A juvenile justice agency is only as strong as the people running it day to day. Strategy, data, and a good relationship with the Governor's office matter, but none of it holds up without the right team in the right seats. Building that team is one of the first and hardest jobs a new agency leader faces, and it is where a lot of leaders get it wrong before they get it right.
Look Inside Before You Look Outside
When a new leader comes in from outside the agency, the instinct is to bring in people you already trust. That instinct is not wrong. You will work closely with these people, and there is real value in colleagues you know and enjoy working with.
But move too fast on outside hires and you risk two things. First, you can miss the talent already inside your agency, people who know the system, the staff, and the youth, and who just need the right platform. Second, you can create a credibility problem before you have earned any. Staff watch closely when a new leader arrives. An agency stacked quickly with outside hires reads as a leader who does not trust the people already doing the work, whether or not that is true.
Take the time to look. You may find a strong performer buried in a struggling unit or working under a manager who never gave them room to grow. Those are the people worth investing in first.
Build for Succession, Not Just for Today
A high-performing team is not just about who is in the room now. It is about who is ready to step up when someone leaves, retires, or gets promoted, and someone always eventually does.
Identify the people with leadership potential early, and give them real opportunities to grow into it: a stretch assignment, a seat on a task force, exposure to budget or legislative work they would not normally see. Succession planning is often treated as a back-burner HR exercise. In juvenile justice, where turnover at every level is common and the stakes of a leadership vacuum are high, it deserves a seat at the table from day one.
Get Out There
None of this works from behind a desk. A leader who only sees the agency through briefing memos and dashboards will miss what is actually happening with staff and youth. Get out into the facilities, the field offices, the community programs. Talk to line staff, not just their supervisors. What you hear on the floor will tell you more about your team, and about where the real talent and the real problems are, than any org chart ever will.
When Someone Has to Go
Building the right team also means being honest about who is not the right fit, and that is where a lot of leaders hesitate. Removing an underperforming employee in a government agency is rarely simple. Civil service protections, union contracts, and documentation requirements all shape what is possible and how long it takes.
However complicated the removal process may seem initially, an agency leader must become well-versed in that process as soon as practically possible. Sit down with human resources staff and learn the legal steps needed to separate an employee. Then, go one step further: require your deputies along with senior and mid-level supervisors to be trained annually on that process and encourage them to reach out to HR and legal partners with questions as problems with staff arise. In other words, you as the agency leader must de-mystify the process of removing poor performers and give supervisors at all levels the confidence that you will have their back if they followed all of the legally required steps.
What to Do with "Protected" Employees
There is a political dimension too. An underperforming employee may have relationships, tenure, or protection from someone outside your chain of command. Weigh that reality without letting it stop you from doing what is right for the agency and the youth your agency serves.
Bear this in mind: in most cases, an employee's appearance of "protected" status is more bark than bite. An agency leader's best defense is ensuring that the legal process for employee removal is followed to a "T" in those cases, with plenty of documentation. While it may take longer to remove an alleged "protected" employee, the cost of not removing a poor performer can be significant to morale and your credibility. A team that knows leadership will not act on clear underperformance loses trust fast, and that trust is difficult to rebuild.