state: FL

facility_name: Cypress Creek

summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress
Creek Treatment Center
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2855 Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): September 29th ‐ October 2nd, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/12/2016
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: Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center QI Program Code: 1055
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2078
Location: Citrus County / Circuit: 5 Number of Beds: 96
Review Date(s): September 29th - October 2nd, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 143
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 0 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 4 # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 5 # Other (listed by title): Direct
DMHCA or designee 1 # Healthcare Staff Care Youth Workers
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 9 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 9 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 6 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 9 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 9 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 9 # 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): 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.
Four staff are trained as facilitators of the primary service, Impact of Crime. They were trained by
a qualified trainer.
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 utilizes the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum. The IOC curriculum has lesson plans
and handouts. The curriculum includes the implementation guidelines, identifies the order the
lessons are to be delivered, and detailed instructions for 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 during the review week; therefore, this indicator rates
as non-applicable.
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
There has been no turnover in facilitators since the last annual compliance review. The program
completed a cycle of Impact of Crime in January 2015. The next cycle of Impact of Crime (IOC)
groups is scheduled to start in October 2015. Recently admitted youth will be scheduled for
thenext cohort of IOC.
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.
Fidelity monitoring was conducted on the delivery of the primary service, Impact of Crime (IOC). It
was conducted on each facilitator each month they provided IOC. The facilitators observed their
co-facilitators and completed a fidelity monitoring checklist.
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 continues to have a process for identifying deficiencies with the delivery of the
primary service, Impact of Crime. A review of fidelity monitoring checklists found facilitators had
adhered to the written protocol. No corrective action was needed.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0Point
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 annual performance evaluations for the four facilitators were completed in October 2014 with
new evaluations due in October 2015. The performance evaluations included an evaluation of the
facilitators demonstrating “appropriate level of skill when delivering primary curriculum as
supported by fidelity check” and includes dates of the fidelity checks but not the name(s) of the
facilitated primary service.
The program can earn 1 point if they ensure that facilitators' performance evaluations include an
assessment of their skill in the delivery of IOC.
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 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 21 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 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: 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 21 youth in the
sample, 100% (21 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: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 95%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 13 youth
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 21 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 29%
High Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 62%
Table 2
High = 6 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, 95% (20 of 21) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 29% (6 of 21) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 8 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 20 25 80%
Totals 70 85 82%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm to Victims and the
Community, an intervention delivered at Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional
Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center .
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
ensuring that facilitators' performance evaluations include an assessment of their skill in the
delivery of IOC.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 21 total youth sampled, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10
and 11 weeks of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 21 total youth
sampled, all 21 received at least the recommended hours of service. All youth received exactly 24
hours of service.
The program was awarded 20 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):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring that facilitators' performance
evaluations include an assessment of their skill in the delivery of IOC.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Cypress Creek Treatment Center - TrueCore

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress
Creek Treatment Center
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2855 Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Living in Balance
SPEP Review Date(s): September 29th ‐ October 2nd, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/12/2016
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: Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek
Treatment Center QI Program Code: 1055
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2078
Location: Citrus County / Circuit: 5 Number of Beds: 96
Review Date(s): September 29th - October 2nd, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 9
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 8 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 8 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 9 # 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 Living in Balance. 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: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
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): 6 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 conducted training on facilitating the primary service, Living in Balance. One trained
facilitator trained two new staff in February 2015. Three other new staff were trained by the same
facilitator in July 2015. The trainer was trained as the trainer of the Living in Balance curriculum in
May 2014.
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 utilizes the Living in Balance manual. The manual is detailed and includes a
facilitator’s guide, twelve core sessions, role-play exercises, and handouts.
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 during the review week; therefore, this indicator rates
as non-applicable.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The facilitators of the primary service, Living in Balance changed during the service provision to
groups of youth, but the service continued uninterrupted. There were no gaps in service.
The program can earn 2 points if they minimize staff turnover.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
BasicScore: 1Point(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.
Fidelity monitoring was conducted on the delivery of the primary service, Living in Balance. It was
done on a monthly basis from April 2015 through September 2015 using a checklist.
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 continues to have a process for identifying deficiencies with the delivery of Living in
Balance. A review of fidelity monitoring checklists found facilitators adhered to the written
protocol. No corrective action was needed.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0Point
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 annual performance evaluations were reviewed for three facilitators. The performance
evaluations included an evaluation of the facilitators’ delivery of the primary service, Living in
Balance. The probationary evaluations were reviewed for five facilitators. The probationary
evaluations did not have an evaluation of the facilitators’ delivery of the primary service, Living in
Balance.
The program can earn 1 point if all employee evaluations include an assessment of the
facilitators' delivery of Living in Balance.
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 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 29 youth in the
sample, 97% (28 of 29) 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: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 29 youth in the
sample, 59% (17 of 29) 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: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 72%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 29 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 38%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 29 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, 72% (21 of 29) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 38% (11 of 29) 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 72 95 76%
This SPEP report evaluates Living in Balance, an intervention delivered at Cypress Creek
Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
minimizing staff turnover, ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is done at least monthly, and
by ensuring that all employee evaluations include an assessment of the facilitators' delivery of
Living in Balance. The program scored 7 points in this category - only one point away from a
rating of High Quality. It's possible that if the review team had been able to observe a session of
LIB during the evaluation, the program might have been able to earn a High Quality rating.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 29 total youth sampled, 28
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, all 28
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 26
and 58 weeks of service, with an average of 43 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 29 total youth
sampled, 17 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 33 and 77 hours of service, with an average of 48 hours.
The program was awarded 20 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):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by minimizing staff turnover, ensuring that
internal fidelity monitoring is done at least monthly, and by ensuring that all employee evaluations
include an assessment of the facilitators' delivery of Living in Balance.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Living in Balance


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress
Creek Treatment Center
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2855 Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Date(s): September 29th - October 2nd, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/12/2016
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.
2
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Program Name: Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek
Treatment Center QI Program Code: 1055
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2078
Location: Citrus County / Circuit: 5 Number of Beds: 96
Review Date(s): September 29th - October 2nd, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 116
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 4 # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 4 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 4 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # 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
3
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 Thinking for a Change. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
4
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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.
Four staff have been trained as facilitators of Thinking for a Change by a qualified trainer.
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 the evidence-based curriculum, Thinking for a Change (T4C) to all youth
admitted to the program. The T4C curriculum has lesson plans and handouts. The curriculum
includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons are to be delivered, and
detailed instructions for 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 during the review week; therefore, this indicator rates
as non-applicable.
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.
5
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
There has been no turnover of facilitators since the last annual compliance review. The program
completed four groups of Thinking for a Change one week before the review. The four groups
started with one facilitator and a group of youth and completed with the same facilitator and same
group of youth. One of the group’s facilitator went on vacation and was not available for three
sessions during the cycle. Those groups did not miss a session because the group was facilitated
by the other qualified facilitators. Gaps in presenting this primary service is because of waiting for
enough youth to begin a new group. Next sessions are scheduled for April 2016.
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.
Fidelity monitoring was conducted on the delivery of the Thinking for a Change curriculum on a
monthly basis from July 2015 through September 2015. Staff members performing the fidelity
monitoring have been trained by qualified trainers of Thinking for a Change 3.1. Internal fidelity
monitoring reports were checklists with areas for supervision notes were specific for Thinking for a
Change 3.1.
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 program has a process for identifying deficiencies with the delivery of Thinking for a Change.
A review of fidelity monitoring checklists found facilitators had adhered to the written protocol.
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 annual performance evaluations for the four facilitators were completed in October 2014 with
new evaluations due in October 2015. The performance evaluations included an evaluation of the
facilitator’s demonstrating “appropriate level of skill when delivering primary curriculum as
supported by fidelity check” and includes dates of these checks but not the name(s) of the
facilitated primary curriculum.
The program can earn 1 point if all performance evaluations include an evaluation of skill at
delivering the specific primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 16 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 16) 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 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 16 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 16) 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: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 81%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 16 youth
7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 16 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, 81% (13 of 16) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (8 of 16) 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 35 35 100%
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 20 25 80%
Totals 75 100 75%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Cypress Creek
Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center .
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
ensuring all performance evaluations include an evaluation of facilitators' skill at delivering the
specific primary service.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 16 total youth sampled, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. All youth completed 12 weeks of service.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 16 total youth
sampled, 0 received at least the recommended hours of service. All youth completed 25 hours of
service.
8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
The program was awarded 20 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):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring all performance evaluations
include an evaluation of facilitators' skill at delivering the specific primary service
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report

service_type: Thinking for a Change


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress
Creek Treatment Center
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2855 Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Young Men's Work
SPEP Review Date(s): September 29th - October 2nd, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/12/2016
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.
2
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Program Name: Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek
Treatment Center QI Program Code: 1055
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2078
Location: Citrus County / Circuit: 5 Number of Beds: 96
Review Date(s): September 29th - October 2nd, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 143
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff 5 # Other (listed by title): Direct
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff Care Workers
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 9 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 9 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 6 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 9 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 9 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 9 # 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
3
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 Young Men's Work. 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.
4
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
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): 6 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.
Six staff are trained as facilitators of the primary service, Young Men’s Work. They were trained
by a qualified trainer. Three of the facilitators have been with the program for over a year.
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 utilizes the Young Men’s Work: Stopping Violence and Building Community manual.
The manual contains the order the lessons are to be delivered, lesson plans for each session,
implementation guidelines, and a script to follow. The facilitator’s guide has lesson plans with
instructions for conducting each group session.
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.
During the annual compliance review, a team member observed one Young Men’s Work group.
The reviewer was given a copy of the handout provided to the youth. The facilitator presented the
lesson in the order prescribed by the manual. There were six youth participants, the facilitator,
and the facilitator’s supervisor. The youth were engaged and participated in the discussions. The
lesson was completed in one session.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
5
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There has been turnover of three facilitators since the last annual compliance review. The
January 2015 cycle was completed in its entirety, but groups were facilitated inconsistently. There
was a gap in service between April and August 2015.
The program can earn 2 points if they minimize turnover and minimize gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet 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 program has a process for fidelity monitoring. Fidelity monitoring was conducted on the
delivery of the primary service, Young Men’s Work. There was documentation it had been only
been conducted in August 2015 and September 2015.
The program can earn 2 points if they ensure that internal fidelity monitoring is conducted 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 program continues to have a process for identifying deficiencies with the delivery of the
primary service, Young Men’s Work. A review of fidelity monitoring checklists found facilitators
had adhered to the written protocol. No corrective action was needed for the two months of
completed fidelity monitoring.
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 annual performance evaluations were reviewed for three facilitators. The performance
evaluations included an evaluation of the facilitators’ delivery of the primary service, Young Men’s
Work. The probationary evaluations were reviewed for three facilitators. The probationary
6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
evaluations did not include an evaluation of the facilitators’ delivery of the primary service, Young
Men’s Work.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators' evaluations contain an evaluation of their skill in the
delivery of T4C.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 89% (17 of 19) 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: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 84% (16 of 19) 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 = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 58%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 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% (19 of 19) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 58% (11 of 19) 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 81 95 85%
This SPEP report evaluates Young Men's Work, an intervention delivered at Cypress Creek
Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
minimizing turnover and gaps in service, improving internal fidelity monitoring, and ensuring that
faciltators' performance evaluations include an assessment of their skill at delivering Young Men's
Work.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 19 total youth sampled, 17
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 17
and 46 weeks of service, with an average of 28 weeks.
9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 19 total youth
sampled,16 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 32 and 68 hours of service, with an average of 46 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
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):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by minimizing turnover and gaps in service,
improving internal fidelity monitoring, and ensuring that faciltators' performance evaluations
include an assessment of their skill at delivering Young Men's Work.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center/Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
10
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report

service_type: Seeking Safety


summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2855 Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training (ART)
SPEP Review Date(s): June 6-9, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 1/28/2018
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: Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center
MQI Program Code: 1055
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2078
Location: Citrus County / Circuit: 5 Number of Beds: 96
Review Date(s): June 6-9, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 143
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # 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: 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 Aggression Replacement Training (ART). 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 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 had seven staff trained during the review period and seven facilitated the group
within the last twelve months. A review of all facilitator training revealed documentation that all
received training in the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) curriculum. A qualified trainer
trained all facilitators in the primary service.
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.
All youth admitted at Cypress Creek JOCC are assessed by LMHC staff as to need for primary
services. They are then placed in the Aggression Replacement Training intervention if needed.
The program has a written manual detailing the primary service. They use the Aggression
Replacement Training manual. The manual is detailed and it includes a script, implementation
guidelines, gives the order the lessons are to be delivered in, and includes detailed instructions for
delivery of all lessons.
The ART group is scheduled on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The program currently
maintains their records in a SPEP Binder to include facilitator names and titles, fidelity checks,
sign-in sheets, training records, facilitator evaluations for each facilitator for the last twelve
months.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Observation of the class was completed on Wednesday, 06/07/17. A copy of the lesson was
provided to the observer by the facilitator. The lesson was Session Two: “Triggers
(external/internal), Cues and Anger Reducers." The facilitator followed the lesson according to the
manual, did not read the lesson verbatim, used her own words to convey the meaning of the
discussed top, and did so in an easy to follow manner. The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan
in every aspect.
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 SPEP review encompasses twelve months of primary service records. The program has
completed two cycles of ART during the review period. The current group began on 05/29/17. The
reviewed documentation and interviews with the Regional Clinical Director confirmed that
although the facility has experienced some staff turnover, it did not adversely affect intervention
services to the youth during the past twelve months. A contract change was submitted by Cypress
Creek in 2016 to remove the Living in Balance intervention and replace it with Aggression
Replacement Training. While pending approval of the change, they began their first group for
Aggression Replacement Training on 11/07/16. The program’s policy regarding turnover is that
anticipated turnover is addressed by ensuring that any potentially affected groups are co-
facilitated at the outset. Non-anticipated turnover would be handled by staff advising the youth of
a change in the group facilitator and other staff trained in the Impact of Crime curriculum would
then facilitate the group.
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.
Internal fidelity monitoring reviewed for the past twelve months confirmed the program has an
internal process to conduct fidelity monitoring specific to ART. Their process was that all trained
staff perform monitoring on the other trained staff. These staff are also formally trained in the ART
curriculum. Fidelity monitoring was found to be conducted monthly for all trained staff who
facilitated the intervention.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
An interview with Regional Clinical Director verified that the program has a process for corrective
actions based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to ART. Each checklist includes a section for
feedback and recommendations for facilitator improvement. Each completed checklist included
feedback that the facilitator did not require any corrective action, or included recommendations for
future improvement. Upon review of the documentation for the last twelve months, it was
confirmed that no corrective actions were taken.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 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.
Performance evaluations were completed for all staff that facilitate the Aggression Replacement
Training curriculum. These included comments specific to ART and comments or suggestions on
any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 4 youth in the
sample, 100% (4 of 4) 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 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 4 youth in the
sample, 100% (4 of 4) 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 = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 4 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 4 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% (4 of 4) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (2 of 4) 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 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 100 100 100%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training (ART), an intervention delivered at
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 4 total youth sampled, all
reached the targeted weeks. The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact
Hours. Of the 4 total youth sampled, all received at least the targeted 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
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 just prior to the youths' admission.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2855 Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Impact of Crime (IOC)
SPEP Review Date(s): June 6-9, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 1/29/2018
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: Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center
MQI Program Code: 1055
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2078
Location: Citrus County / Circuit: 5 Number of Beds: 96
Review Date(s): June 6-9, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 143
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # 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 (IOC). 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 had eight staff trained during the review period and seven facilitated the group within
the last twelve months. A review of all facilitator training documentation revealed all received
training in the Impact of Crime curriculum. A qualified trainer trained all facilitators in the primary
service.
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.
All youth admitted at Cypress Creek JOCC are assessed by LMHC staff as to need for primary
services. They are then placed in the Impact of Crime intervention if needed. The program has a
written manual detailing the primary service. They use the Impact of Crime manual “Addressing
the Harm." The manual is detailed and it includes a script, implementation guidelines, gives the
order the lessons are to be delivered in, and includes detailed instructions for delivery of all the
lessons. The group is scheduled on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The program maintains their
records in a SPEP Binder to include facilitator names and titles, fidelity checks, sign-in sheets,
training records, facilitator evaluations for each facilitator for the last twelve months. A suggestion
was made to place a cover sheet in the front of the SPEP Binder detailing the cycles completed
and currently cycle including the beginning and ending dates of each cycle, the name of the
facilitator and co-facilitator and their positions.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Impact of Crime is normally held on Tuesdays and Thursday. The group was not able to be
observed due to a group/cohort just completed on June 1, 2017. The new group is planned to
begin pn July 18, 2017. Therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable.
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 SPEP review encompasses twelve months of primary service records examination. The
program has completed six cycles of the Impact of Crime intervention during the review period.
The last session ended on 06/01/17 and the next group will begin in July. The reviewed
documentation and interviews with the Regional Clinical Director confirmed that although the
facility has experienced some staff turnover, it did not adversely affect intervention services to the
youth during the past twelve months. The program’s policy regarding turnover is that anticipated
turnover is addressed by ensuring that any potentially affected groups are co-facilitated at the
outset. Non-anticipated turnover would be handled by staff advising the youth of a change in the
group facilitator and other staff trained in the Impact of Crime curriculum would then facilitate the
group.
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.
Internal fidelity monitoring reviewed for the past twelve months confirmed the program has a
process to conduct internal fidelity monitoring specific to the Impact of Crime intervention. Their
process was that all trained staff performed the fidelity monitoring on each other. These staff are
also formally trained in the Impact of Crime curriculum. Fidelity monitoring was found to be
conducted monthly for all trained staff who facilitated the intervention.
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.
An interview with Regional Clinical Director verified that the program has a process for corrective
actions based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Impact of Crime curriculum. Each checklist
includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator improvement. Each
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
completed checklist included feedback that the facilitator did not require any corrective action, or
included recommendations for future improvement. Upon review of the documentation for the last
twelve months, it was confirmed that no corrective action of the facilitators was noted.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 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.
Performance evaluations were completed for all staff who facilitate the Impact of Crime
curriculum. The evaluations included comments specific to Impact of Crime and comments or
suggestions on any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
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 25 youth in the
sample, 4% (1 of 25) 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: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 25 youth in the
sample, 96% (24 of 25) 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: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 80%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 25 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 40%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 25 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, 80% (20 of 25) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 40% (10 of 25) 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 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 68 85 80%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime (IOC), an intervention delivered at Cypress Creek
Juvenile Offender Correctional Center.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 25 total youth sampled, one
youth received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 7.5 and 16 weeks of service, with an average of 10 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 25 total youth
sampled, 24 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 9 and 24 hours of service, with an average of 23 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 20 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 just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service
score by ensuring that all youth receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10