great majority of ex-offenders
return to their communities; we must support and fund the key
programs that lead to success upon release from prison.
This discussion is fundamentally about public safety, about the
wise use of limited taxpayer dollars and about the long-term sustainability of Florida and our communities. This is not an entirely new
set of ideas. Many reading this document have toiled in the fields of
justice for decades and it is upon their shoulders we stand. What is
different is that the cast of those calling for reform has broadened
significantly, including many from the business community and more
politically conservative ranks. What has also changed is the urgency
– now magnified by Florida’s severe fiscal challenges.

16	

He said state leaders across the
country are recognizing that prisons
are a government spending program.
As such, they should be subject to a
cost-benefit test.
“When you can put together a package of policy options that’s a
win/win; less crime and lower costs. It’s not a slam dunk,” Gelb
said, but “it’s very hard to ignore, especially when the economy
is in such trouble.”
Adam Gelb
Project Director of the Pew Public Safety and
Performance Project, speaking at the Justice Summit
The News Service of Florida, Nov. 18, 2009

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

The time for change is now
Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute recently said
“that Florida is one of the states facing difficulty going forward following a 20-month national recession that wreaked ‘an astonishing
period of economic misery.’ ”
We can no longer rely on gathering revenue from people moving
to the state or the resulting construction booms. An aging population
will put greater demands on state services. The point? There are no
funds in the coffers to build $100 million prisons, and citizen priorities are shifting.
Public opinion polling reflects this shift. In a late 2008 Quinnipiac poll of Florida voters, only 2 percent of the people queried
named crime as the most important issue facing Florida. And that
was a 60 percent drop from two years before. Nationally, the picture
is the same.
That is why getting “smart” on crime and using criminal justice
resources more judiciously is gaining such traction, particularly
among Republicans, who provided significant leadership support for
the passage of the Second Chance Act in Congress.
More than three years ago, the New York Times Magazine wrote
about this shift in public opinion and the new leadership emerging on
criminal justice reform, in a piece called, “The Right Has a Jailhouse
Conversion.”

I’m a conservative Republican, I work
with Prison Fellowship. Chuck Colson,
our founder, is a conservative republican. Mark Earley, our president, was
a former attorney general of Virginia.
All of us have great law and order
credentials.
We’re trying to change the whole political ballgame. You haven’t seen it yet,
but Richard Viguerie, the godfather of
the conservative movement and direct
mail; David Keene, of the American Conservative Union, Gene
Meyer of the Federalist Society; Tony Blankley former editorial page editor of the Washington Times, are all working with
me to mobilize conservative support for these types of reforms
and basically saying ‘we’ve made a mistake, we’ve fed this iron
triangle of building prisons that is eating our budgets alive and
frankly is not conservative.
Prisons are for people we’re afraid of, and it is a waste to fill
them with people we’re merely mad at.
Pat Nolan
Vice President of Prison Fellowship, speaking at the Justice
Summit

“Increasingly,” the author noted, “Republicans are talking about
helping ex-prisoners find housing, drug treatment, mental-health
counseling, job training and education.
“They’re also reconsidering some of the more punitive sentencing laws for drug possession. The members of this nascent movement include a number of politicians not previously known for their
attention to prisoners’ rights … Referring to mandatory-minimum
sentences, Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina, whose
district is home to Bob Jones University, declared on the floor of the
House: “I voted for them in the past. I will not do it again.”
For Florida, it is time to rethink thirty-year-old policies that may
have served the state well in their time. But their time has passed. We
know more now. We must be evidence-driven and fiscally conservative. Adding prisons in a time of fiscal austerity is not only unsustainable, it confounds common sense.

February 2010

www.collinscenter.org

17

Looking to the future

A

merica has always been the refuge of people seeking second
chances. Whether they were fleeing discrimination and
abuse, were victims of dictators or were simply idealists,
people coming to America have shared the vision of John Winthrop
as he expressed it in his 1630 sermon to fellow dreamers sailing
toward Massachusetts ­— “We shall be as a city upon a hill,” he said.
“The eyes of all people are upon us.”
He called on his fellow passengers to realize this vision with a
simple injunction: “There are two rules whereby we are to walk one
towards another: Justice and Mercy.”
Because of the fiscal crisis facing the state, the focus of this
Report is on short-term, pragmatic, common sense solutions that can
immediately save the state money and improve public safety. We do
not discuss justice or mercy in this report. Not directly.
But just as they guided Winthrop’s passengers, the two rules of
justice and mercy have guided this work – not just here in Florida,
but across the nation.
Once the nation’s prisons and jails filled up with about two
million people, once we started seeing more than 650,000 Americans coming home unprepared from prison each year, and once we
noticed that almost a quarter of the U.S. population has a criminal
record, Winthrop’s two rules began to get some attention. Justice,
yes. Mercy, yes. That’s what the second chance is all about.

18	

Among our recommendations, none is more important than the
first, which calls for the Correctional Policy Advisory Council and its
Justice Reinvestment Subcommittee to be established, as set forth in
Senate Bill 2000, passed in 2008. This Council will provide a forum
for the larger, broader discussion of the policies driving growth
and the policies that advance or deter successful reintegration after
prison. And we will ask, do our policies adhere to Winthrop’s two
rules?
And as we urge the convening of that Council, we will also
work to expand further the coalition that will champion the recommendations contained in this report, which are aimed at these same
objectives.

Such ambitious reforms won’t be easy to accomplish, but today’s fragmented system is not doing the job, and its costs are
incalculable as the revolving door never stops.
Switching the emphasis from incarceration to rehabilitation of
nonviolent offenders makes financial and humane good sense.
That is what smart public policy is all about.
Our Opinion: Try again
Mental health, prison reforms are a must;
Tallahassee Democrat, Jul. 12, 2009

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

Looking to the future
Going forward, we will address Florida’s myriad challenges.
We are still struggling with adult corrections and the reintegration of
people coming home from prison, which was much-discussed at the
Summit.
We will address the barriers to re-entry examined by Bush’s
Ex-Offender Task Force and later, the Department of Corrections’
Re-entry Advisory Council. We will especially address the employment barriers that would be lifted through the law and policy changes
these groups have recommended.
We will look at juvenile justice policies and practices that often
lead to the evisceration of youthful promise and then later, to adult
crime, to incarceration and to further cost to taxpayers.
We recognize that strategic planning and reform are seldom
coordinated across this “corrections arc” — the continuum from
juvenile issues in schools and communities to adult re-entry issues.
We must address the entire continuum if transformative change is to
occur.
We are impressed and encouraged by the fact of business assuming leadership in making the case for justice reform. Business leadership has made the case more compelling. We will work to deepen
and broaden its engagement. We will also continue to convene the
Coalition for Smart Justice Steering Committee and host its website.
This year, we have made much progress. From engaging the
business community in this work to the issuance of the Letter to the
Legislature, Governor and People of Florida, to the Justice Summit,
and now this report, we have hit our stride. But there is much yet to
be done.
There is no issue being debated in Congress or statehouses
across the country that has bridged partisan and ideological divides
the way criminal justice reform has over the past six years. This
presents an unprecedented opportunity for us. We can rethink failed
criminal justice policies and correct them and enact reforms that will
not only make our communities safer by finally becoming smart on
crime, but we can work to make the ideal of the second chance real.
And we can create a system that reflects the justice and mercy that
John Winthrop promised almost five hundred years ago.

Two Conservatives Converse
on Criminal Justice Reform
Ross Douthat: The violent crime rate
has been cut by nearly 40 percent
since its early-1990s peak. The
murder rate is at its lowest point since
Lyndon Johnson was president.
Yet the costs of this success have
been significant: 2.3 million Americans are behind bars. Our prison
system tolerates gross abuses,
including rape on a disgraceful scale.
Poor communities are warped by
the absence of so many fathers and
brothers. And every American community is burdened by the
expense of building and staffing enough prisons to keep up
with our swelling convict population.
Mass incarceration was a successful public-policy tourniquet.
But now that we’ve stopped the bleeding, it can’t be a permanent solution.
Above all, it requires conservatives to take ownership of prison
reform, and correct the system they helped build. Any successful reform requires the support of the law-and-order party.
Eli Lehrer: We can’t go back to the
“bad old days” of sky-high crime
rates and short sentences for heinous
crimes, but the country would be
equally wrong to believe that the current policies of locking 2.3 million people in poorly run prisons is copacetic.
In fact, most people who have given
serious thought to the problems of
America’s current prison system
agree on roughly the same new set
of policies: work to monitor some
offenders more closely in the community rather than locking them up, fund drug treatment,
keep prisons themselves safe, and encourage prisoners to
work and get educated.
The problem is that politicians across the political spectrum just
want to be seen as “tough on crime” and are unwilling to bend
at all even when they know that other policies might be better
for the public.
Ross Douthat, writing for the New York Times, is the columnist who recently replaced Bill Kristol as the paper’s resident
conservative. Ross also writes for, among others, the National
Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard. His
comments are followed by a response by Lehrer published in
the National Review. Lehrer is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He has been with the Heritage Foundation and
was Bill Frist’s speechwriter.
Dec. 14, 2009

February 2010

www.collinscenter.org

19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Collins Center for Public Policy’s Board of Trustees, in particular its Chairman, Parker Thomson, and
its President, Rod Petrey have sustained Collins’ commitment to justice reform, backed by a history of more than
twenty years of leadership on this issue.
To each of the additional Trustees, tremendous appreciation and gratitude is extended to:
n Jeffrey Bartel, Florida Power and Light
n Jane Collins Aurell
n Peter L. Bermont, Morgan Keegan
n Barney T. Bishop III, President & Chief Executive Officer, Associated Industries of Florida
n Betty Castor, Dr. Kiran C. Patel Center for Global Solutions
n LeRoy Collins, Jr., Executive Director, Florida Department of Veterans’ Affairs
n LeRoy Collins, III, Daniel Risk Mitigation
n J. Allison DeFoor, II, Prison Chaplain
n Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida
n Jose Greer, MD, Physician and Assistant Dean, University of Miami School of Medicine
n Dr. William (Bill) Law, President, Tallahassee Community College
n Clarence McKee, Ruden McCloskey Consulting
n Eduardo J. Padron Ph.D., President, Miami-Dade Community College
n E. Thom Rumberger, Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell
Trustees Emeritus
n J. Clint Brown, Esq., Of Counsel, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A.
n Charles J. Zwick
n Honorable Bob Martinez, Senior Policy Advisor, Holland & Knight LLP

Board Vice Chairman, Allison DeFoor, and member Barney T.
Bishop III are thanked for their vision and their success in bringing
the voice of business to this work and for providing unwavering support and leadership in advocating for justice reform.
Steve Seibert, Senior Vice President and Director of Statewide
Policy at the Collins Center, has been leading the work at Collins
and the Coalition for Smart Justice and organized the 2009 Justice
Summit. Vice President for Justice Initiatives, April Young, PhD has
deepened Collins’ vision for reform and leads all the Collins Center’s
initiatives dealing with justice reform. Esther Widener, executive
assistant to Mr. Seibert, added her graphics work and organizational
abilities to the summit. Mark Fontaine, the Executive Director of
the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association, and his excellent
staff, provided superb meeting management for the Justice Summit.
Florence Snyder, attorney and counselor at law provided strategic
guidance.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation and Senior Associate Ira Barbell
have been supporting prisoner reentry and criminal justice reform
work in Florida since 2005 when Casey first funded Governor Bush’s
Ex-Offender Task Force. Barbell’s faith in the possibilities of reform
in Florida has been remarkable.

20	

The Smart Justice Coalition Steering Committee, formed in early
2009, was a loosely-knit but highly committed group of advocates
for rational justice reform. This Committee proposed and helped
write the Open Letter, the Strategic Objectives document and helped
plan and implement the Justice Summit. The gifts of their time and
talents are greatly appreciated. Its members include:
n Barney T. Bishop III, President and CEO, Associated Industries of Florida
n Tony Carvajal, Executive Vice President, Florida Chamber
Foundation
n Gail D. Cordial, Executive Director, Florida Partners in Crisis,
Inc.
n Allison DeFoor, II, Prison chaplain
n Mark P. Fontaine, Executive Director, Florida Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Association
n Vicki Lopez Lukis, Vice Chair, Florida Department of Corrections Reentry Advisory Council and former Chairman of the
Governor’s Ex-Offender Task Force
n James R. McDonough, former Secretary, Florida Department
of Corrections
n Ellen Piekalkiewicz, Executive Director, Florida Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Corporation

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
n Steven M. Seibert, Senior VP and Director of Policy, Collins
Center for Public Policy
n Florence Snyder, Attorney and Counselor at Law
n April Young, PhD, Vice President, Justice Initiatives, Collins
Center for Public Policy
The Open Letter to the Governor, Legislature and People of
Florida set the stage for rethinking Florida’s criminal justice system,
stating, “At a time when Florida is in serious recession and facing
a deep state budget crisis, the $2+ billion budget of the Florida Department of Corrections has grown larger; and without reform, that
budget will continue to grow at a pace that crowds out other missioncritical state services such as education, human service needs, and
environmental protection…” In addition to the members of Smart
Justice Coalition Steering Committee signing it, the Collins Center
wishes to thank the other leaders who signed it and for their support:
n S. Curtis Kiser, Chairman, LeRoy Collins Institute
n Chris Holley, Executive Director, Florida Association of
Counties
n D. Michael McCarron, Executive Director, Florida Catholic
Conference
n David Murrell, Executive Director, Florida Police Benevolent
Association
n Richard Doran, Former Florida Attorney General, 2002-2003
n Bernie DeCastro, CEO, Florida Ex-Offender Reentry
Coalition
n Nathaniel P. Reed, Founder, 1000 Friends of Florida
n Tom Lee, Former President, Florida Senate, 2004-2006
n Judith A. Evans, Executive Director, National Alliance on
Mental Illness, Inc. (NAMI Florida, Inc.)
n Jim Smith, Former Florida Attorney, General, 1979-1987
n Tom Slade, Past Chairman, Republican Party of Florida,
1993-1999
n Allan G. Bense, Former Speaker, Florida House of Representatives, 2004-2006
n Kenneth “Buddy” MacKay, Governor, State of Florida, 1998;
Lt. Governor, 1991-1998
n Michael Sittig, Executive Director, Florida League of Cities
n Andrew J. Vissicchio, Jr. K.M., The Sovereign Military Order
of Malta, American Association
n Robert Butterworth, Former Florida Attorney General,
1987-2002
n Martha W. Barnett, Partner, Holland & Knight
n John M. McKay, Former President, Florida Senate, 2000-2002

February 2010

The 2009 Justice Summit’s success is largely due to the incredible
roster of presenters we were able to bring together in Tampa. Parker
Thomson and Steve Seibert set out the context of the event – exploding costs and a new set of players seeking to rein in those costs.
Former Secretary of Corrections Jim McDonough introduced, the
Vice President of Prison Fellowship, Pat Nolan, who came to Tampa
from his home in Virginia to provide an overview of the reform
efforts across the country. We not only appreciate the great sacrifice
Pat made to come but his sustained passion for justice reform. We
also want to thank Secretary McDonough for continuing his commitment to a just and humane corrections system that he worked so hard
to achieve during his tenure as Secretary.
Our thanks go out to Representative Nick Thompson (R-Fort
Myers) for introducing fellow member of the Board of Directors
of the Council of State Government’s Justice Center, Texas’ Representative Jerry Madden (R-Plano), who shared how Texas was
able to dramatically slow prison growth, save money and improve
outcomes. Thanks, Jerry, for showing us both how essential reform is
and how to get it done.
The author of this report, Linda Mills, told the story of Florida’s
prison growth and successful efforts to tame that growth, along with
Allison DeFoor and Kathleen O. McCharen, Criminal Justice
Estimating Conference, Office of Economic and Demographic
Research. Kathleen’s research proved invaluable to this report. The
author deeply appreciates her cooperative and collaborative spirit
and the time she spent providing data and analysis prior to and after
the summit.
We thank Gail Cordial for her introduction of Adam Gelb, Director
of Public Safety Performance Project at the Pew Center on the States,
who presented a revealing picture of how Florida’s justice system
was performing compared to other states. Thank you Adam for your
powerful work and we wish you continued success in transforming
justice systems across the nation. We also thank Brian Elderbroom,
Senior Associate at the Center on the States, with whom we collaborated on Summit presentations.
Thank you to Philip Bacon, Collins’ Vice President for Neighborhood & Regional Initiatives, who has brought neighborhood rebuilding perspective to our justice work. Phil introduced April Young,
PhD, who put the current justice reform agenda into the larger context of the continuum from childhood poverty, to the juvenile justice
system, to the adult corrections system to reentry.
We thank Hon. Irene Sullivan, Circuit Judge, 6th Judicial Circuit (Juvenile Judge, United Family Court) for her introduction of
Department of Juvenile Justice Secretary Frank Peterman, who
we thank for sharing his department’s initiatives with the summit
participants.

www.collinscenter.org

21

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank long-time prison volunteer, Henree Martin, Owner,
Developers Realty & Investment Properties, Inc., and member of
the Florida Department of Corrections’ Re-Entry Advisory Council,
for her introduction of Department of Corrections Secretary Walt
McNeil and Department of Children and Families Secretary George
Sheldon.Thank you Secretary McNeil and Secretary Sheldon for
your informative presentations.
The business panel was a highlight of the Summit. With Allison
DeFoor moderating, Barney Bishop, President and CEO, Associated Industries of Florida, Tony Carvajal, Executive Vice President,
Florida Chamber Foundation; Dominic Calabro, President and
CEO, Florida TaxWatch; John McKibbon, CEO and Chairman,
McKibbon Hotel Group, Inc.; and Joseph Capitano, President,
Radiant Oil Company of Tampa, Inc. delighted Summit participants
with a candid conversation about why business wants to reform the
justice system. Thanks so much to each of you.
Thank you to Ellen Piekalkiewicz for introducing and to Hon. Janet
Ferris for moderating the panel on the view of the justice system
from the courts. To Hon. Melanie May, Judge, 4th District Court of
Appeal, Hon. Bernie McCabe, State Attorney, 6th Judicial Circuit;
Hon. Nancy Daniels, Public Defender, 2nd Judicial Circuit; and
Hon. Steve Leifman, Judge, Special Advisor on Criminal Justice
and Mental Health, we extend our sincere appreciation for your own
reform efforts over the years and for illuminating the challenges we
still face.

Special thanks go out to Senator Paula Dockery (R-Lakeland),
Senator Arthenia Joyner (D-Tampa), Representative Audrey
Gibson (D-Jacksonville), Representative Perry Thurston (DPlantation) and Trina Kramer, Staff Director, House Committee on
Homeland and Public Safety for attending the Summit and sharing
their insights.
We also thank The Florida Channel for filming and streaming the
summit, allowing many more Floridians to see the proceedings.
This report would look nothing like it does without the help of all
the people who provided and discussed their data and research with
the author. Among them are Amanda Cannon, Staff Director, Senate Committee on Criminal Justice; Scott Clodfelter, Staff, Senate Committee on Criminal Justice; Tim Sadberry, Staff Director
Senate Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations;
Rashada Houston, staff at Legislature’s Office of Program Policy
Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA). Thanks so
much to each of you.
TaxWatch played a critical role as well. We thank President & CEO
Dominic Calabro and his staff Deborah Harris, Chief of Staff,
Robert Weissert, JD, Director of Communications & External
Relations and Special Counsel to the President & CEO, and Balazs
Khoor, Research Analyst for the many lively hours of productive
policy discussions that contributed to this report.

Ralph Martin, JD, drew a standing ovation after his luncheon
speech. Ralph has been working on surmounting the many barriers
to success that people with criminal records face even before he was
appointed to Governor Bush’s Ex-Offender Task Force. Thank you,
Ralph, for your determination and for sharing your deeply personal
and inspirational story.
Thanks go to Emery Gainey, Director, Law Enforcement Relations,
Victim Services, and Criminal Justice Programs, Florida Office of
the Attorney General, and moderator Mark Fontaine for your panel
of people working in the field to improve the system and achieve better reentry outcomes. Thank you to Chet Bell, CEO, Stewart-Marchman-Act Behavioral Healthcare; Hon. R. J. Larizza, State Attorney,
7th Judicial Circuit; Donna Wyche, Orlando Central Receiving Facility; Captain Miguel Pagan, Orange County Sheriff’s Office; and
Gordon Bass, Director, Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office Department of
Corrections, for your work and for sharing your achievements at the
Summit.
Thank you, Kevin Gay, President, Operation New Hope, Inc., for
your spirited introduction of your friend, Vicki Lopez Lukis, Vice
Chairman of DOC Reentry Advisory Council and former Chairman of Governor Bush’s Ex-Offender Task Force, who gave the last
presentation of the Summit – a rousing call for everyone to move
together in unison to support our new allies and partners in the business community in leading our new effort in securing meaningful
justice reform. Thank you, Vicki, for your passion, zeal and commitment to reform.

22	

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

ENDNOTES
1

CS for SB 1722 (2009)

National Conference of State Legislatures, “Top 10 issues of 2010:
Third year that fiscal conditions will dominate legislative sessions,” December 17, 2009.

20

Criminal Justice Estimating Conference, 9/29/09, Office of Economic
and Demographic Research, The Florida Legislature; Spreadsheets provided to the author from Criminal Justice Trends.

2

Florida Dept. of Corrections, End-of-Month Florida Prison Populations
by Facility, October 2009.

3

Criminal Justice Estimating Conference, 9/29/09, Office of Economic
and Demographic Research, The Florida Legislature; Spreadsheets provided to the author from Criminal Justice Trends.

21

OPPAGA, Higher Priority Should Be Given to Transition Services to
Reduce Inmate Recidivism, February 2007.

22

Florida Demographic Estimating Conference, February 2009 and the
Florida Demographic Database, August 2009; Florida Census Day Population: 1970-2030; Office of Economic and Demographic Research, The
Florida Legislature.

4

23

Florida Dept. of Corrections Annual Report, 2007-2008.

OPPAGA, Faith- and Character-Based Prison Initiative Yields Institutional Benefits; Effect on Recidivism Modest, Report No. 09-38, October
2009.

24
5

Supra at fn 1.

Pew Center on the States, One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections, March 2009, at 17-21.

6

Stemen, Don, Reconsidering Incarceration, New Directions for Reducing
Crime, Vera Institute of Justice, January 2007.

7

Criminal Justice Estimating Conference, 9/29/09, Office of Economic
and Demographic Research, The Florida Legislature; Spreadsheets provided to the author from Criminal Justice Trends.

25

26
8

Florida Dept. of Corrections Annual Reports, 1995-96 and 2007-08.

Florida Dept. of Corrections Annual Report, 2007-2008.

Remarks of Pam Denmark, Deputy Assistance Secretary of Reentry,
Florida Dept. of Corrections, CMCJ / Pew Advanced Journalism Seminar,
10/31/09.

27

Christensen, Dan, “Hallandale Beach grandma sent to jail — and forgotten,” Miami Herald, January 12, 2010.
9

Senator Jim Webb’s Floor Speech to Introduce “The National Criminal
Justice Commission Act of 2009,” March 26, 2009.

10

28

Id.

Kallestad, Brent, “Recession over, but not to some Florida lawmakers,”
The Associated Press, January 15, 2010.

29

Pew Center on the States, One in 31: The Long Reach of American
Corrections, March 2009, at 1.

11

Suellentrop, Chris, “The Right Has a Jailhouse Conversion, NY Times
Magazine, December 24, 2006.

30
12

Florida Times Union, 5/1/08; DOC Press Release, 6/11/08.

Pew Center on the States, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008,
February 2008, at 8.

13

14

Florida Dept. of Corrections Annual Report, 2007-2008.

Criminal Justice Estimating Conference, 9/29/09, Office of Economic
and Demographic Research, The Florida Legislature; Spreadsheets
provided to the author from Criminal Justice Trends. In 2001, prisons had
grown by fewer than 800 inmates in 2001 (1.1%), and by just over 1,500
inmates in 2002 (2.1%).

15

Id. From 2002, the crime rate fell from nearly 5,400 index crimes per
100,000 Floridians in 2002 to 4,855 in 2004.

16

17

CS/SB 1988.

Hillsborough County started sending a significant number of people to
prison with year and a month sentences in November 2007; by January
2008, the County had more than halved its year and day sentences, but
quadrupled its year and a month sentences. Criminal Justice Estimating
Conference, 9/29/09, Office of Economic and Demographic Research,
The Florida Legislature.

18

19

Id.

February 2010

www.collinscenter.org

23

For more information contact:
Thomas M. Arthur
Director of Collins News and Information Services
727-420-2301

Miami | Tallahassee | Sarasota | St. Petersburg
www.collinscenter.org
24	

www.collinscenter.org

February 2010

Research Report
December 2010

Florida TIL< Wateil Centerfor Jllstiee Perforlllallee (lIId Aeeolllltability
106 N. Bronough 51. • Tallahassee, FL 32301 • (850) 222-5052 • FAX (850) 222-7476
This report was initially released electronically af 'rI'Ww.Florida'laxWatch.Qrg

Report and Recommendations of the Florida TaxWatch Government
Cost Savings Task Force on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Reform
Introduction 1
For the last year, Florida TaxWatch and the Government Cost Savings Task Force have given
special attention to the rising costs of Florida’s criminal justice system, especially the state
Department of Corrections.
With a prison population of over a hundred thousand costing taxpayers $2.4 billion this year, we
can no longer afford the broken policy choices that have led to this out of control growth without
making our communities any safer or offenders more accountable.
We recognize that a myriad of factors are driving these rising costs and thus a multi-pronged
approach is essential. It is not enough to home in on reducing recidivism through new prisoner
reentry strategies. It is not enough to reform probation and reduce the number of people sent to
prison on technical probation violations. It is not enough to address the growing share of the
prison population doing very short-term sentences. It is not enough to look at sentence length or
scale back some crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. And it is not enough to revisit our
release policies.
Furthermore, Florida spent more $400 million on the Department of Juvenile Justice in FY201011. In total, the FY 2010-11 Florida state budget appropriated more than $2.7 billion to the
Departments of Corrections and Juvenile Justice and authorized more than 34,000 FTEs.
All of these policies – and many more – must be addressed if we are to succeed in saving tax
dollars, improving public safety and holding offenders more accountable.
We know that the 24 cost-saving recommendations set forth here do not exhaust all the
possibilities. That is why Florida needs the contributions that an expert, data-driven criminal
justice and corrections commission could add to the deliberations about justice reform. And that
is why creating such a body is our first recommendation.
1

This Florida TaxWatch Research Report was originally published as Chapter 2 of the Report and
Recommendations of the Florida TaxWatch Government Cost Savings Task Force for Fiscal Year 2011-12,
December 2010. The primary author of this Research Report is Linda Mills, Esq., Florida TaxWatch consultant
and Presdient of Policy Catalysts LLC (Chicago, IL), with assistance and direction from Robert Weissert, Esq.,
Florida TaxWatch Vice President for Research and General Counsel. The publisher and editor of this report is
Dominic M. Calabro, President and CEO of Florida TaxWatch.

Improving taxpayer value, citizen understanding, and government accountability
Exhibit 9

Table of Contents
Report……………………………………………………………………………………………p. 29 - 44
Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………p. 45

Section I: Big Picture Recommendations
1.

Create a commission to do a top-to-bottom review of the Criminal Justice
System and Corrections ......................................................................................................... 18

2.

Establish an independent oversight body over the Departments of Corrections
and Juvenile Justice ............................................................................................................... 19

3.

Develop risk / needs assessment and cost-analysis tools to be used at the time
of sentencing (Missouri model) ............................................................................................. 21

Section II: Recommendations Related to Sentencing People Convicted of
Low-level/Short-term Sentences
4. Require written justification for state prison sentences given to individuals with low
sentencing scores – 44 or less (currently 22 or less) ..................................................................... 23
5.

Incentivize localities for reducing their rates of state incarceration and increasing
local alternatives .................................................................................................................... 24

6.

Align Florida’s marijuana and cocaine possession laws with other Texas and
other similar states ................................................................................................................. 26

7.

Update value thresholds for property felonies....................................................................... 27

8.

Amend the driving with a suspended license law to reduce the penalty from
felony to misdemeanor when the reason for the suspension is inability to pay
a financial obligation ............................................................................................................. 28

9.

Expand electronic monitoring as an alternative to state prison sentences ............................. 29

10. Expand adult post-adjudicatory drug courts .......................................................................... 30
Section III: Recommendations Related to Incarceration, Release, Supervision, and Reducing
Recidivism
11. Institute adult post-incarceration drug courts ........................................................................ 31
12. Increase the maximum gain time accrual allowed................................................................. 32
13. Authorize the possibility of parole for certain elderly offenders........................................... 33
14. Expand prison work release programs................................................................................... 35

15. Expand evidence-based prison-based programs that reduce recidivism .............................. 36
A. Expand evidence-based substance abuse treatment ........................................................... 37
B. Expand evidence-based mental health treatment ............................................................... 37
C. Expand evidence-based literacy, education and vocational training ................................. 38
D. Expand life management skills training ............................................................................. 38
E. Expand faith- and character-based prisons ........................................................................ 39
F. Help inmates apply for Medicaid, Social Security Income, and Veterans
benefits prior to release ..................................................................................................... 39
16. Review and revise state-created employment restrictions based on criminal records .......... 39
17. Expand the Florida Accountability Initiative for Responsible (FAIR) Probation ................. 41
18. Expand Veterans Courts ........................................................................................................ 42
19. Reduce costs of inmate hospitalization (in non-DOC hospitals)........................................... 42
Section IV: Recommendations Related to Juveniles in the Justice System
20. Comprehensively review and implement Blueprint Commission recommendations ........... 43
21. Study the effects of barring commitment of misdemeanants to state custody ...................... 44
22. Expand the Redirection program to avoid custodial care of juveniles .................................. 44
23. Expand the use of juvenile civil citations .............................................................................. 45
24. Increase operational efficiencies and public safety by aligning the average length
of stay by delinquents with best practices in residential facilities ......................................... 46

Background – Florida’s stunning corrections growth
Over the last forty years, Florida, like states across the nation, made a series of policy decisions
that have driven a dramatic increase in its prison population, which reached 102,440 inmates on
September 30, 2010, 2 up from 33,681 on June 30, 1988. 3 Inevitably, the costs associated with
incarceration have increased just as dramatically. In 1988, the Corrections budget was $502
million; in FY2010-11 it had jumped to nearly $2.4 billion.

2

Criminal Justice Estimating Conference, 10/19/09, Office of Economic and Demographic Research, The Florida
Legislature
3

Florida Department of Corrections. Available at: www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/timeline/1988-1990.html (last retrieved
December 6, 2010).

Florida PopUlation growth and prison popUlation growth

Florida Population

198o

199°

2000

2°°9

9,74 6 ,9 61

12,938,07 1

'5,9 82, 82 4

18,537,969

'97°"9 80

'9 8 °"99°

'990-2000

43·5

32-7

197°-1980

19 8o -199°

Percent Increase

Fl Prison
Population

19722

8793

Percent Increase

12 4.3

23·5
1990-2000

2000~2oo9

'5·9
2000-200 9

4 622 3

71223

100894

'34·3

54.1

4 .7
'

'97°'2°°9

'7 2.9
197 0 -200 9

10 47.4

T

The growth in the prison population is not attributable to Florida’s overall population growth.
From 1970 through 2009, Florida experienced significant growth – a 2.7-fold growth in its
population. But during that same period, the prisons grew 11.4-fold.
Crime rates do not explain the growth either. Crime rates fluctuated up and down during the
seventies and eighties, but starting in 1988, the crime rate has declined steadily each year but
one. The crime rate certainly did not increase more than 11-fold as the prison population has.

1970 - 2009 Growth Rates
Florida population vs. prison population

FLORIDA CRIME RATE STEADILY
DECLINES OVER LAST TWENTY YEARS
Index Crimes per 100.000 Population
10.000 . , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

121m>

1000li

lIOO%

I Prison rate

600%

400lI

Population rate
2OO'Jl,

0Ii
1970

2009

Sources: Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental

Relations (LCIR) and Office of Economic and
Demographic Research

Source: Office of Economic and Demographic Research

The increase in the prison population was achieved by increasing the rate of incarceration.
Policy choices dictated that result. The rate of incarceration is the percent of people that Florida
locks up in prison. It has jumped from .13 percent to .54 percent. Forty years ago the rate of
incarceration was one quarter of what it is today.

600.0

Inmates Per 100,000 Florida
Residents

500.0

+-----------::::------.---.---=--------

400.0

tr---r--------

300,0

+I-~H;-_t----~

200.0

,.,......'.

IDDII

.....-

~r

•..
..

I

100.0

If Florida incarerated people today at
the same rate as in FY1972-73 (126.8 per
100,000), the prison population would be
23,848, at a cost of $446 million instead
of the $2.4 billion Florida spent in
FY2009-10.

0.0

It is tempting to credit the decline in crime
to the increase in the rate of incarceration.
Some have tried hard to make such a case,
1972 through 2010
but research shows that while some
Source: Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research
decrease in crime is attributable to
incarcerating dangerous criminals, after a point, increased rates of incarceration offer
diminishing returns and a negative benefit-to-cost ratio. This is especially true when we
increasingly incarcerate people for nonviolent drug offenses and other low-level crimes. 4
The Vera Institute for Justice examined the key studies on this issue and found that; “Analysts
are nearly unanimous in their conclusion that continued growth in incarceration will prevent
considerably fewer, if any, crimes – and at substantially greater cost to taxpayers.”5 Indeed,
several states are finding that they can decrease their
crime rates while simultaneously decreasing their
incarceration rates, as demonstrated in the figure below.

United States
Maryland

•

New Jersey

New York

INCARCERATION RATE
CRIME RATE
1997-2007
Source: Pew Center on the States

4

Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Performance Project, One in 31: The Long Reach of American
Corrections, March 2009, at 17-21.
5
Stemen, Don, Reconsidering Incarceration, New Directions for Reducing Crime, Vera Institute of Justice, January
2007.

How has this been achieved? By data-driven strategies designed both to improve public safety
and save taxpayers money.
FIRST STATE DECLINE IN 38 YEARS
The number of state inmates grew 708% between
1972 and 2008 before dropping In 2009.

J<ln. 1, 2010,

1.404.503 prIsoners
-0.3%

..5 million

•
Source:
Pew Center on
the States

0.'
0.'

0'
o

1972:
174,]79 prisoners

1925:

-1.5%

85.239 prisoners

•

•
1930

1950

''"0

...

,

1970

'000

p.,..,.......
;Ik'''''''''''''IX',..

NO"''', A""u'" <\gun•• ",dO' "" '''77 , .. -.o"he •., 1
n",.,."....." .." " _
'n
, ..
~".. _~. Ele,:linnlng in '977, ..11 "9....... 'eOe<;"""
j<..' ..
ti<>n . . , .. po .....
,,, tt", 8w"," of J ... >t;c.. 5 ....;.tiu· ·P.;.o"....- ie•. D",.. to< bo.h "••">fence« ...,.,,""'.... , ..
cu"od~

and

ju."did'"".. , popu, .. tion

ft'"

poned'm

""'7'0 ;Bu........ the ....... it'on.

Source: Pew Center on the States

States are now reexamining and revising the policy choices that led to such spectacular prison
growth. As a result, in 2009, the United States prison population declined for the first time in 38
years. 6 Twenty-six states reduced their prison rolls in 2009, including some of the toughest on
crime states such as Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina, which have enacted reforms to stem
the tide of growing prison populations.
Unfortunately, Florida was not among them. While modest policy changes over the last couple of
years have caused Florida’s prison admissions to decline (by 5.6 percent in FY2009-10 over the
previous year, and by 5.3 percent in FY2008-09 – after increases in each of the previous 11
years), Florida’s prison population nonetheless grew by 1,527 inmates in 2009, making it the
state with the second largest uptick in its prison population last year. 7 And on October 19, 2010,
the Legislature’s Criminal Justice Estimating Conference predicts that Florida’s prisons will
continue to grow – reaching 109,178 by FY2015-16.
The four main drivers of prison population growth
The policy changes Florida has made over the last thirty years are still very much being felt.
Reviewing patterns of growth over the past thirty years, the Florida TaxWatch Government Cost
Savings Task Force has identified four primary drivers of growth:
•

6
7

The elimination of parole and the adoption of policies lengthening both sentences
and the period of incarceration

Pew Center on the States, Prison Count 2010, April 2010.
Pennsylvania had the largest increase.

•
•
•

Widespread use of very short state prison sentences in lieu of community-based
alternatives (e.g., jail, probation, treatment, electronic monitoring)
State prison incarceration for technical probation violations
Recidivism – people returning to prison for new crimes or violations

STATES MOVE IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS
PelCent change in stale prison populations, 2008-2009.
WA
+1.1,.

Ina~U'5

• la'9,,{>3%)
Small" 111-3%)

o

Deol!'ltses

Fl
+1.510

HD1E:~,c~nl r:~h

Smalle' (11-3%)
• larger (> 3%)

from ~~~)I. JOO8IO JanUM)' I. 2OIoun~nOfh,erwl1e"Of~ In ll\eJurlsdkfiGnlll Min.

SOURCE: Ptw (trlIO' on tht Statts. Public SoIftty Pt:rformanc~ Proj«t

STATES WITH INCREASES

T

Maine 1+31
Nortn D.1kota 1+34
South Dakota I +92
K.1nl.lsl +102
VennOfit I +105
laaho 1+110
lenneslee 1+145
Minnesota 1+154
NewM6ico 1+176
Alaska 1+190
Ofe9on 1+237
Walninglon • +307
We~Vir~inia 1 +308
NorthCarolina • +389
AOOnl.ls • t455
OUanoma .+533

.::~:55:Ca'ifom~
Michigan

-4,257 -3,260

-1,699
NewYork
-1)15 _
Maryland
-1,257_Tem
-1,233_ Mi\~SSippi
-945 _
Connecticut
-602. New Je~ey
-479. Colorado
-371. Roode I\~nd
-313 1 Illinois
-300 1 Delaware
-290 I Kentucky
-2811 Iowa
-268 • Wl\(olllin
MaS\il[huseltl
SouthCarolina
-2041 Nmda

-252.
-235.

M~lOurl.+606

-195 1 ~~inia

Geo~ia .+843

Arizona_+934
A~bama _+1,053
lou~iana _+1,199
Ind~na _+1,496
Florida _+1,527
reMsylvania
+2,122
NOTE: Chidlgl!~from Decl!ll1becll,lOOIloJanuary I, 1010 uniell
ot!leiwise ooti!d iJ tile jurisddion~ ootes.
SOOIlCI: ~CenteiontheS~les.Pubic\;I2!yPerfOllll_Project

-1731 New Hampsh~e
-80 I Ohio
-641 Hawa"
-301 Nebraska

....
STATES WITH DECREASES

-111 iltlh

-91 Wyoming
-21 Montana

Florida’s policy changes affected both sentencing and the period of actual incarceration in cases
both of people convicted of minor nonviolent offenses (who after 1998 could be sent to prison
for any felony) and those convicted of serious violent offenses (whose sentences were
lengthened).
The elimination of parole and the adoption of policies lengthening sentences and
incarceration have driven prison growth.
Parole was eliminated in 1983,
which, in 1980, had been the
method of release for 62% of the
state’s prisoners. In eliminating
parole, Florida followed the
national “truth in sentencing”
trend. Instead of the state
evaluating whether an individual
is appropriate for release under
supervision, the majority of
prisoners are not assessed for
readiness or fitness. Nor are they
supervised upon release.

Prison Growth and Policy Changes
1980 - 2010
120,000

,-------------,r====,_I

100,000

t-,-.,------,----------l'--,----'
Perole

,epeeled.
sentenelnc

80,000

Guidelines

adopted.

60,000

+----'===+='---'~~=='-----\

40,000

+-----11----

20,000

o

In FY2009-10, 64 percent of
Source: Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research
prisoners (23,909) were released
upon the expiration of their sentence, completely reversing the practice prior to 1983.
Approximately 5,000 are still eligible for parole; they were sentenced before 1983. But in FY
2008-9, 0.1 percent -- just 42 of the 37,391 inmates released -- were paroled. 8
When parole was eliminated, basic gain time (which reduced the number of days of incarceration
without regard to the inmate’s conduct) came to be used as a tool in the eighties and early
nineties to reduce prison overcrowding.
In 1995, in response to the use of gain time simply to decrease overcrowding and the resulting
relatively low percentage of sentenced time actually served, and in response to certain high
profile crimes, the Legislature enacted a law [944.275 (4)(b)(3), F.S.] requiring prisoners to serve
85 percent of their sentences and eliminated basic (non-merit) gain time, though it preserved
incentive gain time.

8

Florida Dept. of Corrections Annual Report, 2008-09.

With the elimination of basic gain time and the restrictions placed on incentive gain time (based
on good conduct) pursuant to the law mandating serving 85 percent of one’s sentence, inmates
began serving significantly higher percentages of their sentences.

Time Served is Lengthening:
Truth in Sentencing (85% rule - Gain-time slashed)
In 1995, the Legislature enacted a requirement that individuals sentenced
to prison must serve a minimum of 85% of their court-imposed sentence.
Since imposition of 85% requirement, average time served in state prison

has increased.

Average time
served
FY 1994-95
27-3 months
FY 2008-00

35.5 months

IncentivR gain_~me is limited to u!' to 10 days pIl' month. When the inmat,,·s tentative ,,,"'ase date boIco,"".
equivelenllo lIle 85% minimum service date. the inmate is prohibited Irom earning further gain-time awards.

In 1995, the Legislature also reduced the sentencing discretion of judges by creating presumptive
minimum sentences through the establishment of sentencing guidelines, which were modified in
1994, and then again in 1995, 1996 and
1997, each time increasing the penalties. In
Percent of Guilty
1998, the guidelines were prospectively
Dispositions Imprisoned
repealed and replaced by the Criminal 35%
Punishment Code [921.002, et seq., F.S.]
30%
which maintains the basic structure of
presumptive minimum sentences, while 25%
preserving upward discretion.
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

The Criminal Punishment Code allows a
judge to sentence any person convicted of a
felony to prison, whereas under the
repealed Guidelines, people convicted of
low-level felonies and without much in the
way of a criminal history could not be
sentenced to prison.

Source: Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research

Presumptive sentencing generally serves to increase the percentage of people who are convicted
being sent to prison, as has happened in Florida.
In 1999, the Legislature also increased the instances in which longer sentences and life sentences
could be meted out. The law, officially 3-10-20-Life but colloquially called 10-20-Life,
mandates stiff sentences for gun crimes. Incarceration under this law has increased by more than
145% since 2000, the first year of implementation.
Incarceration under 3-10-20-Life
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
FY 09-10

FY 08-09

FY 07-08

FY 06-07

FY 05-06

FY 04-05

FY 03-04

FY 02-03

FY 01-02

FY 00-01

FY 99-00

Source:
Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research

Widespread use of very short sentences drives growth.
While stiffer sentences for serious crimes became the norm over the last few decades, another
trend emerged as well. When judges were given the discretion to sentence people to prison who
were convicted of the very least serious felonies (and as increasing numbers of felonies were
created), that discretion came to be exercised in many counties to hand out sentences just long
enough (one year and a day) that it would be served in state prisons (at state cost) rather than in
local jails or community alternatives (at county cost). Such sentencing varies widely among the
counties.
Year- and-a-Day Sentences as Percent of
All Sentences

Source: Florida Office
of Economic and
Demographic Research

20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%

17.7%
15.0%

15.1%
13.0%

12.3%

11.6%
10.1%

FY 0203

9.90%

FY 0304

FY 0405

FY 0506

FY 0607

FY 0708

FY 0809

FY 0910

Clearly, the practice of year and a day sentences is not as widespread as just a few years ago, but
the wide variations in its use are as prevalent as ever.
New Commitments and Change in New Commitments by County
<:ount;o,~;"""'.

County

FY2001~8

HiisborOU\lll
Broward

"

'"

Pinella,
Alac:f1ua
Marion
Miaml-Dade
SeminOle

'"

VGlu,ia
OUloon
SulHotal

.

3,734
2.429
2,674

<lo, So_nc••

FY 2008-09

'M~

C""",,,,%

3,090
3.170
2,049
2,310

(156)
(""

_19.1%
-151%
-151%
-13.6%
-22.8%
-13.1%

1,349
2,575

'"

1,146
1,157

1,039
1,054

20,729

'"

'"
'"
'"

"""","" Inc,..";""

Santa Ron
PatCO
Martin
E,caml)la
Brevard
Saint Lucie
Oranoe
DLNal
Sut>-lot.1
All other <;ounh,
'WI

ofV• ., . . . "

\,173
2,449

>0,

17.756

081 )
O~)

(161)
(177)
(126)
(1 15)
(101)
(1 (3)
(94)
(2,9n)

.'"

-24,1%
-9,3%
08,9%
-19,0%
-14,3%

Source:
Florida Office of
Economic and
Demographic
Research

u,. of v..' ... " <lo, So_no..

'"
'"
'00

1,136
1,194

",

1,649
1,694
7,754
12,008
40,491

'"
'"
'"
'"
V13

1,275
1,340

2,025

9.335
11,641
38,732

""
"
'"
'"
'"
'"

1391

1,581
(367)
(1,759)

3U%
10.6%
29,9%
2,2%
12,2%
33.1%
228%
24.1%
20.4%
-31%
-43%

What is also apparent from analysis of the data is that there is no correlation among the counties
regarding their relative population sizes, crime rates, felony filings, and prison admissions. For
example, Miami-Dade County, with the largest population and the most felony filings sends
fewer people to prison than Broward or Hillsborough County.

Third Degree Felonies as Percent of
New Commitments
60.0%
50.0%

46.7%48.6%45.9%47.0%

42.7%
40.2%
38.0%37.9%
40.0%

45.4%

30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
FY 00- FY 01- FY 02- FY 03- FY 04- FY 05- FY 06- FY 07- FY 0801
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
Source: Florida Office of Economic and demographic Research

Contrary to common wisdom (and
common sense), the majority of prison
inmates have not been sentenced for
serious or violent offenses.
In fact, Chart X shows that an
increasing high percentage of Florida
inmates are serving prison sentences
for non-violent third-degree felonies
(which is the lowest level of felony in
Florida), which is largely due to the
discretion granted to judges in 1995 to
sentences such low level offenders to

state incarceration (instead of jail sentences of less than 365 days). This situation also contributes
to the growing share of inmates sentenced to short stents in prison.
Further contributing to the large share of short sentences is the percent of prisoners sentenced for
crimes denominated “other.”
Over the past thirteen years, the share of violent offenses accounting for prison admissions
decreased by 28 percent. During that same period, the share of admissions for “other” offenses,
i.e., offenses that are nonviolent, are not property crimes, and are not drug crimes increased by
189 percent. 9
One of the “other” offenses is driving with a suspended license -- the charge that landed a 78year-old grandmother in the Broward County jail for 15 days in January 2010. 10

FLORIDA NEW COMMITMENTS FOR OTHER OFFENSES

Ti~D"od

FY 2008=09J=Y 2009-10
Drive with license suspended/revoked
Felony DUI (3rd or 4th conviction)
Fleeingfeh.Jding LEO offenses
Sex offender registration offenses

I

Percent
FY 2008:09 FY 2009-10

I

I

Change

Percent
Change

1,311

769

31.6%

23.9%

(542)

-41.3%

462

350

11.1%

10.9%

(112)

-24.2%

1,072

918

25.8%

28.6%

(154)

-14.4%

«;7

512

13.7%

15.9%

(55)

-9.7%

741

666

17.8%

20.7%

(75)

-10.1%

4,153

3,215

100.0%

100.0%

(938)

-22.6%

Remainder of offenses in "Othe~·

""'9''''
Total

Some efforts have been made to address this problem, and fewer offenders were committed for
“other” offenses in FY2009-10 than in FY2008-09, but even so 3,215 people were sentenced in
FY 2009-10 to prison for “other” offenses, including 769 (accounting for 24% of all “other”
offenses) for driving with a suspended or revoked license.
A final factor driving growth for low-level crimes – here drug and property offenses – is that the
core definitions have not been revised in many years. When the dollar threshold making it a
third-degree felony to steal $300 in property was enacted, and when possession of less than an
ounce of marijuana was made a felony, judges could not sentence most first-time third-degree
felony offenders to prison.

9

Florida Dept. of Corrections Annual Reports, 1995-96 and 2007-08.
Christensen, Dan, “Hallandale Beach grandma sent to jail -- and forgotten,” Miami Herald, January 12, 2010.

10

Incarcerating people for technical probation violations drives growth, too
The terms of probation are set by the court at sentencing and typically include: reporting to the
probation officer; permitting home visits by the probation officer; obtaining and maintaining
employment; abiding by travel restrictions; paying restitution, fines and child support; complying
with restrictions on living arrangements, associations, and contact with the victim; and
submitting to required drug testing. Violating any of these terms can result in a technical
probation violation, which can result in the implementation of a prison sentence by a judge.
Under the Criminal Punishment Code, judges have retained a measure of discretion in sentencing
those convicted of low-level offenses (e.g., third-degree felonies) and may sentence those with
fewer than 44 points on the required score sheet to a non-prison sentence. Often, this means
placing the individual on probation. If the person sentenced to supervision violates the terms of
supervision, the offender can be sent to prison at the discretion of a judge.
In 2003, the DOC implemented a “zero tolerance” approach to probation violations in the wake
of a couple of high profile crimes committed by individuals under state supervision. Although
the zero tolerance policy has since been rescinded and a more flexible approach relying on a
judge’s discretion has been implemented, probation violations and subsequent revocations are
still driving growth. In fact, in FY 2009-10, 7,479 people were sent to prison not for committing
a new crime but for technical probation violations.

Probation Violators with Technical Violations Sentenced to Prison
1200
Zero Tolerance Period

1(){)()
After end of
zero tolerance

800
600
400
200

o
7/0212/02

1/036/03

7/0312/03

1/046/04

7/0412/04

1/056/05

,/a>-

1/06-

7/06-

12/05

6/06

12/06

1/076/07

7/0712/07

1/OS-

,/os-

6/08

U/OB

1/096/09

7/09-

1/10-

12/09

6/10

Finally, recidivism drives growth
While the Department of Corrections has revised its mission statement to include “reentry”
[defined as “to protect the public safety, to ensure the safety of Department personnel, and to
provide proper care and supervision of all offenders under our jurisdiction while assisting, as

appropriate, their re-entry into society”], and has committed to focusing on reducing recidivism,
recidivism (as measured by returning to prison for a new crime or a probation violation)
continues to drive prison growth.

Recidivism: Return to prison for a new
offense or a technical violation
RECIDIVISM RATES OVER TIME
Three year reddill'ism nne by year of release
~.~.-----------------------,

~.~+----------------------1
~.~+----------------------1

Other important issues in the growth of the criminal justice system
In addition to the four main drivers of prison population, people with mental illnesses in the
criminal justice system raise important challenges because they are poorly addressed by the
current system and add to the overall population levels. Likewise, the lack of intervention
programs for juvenile delinquents and the failure of the current system to deter those delinquents
from becoming tomorrow’s prison inmates will continue to result in a more costly corrections
system for Florida’s taxpayers.
People with mental illnesses involved in the criminal justice system
Approximately 125,000 people experiencing serious mental illnesses (e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar
disorder, major depression) are arrested and booked into Florida jails annually. On any given
day, there are nearly 18,000 state prison inmates, 15,000 local jail detainees, and 40,000
individuals under correctional supervision in communities around the state who suffer from

serious mental illnesses. Although about half of these individuals are charged with low-level,
non-violent offenses, many languish in prisons, jails and state-funded forensic treatment facilities
for months or years because more cost effective placement alternatives do not exist.

Population on
June 30th
1996
2009
Growth:

Total prison
population
64,333
100,894
56.8%

Number of
inmates with
mental illnesses
6,777
17,957
165.0%

Inmates with mental
illness as a percentage of
total inmate population
10.5%
17.8%
69.0%

People with mental illnesses represent the fastest growing sub-population within Florida’s prison
system. Between 1996 and 2009, the overall inmate population in Florida prisons increased by
57 percent, but the number of inmates suffering from mental illness increased almost three times
more over the same period. 11
Expand evidence-based mental health treatment.
Florida currently spends exorbitant amounts of
money to provide mental health treatment services
in prisons and other institutional settings; however
the policies and practices that drive this investment
are based on an outdated system of care that does
little to prevent individuals from becoming involved
in the justice system or to break cycles of crime and
recidivism. In addition, the current system of care
fails to account for the unique treatment needs and
life experiences of people with justice system
involvement.

Inmates with mental illneses in
Florida prisons
20,000
17,500
15,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
5,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Over the past several years, a task force convened
by the Supreme Court of Florida has been working
with leaders from all three branches of government, as well as the state’s leading experts on
mental health and criminal justice, to address issues relating to the disproportionate
representation of people with mental illnesses involved in the justice system. This body
developed a report titled “Transforming Florida’s Mental Health System,” which details
comprehensive recommendations for planning, leadership, financing, and service development.
The recommendations made target evidence-based and sustainable approaches to treatment and
service delivery that will help divert people with mental illnesses from the justice system into
11

From 1996 – 2009 (the same time period), the number of prison inmates receiving ongoing mental health
treatment in state prison increased by 165 percent. It is important to note that at least some of the increase in the
number of people with mental health problems in prison is due to an increase in assessments and diagnosis of such
conditions.

more appropriate community-based treatment and support services, while at the same time
helping to ensure public safety. The report also outlines steps to begin shifting investment of
state dollars from costly, deep-end services provided in institutional settings into more effective,
efficient, and sustainable front-end services provided in the community. The Community Mental
Health and Substance Abuse Treatment and Crime Reduction Act, which would implement
many of the task force's recommendations, has been considered during past legislative sessions.
Recently, the Florida Senate released an interim project report reviewing preliminary outcomes
of a pilot program implemented in Miami-Dade County which is based on recommendations
made by the Supreme Court task force and targeted toward diversion of individuals from state
forensic hospitals into community-based treatment and support services. The report identifies
key systems level features necessary to ensure continuity of care and to effectively divert people
away from the justice system including cross systems collaboration, effective communication,
and leadership. In addition, the report identifies essential treatment elements necessary to ensure
successful outcomes among justice system-involved individuals. Based on the early success of
the program in Miami-Dade County, the Senate report suggests that the legislature may wish to
expand the pilot program to other communities around the state. In addition, the Senate report
recommends authorizing county court judges to order involuntary outpatient treatment as a
condition of release for defendants re-entering the community who meet statutory criteria.
Florida’s juvenile justice system – criminalizing youth instead of offenses
In Florida, prevention, diversion and progressive sanctions policies have resulted in safely
implementing a significant reduction in commitments to DJJ between FY2005-06 and FY200910. 12 More than $85 million was saved in FY2008-09 alone as a result of these policies. These
outcomes are notable, but reform was long overdue in Florida. In 2006, Florida incarcerated
children at a rate 50% higher than the national average.
Recently, much work has been done focused on improving Florida’s juvenile justice system.
One important example of the progress toward a smarter juvenile justice system is the creation of
the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice’s Blueprint Commission. The 25-member Blueprint
Commission addressed key concerns in the juvenile justice system such as repeat offenders,
overrepresentation of minorities, and a growing female population.
In January 2008, the Blueprint Commission published Getting Smart About Juvenile Justice,
which focuses rehabilitating youth offenders and reducing the use of restrictive sanctions for
low-risk and misdemeanant offenders while reserving those restrictive sanctions for serious and
habitual offenders. The report offers numerous suggestions for reforming Florida’s juvenile
justice system in ways that will rehabilitate and improve the lives of juvenile offenders, increase

12

From FY2005-06 to FY 2009-10, the number of DJJ commitments decreased by 28%. During the same period the
overall crime rate also fell, which undoubtedly accounts for some portion of the decrease.

public safety, and produce significant savings for the state. Some of the recommendations have
been implemented, but many have not yet been.
In spite of determined efforts and substantial progress over the past five years, there is still
significant room for improvement.
Florida has adopted a practice of criminalizing youth offenders instead of criminalizing the
offenses. From 2000 to 2008, the average length of stay for juveniles in residential facilities
increased by 30%, a trend that cost nearly $20 million last year alone. 13 Not only is the average
length of stay too long, the number of incarcerated youth is too high.
DJJ continues to incarcerate large numbers of relatively low-risk youth. Nearly half (44%) of all
children admitted to DJJ facilities in FY2008-09 were committed for misdemeanors and
violations of probation.
Florida will spend more than $50 million on children committed to non-secure residential
facilities on misdemeanors and probation violations this year. Most of these youth are housed in
large, congregate-care detention centers awaiting court hearings and are held in custody at costs
ranging from $100 to more than $300 per day.
Few of these youth offenders are confined for serious offenses. Most are charged with nonviolent property or drug crimes and 40% of all children are committed for technical violations of
probation or misdemeanors, including non-violent property offenses and public order violations.
Reforms, such as prevention, intervention, diversion, and treatment, cost less than commitment.
They are also better at holding youth accountable and reducing recidivism. While Florida must
continue to incarcerate youth who pose serious risks to public safety, detention and incarceration
of young people should be an option of last resort.
Tools such as risk assessment and sentencing guidelines let jurisdictions distinguish between
youth who pose risks to public safety and those who would be better and more cost effectively
served in less-restrictive settings.
Many juvenile justice systems have embraced community-based alternatives to
institutionalization. These systems improve the life chances of juveniles in the justice system and
reduce unwarranted costs while enhancing public safety.
Getting smart on crime requires efficient and effective use of limited resources in prevention,
diversion, and intervention programs, especially when it comes to juvenile justice.
Conclusion
As we have seen, Florida’s 11.4-fold rate of prison population growth is simply unsustainable.
There are more effective, less costly policy choices we can make to protect and improve public

13

Analysis by the Southern Poverty Law Center (unpublished report).

safety. The recommendations below address each of the policy choices that have led to these
drivers of prison growth:
•

The elimination of parole and the adoption of policies lengthening sentences and
incarceration

•

Widespread use of very short sentences

•

Incarcerating people for technical probation violations

•

Recidivism – people returning to prison for new crimes or violations

•

The lack of alternatives for people with mental illnesses

•

The juvenile justice’s failure to rehabilitate system (i.e., criminalizing youth instead
of offenses)

Justice Reform Recommendations
Section I: Big Picture Recommendations
The first four recommendations will not result in immediate (i.e., July 1, 2011) cost savings, but
are essential to long-term cost containment and the improvement of public safety.
1. Create a commission to do a top-to-bottom review of the Criminal Justice System and
Corrections
Florida has not conducted a comprehensive review of the laws and policies that have been
driving its prison growth, nor does it have an entity charged with the responsibility of doing so.
Senate Bill 2000, passed in 2008 (Chapter No. 2008-54), established the Correctional Policy
Advisory Council, which was to evaluate “correctional policies, justice reinvestment initiatives,
and laws affecting or applicable to corrections, and for the purpose of making findings and
recommendations on changes to such policy, reinvestment initiatives, and laws,” and to advise
the Legislature and Governor on such matters. Members were appointed but the Council never
met; and the enabling legislation provides that the Council shall be abolished on July 1, 2011.
Such a body, but expanded in both scope and membership, is essential to the deliberative process
necessary for meaningful, sustainable, cost-effective justice reforms. Virtually every state that
has made the substantive policy changes that have succeeded in reducing the size of their
corrections population has accomplished this through a bipartisan deliberative body engaging all
three branches of government. Indeed, the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance
Project requires such a cooperative effort for it to provide technical assistance in identifying the
key drivers of prison growth and developing a menu of options to reverse the trend.
While this report contains many recommendations that can save tax dollars and improve public
safety, we know it does not address all of the possibilities. Florida needs the contributions that
such a deliberative body could add to justice reform.

Recommendation: The Governor, with the bipartisan, bicameral cooperation of the
legislature and judiciary, create a commission composed of members of the executive,
legislative and judicial branches along with experts in criminology, sentencing, corrections,
veterans affairs, mental health, substance abuse, reentry, and community supervision to do a
top-to-bottom data-driven assessment of Florida’s corrections and criminal justice system with
a focus on cost-effective ways to improve public safety while slowing prison growth. This
commission should be required to produce comprehensive, actionable reforms in time for
consideration by the legislature in 2012.
2. Establish an independent oversight body over the Departments of Corrections and
Juvenile Justice
As the bipartisan Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons found in 2006, “All
public institutions, from hospitals to schools, need and benefit from strong oversight. Citizens
demand it because they understand what is at stake if these institutions fail. Prisons and jails
should be no exception. They are directly responsible for the health and safety of millions of
people every year, and what happens in correctional facilities has a significant impact on the
health and safety of our communities. Corrections leaders work hard to oversee their own
institutions and hold themselves accountable, but their vital efforts are not sufficient and cannot
substitute for external forms of oversight.”
As the March 2010 Florida TaxWatch report 14 and Florida Trend reported in July 2009, the
critical component of any such oversight is the entity’s independence. Under current law, the
Corrections and Juvenile Justice inspectors general are appointed by the agency’s secretary and
may be removed without cause by the secretary. Indeed, in 2003, the Secretary of DOC fired the
Inspector General who was uncovering the misconduct of a DOC employee who was a friend of
the Secretary. Later, both the Secretary and the employee who was being investigated were
indicted and incarcerated by the federal government – but by then, correctional oversight had
already been compromised.
No scandal involving the Florida DOC inspector general’s office has emerged since that time,
but structurally, with the IG responsible to no one but the Secretary and able to be fired at will,
there simply is not the independence needed. Nor is there adequate transparency. The IG’s very
brief annual report (most of it lays out its duties and authority rather than what has been
accomplished) provides data on the number and types of investigation, but nothing whatever
about their disposition, except how many cases are referred for prosecution.
There are a number of models for independent corrections oversight. California, for instance,
created an independent inspector general’s office, which has broad oversight -- investigatory,

14

Bragg, Cecil T., CPA, “How Independent Are Florida Inspectors General?,” March 2010

monitoring and inspecting, along with a requirement that each warden be audited one year after
appointment and each prison audited every four years.
Currently, Florida has oversight of medical and mental healthcare established through the
Correctional Medical Authority (CMA) and this could serve as a model for general oversight.
The American Bar Association has studied the various types of oversight of corrections agencies
in place among the states and in other nations and has developed a set of key requirements of
effective correctional monitoring. Among these requirements are:
•

Independence from corrections

•

Headed by a person appointed for a fixed term by an elected official, subject to legislative
confirmation, and subject to removal only for just cause

•

Sufficient expert and trained staff

•

Duty to conduct regular inspections of the facilities, as well as the authority to examine,
and issue reports on, a particular problem at one or more facilities.

•

Authorization to inspect or examine all aspects of a facility’s operations and conditions
including, but not limited to: staff recruitment, training, supervision, and discipline;
inmate deaths; medical and mental health care; use of force; inmate violence; conditions
of confinement; inmate disciplinary processes; inmate grievance processes; substanceabuse treatment; educational, vocational, and other programming; and reentry planning.

•

Authority to conduct both scheduled and unannounced inspections

•

Authority to obtain and inspect any and all records, including inmate and personnel
records, bearing on the facility’s operations or conditions.

•

Authority to conduct confidential interviews with any person, including line staff and
inmates, concerning the facility’s operations and conditions; to hold public hearings; to
subpoena witnesses and documents; and to require that witnesses testify under oath.

•

Requirement of an annual report of its findings and activities that is public, accessible
through the Internet, and distributed to the media, the jurisdiction’s legislative body, and
its top elected official. 15

Recommendation: An independent entity, accountable to the governor, legislature and the
people of Florida, should be established with oversight, investigating, inspecting, monitoring
and reporting authority over state corrections and juvenile justice and their facilities. It should
also establish performance measures and review and report on the data collected pursuant to
such measures.

15

American Bar Association, “Key Requirements for the Effective Monitoring of Correctional and Detention
Facilities”, August 2008.

3. Develop risk / needs assessment and cost-analysis tools to be used at the time of
sentencing (Missouri model)
Since Florida first enacted its Sentencing Guidelines in 1983, Florida’s sentencing policy has
explicitly rejected rehabilitation as a primary purpose of sentencing. Today, under the Criminal
Punishment Code, adopted in 1998, the policy reads: “The primary purpose of sentencing is to
punish the offender. Rehabilitation is a desired goal of the criminal justice system but is
subordinate to the goal of punishment.” 16
Thus, the calculation used to determine the sentence focuses not on risk or needs, or the
likelihood of reoffending, but on the appropriate dose of punishment, based on static risk factors
such as the nature of the primary offense and any additional offenses, prior criminal history, and
injury to the victim. These are factors that cannot change and thus cannot be addressed through
targeted interventions.
Florida’s sentencing policy is consistent with the trend across the U.S. that began in the late
seventies with determinant sentencing, focusing on punishment (called “just deserts”), deterrence
and incapacitation. (It must be said that all states did not move in this direction. For instance,
Article 1, Section 12 of the Alaska constitution provides that “Criminal administration shall be
based upon the following: the need for protecting the public, community condemnation of the
offender, the rights of victims of crimes, restitution from the offender, and the principle of
reformation.”)
Yet, as a 2006 National Conference of State Courts survey found, “the top concerns of state trial
judges hearing felony cases included the high rates of recidivism among felony offenders, the
ineffectiveness of traditional probation supervision and other criminal sanctions in reducing
recidivism, restrictions on judicial discretion that limited the ability of judges to sentence more
fairly and effectively, and the absence of effective community corrections programs. The survey
also found that the state chief justices believed that the most important sentencing reform
objective facing the state courts was to improve public safety and reduce recidivism through
expanded use of evidence-based practices and programs, including offender risk and needs
assessment tools.” 17
While evidence-based approaches to rehabilitation have been most commonly associated with
prison and community-based programs, states, in response to this frustration and stubborn
recidivism rates, have been developing policies and practices that address risk at the time of

16

921.002 (b), The Criminal Punishment Code
Warren, Roger K., Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries, for the
Crime and Justice Institute, National Institute of Corrections, and National Center for State Courts, The Crime and
Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections Division, 2007.
17

sentencing so that the sentence is most appropriate to the individual defendant’s risks of
recidivating. 18
Accordingly, states are moving away from policies that barely consider the public safety
objective of reducing recidivism (and thus reducing crime) and are instead embracing sentencing
policies and practices based on what research has demonstrated and which helps to rehabilitate
people convicted of crimes and to reduce recidivism. This is at the heart of drug courts and other
treatment-oriented courts (also called problem-solving courts), regardless of whether the official
state policy favors or eschews rehabilitation.
Among the practices being adopted are:
•

Establishing recidivism reduction as an explicit sentencing goal. The Oregon
Judicial Conference, for example, requires judges to consider the sentence’s potential
impact on reducing future criminal conduct.

•

Building flexibility into the sentencing laws so that judges can mete out sentences
that are aimed at reducing recidivism. As the Pew Center on the States has found,
“The research indicates that whether a particular offender is an appropriate candidate
for recidivism reduction cannot accurately be assessed relying solely on the type of
offense committed and the offender’s prior criminal history. Individual offender
characteristics must also be taken into consideration. This means shorter or
probationary sentences for some offenders, and perhaps longer prison terms for
others.” 19

•

Using risk and needs assessments in formulating a sentence. Rather than focusing
only on the unchangeable static factors (nature of the crime, criminal history, etc.) a
validated tool that assesses “dynamic” risks and criminogenic needs (e.g. low selfcontrol, substance abuse, antisocial attitudes, criminal thinking) can guide sentencing
so that it results in effective treatment.

Missouri’s Sentencing Commission has developed a web-based tool for judges to use in
sentencing that provides them extensive information about sentencing options and the risks and
costs associated with each alternative. The tool is available for use by judges, prosecution,
defendants and their attorneys, and the public. The user simply types in the code number for the
highest level offense upon which the defendant has been (or will be) convicted, along with
demographic, criminal history, substance abuse involvement, education and other information
about the defendant, and the tool provides the user with the recommended sentences, the risk
assessment, recidivism projections and the costs of incarceration, supervision, and community
alternatives, including treatment where warranted.

18

See. e.g., Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Policy Brief, “Arming the Courts with Research: 10 EvidenceBased Sentencing Initiatives to Control Crime and Reduce Cost,” May 2009.
19
Id.

Recommendation: The commission appointed pursuant to Recommendation #12 should lead
the development of a similar web-based tool for purposes of illuminating sentencing options,
defendant risk reduction and sentencing costs.
Section II: Cost-saving Recommendations Related to Sentencing People Convicted of
Low-level Offenses /Short-term Sentences
As DOC reports in its annual sentencing report, 20 one of the notable impacts of the 1998 repeal
of the Sentencing Guidelines and the enactment of the Criminal Punishment Code is that “all
felony offenders have the potential to receive a prison sentence, whereas many under the
guidelines were, by policy, excluded from such a possibility.” In FY2008-09, only 28.2 percent
of the new admissions to prison were incarcerated for violent crimes; the rest were admitted for
drug, property or “other” offenses. Sentencing practices vary considerably from county to
county, but all counties send increasing numbers of nonviolent low-level offenders to prison.
4. Require written justification for state prison sentences given to individuals with low
sentencing scores – 44 or less (currently 22 or less)
Under Florida law, a person who has been convicted of a felony in the third-degree may be
punished by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years. 21 The discretion provided judges is
limited, however, by the Criminal Punishment Code, which essentially establishes minimum
sentences. 22 Under the Code, sentencing scores are used to calculate the lowest permissible
sentence. Offenses are ranked under this law according to the seriousness of the most serious
offense from one to ten. Calculation of the total sentence points includes multiple factors, such as
secondary offenses, injury to the victim, and prior record.
If the total number of sentence points equals or is less than 44 points, the lowest permissible
sentence is a non-state prison sanction, 23 but the non-state sanction is still within the discretion of
judge to impose or not. Until 2009, a judge had unfettered discretion to sentence any person
convicted of a third-degree felony for up to five years in prison, regardless of the total sentence
score calculated under the Criminal Punishment Code. That year, the Legislature had discovered
that thousands of defendants with point scores less than the 44-point threshold recommended for
a prison sanction were nonetheless sentenced to state prison.
Effective July 1, 2009, 775.082, F.S., (SB 1722) was amended to require the court to sentence
those with 22 points or less (and that have not been convicted of a forcible felony) to a non-state

20

Florida Department of Corrections, Florida's Criminal Punishment Code: A Comparative Assessment, September
2009.
21
Section 775.082, F.S., specifies the penalty structure for the different felony classifications.
22
(Chapter 921, the Criminal Punishment Code applies to defendants whose non-capital felony offenses were
committed on or after October 1, 1998.)
23
Section 775.082, F.S., specifies the penalty structure for the different felony classifications.

prison sanction unless the court makes written findings that a non-state prison sanction could
present a danger to the public.
Still, as OPPAGA reported in October 2010, in FY2009-10, 11.5% of defendants with
sentencing scores between 22 and 44 were sent to prison (1,470 individuals), and 2.6% (364
people) of those with scores of 22 and below were sent to prison. 24 This is a reduction over the
Recommended Sanction Category
FY 2007_2008 Sentence Date..'
Sanction Imposed

State Prison

Community Control

Probatton

County Jail

Other

Total

22.0
22.1 to More than
Points or
44.0
44.0
Le••
Points
Points

Total

13,530 19,910

FY 2008_2009 Sentence Oate..2

22.0
22.1 to More than
Points or
44.0
44.0
Le••
Point.
POint.

Total

13,325 19,674

1,230

5,150

1,204

5.145

3.4%

13.2%

60.7%

20.4%

3.9%

13.8%

61.2%

21.8%

997

2,234

1,203

4,434

672

2,152

1,273

4,297

2.6%

5.7%

5.4%

4.6%

2.8%

5.6%

5.8%

4.8%

23.160

16,009

19,914 17.625

4,491

42,030

64.1%

46.3%

4.507 45,676
20.2%

10.416 13,022

46.9%

63.9%

47.4%

20.6%

46.7"k

2,903 26,341

8,910

11,911

2,551

23,372
25.9"k

28,8%

33.4%

13.0%

27.1%

28.8%

32.0%

11.7%

33.

520

154

1,010

245

336

124

707

0.9%

1.3%

0.7%

1.0%

0.8%

0.9%

0.6%

0.8%

36,139

38,935

22,297

97,371

31,145 37,171

21,764 90,080

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0"k

100.0"k 100.0%

·Total points greater than 44.
, Offense dates on or after October 1, 2006.
2 Offense dates on or after o<:tober 1, 2007.

Sentencing Scores and Sentences FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09
previous fiscal years, but it is not sufficient.
According to the data provided in the above figure, a 10% diversion of individuals with 44 or
less points would save $1.6 million, annually. If half of these individuals could be successfully
diverted from prison, the state could realize an annual savings of $31.4 million. 25
Recommendation: 775.082, Fl. Statutes should be further revised to require written
justification for sentencing individuals with 44 or fewer points to state prisons.
5. Incentivize localities for reducing their rates of state incarceration and increasing local
alternatives
Florida, like many other states, has been tracking and wrestling with the increasing phenomenon
of local courts sentencing individuals to state prison under circumstances that would have
equally warranted, under existing law, local jail sentences or community-based alternatives.
24

OPPAGA, Without Changes, Expansion Drug Courts Unlikely to Realize Expected Cost Savings, Report No. 1054, October 2010
25
The average daily cost of $44.03 per inmate was used in calculations (weighted average that excludes the daily
cost of reception centers based on the Florida Department of Corrections FY08-09 Budget Report.) These estimates
accounted for $5,000 in assumed diversion program costs per diverted offender.

In some states, the cost of local incarceration is borne by local governments (in Florida, it is the
counties), while the cost of state prisons is borne wholly by the state. In Florida, this may be one
of the reasons behind the common use of year-and-a-day sentences (and year-and-a-month in one
county), which, by law, send individuals to state prison at state cost. A sentence of just one day
less and the costs would inure to the county.
In many cases, the state prison sentence actually served is just a few months because the majority
of the sentence has already been served (and credited against the total) in jail, pending
disposition of the case. Significantly, on a per-bed basis, the first six weeks of the sentence are
the most costly because every new prisoner begins the sentence at a reception center and the perdiem at such facilities ( $85.94) is more than twice the cost of a bed, for instance, in a typical
male facility ($42.31). Thus, the cost of a short-term sentence can be far greater per day than
that of a longer term sentence.
In light of this phenomenon, some states are looking to reverse or lessen the incentives to impose
state prison sentences on people who would be equally or better served in the local community –
or specifically incentivize counties for keeping low-level offenders out of state prison.
In Illinois, for example, the Crime Reduction Act (Public Act 96-0761) established the Adult
Redeploy Illinois program (based on its successful Juvenile Redeploy program), which provides
financial incentives to local jurisdictions for designing community-based programs to treat
offenders in the community instead of sending them to state prisons.
In states such as California, Colorado, Arizona, Kansas and Alabama, incentive funds are also
being made available to localities to reduce recidivism and to reduce the number of probation
revocations that land people back in prison. Indeed, in 1968, when Ronald Reagan was governor
of California, one of the strategies employed to reduce the prison population by 34 percent over
the course of his governorship was to provide counties incentives to keep individuals from being
sent to prison. 26
There are many possible approaches to incentivizing local sentences. If, for example, the state
reimbursed counties 50 percent of the savings achieved when counties reduce the number of
offenders sent to state prison that are instead sentenced to local options (jail or community-based
alternatives, including electronic monitoring), taxpayers would save 50% of the cost of diverting
each such person from state prison, and the localities would reap the benefit of funds they would
not have otherwise. Of course, critical to such an approach is assurance that these are true
diversions and not local sentences of people who would have been locally sentenced anyway.
Therefore, counties would be able to access state funds only if they materially reduce the number
of low-level offenders sent to state prison, which would be measured against a baseline rate of
offenders that each county sent to state prison in previous years.
From FY 2005-FY 2009, an average of 14% of all new commitments has been sentenced under
the year-and-a-day practice. This is an average decline of approximately 9% in year-and-a-day
26

Palta, Rena, Prison Overcrowding: What Would Reagan Do?: San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 4, 2010

sentencing over the previous five years. 27 Assuming that many of the individuals sentenced to a
year and a day would be the ones that would avoid prison if proper incentives were provided to
the counties, and assuming the percent of new commitments sentenced to a year-and-a-day
remains constant at 14%, it is estimated that expanding state prison diversion would result in
$4.7 million to $93 million savings over the next three years. Assuming the percent of
inmates sentenced to a year-and-a-day continues to decline 9% annually, it is estimated
that Florida would save between $2.6 million and $51.3 million.
Estimated Cost Savings
Scenario 1- Approximately 14% of new commitments sentenced year-and-a-day
Number of Eligible
New Entrants

50% Diverted

25% Diverted

10% Diverted

4,934
$30,930,877.98
$15,465,438.99
$1,546,543.90
FY2011-12
5,008
$31,395,152.71
$15,697,576.36
$1,569,757.64
FY2012-13
5,108
$32,022,669.60
$16,011,334.80
$1,601,133.48
FY2013-14
Scenario 2 - Average 9% annual decline in number of new commitments with
year-and-a-day sentences

FY2011-12
FY2012-13
FY2013-14

Number of Eligible
New Entrants

50% Diverted

25% Diverted

10% Diverted

2,986
2,719
2,477

$18,718,286.51
$17,047,166.95
$15,525,240.56

$9,359,143.25
$8,523,583.47
$7,762,620.28

$935,914.33
$852,358.35
$776,262.03

Recommendation: Florida should reverse the incentives counties now have to send people
convicted of low-level nonviolent crimes to state prisons and reward them for sentencing them
to community-based alternatives.
6. Align Florida’s marijuana and cocaine possession laws with other Texas and other
similar states
Florida laws authorize the incarceration in state prisons for the possession of very low quantities
of drugs. Possession without intent to deliver or distribute of over 20 grams (7/10th of an ounce)
of marijuana in Florida is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. By contrast, in
Kentucky and New York to reach felony level, the accused must have possessed 8 ounces or
more (11 times the Florida felony amount); in Texas, it’s 4 ounces.

27

Calculations use prison data and projected new commitments from the Justice Estimating Conference. The
average daily cost of $44.03 per inmate was used in calculations (weighted average that excludes the daily cost of
reception centers based on the Florida Department of Corrections FY08-09 Budget Report). These estimates
accounted for $5,000 in assumed diversion program cost per diverted offender.

Possession of any amount of cocaine is also a felony in Florida and this offense has been a
major driver of prison growth.
People convicted of drug offenses make up 19.8% of the prison population; those convicted of
simple possession of cocaine made up 19% of new commitments (1,938 people) for drug
offenses in 2009. According to OPPAGA, “1,265 drug possession inmates currently in prison
scored fewer than 5 prior record points (likely no significant prior offenses). If half were
diverted, the state would save $10.4 million annually.” 28
Across the country, states are making changes in their drug laws to reduce penalties from
felonies to misdemeanors. 29 For instance, in 2010, the Colorado legislature amended its drug
possession laws to make possession of most drugs (e.g., cocaine and heroin) a misdemeanor
rather than a felony (and marijuana possession is decriminalized in Colorado). Colorado is
reinvesting the money saved in treatment programs. 30
As of July 1, 2010, there were 2,260 inmates in custody of the Florida Department of Corrections
due to charges of illegal possession of marijuana or cocaine. One third of these inmates were
first-time offenders. The average maximum sentence for illegal possession is 2.9 years with an
average of 2.17 years for first time offenders. If half of the first-time offenders were diverted
from prison, the state could save approximately $6.7 million, annually. 31 A 50% reduction
in all current drug offenders serving time for cocaine or marijuana possession would
constitute a savings of $21.2 million.
Recommendation: The Florida Legislature should amend 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes, to
reclassify low-level marijuana and/or cocaine possession as a misdemeanor.
7. Update value thresholds for property felonies
In Florida, most theft, fraud and other property offense laws establish the dollar threshold that
makes the crime a felony at $300; other thresholds are even lower. For instance, for food stamp
fraud it is $200. For fraud through issuing a worthless check or stopping payment on a check, it
is $150. And for removal of a from rental property if a landlord’s lien has been placed on it, it is
$50. Florida also makes the theft of specific objects (e.g., pigs) a felonious theft regardless of
value.
As with the changes other states are making to their drug laws by raising the weight level
thresholds that make drug possession crimes a felony, other states are also raising the dollar
value thresholds that make property crimes felonies.
28

OPPAGA, Research Memorandum, Options for Reducing Prison Costs, March 3, 2009.
See, e.g., Vera Institute of Justice, Criminal Justice Trends; Key Legislative Changes in Sentencing Policy, 2001–
2010; September 2010.
30
Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, 2010 Legislative Summary.
31
As of July 1, 2010, 712 were first-time offenders. Estimates assume an average per diem cost of $52.00 for
public institutions and $45.53 for private institutions.
29

Among the states that have raised their thresholds for felony property crimes are South Carolina
(increasing the threshold for felony malicious injury to animal or property from $5,000 to
$10,000); Delaware (Class G felony computer crimes from $500 to $1,500); Montana (increased
threshold dollar amounts for a number of felony property crimes from $1,000 to $1,500);
Washington (increased minimum threshold of Class C felony property crimes from $250 to
$750). 32
As of July 1, 2010 there were 1,581 inmates in custody of the Florida Department of Corrections
with carrying charges of grand theft between $300 and $5,000. The average maximum sentence
for all of these individuals is 2.93 years. For every 1% inmates with grand theft charges
diverted from prison, the state could save approximately $296,000 annually. 33
Recommendation: The Florida Legislature should increase the dollar thresholds that make
property offenses a felony and reexamine offenses made felonious based solely on the type of
property stolen.
8. Amend the driving with a suspended license law to reduce the penalty from felony to
misdemeanor when the reason for the suspension is inability to pay a financial
obligation
Just a few years ago there was a spike in the number of people being sent to state prison for
driving with a suspended license. This happened as a result of the Legislature having made a
number of changes in the law over the years that made the failure to meet an increasing list of
financial obligations (for instance, court fines and child support) cause to suspend a driver’s
license.
With more such failures punishable by license suspension, there were more felony convictions
for driving a third time with a suspended license. In 2003, the increase was 10.8 percent; in 2004,
it was another 10.4 percent.
The Legislature responded, passing a law 34 that changed what had been a felony for repeated
convictions for driving with a suspended license to a misdemeanor for the many offenders whose
convictions had resulted from the inability to make payments on obligations. However, a
qualifier was put in the law, namely that this change did not apply “if a person does not have a
prior forcible felony conviction as defined in s. 776.08, F.S” – no matter how long ago.
As of July 1, 2010, there were 1,023 inmates in custody of the Florida Department of Corrections
held on charges of driving with a suspended license with an average maximum sentence of 4.79

32

Id.
This assumes that this prison population represents an accurate sample of relevant offenders incarcerated by
Florida at any given time. Estimates assume an average per diem cost of $52.00 for public institutions and $45.53
for private institutions.
34
CS/SB 1988.
33

years. For every 1% of these individuals diverted from prison, the state could save
approximately $179,000 annually. 35
Recommendation: The Legislature should rescind this qualifying language and that driving
with a suspended license, when the suspension was due to failure to pay a financial obligation,
be recast as a misdemeanor offense in all instances.
9. Expand electronic monitoring as an alternative to state prison sentences
In January of 2010, a significant study prepared for the National Institute of Justice and produced
by Florida State University Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research looked at the
impact of Florida’s electronic monitoring (EM) policies and practices. It found that “EM
reduces the likelihood of failure under community supervision. The reduction in the risk of
failure is about 31%, relative to offenders placed on other forms of community supervision.” 36
The findings of this study show that EM is effective for offenders under a variety of different
types of supervision and that involve varying levels of control and conditions, and across crime
types and age groups.
The research team recommended that “there needs to be a reevaluation of the criteria the
judiciary uses in EM placement, as well as laws which unilaterally mandate EM for specified
offender types, regardless of whether the research indicates that it will make a difference in
behavior.”
Cost savings can be realized through the release of nonviolent inmates at different levels of their
incarceration and utilize EM throughout the remainder of the sentence versus keeping them until
they serve 85% of their sentences. Given varying rates of success, the state could save between
$1.14 million and $11.4 million for FY2011-2012 if EM is used for the last 20% of the sentence.
If that sentence percentage is increased, the state could save between $4.4 and $43.8 million if
EM is used for the remaining 35% of the sentence, given various success rates. 37

35

An average per diem cost of $52.00 is used for inmates housed in a public institution and an average per diem cost
of $45.53 is used for inmates housed in a private institutions.
36
Bales, Bill, et al., A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring, Report Submitted to the
Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, The Florida State University
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, January 2010
37
The savings are calculated for the period between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, using a cross section of the
inmate population in custody of the FDOC as of July 1, 2010. An average per diem cost of $52.00 is used for
inmates housed in a public institution and an average per diem cost of $45.53 is used for inmates housed in a private
institution. An average per diem cost of $8.94 is used for EM.

Success
Rate
100%
50%
25%
10%

Estimated Cost savings 38 FY2011-12
(Monitoring the remaining sentence via EM)
Final 20% of Final 25% of Final 30% of
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
$11,417,106
$22,655,389
$33,462,449
$5,708,553
$11,327,694
$16,731,224
$2,854,276
$5,663,847
$8,365,612
$1,141,711
$2,265,539
$3,346,245

Final 35% of
Maximum
Sentence
$43,778,758
$21,889,379
$10,944,689
$4,377,876

Recommendation: The Legislature should expand authority for the use of electronic
monitoring as an alternative to incarceration either at sentencing or as part of a reentry
program at the end of a prison sentence.
10. Expand adult post-adjudicatory drug courts
In 2009, with federal funds, the Legislature established eight post-adjudicatory drug courts with
the goal of diverting otherwise prison-bound offenders and saving corrections costs. At the same
time, the legislature directed OPPAGA to evaluate these courts’ effectiveness.
In October 2010, OPPAGA released its report, finding that while the drug courts were operating
as directed, the cost savings anticipated were not realized because “initial admissions targets
overestimated the potential population of offenders who would qualify for the programs and
strict eligibility criteria limited admissions. Some programs also appear to be serving offenders
who would be unlikely to be sentenced to prison in the absence of drug court.” 39
The 2009 legislation was expected to divert 4,000 people from prison and thereby save $95
million in Corrections costs. The 2010 midyear target was 900 diversions; instead, the courts
served 324 people.
Those admitted met the statutory criteria that they “had no prior or current violent felony
offenses, had committed third-degree nonviolent felony offenses or received technical violations
of probation, and had sentencing scores of 52 points or fewer.” But most participants scored
below 44 points.
Significantly, according to OPPAGA, “Judges in six of the eight expansion counties are
certifying that the offenders admitted to drug court with sentencing scores below 44 points would
have been sentenced to prison in the absence of drug court. [See Recommendation #5 above]
38

Estimates based on release of nonviolent inmates without any prior commitment to the state prison system.
Estimates do not include costs to administer the EM program, which could potentially be off-set through fees to
individual offenders (dependent on successful collection of such fees), or any potential increase of workload for
DOC patrol officers or other law enforcement officers, if necessary.
39
Without Changes, Expansion Drug Courts Unlikely to Realize Expected Cost Savings, Report No. 10-54, October
2010

However, in Polk and Orange counties it appears that drug court participants would not have
been sentenced to prison in the absence of this alternative.
OPPAGA found that 92% of offenders in these counties scored below 44 points. (The
Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research has found that Polk has recently
cut its (related) year-and-a-day commitments by 40%.)
Recommendation: The Legislature should enact legislation adopting the recommendations
made by OPPAGA related to expanding drug court criteria by: 1)Authorizing drug courts to
serve offenders who are cited for technical violations of probation other than a failed
substance abuse test, if substance abuse was the main factor at the time of their violation; and
2)Giving judges discretion to allow offenders with prior violent offenses who are appropriate
for treatment and do not present a risk to public safety to participate in expansion drug court.

Section III: Recommendations relating to incarceration, release, supervision and reducing
recidivism.
Florida must not only address the front-end drivers of prison growth, but also the policy choices
that maintain the large numbers of people in prison and that fail to address recidivism reduction.
11. Institute adult post-incarceration drug courts
While 26.7 percent of those entering Florida prisons in 2009-10 were sentenced for drug crimes,
over 50 percent need substance abuse treatment. 40 Approximately 60 percent of all arrests in
Florida are for crimes committed either under the influence of drugs and alcohol or are
committed to acquire drugs or alcohol. 41
As of December 31, 2009, there were 23,463 inmates serving time for property crimes (e.g., any
burglary, theft or fraud). 42 If at least 30 percent of these inmates committed their crime for drug
related reasons, then there are more than 7,040 individuals in Florida’s prisons who committed
property crimes and are in need of drug rehabilitation.
Concurrently, there are 19,723 drug offenders (e.g., possession, trafficking, and manufacturing)
serving in Florida’s prison system. Although drug rehabilitation programs exist within state
facilities, they serve a fraction of those needing treatment. DOC established a goal of increasing
the number of inmates participating in substance abuse treatment programs by 10 percent
annually, but it started from a baseline of just 4,902 inmates receiving primary treatment (while
39,361 receive screening assessments) during FY2008-09.
40

OPPAGA Report No. 04-69
Supreme Court Task Force on Treatment-Based Drug Courts, “Report on Florida’s Drug Courts,” July 2009.
42
Data provided by the Department of Corrections Bureau of Research and Data Analysis. “Property Crime” as
defined by the White House ONDCP, www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.htm.
41

Significant savings could be achieved if certain offenders were allowed to receive treatment
outside of the confines of prison during the last portion of their prison sentence, and research
shows that programs in the community produce twice the impact on recidivism as the same
program behind the walls. Allowing some nonviolent offenders to participate in drug court
programs after serving 60 percent of their sentence would ensure that they continue to be
monitored but receive treatment at a significantly lower cost to the state and with potentially
greater outcomes.
Florida TaxWatch identified approximately 15,000 nonviolent 43 offenders currently in the state
prison system, many of which could be directed towards post-incarceration drug courts
Recommendation: The Legislature should authorize the Florida Parole Commission to permit
incarcerated drug-involved offenders who have served at least 60 percent of their original
prison sentence to complete the remaining portion of their term as a participant in a
community-based drug court program.
12. Increase the maximum gain time accrual allowed
The notion of incentive gain time, that is, days subtracted from one’s sentence for good behavior
behind bars, has been in effect in Florida since 1989. Gain time is currently discretionary and
may be awarded by DOC when “an inmate works diligently, participates in training, uses time
constructively, or otherwise engages in positive activities.”
In 1995, the Legislature limited the reach of gain time and enacted a law that provides: “for
sentences imposed for offenses committed on or after October 1, 1995, the department may grant
up to 10 days per month of incentive gain time, except that no prisoner is eligible to earn any
type of gain time in an amount that would cause a sentence to expire, end, or terminate, or that
would result in a prisoner’s release, prior to serving a minimum of 85 percent of the sentence
imposed.” [Emphasis added] 944.275, F.S.
Accordingly, during the last fifteen percent of an inmate’s term in prison, DOC has no discretion
to reward good behavior, and inmates have no gain time incentive to comply with reentry
planning efforts or participate in programs that are designed to reduce recidivism upon release.
Adjusting the cap on accumulated gain time would provide critically needed incentives for
prisoners to engage in constructive behavior and reentry programming and would result in
considerable cost savings for the state, with no risk to public safety.
Significant cost savings can be realized by allowing nonviolent inmates to be released at
different points of maximum gain time as opposed to preventing release before reaching the 85%
threshold of the sentence. 44 Based on a range of maximum gain time levels and percentage of
43

See Appendix on page 55.
Estimates are based on inmates who have reached maximum gain time and have had no prior commitment to the
state prison system. An average per diem cost of $52.00 is used for inmates housed in a public institution and an
average per diem cost of $45.53 is used for inmates housed in a private institutions. The savings are calculated for
44

inmates released with maximum gain time, flexibility to the 85% rule could save Florida $1.4
million to $53 million in FY2011-12.
Estimated Cost Savings FY2011-12
Percent of
Nonviolent Inmates
Released with
Maximum Gain Time
100%
50%
25%
10%

20%
Maximum
Gain Time

25%
Maximum
Gain Time

30%
Maximum
Gain Time

35%
Maximum
Gain Time

$13,819,336
$6,909,668
$3,454,834
$1,381,933.61

$27,423,455
$13,711,727
$6,855,864
$2,742,345.47

$40,506,339
$20,253,169
$10,126,585
$4,050,633.85

$52,995,892
$26,497,946
$13,248,973
$5,299,589.25

Recommendation: The legislature should revisit its 1995 amendments to the gain time law, or
include consideration of the gain time laws as part of the top-to-bottom commission review
(from Recommendation 11).
13. Authorize the possibility of parole for certain elderly offenders
While the literature shows that most offenders age out of their crime-committing years, the
nation’s prison population is graying; nationally 10 percent of the U.S. prison population is 50
years old or older. 45 In Florida, it is far higher and surging. As of June of 2010, 16.1 percent
(16,483 people) of the Florida prison population were 50 years or older. In 1996, 5.7 percent of
Florida’s prisoners were elderly; in 2000, 8.0 percent were 50 years or older.
According to Florida Senate staff research, the cost of incarcerating a person over the age of 50
is three times greater than that of incarcerating younger people, primarily due to medical costs.
Individuals in the community or nursing homes who are disabled or elderly are eligible for
federally funded Medicaid (with state match) and/or Medicare, but people who are incarcerated
are not eligible for such federal health care support, nor are the prisons.
Thus, Florida is increasingly saddled with the medical costs of an elderly prison population when
some of these offenders would pose little, if any, risk to the public out of prison.
Many elderly prisoners were sentenced prior to 1983 when Florida abolished parole and thus are
parole eligible. However, while approximately 5,000 inmates in Florida’s prisons are parole
eligible, only 42 of the 37,391 inmates released from prison in FY2008-09 were actually paroled.
Alteration of parole standards for inmates over the age of 65 would save the state a significant
amount without compromising public safety. Although determination should likely be made
based on level of disability and potential risk, and must be made by the Florida Parole
the period between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, using a cross section of the inmate population in custody of the
FDOC as of July 1, 2010.
45
BJS, Prisoners in 2008.

Commission or other appropriate body based on the individual offender, assuming only prisoners
over 65 further limits the total number of prisoners eligible under such a program.
Assuming only inmates who have minimally served 20 to 25 years of their maximum sentence
prior to the age of 65 and have not committed capital murder, 46 but without specific
consideration of level of disability, Florida could save between $263,000 and $2.6 million in
FY2011-12 if elderly inmates were released after 20 years – considering varying levels of
approval by the Florida Parole Commission based on level of disability and individual offenders
potential risk. Assuming the same factors, Florida could save between $172,500 and $1.7
million if varying levels of elderly inmates were granted parole after commuting 25 years of
their sentences.
Estimated Cost Savings
Percent of eligible inmates approved for parole by Parole Commission after 20
years of sentence

FY2011-12
FY2012-13
FY2013-14

100% Approved

50% Approved

$2,632,387
$3,404,545
$4,176,702

$1,316,194
$1,702,272
$2,088,351

25%
Approved
$658,097
$851,136
$1,044,176

10% Approved
$263,239
$340,454
$417,670

Percent of eligible inmates approved for parole by Parole Commission after 25
years of sentence

FY2011-12
FY2012-13
FY2013-14

100% Approved

50% Approved

$1,724,793
$1,949,363
$2,597,975

$862,396
$974,681
$1,298,988

25%
Approved
$431,198
$487,341
$649,494

10% Approved
$172,479
$194,936
$259,798

Recommendation: The Florida Legislature should pursue strategies that allow for release of
elderly prisoners who do not pose a risk to public safety.

46

FDOC cross section of inmate population in custody data report on July 1, 2010 was used for these estimates. An
average per diem cost of $52.00 is used for inmates housed in a public institution and an average per diem cost of
$45.53 is used for inmates housed in a private institution.

14. Expand prison work release programs
Florida’s work release programs allow selected (i.e., pre-screened as low-risk) inmates to work at
paid employment in the community and live at work release centers outside of prison during the
last 15 months of their sentence.
Housing inmates at work release centers is significantly cheaper than housing them in a regular
prison facility. The average cost of housing an inmate at a work release center is $25.84 less per
day than housing them at a regular prison facility. 47 Expanding the work release program to
include additional individuals who are currently on the waiting list could produce significant
savings for Florida.
The key step to achieve such savings is to incorporate more eligible inmates into the program.
DOC should rescind the informal policy of holding one prison bed in reserve for every work
release bed and capping work release at 4 percent of the inmate population.
Allowing nonviolent inmates to carry out the remaining portion of their maximum sentence in a
work release program is more cost effective than mandating inmates carry out 85% of the
sentence in a regular prison facility. Given varying rates of success, the state could save
$536,000 to $5.4 million annually if 20% of the maximum sentence is completed in work
release programs. With 35% of the maximum sentence completed in work release
programs, the state would save between $2.1 million and $20.9 million in cost savings. 48
Estimated Cost Savings for FY2011-12
(% of final sentences served in work release programs)
Final 20% of Final 25% of Final 30% of Final 35% of
Success Rate
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
Sentence
$5,359,818
$10,717,792
$15,915,608
$20,893,834
100%
$2,679,909
$5,358,896
$7,957,804
$10,446,917
50%
$1,339,955
$2,679,448
$3,978,902
$5,223,458
25%
$535,982
$1,071,779
$1,591,561
$2,089,383
10%

47

Collins Center for Public Policy Report, “Smart Justice: Findings and Recommendations for Florida Criminal
Justice Reform,” February 2010. According to the report the average cost of housing an inmate at a work release
center is $26.16, the average cost of housing an inmate in a prison facility is about $52.00 (even when work release
centers are excluded from the calculation).
48
The estimates are calculated for the period between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, using a cross section of the
inmate population in custody of the FDOC as of July 1, 2010. An average per diem cost of $52.00 is used for
inmates housed in a public institution and an average per diem cost of $45.53 is used for inmates housed in a private
institution. An average per diem cost of $30.80 is used for work release facilities. Those individuals who are already
housed in work release facilities are not included in the analysis and additional upfront costs of expanding work
release are not factored into cost savings.

Recommendation: The legislature should require that DOC establish a process that
immediately: 1) expands the current capacity of the work release program to include those
eligible individuals who are currently on waiting lists to join; 2) ensures that the capacity of
the program is set at the maximum sustainable level and reevaluated on a regular basis; and
3) expedites the movement of individuals into work release so that the average participating
population in each program is maintained as close to full capacity as possible.
15. Expand evidence-based prison-based programs that reduce recidivism
Florida allocates about one percent of the Corrections budget to prison-based programming
(substance abuse treatment, education, vocational training, release planning, etc.) aimed at
improving the chances that the inmates will not return to prison.
While DOC has a goal of reducing recidivism, about one third of the inmates nevertheless do
come back within three years of release. Florida has not focused sufficient resources in preparing
them during their previous stints in prison to succeed upon being released.

Recidivism: Return to prison for a new
offense or a technical violation
RECIDIVISM RATES OVER TIME
Three yelW' recldilrism rale by yeor of releas-e
~.~

"5"
a:
"0
~

0
0

~.~

~.~
n~

.~

'"':1
0

•,
I

• 32.0'4

;0
<1>

"<.a:

XI.O%

11$.0ll0

iii·

3

26.0'll0

(f)

Z<l.0ll0

2"

a.

,,~

'<

~.~

Ye., of _

"om Pri__

In December 2009, OPPAGA reported DOC was concentrating its rehabilitative programming
on evidence-based approaches, which have “four basic components: assessing inmates using
validated risk and needs assessment instruments; addressing offender attributes that directly
relate to criminal behavior; developing release plans to facilitate offender reentry into society;
and evaluating program effectiveness.” This is important, especially due to the extremely limited
resources available for programming.

At the same time, community-based programs are also in short supply, and research shows that
programs in the community produce twice the impact on recidivism as the same program behind
the walls.
Recommendation: the Legislature should reinvest a portion of the savings realized from
front-end reforms that slow prison growth into expanding prison and community-based
programming to reduce recidivism, thereby slowing prison growth further. In the meantime,
these programs could be expanded at no additional cost to the state through the use of
“trusties” (i.e., inmates who have earned trust through good behavior) and volunteers.
A. Expand evidence-based substance abuse treatment
While 65.1 percent of DOC inmates (65,706 individuals) were in need of treatment, there were
only 4,902 treatment slots available in FY2008-09 (before the $10 million cut in DOC
programming), making treatment available to only 7.4 percent of those who need it.
Recommendation: The legislature should restore the $10 million in DOC programming and
target it to in-prison and community-based treatment
B. Expand evidence-based mental health treatment
In Florida, about 17,957 inmates (17.8% of the total) receive ongoing mental health care; the
number of those incarcerated who suffer from mental illness and are not being treated is not
known. Compare that to the total forensic and civil commitment state psychiatric beds: 2,723.
Prisons and jails are the default mental health system in Florida. Texas enacted an information
sharing law that makes it easy to share information on individuals with mental illnesses who are
accessing so many deep end services including those in the criminal justice system. It allows
them to track individuals with Serious Mental Illness (SMI) to assure case management,
consistent medication and re-entry. It has also helped them tremendously to keep people with
SMI out of jail and prison.
Recommendation: The Legislature should review and amend statutes to facilitate more
effective collaboration among stakeholders involved in the delivery of mental health services,
particularly as they relate to continuity of care for individuals involved in or at risk of
becoming involved in the justice system. This should include consideration of opportunities to
improve information exchange among state and county agencies, as well contracted entities,
that provide mental health and/or substance abuse treatment services. Consideration of such
information sharing should be for the purposes of facilitating continuity of care only and
should not be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding. The Legislature may wish to
review chapter 614.017 of the Texas Health and Safety Code as an example of such cross
systems collaboration.
The Legislature should pass the Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment
and Crime Reduction Act.

The Legislature should authorize county court judges to order involuntary outpatient
treatment as a condition of release for defendants with mental illnesses when appropriate.
C. Expand evidence-based literacy, education and vocational training
DOC reported that 50.5 percent of DOC inmates (44,786 total) in FY2008-09 were tested as
reading at or below the 6th grade level and that “for every education level an inmate gains, that
person is 3% to 4% less likely to come back to prison. Inmates with a vocational certificate at
release recidivate 14% less than inmates overall.”
That year DOC was able to award 1,953 GED certificates and 1,881 vocational certificates. As
demonstrated below in DOC’s annual report, the completion rates in the literacy, adult basic
education, and vocational programs are quite low.
Recommendation: The DOC should continue to aggressively look for innovative ways to
partner with community colleges and public and private workforce development entities to
improve skill levels of inmates.
Panicipation in Correctional Education Classes in FY 2008-09
Enrollments·

Mandatory Literacy

Adult Basic

ITA'

Education

GED

Vocational

Total

Number of Courses

1,700

8,086

6,201

2,064

5,034

23,085

Number of Inmates

1,700

8,086

6,201

2,064

4,789

"*22,840

Number of Courses

412

557

1,953

1,881

4,803

Number of Inmates

412

557

1,953

1,562

***4,484

Completions**

* "Enrollments" includes inmates enrolled as of 7/1/08 and new enrollments through 6/30/09.
** "Completions" are from 7/1108 through 6/30/09.
*** Inmates who participated in Mandatory literacy, Adult Basic Education, GED and Vocational courses get counted for participation in all four
programs.
"Number of Courses" and "Number of Inmates" are different for vocational counts since it is possible for a given inmate to be involved in more
than one course in this program year.
For greater detail, Adult Basic Education (course "9900004") is shown in a separate column from the GED (course "9900026").
"Completions" are defined as a CMP, ATT or CXS code on the DC32 screen for MLP and ABE participants, a GED certificate for course
"9900026" participants, and a vocational certificate for vocational program participants.
1lTA=lnmate Teaching Assistant Program.
Note that none of the counts in the above tables include program participation or certificates earned at private facilities.

D. Expand life management skills training
OPPAGA notes that there was a lack of programming addressing criminal thinking. 49 This
component was to be added to DOC’s 100-hour transition / release program; however, during
FY2008-09, 8,850 inmates (26.9% of all released inmates who completed the course) took the
course via self-study. This is less than optimal not only because of the low literacy rate of the
inmates but because without the interaction with a facilitator, the results can be negligible.

49

Department of Corrections Should Maximize Use of Best Practices in Inmate Rehabilitation Efforts, Report No.
09-44, December 2009.

Expanding currently available rehabilitative and training programs to those offenders who are on
waiting lists, or are otherwise eligible to participate in them, could curb the rising inmate
population and eliminate the need for the continued expansion of state prisons.
Recommendation: The DOC should continue its efforts to provide evidence-based
programming to address criminal thinking and to provide release programming through
facilitators rather than relying on self-study.
E. Expand faith- and character-based prisons
OPPAGA has found that faith- and character-based prisons improve institutional safety, achieve
lower recidivism rates and attract more volunteers. Wakulla County’s recidivism rate, for
example, is 15 percent lower than that of comparable prisons. Yet these more effective prisons
had a waiting list of 8,890 inmates for the institution-based programs and 1,600 for the dormbased programs at the time of October 2009 study. 50
Recommendation: The DOC should expand its faith- and character-based prisons.
F. Help inmates apply for Medicaid, Social Security Income, and Veterans benefits
prior to release
Receiving the benefits of social programs to which they are entitled upon release will help those
ex-offenders succeed in the community and reduce the likelihood that those individuals will
return to prison. Helping inmates apply for those social benefits before release can improve their
chances of successful reentry.
Recommendation: The legislature should expand programs that help reentering inmates
apply for government benefits for which they are qualified.
16. Review and revise state-created employment restrictions based on criminal records
Gainful employment is essential to any strategy to reduce recidivism, and thus to reduce crime
and make communities safer. 51 However, among the many hurdles facing people coming home

50

OPPAGA, Faith- and Character-Based Prison Initiative Yields Institutional Benefits; Effect on Recidivism
Modest, Report No. 09-38, October 2009.
51
“Finding and maintaining a job is a critical dimension of successful prisoner reentry. Research has shown that
employment is associated with lower rates of reoffending, and higher wages are associated with lower rates of
criminal activity. However, former prisoners face tremendous challenges in finding and maintaining legitimate job
opportunities. . .”Baer, et al. Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry: Research Findings from the Urban
Institute’s Prisoner Reentry Portfolio, Urban Institute, January 2006, citing, Jared Bernstein and Ellen Houston,
Crime and Work: What We Can Learn from the Low-Wage Labor Market (Washington, DC: Economic Policy
Institute, 2000); Bruce Western and Becky Petit, “Incarceration and Racial Inequality in Men’s Employment,”
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54, no. 3 (2000): 3–16. A Canadian study found that “Offenders who were
employed were convicted of less than half the convictions (22.2% versus 42.9%) and one quarter of the new violent
convictions (5.6% versus 20.6%) of offenders who did not obtain employment in the first six months of release.”
Gillis, et al., Prison Work Program (CORCAN) Participation: Post-Release Employment and Recidivism, Research
Branch, Correctional Service Canada, March 1998.

from prisons and jails is in successfully reintegrating into society, getting a good job is often one
of the most daunting challenges.
Equally daunting, for both the person with the record and for workforce staff who might attempt
to help him search for jobs, is figuring out what occupations and places of employment are
possibly open to people with criminal records.
Recognizing this challenge, Governor Jeb Bush, on the advice of the Governor’s Ex-Offender
Task Force, and concerned about Florida’s stubborn recidivism rate, and understanding that
gainful employment reduces recidivism, issued an executive order in 2006 requiring his state
agencies to inventory the employment restrictions they administer, provide data on their impact
and recommend reforms. Bush was the first governor to order such a review, which was hailed as
a “landmark” in the Washington Post.
The Florida inventory, the findings of which were laid out in the Task Force’s report to the
Governor, 52 revealed a vast, bewildering and unwieldy patchwork of hundreds of state-created
restrictions of widely varying severity, often regardless of the trust and responsibility required of
the job, affecting over 40% of Florida’s public and private sector jobs.
The Task Force reported that sometimes the restrictions offer the employer a measure of hiring
discretion after reviewing a background check. Sometimes they give the employer the right to
assess the relevance of the past crime to the job. Sometimes they provide the job seeker with an
opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation. But often the restrictions offer little flexibility to
either employers or people looking for work.
Each restriction has its own nuances. Some restrictions put jobs or places of employment offlimits to anyone with a record of a criminal conviction. Some put them off-limits only for those
convicted of certain crimes. Sometimes the restriction creates a lifetime ban. Sometimes the
restriction is time-limited. Sometimes the time limits depend on the crime.
For employers, it’s a minefield. Hiring in violation of the restrictions can lead to a loss of a
business license and other harsh penalties.
For job seekers with a criminal record, the impact of restrictions are often both unknown and
unknowable until after incurring the costs of a course of study, tests, and fees and the application
for a job or license is finally reviewed.
Despite this strong effort to understand the restrictions and the Task Force’s reform
recommendations, few reforms have been adopted.
Recommendation: The Legislature and the Governor revisit and adopt the Task Force’s
common sense employment restrictions reform recommendations.

52

Key Findings and Recommendations Based on the Task Force’s Analysis of the State Agency Responses to

Executive Order 06-89.

17. Expand the Florida Accountability Initiative for Responsible (FAIR) Probation
Despite, as OPPAGA reported in April 2010, rescission by DOC of its zero-tolerance policy on
probation violations adopted in 2003 and a concomitant decrease in the number of technical
violators sent to prison, in the 2009-10 fiscal year, 7,479 people were sent to prison on technical
probation violations. 53
FAIR, modeled after Project HOPE, designed by Judge Steven Alm in Hawaii, is a model that
challenges what is often in actuality and in perception a kind of “randomized severity” of
sanctions, that is, sometimes the violation will be punished harshly, sometimes mildly,
sometimes not at all.
A program evaluation of HOPE commissioned by the National Institute of Justice was completed
in 2009 and found that among HOPE participants, compared to the control groups: positive drug
tests were reduced by 86%; missed probation appointments were reduced by 80%; revocations of
probation were reduced by more than 50%; and arrests for new crimes reduced by more than
50%. 54
Like HOPE, FAIR targets probationers who are at the highest risk of reoffending and
discourages such offending with swift, predictable, and immediate sanctions – typically resulting
in several days in jail – for each detected violation, such as detected drug use or missed
appointments with a probation officer.
A strong nexus exists between drugs, crime and incarceration. FAIR Probation works to lower
heavy drug consumption and improve public safety. FAIR Probation is a way to support
Florida’s drug courts by maximizing limited treatment space. In order to lower incarceration
costs and improve public safety, community supervision must be strengthened in order for judges
to view it as a viable alternative. FAIR Probation works to make community supervision a costeffective alternative by instituting swift and certain consequences for non-compliance. The
keystone of the project is creating personal responsibility on the part of the offender.
FAIR Probation has not yet been initiated in Florida. FAIR Probation is close to being piloted in
Circuit 9 (Orlando). All stakeholders (judge, county jail, prosecutors, public defenders, and
probation) have been briefed and are close to starting after January 1. Alachua County
(Gainesville Circuit 8) has also been in early discussions about starting the project.
Recommendation: The Department of Corrections should work with the state courts to
implement FIAR as a pilot and expand the program if it proves effective. Strengthen
community supervision as a viable alternative to costly incarceration by creating and
expanding the Florida Accountability Initiative for Responsible (FAIR) Probation.

53

Zero Tolerance Policy Rescinded and Alternatives Implemented to Address Technical Violations, Report No. 1039, April 2010.
54
The Pew Center on the States, The Impact of Hawaii's HOPE Program on Drug Use, Crime and Recidivism,
January 2010.

18. Expand Veterans Courts
Studies have found that anywhere from 20% to 50% of veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Furthermore, about half of
these individuals do not seek treatment. PTSD and other mental health disorders are strongly
linked to drug use and related criminal behavior. It is estimated that approximately 10% of all
individuals with criminal records are veterans. 55
Many state and local governments across the U.S. have instituted veterans courts to offer
treatment and diversion for non-violent offenders in this group, with promising results. For
example, a veterans court in Buffalo has a 90% graduation rate and no incidence of recidivisim.
According to Florida Senate research, 10 states have or are in process of passing legislation to
expand veterans courts.
The momentum to initiate such programs in Florida is also growing. Palm Beach County
implemented a veterans court in 2010. 56 Given the success rate of existing veterans courts
targeting non-violent offenders in other states, instituting and expanding similar programs in
Florida could help reduce recidivism and save valuable tax dollars. Such programs are also
eligible for Federal grants, saving additional state funds.
Recommendation: The Governor should convene a task force of veterans’ affairs and
criminal justice leaders to identify and resolve issues of veterans’ encounters with the criminal
justice system and to establish a framework for expanding veterans’ courts.
19. Reduce costs of inmate hospitalization (in non-DOC hospitals)
Inmates requiring hospitalization in non-DOC facilities cost the state million each year.
Estimates of the total cost of hospitalization put the total cost at approximately $50 million
annually. Paying these costs through Medicaid would lower the total cost to the state because
Medicaid is majority funded by the federal government and often pays lower hospitalization
rates. While Medicaid will not pay for care provided in DOC facilities, the state should ensure
that all potential costs of hospitalization at non-DOC facilities (i.e., when prisoners have to be
taken to community hospitals) are shifted to Medicaid.
Recommendation: The legislature should ensure that inmates remain Medicaid-eligible
during incarceration so that Medicaid can cover hospitalization costs when inmates receive
care in non-DOC settings.
Alternative: set state reimbursement rate at the Medicaid rate instead of 110% of Medicare
rate.

55

http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2244158

56

topicgallery

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/fl-palm-new-veterans-court-20101120,0,6995203.story?track=rss-

Recidivism-reduction strategy of Project Hope
Floridians under community supervision
(mostly probation)

Project HOPE outcomes

Florida DOC Annual Report 08-09

Section IV: Recommendations related to juveniles in the justice system
Getting smart on crime requires efficient and effective use of limited resources in prevention,
diversion, and intervention programs, especially when it comes to juvenile justice.
20. Comprehensively review and implement Blueprint Commission recommendations
Although some of the recommendations of the 2008 report have been adopted and implemented,
the overwhelming majority of them have not. One key recommendation, the revision of zerotolerance policies in public schools to ensure that students who are expelled or referred to law
enforcement pose a serious threat to school safety and are not expelled or arrested for petty
misconduct, was implemented in 2009. Although this measure will reduce costs by removing
unnecessary cases from the juvenile justice system, there is still much progress to be made.
Adopting the Blueprint Commission’s recommendations will help Florida set out in a new
direction that focuses on utilizing community resources and evidence-based approaches to
juvenile offender rehabilitation, and increasing public safety while simultaneously producing
savings to the state and taxpayers.
Recommendation: The Legislature should conduct a full review of the 2008 Blueprint
Commission report and explore the implementation of all cost savings recommendations that
have not yet been implemented.

21. Study the effects of barring commitment of misdemeanants to state custody
Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia have adopted legislation to keep misdemeanants out of state
custody and have reduced commitment rates substantially. In all three states, the state not only
realized significant cost-savings as a result of the legislation, but also saw improvements in
public safety. In Texas, youth cannot be committed to residential facilities for misdemeanor
offenses unless adjudicated for four or more prior offenses. This resulted in a 36% reduction in
commitments in the past three years. At the same time, juvenile arrests for violent offenses
dropped. North Carolina has adopted similar legislation that bars youth from being committed to
residential facilities for misdemeanor offenses or violations of misdemeanor probation. This had
the effect of reducing commitments by 61% from 1998 to 2008. Over the same time period,
juvenile arrests for violent offenses dropped by 20%. Legislation in Virginia bars youth from
commitment to residential facilities unless the youth has been previously adjudicated for a felony
of three or more Class 1 misdemeanors on separate occasions. Virginia saw a 50% drop in
commitments from 1999 to 2009, and a 36% drop in juvenile arrests for violent offenses.
More than 2,500 children were admitted to DJJ residential facilities for misdemeanors or
violations of probation in FY2008-09. If Florida had a statute barring the commitment of
misdemeanants to state custody, DJJ would have reduced admissions by 1,273, or 21% during
that period, which could have saved approximately $30 million ($25,668,000 for 1,183 children
in non-secure residential beds and $4,421,000 for 90 children in secure residential beds). 57
While Florida must continue to incarcerate youth who pose serious risks to public safety,
detention and incarceration of young people should be an option of last resort.
Recommendation: The Legislature should examine the potential savings produced by limiting
the commitment of juvenile misdemeanants.
22. Expand the Redirection program to avoid custodial care of juveniles
The Redirection program is a community-based, family-centered alternative to residential
juvenile justice commitments. According to a 2009 program evaluation, youth who successfully
completed the Redirection Program were 31 percent less likely to be subsequently arrested than
similar youth who successfully completed residential commitment programs.
An April 2010 OPPAGA study found that the Redirection Program has achieved $51.2 million in
cost savings for the state since it began five years ago, due to its lower operating costs when
compared to residential delinquency programs. 58
Redirection began as a way to redirect juvenile offenders with non-law probation violations from
residential commitment to lower cost, therapy-based community programs and has expanded to

57

Southern Poverty Law Center, Opportunities to Strengthen Florida’s Juvenile Justice System, September 17,
2010.
58

Redirection Saves $51.2 Million and Continues to Reduce Recidivism, Report No. 10-38, April 2010.

serve additional youth, such as nonviolent offenders being considered for commitment due to
misdemeanors and third-degree felonies.
The contracted project director estimates the program could serve 10 percent more juveniles
under the current framework. Expanding the program could result in much greater savings in the
first year.
Recommendation: The legislature should expand the Redirection Program and we endorse
the specific OPPAGA recommendations to expand the program (a) into underserved counties;
(b) to serve gang-involved youth; and (c) to implement a program to serve youth who commit
certain sex offenses. Additionally, the Legislature should examine potential savings from
expanding the program to include youth who have committed certain third- degree felonies.
23. Expand the use of juvenile civil citations
Civil citation programs are an alternative to arresting and taking children who commit
misdemeanors into custody. Civil Citation emerged as a way to replace the existing practices of
the current arrest model and incorporate early intervention and effective diversion programs for
juveniles who commit minor crimes. As stated in Florida Statutes, the Civil Citation process was
established “for the purpose of providing an efficient and innovative alternative to the custody by
the Department of Juvenile Justice of children who commit non-serious delinquent acts and to
ensure swift and appropriate consequences.”
The program allows juveniles who have committed a misdemeanor to complete community
service hours or participate in intervention programs as an alternative to being arrested and taken
into custody by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The program is implemented at the
local level in coordination with the chief judge of the circuit, state attorney, public defender, and
the head of each local law enforcement agency involved.
Authorized by 985.301, F.S., the program allows “any law enforcement officer, upon making
contact with a juvenile who admits having committed a misdemeanor [to] issue a civil citation
assessing not more than 50 community service hours, and may require participation in
intervention services appropriate to identify the needs of the juvenile.”
According to a 2010 Senate analysis 59 of a bill related to the citation program, “the programs
exist at the local level with the concurrence of the chief judge of the circuit, state attorney, public
defender, and the head of each local law enforcement agency involved. Currently, there are nine
civil citation programs funded by the DJJ and seven programs that are funded locally.”
Based on data from two major Civil Citation programs in Leon County and Miami-Dade County,
a statewide implementation of the Civil Citation program is estimated to reduce the number of

59

SB 2544 (2010)

youth referred for delinquency by 40%. 60 This would be an equivalent of 30,153 juveniles
according to the most recent data. The cost saving per civil citation would be $4,614 according to
a recent study by Florida Juvenile Justice Foundation or $1, 467 according to the 2009
Hillsborough County Study. 61 Using the number from the first study for Scenario 1 and the
second study for Scenario 2, the annual cost savings of implementing statewide Civil Citation
programs is estimated to range from $44 million to $139 million.
Given the estimated short-term annual savings of $44 to $139 million, it makes perfect sense to
implement Civil Citation programs throughout the state. Keeping juveniles away from prisons
will also generate long-term economic benefits in the form of increased output and employment.
Recommendation: The Legislature, state and local governments, business and community
organizations should work together to design and implement statewide Civil Citation programs
that give a second chance to all children who commit non-serious delinquent acts.
24. Increase operational efficiencies and public safety by aligning the average length of stay
by delinquents with best practices in residential facilities
Over the past eight years, the average length of stay for delinquents in residential facilities has
been steadily increasing, even as the number of commitments has fallen. This increase cannot be
explained in the change of profile of youth committed to DJJ. In fact, the percentage of youth
committed for misdemeanors or probation violations was approximately the same in FY 2008-09
as it was in FY 1999-2000. 62 Increases in the average length of stay have significant cost
implications for the state, almost $20 million per year. Furthermore, there is evidence that
increased lengths of stay may actually reduce public safety.
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice’s 2008 Blueprint Commission Report concluded
from the best available research: “…youth who are kept in programs for prolonged length of
stays after treatment goals are achieved often begin to deteriorate and may be more likely to reoffend once release is finally achieved.” 63
The Blueprint Commission recommends the creation of small, community-based programs that
use a continuum of care and the implementation of an “offender review” process that
systematically identifies and reviews non-violent and non-serious offenders as well as those who

60

Florida Juvenile Justice Foundation, “Getting Smart on Juvenile Crime in Florida: Taking It to the Next Level,”
August 2010.
61

Dewey & Associates Inc., “Civil Citation of Hillsborough County, Cost Savings Analysis,” July 2009.

62

Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. 2001. Misdemeanant and Non-Law Violation
Youth in Juvenile Justice Commitment Beds, Report No. 01-49.
63,9,&10

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. “Report of the Blueprint Commission: Getting Smart About Juvenile
Justice,” January 2008, p. 69. Available at:
www.djj.state.fl.us/blueprint/documents/Report_of_the_Blueprint_Commision.pdf.

have made significant progress in their treatment programs. Suitable candidates would be
referred to the courts for early release or “step down” into community-based programs. 64
Another way to reduce the length of stay is to count services and education received in detention
towards the completion of the youth’s treatment plan, per the Blueprint Print Commission’s
recommendation. The Commission also suggests counting these services in competency
restoration. 65 This recommendation reduces cost by eliminating the duplication of services.
Recommendation: Florida should examine the increasing average lengths of stay by youth
offenders in residential facilities. One possible option is that length of stay be limited to the
completion of treatment goals, and enact the Blueprint Commission’s specific
recommendations to (1) implement an offender review process that would allow for the early
release of suitable candidates or a “step-down” to less restrictive, community-based care; (2)
count education and services received in detention towards the completion of the youth’s
treatment plan.

For more information about the Florida TaxWatch Government Cost Savings
Task Force or to view the full Report and Recommendations of the Florida
TaxWatch Government Cost Savings Task Force for FY 2011-12 (December
2010), please visit www.FloridaTaxWatch.org or contact Florida TaxWatch at
850-222-5052.

64

Id. at 41.

65

Id. at 42.

About Florida TaxWatch
Florida TaxWatch is a statewide, non-profit, non-partisan taxpayer research institute and government watchdog
that over its 31-year history has become widely recognized as the watchdog of citizens’ hard-earned tax dollars.
Its mission is to provide the citizens of Florida and public officials with high quality, independent research and
education on government revenues, expenditures, taxation, public policies, and programs, and to increase the
productivity and accountability of Florida Government.
Florida TaxWatch's research recommends productivity enhancements and explains the statewide impact of
economic and tax and spend policies and practices on citizens and businesses. Florida TaxWatch has worked
diligently and effectively to help state government shape responsible fiscal and public policy that adds value and
benefit to taxpayers.
This diligence has yielded impressive results: in its first two decades alone, policymakers and government
employees implemented three-fourths of Florida TaxWatch's cost-saving recommendations, saving the taxpayers
of Florida more than $6.2 billion -- approximately $1,067 in added value for every Florida family, according to an
independent assessment by Florida State University.
Florida TaxWatch has a historical understanding of state government, public policy issues, and the battles fought
in the past necessary to structure effective solutions for today and the future. It is the only statewide organization
devoted entirely to Florida taxing and spending issues. Its research and recommendations are reported on
regularly by the statewide news media.
Supported by voluntary, tax-deductible memberships and grants, Florida TaxWatch is open to any organization or
individual interested in helping to make Florida competitive, healthy and economically prosperous by supporting
a credible research effort that promotes constructive taxpayer improvements. Members, through their loyal
support, help Florida TaxWatch bring about a more effective, responsive government that is accountable to the
citizens it serves.
Florida TaxWatch is supported by all types of taxpayers -- homeowners, small businesses, large corporations,
philanthropic foundations, professionals, associations, labor organizations, retirees -- simply stated, the taxpayers
of Florida. The officers, Board of Trustees and members of Florida TaxWatch are respected leaders and citizens
from across Florida, committed to improving the health and prosperity of Florida.
With your help, Florida TaxWatch will continue its diligence to make certain your tax investments are fair and
beneficial to you, the taxpaying customer, who supports Florida's government. Florida TaxWatch is ever present
to ensure that taxes are equitable, not excessive, that their public benefits and costs are weighed, and government
agencies are more responsive and productive in the use of your hard-earned tax dollars.
The Florida TaxWatch Board of Trustees is responsible for the general direction and oversight of the research institute and
safeguarding the independence of the organization's work. In his capacity as chief executive officer, the president is responsible for
formulating and coordinating policies, projects, publications, and selecting professional staff. As an independent research institute and
taxpayer watchdog, Florida TaxWatch does not accept money from Florida state and local governments. The research findings and
recommendations of Florida TaxWatch do not necessarily reflect the view of its members, staff, distinguished Board of Trustees, or
Executive Committee, and are not influenced by the positions of the individuals or organizations who directly or indirectly support the
research.



Integrity



Florida TaxWatch Values:

Productivity



Accountability

1



Independence



Quality Research

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
Newt Gingrich

American Solutions for Winning the Future

Grover Norquist
Americans for Tax Reform

Edwin Meese III

Former U.S. Attorney General

William J. Bennett

Former Secretary of Education and Federal
“Drug Czar”

Asa Hutchinson

Former U.S. Attorney and Federal “Drug Czar”

Pat Nolan
Justice Fellowship

David Keene

American Conservative Union

Richard Viguerie
ConservativeHQ.com

Chuck Colson

Prison Fellowship Ministries

Brooke Rollins

Texas Public Policy Foundation

Paul Gessing

Rio Grande Foundation

Tony Perkins

Family Research Council

George Liebmann

Calvert Institute for Policy Research, Inc.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin

American Alliance of Jews and Christians

Kelly McCutchen

Georgia Public Policy Foundation

Penny Nance

Concerned Women for America

Ward Connerly

American Civil Rights Institute & former Regent
of University of California

John J. DiIulio, Jr.

University of Pennsylvania

Kevin Kane

Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Bob Williams
State Budget Solutions

J. Robert McClure III
James Madison Institute

Gary Palmer

Alabama Policy Institute

Matt Mayer

Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions

Viet Dinh

Georgetown University Law Center & former
U.S. Assistant Attorney General

John McCollister
Platte Institute

Michael Carnuccio

Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

Ronald F. Scheberle

American Legislative Exchange Council

Eli Lehrer

Heartland Institute

David Barton
WallBuilders

As members of the nation’s conservative movement, we strongly support constitutionally
limited government, transparency, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and free
enterprise. We believe public safety is a core responsibility of government because the
establishment of a well-functioning criminal justice system enforces order and respect for
every person’s right to property and life, and ensures that liberty does not lead to license.
Conservatives correctly insist that government services be evaluated on whether they
produce the best possible results at the lowest possible cost, but too often this lens of
accountability has not focused as much on public safety policies as other areas of
government. As such, corrections spending has expanded to become the second fastest
growing area of state budgets—trailing only Medicaid.
Conservatives are known for being tough on crime, but we must also be tough on criminal
justice spending. That means demanding more cost-effective approaches that enhance
public safety. A clear example is our reliance on prisons, which serve a critical role by
incapacitating dangerous offenders and career criminals but are not the solution for every
type of offender. And in some instances, they have the unintended consequence of
hardening nonviolent, low-risk offenders—making them a greater risk to the public than
when they entered.
Applying the following conservative principles to criminal justice policy is vital to
achieving a cost-effective system that protects citizens, restores victims, and reforms
wrongdoers.
1. As with any government program, the criminal justice system must be transparent
and include performance measures that hold it accountable for its results in
protecting the public, lowering crime rates, reducing re-offending, collecting victim
restitution and conserving taxpayers’ money.
2. Crime victims, along with the public and taxpayers, are among the key “consumers”
of the criminal justice system; the victim’s conception of justice, public safety, and the
offender’s risk for future criminal conduct should be prioritized when determining
an appropriate punishment.
3. The corrections system should emphasize public safety, personal responsibility,
work, restitution, community service, and treatment—both in probation and parole,
which supervise most offenders, and in prisons.
4. An ideal criminal justice system works to reform amenable offenders who will return
to society through harnessing the power of families, charities, faith-based groups,
and communities.
5. Because incentives affect human behavior, policies for both offenders and the
corrections system must align incentives with our goals of public safety, victim
restitution and satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness, thereby moving from a system
that grows when it fails to one that rewards results.
6. Criminal law should be reserved for conduct that is either blameworthy or threatens
public safety, not wielded to grow government and undermine economic freedom.
These principles are grounded in time-tested conservative truths—constitutionally
limited government, transparency, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free
enterprise, and the centrality of the family and community. All of these are critical to
addressing today’s criminal justice challenges. It is time to apply these principles to the
task of delivering a better return on taxpayers’ investments in public safety. Our security,
prosperity, and freedom depend on it.
Signatures Last Updated: December 16, 2010

Exhibit 10

Right on Crime
The Conservative case for reform: Fighting Crime, Prioritizing Victims, and Protecting
Taxpayers.

What Conservatives are Saying
“I believe we can take an approach to crime that is both tough and smart. … [T]here are
thousands of non-violent offenders in the system whose future we cannot ignore. Let’s
focus more resources on rehabilitating those offenders so we can ultimately spend less
money locking them up again.” — Rick Perry, Governor of Texas
“Without education, job skills, and other basic services, offenders are likely to repeat the
same steps that brought them to jail in the first place. This not only affects the offender,
but families and our communities as well. This is a problem that needs to be addressed
head-on. We cannot say we are doing everything we can to keep our communities and
our families safe if we are not addressing the high rate at which offenders are becoming
repeat criminals. By implementing this reentry program, we can curb the cycle of repeat
offenders and thereby reduce the burden on our prisons and help offenders create a
place in society that adds value to their lives while keeping our communities safe for our
families.” – Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
“The restitution principle should be much more than an ideal we rarely meet. It should
be a reality that we routinely enforce for the benefit of crime victims in Georgia.” –
Sonny Perdue, Governor of Georgia
“We should not be resigned to allowing generation after generation to return to prison
because they don’t have the tools to break the cycle. I personally favor a number of
these faith-based approaches. But if there are other approaches, let’s try them. This is
an enormous problem, and since the ’70s, we have basically just said we’ll lock people
up.” – Sam Brownback, Governor-elect of Kansas
“We are closing a prison because of a decline in the inmate population, the agency’s
success with a number of post-release programs, and the need to find savings and
efficiencies in state government … Any decision such as this must always be made with
public safety foremost in our minds … We face an extraordinarily difficult budget
situation—a challenge unlike any we have known in modern memory … While other
states—including states facing even more severe budget problems than our own—are
being forced to build new prisons, we can make the most of our successes by building
on these achievements.” – Jodi Rell, former Governor of Connecticut
“I think mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders ought to be reviewed. We
have to see who has been incarcerated and what has come from it.” – Ed Meese,

former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan and Senior Fellow at the
Heritage Foundation
“Have you been prosecuted by the Feds? If not, consider yourself lucky. The U.S.
Criminal Code has now reached 27,000 pages. Thanks to Congress, there is an everexpanding number of laws for us to break. … There are now more than 4,000 federal
crimes, spread out through some 27,000 pages of the U.S. Code. … You can serve
federal time for interstate transport of water hyacinths, trafficking in unlicensed
dentures, or misappropriating the likeness of Woodsy Owl and his associated slogan,
‘Give a hoot, don’t pollute.’ Some years ago, analysts at the Congressional Research
Service tried to count the number of separate offenses on the books, and gave up. If
teams of legal researchers can’t make sense of the federal criminal code, obviously,
ordinary citizens don’t stand a chance. It’s for good reason that our Constitution
mentions only three federal crimes (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting). The Founders
viewed the criminal sanction as a last resort, reserved for serious offenses, clearly
defined, so ordinary citizens would know whether they were violating the law.” – John
Stossel, Fox News and Fox Business commentator
“As a physician, I believe that we ought to be doing drug treatment rather than
incarceration” – Tom Coburn, United States Senator from Oklahoma
“What, over the last thirty years, has the ‘system’ produced? An endless temptation to
spend money. The image of a system induces us to try to create a fiscal balance
between the parts. More police mean more criminals arrested, more arrestees mean
more prosecutors and judges to convict, more convicts mean more prisons and more
parole and probation offices. But perhaps that idea is wrong. Perhaps instead of
spreading resources evenly over a system to process criminals, we need to concentrate
them on the agencies that prevent crime. Perhaps, to put it bluntly, we need fewer
prisons and far more cops—not cops who will feed the system, but cops who will starve
it by helping communities protect themselves.” – George Kelling, The Manhattan
Institute
“We know from long experience that if [former prisoners] can’t find work, or a home, or
help, they are much more likely to commit more crimes and return to prison. … America
is the land of the second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path
ahead should lead to a better life.” – President George W. Bush
“Conservatives should support four policies: improved follow-up, better drug treatment,
in-prison work programs, and faith-based rehabilitation.” – Eli Lehrer, The Heritage
Foundation
“The biggest problem from the perspective of the taxpayer, however, is that mandatory
minimum sentencing policies have proven prohibitively expensive. In 2008, American
taxpayers spent over $5.4 billion on federal prisons, a 925 percent increase since 1982.
This explosion in costs is driven by the expanded use of prison sentences for drug
crimes and longer sentences required by mandatory minimums. Drug offenders are the

largest category of offenders entering federal prisons each year. One third of all
individuals sentenced in federal courts each year are drug offenders. And these
convicts are getting long sentences. In 2008, more than two-thirds of all drug offenders
receive a mandatory minimum sentence, with most receiving a ten-year minimum. …
The benefits, if any, of mandatory minimum sentences do not justify this burden to
taxpayers. Illegal drug use rates are relatively stable, not shrinking. It appears that
mandatory minimums have become a sort of poor man’s Prohibition: a grossly simplistic
and ineffectual government response to a problem that has been around longer than
our government itself. Viewed through the skeptical eye I train on all other government
programs, I have concluded that mandatory minimum sentencing policies are not worth
the high cost to America’s taxpayers.” – Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
“The ability of ex-offenders to obtain employment after incarceration and become
productive members of their communities is essential to reducing recidivism rates, but
due to employers’ concerns about liability, the honest completion of job applications
often results in ex-offenders being unable to find work.” – Jeb Bush, former Governor
of Florida
“Congress needs to rein in the continuing proliferation of criminal regulatory offenses.
Regulatory agencies routinely promulgate rules that impose criminal penalties that are
not enacted by Congress. Indeed, criminalization of new regulatory provisions has
become seemingly mechanical. One estimate is that there are a staggering 300,000
criminal regulatory offenses created by agencies.” – Dick Thornburgh, Former U.S.
Attorney General under Presidents Reagan and Gorge H.W. Bush and
Pennsylvania Governor
“I was a prosecutor in Los Angeles for eight years in the 1970s and even then, which
was by comparison a more innocent time, I was shocked at the power that we had and
the ease of abusing it, and the system that was slowly getting out of control. So, even if
you had good faith and you intended to be an honorable prosecutor, the very process
by which you exercised discretion [was strained by] the increasing ambiguity of the law.
It was harder and harder for people to know what was a crime. The criminal law used to
be a series of oak trees that reached up into the sky and you would see them and
behold them and contemplate on it—and they were usually descriptions of the Ten
Commandments—don’t kill, don’t rape, don’t steal, don’t give false witnesses. Now, the
law is like the blades of grass in a meadow—you can’t see them, you don’t identify with
them and yet they have poisonous tips. If you just innocently walk along the field, you
can end up legally poisoned—put in a cage.” – Tony Blankley, Washington Times
“I still embrace the theory of locking the cell door if an off ender has been convicted of a
crime. But I don’t say throw the key away. I say, keep the key handy, so the same key
that locked that door can also unlock it.” – Howard Coble, U.S. Representative, North
Carolina

“In this whole thing, nobody is being soft on crime. … The system has a very strong
tendency to change them [offenders] for the worse. Everybody knows that, I think. Our
current system is fundamentally immoral.” – Chris Cannon, U.S. Representative, Utah