state: FL

facility_name: Jacksonville Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Jacksonville Youth Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
4501 Lannie Road
Jacksonville, Florida 32218
Primary Service: Cannabis Youth Treatment
SPEP Review Period: November 1, 2024-October 31, 2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 12/22/2025; 12/23/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/6/2026
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate 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 based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 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 Cannabis Youth Treatment.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
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 during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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): 8 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 uses Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) as a primary service. CYT training is an in-
service training provided by the clinical director or other approved person. The documentation
shows there were three staff trained to facilitate CYT during the annual review period: one clinical
director, and two therapists. The clinical director and two therapists facilitated the primary service
during the review period. Additionally, the clinical director and one therapist conducted the internal
fidelity checks during the annual review period.
According to the facility's operating procedure, the facilitator for the primary service will have
training from a licensed clinician. This training will be documented in the facilitators on the job
training plan. The facilitator will receive additional training on the curriculum as needed from the
licensed clinician documented within the clinical supervision. All facilitators will receive training
prior to conducting the service.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators are trained in the primary service prior to facilitating
groups.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
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 uses the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Series Volumes One and Two. The
manuals provide step by step procedures for implementing the program. There are no student
manuals. The facilitators make copies of the worksheets and pass them out to the youth during
group. The first two lessons of CYT are conducted as individual sessions. These sessions are an
hour in length. Lessons three through twelve (12) are conducted as a group. All youth are
required to receive CYT.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
The program maintains all documentation in a binder labeled "Cannabis Youth Treatment,"
located in the clinical director’s office. The binder contains all attendance sheets, internal fidelity
checklists, and training certificates. The program provides the primary service one time per week
on Wednesdays for forty-five (45) minutes to one hour. CYT is run as a closed group.
Pursuant to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, each primary
service will be facilitated in accordance to its manual. The primary service will be conducted as
indicated in the manual/protocol; this includes adherence to the session plan, group size,
population, frequency, needed materials, duration, and interventions. The facilitator of the primary
service will specify the topic covered, interventions used, duration of the service, youth present,
and progress for each session on the sign-in sheet.
The program can earn 2 points if the manual/protocol is detailed to the extent it explains how each
specific session is delivered and if there is a script or outline for each session.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
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.
An in-person observation of Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) was conducted by the fidelity
support specialist on 6/18/2025. The CYT session began at 3 p.m. Eleven (11) youth were
present, along with the facilitator and two floor staff.
The session began with the faciitator engaging the youth with an icebreaker by asking two
questions: "Describe your perfect day" and "What is your biggest hope for your future?" Many of
the youth participated actively, and the facilitator did a great job asking thoughtful follow-up
questions to encourage deeper reflection.
The facilitator transitioned into a group discussion focused on anger awareness. The facilitator
effectively guided the group in distinguishing between "constructive" and "destructive" anger,
using relatable language and examples. The facilitator followed the session script from the CYT
manual with fidelity. The facilitator affirmed the youth's responses and helped them connect
personal experiences to the core concepts.
A particularly strong element of the session was the facilitator's ability to draw a clear and
meaningful connection between anger and substance use. She asked the group, "How is anger
connected to substance use?" and facilitated a dialogue that resulted in insightful responses from
the youth. The conversation then shifted to the topic of anger triggers.
The facilitator invited each youth to share a personal example of anger triggers and their internal
reactions. At 3:40 p.m., the facilitator introduced and led a relaxation skill activity aimed at
emotional regulation. The youth participated willingly, and several expressed interest in using the
relaxation technique on their own. The facilitator provided clear guidance throughout the exercise.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The session concluded at 3:55 p.m. Overall evaluation: The facilitator demonstrated strong
facilitation skills, maintained fidelity to the curriculum, and fostered a safe and open group
environment.
The program can earn 1 point if the program follows the manual/protocol when delivering the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 1 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.
The documentation reviewed for Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) for the annual review period of
November 1, 2024 through October 31, 2025 shows the program did not have facilitator turnover.
The program had three cohorts completed and one cohort ongoing during the annual review
period. The dates of the cohorts were 8/21/2024-11/6/2024, 2/3/2025-4/23/2025, 5/5/2025-
7/23/2025, and 10/15/2025-current (as of 10/31/2025).
The first cohort began on 8/21/2024 with twelve (12) youth and ended 11/6/2024 with nine youth.
The attendance sheet dated 10/23/2024 showed one youth off campus during group. No make up
session provided. The attendance sheets dated 10/30/2024 and 11/6/2024 only show nine youth
signing into group. No documentation was provided to inform if the youth were discharged or just
missed the group. However, the clinical director stated both youth were discharged from the
program on 10/24/2024.
The second cohort began on 2/3/2025 with ten (10) and ended with ten (10) youth. Attendance
sheets dated 3/4/2025, 3/5/2025, and 4/11/2025 indicated youth make-up sessions.
The third cohort began on 5/5/2025 with eleven (11) and ended with eleven (11) youth.
Attendance sheet dated 7/9/2025 indicated one youth was absent. The youth participated in a
make-up session on 7/14/2025.
When the third cohort ended on 7/23/2025, there was an approximate nine-week gap in services
prior to the start of a new CYT cohort, which resumed with individual sessions beginning with
Sessions 1 and 2, followed by Session 3 on 10/15/2025.
The fourth cohort began on 10/15/2025 with ten (10) and currently has ten (10) youth (as of
10/31/2025).
Additionally, the program had a 397 license which was valid until the beginning of September
2024. The 397 license allows non-licensed therapists to conduct substance abuse groups under
the clinical director’s supervision. Substance abuse groups are not allowed to be facilitated by
non-licensed therapists when the program does not have an active 397 license. Hence, the
clinical director informed the SPEP Coordinator that the program did not have a 397 license at the
time to begin a new cohort until February 2025.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
At the time of the review, the program did not meet the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 2 Point(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 documentation reviewed for the annual review period of November 1, 2024 through October
31, 2025 shows the program conducted eight monthly internal fidelity checks for facilitators of
Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT). The dates of the fidelity monitoring were: 11/6/2024,
2/26/2025, 3/5/2025, 4/2/2025, 5/28/2025, 6/11/2025, 7/9/2025, and 10/29/2025.
There were no missing internal fidelity checks during the annual review period. The clinical
director and a therapist conducted the internal fidelity checks.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
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 documentation reviewed for Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) for the annual review period of
November 1, 2024 through October 31, 2025 shows there were no corrective actions noted on the
completed fidelity monitorings.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
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 provided annual evaluations for the clinical director and two therapists. The
evaluations did not contain specific information related to their delivery of Cannabis Youth
Treatment.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 12 weeks for this type of service. Of the 21 youth in the
sample, 19% (4 of 21) 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: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 12 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 21 youth in the
sample, 67% (14 of 21) 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: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 48%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 76%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 6 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 21 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 24%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 38%
Table 2
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 21 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, 76% (16 of 21) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 24% (5 of 21) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT 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 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 12 25 48%
Totals 73 100 73%
This SPEP report evaluates Cannabis Youth Treatment, an intervention delivered at Jacksonville
Youth Academy.
29 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 21 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 21 total youth sampled, all
21 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 4
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6
and 12 weeks of service, with an average of 9.48 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 21 total youth
sampled, all 21 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 14
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6
and 12 hours of service, with an average of 10.14 hours.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 12 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 12 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program was awarded 12 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 86%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Jacksonville Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring there are no unnecessary gaps in service and each facilitator’s performance evaluation
includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service.
Jacksonville Youth Academy 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 11

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2025-26 JYA CYT .pdf

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Cannabis Youth Treatment


summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Jacksonville Youth Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
4501 Lannie Road
Jacksonville, Florida 32218
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: November 1, 2024-October 31, 2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 12/22/2025; 12/23/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/10/2026
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate 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 based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
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 during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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): 8 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 uses Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service. IOC training is a three-day training
currently conducted via Microsoft Teams or in person by a qualified trainer. The documentation
shows there were nine staff members trained in the primary service during this review period: one
former assistant facility administrator, one assistant facility administrator, the clinical director, one
former shift supervisor, one transition service manager, three case managers, and one former
career and technical education instructor (CTE).
Two case managers, the transition service manager, and one assistant facility administrator were
the primary facilitators during the review period; additionally, the former CTE instructor co-
facilitated.
All trained staff members can conduct the internal fidelity checks. The clinical director, former CTE
instructor, and a case manager conducted the monthly internal fidelity checks for the review
period.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators are trained in the primary service prior to facilitating
groups.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
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 uses the Impact of Crime (IOC): Addressing the Harm manual. The manual includes
seven chapters and provides a script for the facilitator to follow. The curriculum includes a student
guide with exercises for the participants to complete to reinforce the material presented during
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
group sessions. The program makes copies of the student exercises and passes them out to the
youth during each lesson.
The program conducts the primary service by facilitators on 1) Mondays and Fridays, or 2)
Tuesdays and Fridays. All youth admitted to the program are required to participate in the primary
service. The program maintains all SPEP documentation (attendance sheets, fidelity checks, and
training certificates) in a binder labeled "Impact of Crime" in the clinical director's office. All youth
admitted to the program are required to participate in IOC. The primary service is a closed group
with no more than twelve (12) youth assigned to one cohort.
The program can earn 2 points if the manual/protocol is explains how each specific session is
delivered and if there is a script or outline for each session.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
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.
An in-person observation of an Impact of Crime (IOC) session was conducted by the fidelity
support specialist on September 19, 2025, from 3:56 p.m. to 4:56 p.m. in the cafeteria. Eleven
(11) youth were present along with the facilitator and one floor staff.
The facilitator began with reviewing Chapter 3 and asking, “What type of crime is property crime?”
Youth actively participated in responding, and the facilitator reminded them of the “ripple effect” of
crime. He moved around the front of the room while engaging youth, using both the IOC manual
and a visual aid (poster paper). Youth were divided into three teams, and representatives
contributed responses to the prompt “What affects good decision making?” Youth remained
engaged and provided thoughtful answers.
Student handbooks, folders, and pencils were distributed. At 4:09 p.m., youth began reading from
the activity sheet. The facilitator stated the objectives of Chapter 4 and connected them to real-life
issues, particularly how drugs can affect decision-making. The facilitator affirmed youth
responses, encouraged discussion, and consistently paused to check for questions. He guided
the group through the “words to know” section, with youth taking turns reading aloud. Discussion
emphasized stopping and thinking before acting, linking prior content to new learning.
The facilitator demonstrated strong communication skills, effectively linked past and current
material, and created a safe environment for discussion. His use of visuals, team activities, and
real-life examples enhanced youth engagement and comprehension.
The session concluded at 4:56 p.m. Overall, the facilitator delivered the IOC curriculum with
fidelity, engaging youth in meaningful dialogue and reinforcing decision-making skills.
The program can earn 1 point if the program follows the manual/protocol when delivering the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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.
The documentation reviewed for Impact of Crime for the annual review period of November 1,
2024 through October 31, 2025 shows the program did have facilitator turnover. However, the
facilitator turnover did not negatively affect the primary service. The shift supervisor left the
program in November 2024, the career and technical education instructor left the program in May
2025, and the assistant facility administrator left the program in June 2025. The three mentioned
staff members were not facilitating groups at the time.
The program had four cohorts completed and one cohort ongoing during the annual review
period. The dates of the cohorts were 7/16/2024-12/9/2024, 9/17/2024-2/11/2025, 1/13/2025-
5/16/2025, 4/2/2025-8/27/2025, and 7/15/2025-current (as of 10/31/2025).
The first cohort began 7/16/2024 with twelve (12) youth and ended with eight youth. The
attendance sheet dated 11/11/2024 did not have group times listed. There were two youth
discharged between 11/11/2024 and 11/15/2024. The attendance sheet dated 12/9/2024 did not
have group times listed.
The second cohort began on 9/17/2024 with six youth and ended with six youth. The attendance
sheet 1/3/2025 did not have the group times listed. The attendance sheet dated 1/10/2025 and
1/19/2025 did not list the end times.
The third cohort began on 1/13/2025 with nine youth and ended with six youth. Two youth
transferred out on 2/10/2025. The attendance sheet dated 3/7/2025 showed the group lasted for
two hours with no explanation. The attendance sheet dated 3/24/2025 was missing three youth
signatures. The attendance sheet dated 4/25/2025 indicates one youth was discharged from the
program on 4/18/2025. The final attendance sheet dated 5/16/2025 indicates two youth were
discharged from the program and listed them as completed IOC; however, the other four youth
were not listed in the section for completion.
The fourth cohort which began on 4/2/2025 began with eight youth and ended with seven youth.
The attendance sheet dated 4/16/2025 indicates one youth discharged from the program on
4/4/2025. The attendance sheet dated 5/16/2025 indicates two youth were absent. No make-up
sessions were given to the two youth. The attendance sheet dated 6/11/2025 was missing the
session end time. Attendance sheet dated 7/18/2025 was missing one youth signature.
Attendance sheets dated 6/25/2025, 8/4/2025, 8/27/2025 indicated youth were absent. Individual
make-up sessions were not held promptly; however, the youth participated in a group make-up
session on 8/28/2025. The lesson covered during the group make-up session was not the exact
lesson that some youth had missed. The make-up session took place one day after the official
end date of the cohort. The last attendance sheet for the cohort was not completed correctly for it
did not list the names of the youth who completed IOC and their completion dates. Additionally,
the required IOC weekly dosage of two hours was not met during the weeks of 6/2/2025-6/6/2025,
6/9/2025-6/13/2025, 7/7/2025-7/11/2025, and 8/11/2025-8/15/2025.
The fifth cohort which began on 7/15/2025 began with eleven (11) youth and is currently ongoing
(as of 10/31/2025). After reviewing documentation, it has been found that no make-up sessions
were given for youth who were absent on 8/4/2025, 8/27/2025, and 10/24/2025.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(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 documentation reviewed for the annual review period of November 1, 2024 through October
31, 2025 shows the program did conduct some monthly fidelity checks for the months of
November and December 2024. Other monthly fidelity checks were conducted on 1/31/2025,
2/21/2025, 3/24/2025, two for 4/25/2025, 5/9/2025, 5/28/2025, 6/27/2025, 7/25/2025, 7/30/2025,
8/28/2025, 8/29/2025, 10/17/2025, and 10/29/2025.
However, missing fidelity checks were for the following: 1) one case manager and one former
case manager for the months of November 2024 and December 2024, 2) one case manager for
the months of January 2025 and February 2025, 3) a co-facilitator was listed on the attendance
sheet for three sessions in April 2025; there was no monthly fidelity check completed for this
person, and 4) an assistant facility administrator for the month of September 2025
Documentation errors include the following: the fidelity check dated 1/31/2025 was missing the
facilitator's name and the fidelity check dated 5/28/2025 did not include the start/end times and
the number of youth in the session.
The clinical director, former CTE instructor, and a case manager conducted the monthly internal
fidelity checks for the review period. Written feedback was provided on the internal fidelity checks;
however, minimal commentary was included to indicate which specific Impact of Crime skills were
delivered or how the implementation aligned with the model protocol.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
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 documentation reviewed for Impact of Crime for the annual review period of November 1,
2024 through October 31, 2025 showed no corrective actions were noted. There were instances
of written feedback provided for some of the monthly fidelity monitoring forms.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
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 provided an an annual evaluation for the former transition service manager and two
case managers. Two evaluations did not contain specific information related to their delivery of
Impact of Crime, only statements such as "great mastery of the material" and "group faciliation
skills." One evaluation did mention Impact of Crime in detailing a facilitator's skill delivering
intervention.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet all of the requirements to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 26 youth in the
sample, 46% (12 of 26) 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: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 26 youth in the
sample, 65% (17 of 26) 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: 17 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 68%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 77%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 6 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 26 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 31%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 26 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, 77% (20 of 26) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 31% (8 of 26) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT 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 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 17 25 68%
Totals 67 85 79%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Jacksonville Youth
Academy.
29 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 26 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 26 total youth sampled, only
25 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 12
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4
and 21 weeks of service, with an average of 16 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 26 total youth
sampled, only 25 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 17
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 8
and 35 hours of service, with an average of 27 hours.
The program was awarded 17 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 88%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Jacksonville Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator and each facilitator’s
performance evaluation includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service.
Jacksonville Youth Academy 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 11

file_name: FY2025-26 JYA IOC.pdf

program_name_raw: Jacksonville Youth Academy

service_type: Impact of Crime


facility_name: JoAnn Bridges Academy

summary: PREA - Year 2 Cycle 4

raw_content:
Program: JoAnn Bridges Academy
Report Type: PREA
Fiscal Year:
Status:
PDF URL: https://www.djj.state.fl.us/content/download/1074648/file/Florida_JoAnn Bridges Academy_Year2Cycle4.pdf?version=1

report_type: PREA

program_name_raw: JoAnn Bridges Academy

cycle: Year 2 Cycle 4