summary: PREA

raw_content:
PREA AUDIT: Auditor’s Summary Report
JUVENILE FACILITIES
Name of
Physical
Date report
Auditor
Telephone
Date of facility
Facility
Facility Mailing
(if different from above) Same as Above
Telephone
The Facility County
X Private for Municipal
Private not for
Facility X Correction
Name of PREA Compliance Manager: Freddie Anderson Facility Administrator
813-740-3630
Email Address: freddie.anderson@g4s.com Telephone
Agency
Name of
Governing Authority Parent Agency: (if applicable)
G4S Youth Services, LLC
Physical
Mailing Address: (if different from above) Same as Above
Telephone
Agency Chief Executive
Name: James C. Hill, Jr. President
813-514-6275 ext. 202
Email Address: jim.hill@us.g4s.com
Agency Wide PREA
Name: Bobbi Pohlman-Rogers JJDA/PREA Director
954-818-5131
Email Address: bobbi.pohlman@us.g4s.com
1
AUDIT FINDINGS
NARRATIVE:
Located in Tampa, Florida, Tampa Residential Facility (TRF) is operated by G4S Youth Services,
LLC, under contract with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ). TRF is a 60-bed
residential program for high-risk boys, ages 14 to 18, who are in need of comprehensive mental
health and substance abuse treatment services. TRF is operated in conjunction with Les Peters
Academy which serves as a step down facility to continue the comprehensive mental health
treatment services. The average length of stay, including transition is 9 to 12 months, is based upon
the resident’s progress in treatment.
Of the 60 beds, 16 beds may be used for Substance Abuse Treatment Services. Comprehensive
Mental Health Treatment services can be identified as the primary clinical treatment component
used within the program and is the most intensive level of mental health treatment within the FDJJ
continuum of specialized treatment programs. Clinical treatment services include a continuum of
interventions consisting of comprehensive and intensive mental health services for youth with
major mental health disorders, substance abuse treatment, and specialized co-occurring services for
youth with multiple disorders. TRF’s primary treatment model, cognitive behavioral therapy is
provided through the modalities of weekly individual psychotherapy, daily group therapy, and
family therapy at least once per month or as otherwise indicated on the youth’s treatment plan.
The Hillsborough County Public School System provides general academic instruction and
vocational programming including pre-vocational services that identify residents’ interests,
aptitudes and skills as well as an agricultural course and a business and technology course which
allows the youth to earn Microsoft certifications. The program also provides general education
development testing preparation.
The facility offers each youth assistance in setting transitional goals, celebrating achievements,
development of skill plans and comprehensive transition plans, as well as active post release
planning and follow up to assist in sustainability of gains and continued goal advancement
following release from the program. TRF employs a Transitional Services Manager who acts as
the transition preparation specialist and serves as a resource liaison within the transition process.
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS:
TRF consists of an administrative building, a dining hall/food preparation building and educational
classroom portables. There are three housing dormitories, Alpha, Bravo and Charlie. Each dorm is
separated into two units which contain 10 single rooms, a common area, day room, and bathroom
facilities. Shower and toilet stalls have curtains that cover a portion of the stall’s opening to help
ensure residents’ privacy.
The facility’s program and housing common areas are monitored 24 hours a day with 83 cameras.
The existing video monitoring system was updated in March 2014 to increase the security for youth
and staff. As an upgrade to the system, all video are stored for 60 days on the computer network
system.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS:
The notification of the on-site audit was posted on June 2, 2014, six weeks prior to the first date of the
on-site audit. The posting of the notices was verified by photographs received electronically from the
PREA Compliance Manager. The photographs indicated notices were posted in various locations
throughout the facility including the housing unit and administrative areas. The Pre-Audit Questionnaire,
policies and supporting documentation were received on June 17, 2014. The Pre-Audit Questionnaire,
policies and some documents were uploaded to a UBS flash drive. The initial review revealed some key
documents were not provided. After providing a listing of noted concerns and documents needed, steps
were taken by the facility staff to ensure that available documentation was provided during the on-site
visit. Specific corrective actions taken to address some of the deficiencies are summarized in this report
under the related standard.
The on-site audit was conducted July 14-15, 2014. After meeting with one of the Assistant Facility
Administrator, a complete tour of the facility was conducted. During the tour, youth were observed to be
under constant supervision of staff while involved in school and other activities. The housing dorms
were clean and orderly. Observation of dorms revealed bathrooms are located in the center of the dorm
facing the entrance door and the showers and toilets only have curtains installed at the halfway point of
the stalls. I was informed by staff and residents that female direct care staff leave the dorms during
showers and male supervisory staff assist with resident supervision during showers. When questioning
some residents about whether staff and other residents are able to view them naked during the showering
process, I received mixed responses. Observation of the surveillance system monitors revealed cameras
do not capture showers, toilets or inside residents’ rooms.
Over the two-day on-site visit, 13 staff including direct care staff from all three shifts were interviewed.
Overall, the interviews revealed staff are knowledgeable of PREA standards and were able to articulate
their responsibilities. Eight of the facility’s 39 residents, two or three from each dorm were also
interviewed. Residents were informed of their right to be free from sexual abuse and harassment and
how to report sexual abuse and harassment. Policies and secondary documentation were thoroughly
reviewed.
A corrective action plan was developed, with input from the FDJJ PREA Coordinator, and provided to
the facility’s Compliance Manager on July 21, 2014, to specify the minimum remedial steps to be taken
to comply with PREA standards. The FDJJ PREA Coordinator provided documentation of corrective
action that was taken by FDJJ to comply with the standards as indicated in the auditor’s comment
section under the related standard. Remaining non-compliance issues were addressed within the 180-day
corrective action period. Documentation of implemented corrective action was received as indicated
under the appropriate standard throughout this report.
Number of standards exceeded: 0
Number of standards met: 39
Number of standards not met: 0
Number of standards Not Applicable: 2
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
Standard 115.311-Zero Tolerance of Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harassment; PREA
Coordinator
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA Facility Operating Procedure (FOP) 10-25 mandates a zero-tolerance of sexual
abuse and sexual harassment and outlines how the facility carries out its approach to
preventing, detecting and responding to sexual abuse and sexual harassment. The policy
includes definitions of prohibited behaviors and sanctions for those found to have participated
in prohibited behaviors. The policy also provides strategies and responses for reducing and
preventing sexual abuse and harassment.
TRF is a residential juvenile treatment facility operated by G4S Youth Services. G4S employs
an agency-wide PREA Coordinator who is in an upper-level management position within the
agency. The PREA Coordinator interview revealed she has sufficient time and authority to
develop, implement and oversee the agency’s efforts to comply with PREA standards in all
G4S operated facilities. The Facility Administrator serves as the PREA Compliance Manager
and indicated during an interview that he has sufficient time to oversee the facility’s PREA
compliance efforts and to perform his other duties.
Standard 115.312- Contracting with Other Entities for the Confinement of Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
X Does Not Apply
Auditor Comments:
G4S does not contract with other entities for the confinement of residents.
Standard 115.313- Supervision and Monitoring
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires the facility to develop, implement and document an
approved staffing plan. Although the staffing plan was not provided during my initial review,
it was provided during the on-site visit. The staffing plan mandates a 1:7 staff to resident ratio
during waking hours or a 1:8 staff to resident ratio during sleeping hours. The staffing plan is
based upon the agency’s contractual agreement with FDJJ and an operating capacity of 60
residents. The policy requires the facility to documents deviations from the staffing plan on
the Shift Report or in the logbook however there have been no deviations from the plan.
Documentation of the annual review of the staffing plan dated June 4, 2014 was reviewed
and found to be in compliance with all elements contained in (d)-1 of this standard.
TRF utilizes video monitoring combined with direct staff supervision to protect residents
from sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Documentation of log entries were provided as
evidence that unannounced rounds are conducted by intermediate and upper level staff on all
shifts throughout the facility.
Standard 115.315- Limits to Cross-Gender Viewing and Searches
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 prohibits cross-gender strip searches, or pat down searches of youth,
except in exigent circumstances. Policy 10-3, states that strip searches must be conducted in a
private room with two staff members of the same sex as the resident. The policy further states
that body cavity searches must be approved by the Facility Administrator or the Operations
Administrator only when it is strongly suspected that a youth has concealed contraband in a
body cavity. All body cavity searches must be conducted by trained medical personnel in an
emergency room setting. Program staff are not authorized to conduct body cavity searches of
residents. During the past 12 months, there were no cross-gender strip or body cavity
searches and no cross-gender pat-down searches.
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 states the facility must ensure residents are allowed to shower,
perform bodily functions and change clothing without staff of the opposite sex viewing their
bodies. The location of the bathrooms in the center of the dorm facing the entrance door is
concerning. The showers and toilets only have curtains installed at the halfway point of the
stall’s opening. I was informed by staff and residents that female direct care staff leave the
dorms during showers and male supervisory staff assist with resident supervision during
showers. When questioning some residents about whether same staff and other residents are
able to view them naked during the showering process, I received mixed responses.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
The Facility Administrator described for me how the showering process should work to
ensure residents privacy however a written procedures was not available. The annual staffing
plan assessment dated June 4, 2014, also noted the need for a written protocol for shower
times in dorms to limit cross-gender viewing. During the corrective action period, a written
procedure was developed and implemented for supervising resident showers to prevent cross-
gender viewing as well as same sex staff and residents’ viewing while residents take showers.
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires opposite sex staff, volunteers and contractors entering
housing units to announce themselves. Resident interviews verified this is done on a consistent
bases.
TRF Policy 8-14 prohibits the search of transgender or intersex residents for the sole purpose
of determining the resident’s genital status. Staff interviews verified compliance.
Standard 115.316- Residents with Disabilities and Residents Who are Limited English
Proficient
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires the Compliance Manager to ensure that residents with
disabilities or who are limited English proficient are provided meaningful access to all
aspects of the facility’s efforts to prevent, protect and respond to sexual abuse and
harassment. This policy also states the facility prohibits the use of resident interpreter,
resident readers or any kind of resident assistants except when a delay in obtaining
interpreters services could jeopardies a resident’s safety. Resident and staff interviews
verified the facility does not use resident assistants and there were no instances of resident
interpreter or readers being used in the past 12 months however there is no documentation of
how services would be provided, if needed. During the corrective action period, Policy 9-2
Classification and Orientation, was revised to include how PREA education for residents
with disabilities will be provided in a format they can understand.
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires staff to provide PREA education in a format assessable to
all residents including those who may be limited English proficient, deaf, visually impaired
or otherwise with a disability, as well as to residents who have limited reading skills.
Samples of education material were provided.
Standard 115.317- Hiring and Promotion Decisions
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 and G4S Policy 3-16 requires criminal background screening for
new hires however the policies do not specifically require consulting with the child abuse
registry before hiring or enlisting services of any contractor who has contact with residents.
The FDJJ PREA Coordinator provided documentation that Florida State law does not allow
FDJJ to contact the abuse registry for the purpose of screening applicants.
Documentation of criminal background checks and that questions regarding past conduct
were asked and responded to during the interview process was reviewed and found to be in
compliance with the standard. G4S Policy 3-16 requires criminal background checks to be
conducted every five years. Applicants are required to sign acknowledging material
omission regarding misconduct, or false information is grounds for termination.
Standard 115.318- Upgrades to Facilities and Technology
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF’s housing areas are monitored 24 hours a day in all common areas with 83 cameras.
The existing video monitoring system was updated in March, 2014 to increase the security
for youth and staff. The recent upgrade also allows for the storage of all video for 60 days on
the computer network system.
Standard 115.321- Evidence Protocol and Forensic Medical Examinations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires staff to report allegations of sexual abuse to local law
enforcement, the Florida Central Abuse Hotline and FDJJ’s Central Communication Center
(CCC). TRF does not have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or documented
attempts to obtain a MOU with local law enforcement. During the corrective action period,
the Facility Administrator sent a letter to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department
along with the DJJ PREA Compliance Form advising investigating agencies to follow the
DJJ Inspector General Directive 3-05 (uniform evidence protocol that maximizes the
potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for criminal prosecution) when investigating
sexual abuse allegations at the facility.
An unsigned agreement between G4S and the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay for victims’
advocacy services and forensic examinations for five of its facilities in Pasco County was
provided for my review. The agreement did not address the requirement for SANE or SAFE
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
medical examiners to conduct forensic examinations nor was there any other documentation
of
attempts to obtain this agreement. TRF PREA FOP does not address forensic exams are
offered without costs to the victim.
During the corrective action period a signed MOU with the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay for
victim’s advocacy services was provided and Policy 7-30 was revised to state that forensic
exams are offered at no cost to the victim. Documentation was also viewed verifying that
forensic exams will be conducted by a SANE certified medical examiner.
Standard 115.322- Policies to Ensure Referrals of Allegations for Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP requires the immediate referral of all sexual abuse allegations to local law
enforcement, the Florida Abuse Hotline and CCC. In the past 12 months, TRF had one
allegation of sexual abuse which was promptly reported as required by policy. The facility did
not receive any allegations that occurred at another facility. Interviews with the Facility
Administrator and other staff verified their knowledge of the policy’s requirements.
FDJJ’s website includes a PREA section which includes investigative responsibilities for
conducting investigations of allegations of sexual abuse in facilities.
Standard 115.331- Employees Training
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
G4S Policy Chapter 5, the training curriculum, staff training records and staff interviews
indicates staff receive PREA training during initial training and annually during refresher
training. The training curriculum provided was consistent with the elements of the standard
except for numbers 6 and 11. During the corrective action period, documentation was
provided of staff training which included the common reactions of sexual abuse and
harassment of juvenile victims and relevant laws regarding the applicable age of consent.
All employees and contractors are trained as new hires regardless of their previous
experience. Employees training records were reviewed and staff interviews verified staff
comprehension of their responsibilities relating to PREA standards.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
Standard 115.332- Volunteer and Contractor Training
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
G4S Policy 3-48 states that prospective volunteers and interns are directed by Human
Resources to JFJ Ministries to coordinate the application process and orientation training.
A review of volunteer records revealed completed criminal background screenings and
training records indicating topics covered during orientation. Training documents are signed
by the volunteer/intern and the trainer. An interview with a volunteer revealed he is
knowledgeable concerning his responsibilities relative to PREA and the agency’s zero
tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and harassment.
Contractors who have contact with residents are required to have the same training as
employees.
Standard 115.333- Resident Education
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires that during intake residents are provided with information
on the facility’s zero tolerance policy regarding sexual misconduct and how to report sexual
abuse and sexual harassment. The policy also requires that within 10 days of intake, all
residents will be provided with additional comprehensive training regarding their rights to be
free from sexual misconduct; their right to be free from retaliation for reporting; and the
agency’s sexual misconduct response policies and procedures.
Documentation of resident’s signatures were reviewed and confirmed during resident
interviews. All residents interviewed stated they received this information the same day
they arrived at the facility and periodically thereafter.
There was no documentation of education in formats accessible to all residents including
those who are limited English proficient, deaf, visually impaired or otherwise disabled, as
well as to residents who have limited reading skills. During the corrective action period,
Policy 9-2 Classification and Orientation, was revised to include how PREA education for
residents with disabilities will be provided in a format they can understand.
Resident interviews revealed they have limited to no knowledge of the victims’ advocacy
service; however, during the corrective action period, documentation was provided of
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
residents receiving education regarding the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay and how to access
services.
Standard 115.334- Specialized Training: Investigation
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the
standard for the relevant review period)
x Does Not Apply
Auditor comments:
Local law enforcement and the Florida Department of Children and Families conduct
criminal investigations into allegations of sexual abuse. TRF does not conduct any
investigations.
Standard 115.335- Specialized Training: Medical and Mental Health Care
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Certificates of Completion documented that nurses successfully completed the National
Institute of Corrections on-line course titled, PREA: Medical Health Care for Sexual Assault
Victims in a Confinement Setting. The facility’s PREA FOP 10-25 references G4S Policy
Chapter 5 and FDJJ Policy 1919 which requires specialized training for medical and mental
health staff.
Staff interviews verified that medical staff does not conduct forensic examinations.
Standard 115.341- Obtaining information from Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP requires staff to complete the FDJJ’s Vulnerability to Victimization and
Sexually Aggressive Behavior (VSAB) form. Documentation and resident interviews
revealed that risk screenings are being conducted. Completed VSAB forms are maintained in
residents’ treatment files. The screening for vulnerability to sexual victimization and sexual
aggressive behavior instrument met the 11 minimum required elements outlined in section
(c) of the standard.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
Standard 115.342- Placement of Residents in housing, bed, program, education and work
Assignments.
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF Policy 9-1 describes the process staff is to use for screening for Vulnerability to
Victimization and Sexual Aggressive Behavior (VSAB). Within 24 hours of a resident’s
arrival at the facility, trained staff meets with residents and complete the VSAB form. The
instrument is scored prior to housing placement. Residents who score vulnerable to
victimization or sexually aggressive are included in the alert system, and referred for further
assessments. Residents who are identified or disclose prior sexual victims are referred to the
medical and mental health professionals within 14 days. An interview with the PREA
Compliance Manager confirmed that information from the VSAB is shared on a “need to
know” basis.
TRF Policy 8-14 precludes lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender and intersex residents from
being placed in a particular housing area and states that LGBTI identification or status is not
an indicator of likelihood of being sexually abusive. Transgender or intersex resident’s own
view with respect to his/her safety will be given serious consideration. Staff interviews also
verified compliance with this standard.
Standard 115. 351- Resident Reporting
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the
standard for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF Policy 8.3.4 (B) Abuse and Neglect Reporting states clearly that all youth shall have
unimpeded access to the Florida Abuse Hotline without interference or retaliation of any kind
and further outlines in detail that residents are to be provided with the Abuse hotline number
which is provided at intake, included in the resident handbook and posted throughout the
facility.
TRF provides instruction and multiple ways for residents to report sexual abuse and
harassment including telling a staff member, writing a grievance, asking to speak with the
Facility Administrator, calling the Florida Abuse Hotline, the Florida Council against Sexual
Violence Rape Crisis Hotline, or the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay Florida Referral Line. The
abuse hotline number is included in the resident handbook.
Interviews with staff verified that they would accept and document reports made verbally, in
writing, anonymously, and from third parties.
The facility does not provide at least one way for residents to report abuse or harassment to a
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
public or private entity or office that is not part of the agency and that is able to receive and
immediately forward resident reports of abuse and harassment to agency officials allowing
the resident to remain anonymous upon request. Residents must ask to use the phone which
will not allow them to remain anonymous and may not provide them with unimpeded access.
During the corrective action period, FOP 8-3 was revised to require staff to allow residents to
use a telephone to call the hotline upon request, without having to obtain staff permission and
that mandates staff not to question residents about the reason for the call, staff are to dial the
hotline number and hand the phone to the youth and remain at a distance that allows the
youth to privately report; and documentation was provided of staff training and resident
education on the implementation of these procedures and documentation of staff and resident
training on the implementation of the procedures was provided.
Standard 115. 352- Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF Policy 8-4 states there is no time limit for a resident to file a grievance; and any
grievance received that alleges a resident is substantially at risk for imminent sexual abuse
shall be immediately directed to the Facility Administrator, who shall provide immediate
response to the grievance.
During the past 12 months no sexual abuse grievance was filed. Interviews with residents
validated their knowledge of how to file a grievance for sexual abuse or harassment.
Standard 115. 353- Resident Access to Outside Support Services and Legal Representation
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the
standard for the relevant review period)
X Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires that residents shall have access to outside victim advocates,
the facility shall make accessible mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including hotline
numbers of victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations, and residents shall have reasonable
and confidential access to attorneys, parents or legal guardians.
An unsigned agreement with Crisis Center of Tampa Bay was provided however there is no
documentation of attempts to obtain the services required in this standard. During the
corrective action period, a signed MOU with Crisis Center of Tampa Bay was provided along
with documentation that residents received education regarding services offered and how to
access these services.
Attorneys and other legal representatives are provided with reasonable and private access
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
upon request. Residents may call their parents/legal guardians and receive visits from them
on the weekends.
Standard 115. 354- Third Party Reporting
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the
standard for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
FDJJ’s website provides the public with information regarding third-party reporting of
sexual abuse or sexual harassment on behalf of a resident. Resident interviews revealed their
awareness of reporting sexual abuse or sexual harassment to others outside of the facility
including their parents/legal guardians.
Standard 115. 361- Staff and Agency Reporting Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the
standard for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
All TRF staff are mandated reporters and are required by PREA FOP 10-25 to immediately
report any knowledge, suspicion or information they receive regarding sexual abuse and
harassment, retaliation against residents or staff who report any incidents or any staff neglect
or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident or retaliation. Random
staff interviews also helped to verify the facility’s compliance with this standard.
An interview with the nurse confirmed her responsibility to inform residents 18 years old of
her duty to report and limitations of confidentiality.
Standard 115. 362- Agency Protection Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP10-25 requires staff to take immediate action to protect a resident when he is
identified as being subject to substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse. There were no
residents identified as being at risk for sexual abuse in the past 12 months, as revealed in
interviews with the Facility Administrator and random staff.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
Standard 115. 363- Reporting to other Confinement Facilities
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
FDJJ Policy requires the Facility Administrator to notify the head of another facility within 72
hours upon receiving an allegation that a resident was sexually abused while confined at
another facility however this requirement is not addressed in TRF PREA FOP 10-25 or in the
Abuse Neglect Policy 8-3. During the corrective action period, the PREA FOP was revised to
be in compliance with this standard.
During the past 12 months, there were no allegations received that a resident was abused
while confined to another facility nor were there allegations of sexual abuse received by TRF
from other facilities.
Standard 115. 364- Staff First Responder Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires staff to take specific steps to respond to a report of sexual
abuse including; separating the alleged victim from the abuser; preserving any crime scene
within a period of time that still allows for the collection of physical evidence; request the
alleged victim not take any action that could destroy physical evidence; and ensure that the
alleged abuser does not take any action to destroy physical evidence, if the abuse took place
within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence.
There was one allegations of sexual abuse during the past 12 months. A review of the
incident reports and follow-up documentation indicated the policy was followed in
compliance with this standard. Random staff interviews revealed considerable knowledge of
actions to be taken upon learning that a resident was sexually abused.
Standard 115. 365- Coordinated Response
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 describes specific actions to be taken by staff in response to an
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
incident of sexual abuse however a written plan to coordinate actions among staff first
responders, medical, and facility leadership was not available. During the corrective action
period, the facility’s coordinated staff response plan was provided.
Interviews with the Facility Administrator and other staff revealed that they are
knowledgeable of their duties in response to an allegation of sexual abuse.
Standard 115. 366- Preservation of Ability to Protect Residents from Contact with Abusers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Non-Applicable Standard
Auditor Comments:
G4S is not a collective bargaining agency therefore this standard is not applicable.
Standard 115. 367- Agency Protection against Retaliation
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires the protection of residents and staff who have reported
sexual abuse or harassment or who have cooperated in a sexual abuse or sexual harassment
investigation. The monitoring will take place for a period of 90 days or longer, as needed.
The Facility Administrator is responsible for monitoring retaliation. There were no incidents
of retaliation in the past 12 months.
Standard 115. 368- Post-Allegation Protective Custody
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF would only restrict a resident to his single room as a last measure to keep a resident who
alleged sexual abuse safe and then only until an alternative means for keeping the resident
safe can be arranged.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
Standard 115. 371- Criminal and Administrative Agency Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP10-25 states that FDJJ does not conduct criminal investigations of residents’
allegations of sexual abuse. Local law enforcement and the Florida Department of Children
and Families handle criminal investigations. FDJJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)
reviews allegations to identify any misconduct by staff related to FDJJ regulatory guidance.
There was one investigations of alleged resident sexual abuse at TRF during past 12 months.
The criminal investigation resulted in the abuser being arrested, having his probation
revoked and being sent to prison for three years for his original charges.
Standard 115. 372- Evidentiary Standards for Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF does not conduct administrative investigations. All allegations of abuse are reported to
CCC.
Standard 115. 373- Reporting to Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 states that at the conclusion of any law enforcement investigation
where a sexual abuse incident has been reported, the victim or victim’s parents or legal
guardians should be notified that the investigation is concluded, either by the investigating
law enforcement agency or through a victim service agency officer or representative. At the
conclusion of the OIG administrative investigation, the victim’s parents or legal guardians
will be notified by receipt of a final administrative investigative report”
An interview with the resident who was the victim of the one sexual abuse allegation in the
past 12 months revealed he was not officially notified of the results of the investigation
however he stated that a new staff who transferred from another facility told him where his
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
abuser was now located. During the corrective action period, the PREA FOP was revised to
require notifications to victims are documented.
Standard 115. 376- Disciplinary for Staff
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 mandates staff disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination
for violating agency’s sexual abuse or sexual harassment policies. The policy also mandates
the violation be reported to local law enforcement. No employees have been terminated in the
past 12 months for violation of the facility’s sexual abuse or harassment policies.
Standard 115. 377- Corrective Action for Contractors and volunteers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires that volunteers and contracted personnel in violation of the
facility’s policies and procedures regarding sexual abuse and harassment of residents will be
reported to local law enforcement. Documentation of the specific language that they be
reported to relevant licensing bodies or that they be prohibited from contact with youth was
not included. During the corrective action period, Policy 10-22 Volunteers was revised to
comply with this standard.
There were no reports of any allegations of sexual abuse or harassment by contractors or
volunteers in the past 12 months, therefore no reports to law enforcement or licensing bodies
and no remedial measures were taken.
Standard 115. 378- Disciplinary sanctions for Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
The one allegation of sexual abuse was founded and the abuser was arrested, had his
probation revoked and was sent to prison for three years on his original charges.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
As a treatment facility, TRF Policy 8-1 and the resident handbook outline how the facility’s
behavior motivation program is designed to foster compliance with program rules and teach
youth alternative pro-social methods dealing with problems utilizing rewards and a
progressive discipline.
Standard 115. 381- Medical and Mental screening; History of Sexual Abuse
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP requires residents who disclose a history of sexual abuse or who disclose
previously perpetrating sexual abuse to be referred for medical and mental health screening
services within 24 hours of the screening. Staff interviews verified compliance with this
standard and documentation demonstrating the immediate notification of the medical and
mental health staff was provided.
Standard 115. 382- Access to Emergency Medical and Mental Health Services
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 requires timely and unimpeded access to emergency medical
treatment, crisis intervention services and victim advocacy services. The resident victim
would be transported to a local hospital for a forensic examination at no cost to the victim.
Medical staff are required to document the response and timeliness of emergency medical
treatment and follow-up. Documentation of emergency and follow-up treatment was
provided for the one incident of sexual abuse that occurred during the past 12 months.
Standard 115. 383- Ongoing Medical and Mental Health Care for Sexual Abuse Victims and
Abusers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP requires that a medical and mental health evaluation and treatment, as
determined by medical/mental health staff, be offered to resident victims of sexual abuse.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
Documentation was provided that a medical and mental health evaluation was offered to the
resident who was a victim of sexual abuse in the past 12 months.
Standard 115. 386- Sexual Abuse Incident Reviews
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25, mandates that the facility shall create a Review Team with specific
staff consistent with those outlined in section (c) of the standard. The policy further
mandates that the Review Team shall ordinarily conduct the incident review within 30 days
of the conclusion of every sexual misconduct investigation or administrative review. The
policy outlines the specifics of the Review Team’s duties the same as those in section (d) of
the standard; and directs that Review Team recommendation must be implemented or
justification provided for not implementing the recommendations.
Documentation of the review team’s findings regarding the one sexual abuse incident that
occurred within the past 12 months was not available. During the corrective action period, a
form was developed to document the review teams’ findings and recommendations.
Standard 115. 387- Data Collection
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
FDJJ has developed a standardized instrument with definitions to collect accurate, uniform
data for every allegation of sexual assault. The instrument includes the data necessary to
answer all questions from the most recent version of the Survey of Sexual violence
conducted by the Department of Justice. TRF PREA FOP requires CCC to collect all data
relating to PREA. A review of the annual report revealed it was completed according to this
standard.
Standard 115. 388- Data Review for Corrective Action
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
FDJJ’s annual report for fiscal year 2013-2014 indicates 32 PREA related allegations
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL
reported by detention centers and residential facilities throughout the agency. The FDJJ
PREA Coordinator reviews data to improve the effectiveness of its prevention, protection and
response policies, practices and training. The annual report is made available to the public on
FDJJ’s website.
Standard 115. 389- Data Storage, Publication, and Destruction
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
TRF PREA FOP 10-25 directs that the facility shall ensure records are maintained and the
Facility Administrator ensures requests for additional information from the FDJJ PREA
Coordinator are responded to in a timely manner. The G4S Agency Head Designee interview
verified that G4S maintains an incident report tracking system and G4S facilities provide
data to FDJJ though CCC and FDJJ publishes the annual report on its website. FDJJ Policy
1919 established that aggregated sexual abuse data be reviewed annually and placed on the
facility’s website after all personal identifiers are removed. All data collected is maintained
for at least 10 years after the date of the initial collection.
AUDITOR CERTIFICATION:
The auditor certifies that the contents of the report are accurate to the best of her knowledge
and no conflict of interest exists with respect to her ability to conduct an audit of the agency
under review.
Auditor’s Signature Date: December 23, 2014
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL


state: FL

facility_name: Tampa Residential Facility

summary: PREA - Year 1 Cycle 4

raw_content:
Program: Tampa Residential Facility
Report Type: PREA
Fiscal Year:
Status:
PDF URL: https://www.djj.state.fl.us/content/download/766183/file/Florida_Tampa Residential Facility_year1cycle4.pdf?version=1

source: DJJ

report_type: PREA

program_name_raw: Tampa Residential Facility

cycle: Year 1 Cycle 4


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: The Council for Boys and Young Men
SPEP Review Date(s): March 8-11, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/3/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Tampa Residential Facility MQI Program Code: 1281
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: 10098
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): March 8-11, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 119
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 3 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 7 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 1 # Other (listed by title): Lead
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff Teacher
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 7 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 7 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is The Council for Boys and Young Men. The program was
awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4 Service. The specific
Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary Service was identified
as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal problems or issues faced by
an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has two facilitators for the delivery of The Council curriculum. Two additional staff
have also been trained; however, they serve as fidelity monitors. Documentation reflects the
identified staff have been trained, by a qualified trainer, to facilitate groups.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program provides this primary service to youth admitted to the program. The program utilizes
The Council for Boys and Young Men’s training manual and student guides. The manual contains
the order of the lessons to be delivered, lesson plans for each session, implementation guidelines,
and detailed instructions for each lesson. The manual also provides various suggested activities.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A group was observed during this review. The facilitator provided a copy of the lesson plan from
the program manual for the observer to review. The facilitator followed the design of the program
to include an opening ritual, theme introduction, warm-up activity, check-in, activity, reflection, and
closing ritual. The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Reviewed documentation and interviews with the corporate clinical services director and the
clinical director confirmed there has been no turnover adversely affecting the youth during the
past twelve months. The program has a policy and procedures in place to address gaps in service
delivery. There have been no gaps in service delivery longer than one month.
BasicScore: 2Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has conducted monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service by trained
facilitators. The assigned fidelity monitor completes an observation checklist during the session
they observe. Each checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator
improvement.
BasicScore: 1Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has conducted monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service by trained
facilitators. The assigned fidelity monitor completes an observation checklist for the session they
observe. This checklist includes an evaluation of the session and any corrective action required
based on that observation. The checklist is signed by the fidelity monitor and the facilitator(s)
providing the service. There has not been a need for corrective action based of fidelity monitoring
during this review cycle.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program has two staff who provide this primary service. Both reviewed performance
evaluations included an evaluation of their skills in delivering this primary service. Each evaluation
included comments on any facilitator strengths and weaknesses.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 9) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 9) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 89%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (9 of 9) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 89% (8 of 9) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 95 79%
This SPEP report evaluates The Council for Boys and Young Men, an intervention delivered at
Tampa Residential Facility.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 9 total youth sampled, none
received at least the recommended weeks of service. All youth in the sample completed between
19 and 20 weeks of service.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 9 total youth sampled,
none received at least the recommended hours of service. All youth in the sample completed
exactly 30 hours of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the same practices in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

report_type: SPEP

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: The Council for Boys and Young Men


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): March 8-11, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/3/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Tampa Residential Facility MQI Program Code: 1281
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: 10098
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): March 8-11, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 119
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 3 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 7 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 1 # Other (listed by title): Lead
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff Teacher
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 7 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 7 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime. The program was awarded 15 points
because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3 Service. The specific Sub-Component
Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The Primary Service was identified as this type of
service as it focuses on developing social skills required for an individual to interact in a positive
way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has four facilitators for the delivery of the Impact of Crime curriculum. There is
documentation to reflect the identified staff have been trained by a qualified trainer to facilitate
groups. All staff members have facilitated groups during the last twelve months.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program is using the Department’s Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum. The program utilizes
the IOC facilitator and student guides. The curriculum includes implementation guidelines,
identifies the order the lessons are to be delivered, and provides detailed instructions for each
lesson. The manual also provides various suggested activities.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This curriculum was not able to be observed; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable. The
last cycle ended on February 24, 2016. The program is not currently conducting a cycle of IOC.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Reviewed documentation and interviews with the corporate clinical services director and the
clinical director confirmed that there has been no facilitator turnover adversely affecting the youth
during the past twelve months. The program has a policy and procedures in place to address
gaps in service delivery. The program runs IOC about twice a year. It is not scheduled to run
consistently and there were no issues during group cycles.
BasicScore: 2Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has conducted monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service by trained
facilitators. The assigned fidelity monitor completes an observation checklist during the session
they observe. Each checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator
improvement.
BasicScore: 1Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has conducted monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service by trained
facilitators. The assigned fidelity monitor completes an observation checklist for the session they
observe. This checklist includes an evaluation of the session and any corrective action required
based on that observation. The checklist is signed by the fidelity monitor and the facilitator(s)
providing the service. There has not been a need for corrective action based of fidelity monitoring
this review cycle.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program has four staff who provide this primary service. All four performance evaluations
included an evaluation of their skill in delivering this primary service. These included comments on
any strengths and weaknesses for the facilitator.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 1 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 1) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 1 youth in the
sample, 100% (1 of 1) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 1 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 100%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 1 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (1 of 1) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (1 of 1) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 85 88%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Tampa Residential
Facility.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. There was only one youth in the
sample. That youth completed 13 weeks of service, less than the targeted dosage.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. There was only one youth
in the sample. That youth completed 24 hours of service.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the processes in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: LifeSkills Training (LST)
SPEP Review Date(s): March 8-11, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/3/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Tampa Residential Facility MQI Program Code: 1281
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: 10098
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): March 8-11, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 119
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 3 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 7 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 1 # Other (listed by title): Lead
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff Teacher
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 7 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 7 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is LifeSkills Training (LST). The program was awarded 15
points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3 Service. The specific Sub-
Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The Primary Service was identified
as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills required for an individual to interact
in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has two facilitators for LifeSkills Training (LST). A third staff member is trained and
conducts fidelity monitoring. Documentation reflects all three staff have been trained by a qualified
trainer to facilitate groups.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
Facilitators use the Botvin LifeSkills Training curriculum, including the facilitator and student
guides. The facilitator guides provides detailed instructions for conducting each lesson.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This curriculum was not able to be observed; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable. The
last cycle ended on December 7, 2015. The program is currently not conducting a cycle of
LifeSkills Training and is in between sessions.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Reviewed documentation and interviews with the corporate clinical services director and the
clinical director confirmed that there has been no facilitator turnover adversely affecting the youth
during the past twelve months. The program has a policy and procedures in place to address
gaps in service delivery. The program runs LST about twice a year. It is not scheduled to run
consistently and there were no issues during group cycles.
BasicScore: 2Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has conducted monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service by trained
facilitators. The assigned fidelity monitor completes an observation checklist during the session
they observe. Each checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator
improvement.
BasicScore: 1Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has conducted monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service by trained
facilitators. The assigned fidelity monitor completes an observation checklist for the session they
observe. This checklist includes an evaluation of the session and any corrective action required
based on that observation. The checklist is signed by the fidelity monitor and the facilitator(s)
providing the service. There has not been a need for corrective action based of fidelity monitoring
during this review cycle.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program has two staff who provide this primary service. Both reviewed performance
evaluations included an evaluation of their skills in delivering this primary service. Each evaluation
included comments on any facilitator strengths and weaknesses.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 8 youth in the
sample, 100% (8 of 8) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 8 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 8) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 3 youth
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 8 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 63%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 8 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (8 of 8) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 63% (5 of 8) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 85 88%
This SPEP report evaluates LifeSkills Training, an intervention delivered at Tampa Residential
Facility.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 8 total youth sampled, all 8
youth completed at least 16 weeks of service. All youth received 17 weeks of service.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 8 total youth sampled,
none received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 15 and 18 hours of service, with an average of 17 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the processes in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: LifeSkills Training