state: FL

facility_name: Broward Youth Treatment Center

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Broward Youth Treatment Center
Youth Opportunity Investments, LLC
(Contract Provider)
8301 South Palm Drive, Bldg. #2
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33025
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: November 1, 2022-October 31, 2023
SPEP Review Conducted: November 6, 2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 6/20/2024
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): 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 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve (12) months
of records. Impact of Crime (IOC) is based on the belief that crime is more than just a legal
definition, but rather crime affects the victim, the offender, their families, and the community. The
harm caused brings with it the moral responsibility to all involved. The focus of Impact of Crime is
to help offenders understand the harm they have created, and then assisting them in taking
personal accountability for their actions. Together, the victim, offender, and the community arrive
at a viable solution to the repair the harm caused and the offender. Once the harm is repaired, the
offender subsequently reintegrates back into the community. Facilitators are encouraged to bring
in victim impact speakers throughout the course of the curriculum.
The program provided documentation of three staff being currently trained in the service: one
director of case management, one case manager and one direct care staff supervisor. The case
manager facilitates group and either the director of case management, or direct care staff
supervisor conducts internal fidelity monitoring.
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 curriculum Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm to Victims and the
Community, revised in 2020. It is highly detailed providing a facilitator's manual and student
workbook. The facilitator's manual provides lesson plans, classroom management ideas, and tips
for engaging youth discussions. The student manual provides reproducible worksheets to help
facilitate group discussions and review concepts learned during the group sessions. Homework
materials are also utilized in the student manual to re-enforce learned concepts.
The service is facilitated as a closed group, meaning once a cohort begins, no new youth may be
added.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime was observed during the review period. Twelve (12) youth, one
direct care staff and the facilitator were present. The lesson was from Chapter four, lesson three,
talking about regrets. The facilitator had a copy of the facilitators guide open as a reference during
the group. The youth took turns reading the key words and the definitions that would be used in
the chapter. The facilitator then led a large group discussion of the youth's views of how to deal
with conflict in a non-violent, appropriate manner. The youth were engaged in the conversation
and no disciplinary issues were observed during the one-hour group
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.
According to documentation provided and an informal interview with the director of case
management, no facilitator turnover occurred which adversely affected delivery of Impact of Crime
(IOC).
The program provided documentation of three cohorts of IOC being facilitated. The first cohort
began December 13, 2022 with twelve (12) youth and ended March 23, 2023, with the same
twelve (12) youth. A second cohort began June 6, 2023 and ended September 12, 2023. The final
cohort began September 14, 2023 with twelve (12) youth, and was ongoing at time of review.
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 took place monthly for facilitators of Impact of Crime. Each person
facilitating group was observed and the monitoring was conducted by staff member trained in the
service. Both the director of case management and the direct care staff supervisor are trained in
the primary service and provide internal monitoring.
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.
A review of documentation confirmed no corrective action was initated during the review period.
The facilitators were found to be delivering Impact of Crime in an acceptable manner.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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.
A copy of the annual employee evaluations were provided as part of the review. Each employee
who facilitated Impact of Crime was rated in their effectiveness of service delivery.
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 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 43 youth in the
sample, 91% (39 of 43) 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 43 youth in the
sample, 100% (43 of 43) 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: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 86%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 6 youth
Moderate-High = 14 youth
High = 17 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 43 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
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 = 17 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 43 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, 86% (37 of 43) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 40% (17 of 43) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 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 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 81 85 95%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Broward Youth
Treatment Center.
43 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 43 were included in
the sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 43 total youth sampled, all
43 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 39 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 13 and 21 weeks of
service, with an average of 17 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 43 total youth
sampled, all 43 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, all 43 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 26 and 34 hours of
service, with an average of 32 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Broward Youth Treatment Center can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Broward Youth Treatment Center can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2023-24 BYTC IOC.pdf

program_name_raw: Broward Youth Treatment Center - YOI

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Broward Youth Treatment Center
Youth Opportunity Investments, LLC
(Contract Provider)
8301 South Palm Drive, Bldg. #2
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33025
Primary Service: Living in Balance
SPEP Review Period: November 1, 2022-October 31, 2023
SPEP Review Conducted: November 6, 2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 6/20/2024
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: 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 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): 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 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve (12) months
of records. Living in Balance is a research-based substance abuse treatment intended to help
clients address issues in lifestyle areas that may have been neglected during addiction. It is
specifically oriented for group settings. The manual uses didactic education and instruction, group
process interaction through role plays and discussion, daily relaxation and visualization exercise,
informational handouts, videotapes, and group-oriented recreational therapy exercises.
According to training records maintained by the program, four therapists, and the clinical director
are trained in the primary service. At the time of this review, three therapists are facilitating group,
and the clinical director is providing internal fidelity monitoring.
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.
Living in Balance has a commercially-produced manual which provides lesson plans, facilitator
notes, ideas to facilitate the curriculum, and long-term planning schedules. The program
facilitateds three cohorts of the service, three days per week. Living in Balance in an open group,
meaning the youth are added when they arrive at the program.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Living in Balance was observed during the review period. The group consisted of
nine youth, one direct care staff, and the facilitator. The facilitator led a group discussion about the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
influence substances have in making poor choices. The youth also paired off and participated in a
role play to practice how to make prosocial choices. One youth went twice so all participants could
practice making positive choices to the senerio they created. The youth were engaged throughout
the group and no behavioral issues were observed.
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.
According to documentation provided by the program, no facilitator turnover occurred which
adversely affected the delivery of Living in Balance. The service was run consistently throughout
the year as an open 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 took place on a monthly basis for facilitators of Living in Balance. Each
person facilitating group was observed and the monitoring was conducted by staff member trained
in the service. There was no missing internal fidelity monitoring.
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.
Documentation confirmed no corrective action was initated during the review period for facilitators
of Living in Balance. The facilitators were found to be delivering the service in an acceptable
manner.
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.
A copy of the annual employee evaluations were provided as part of the review. Each employee
who facilitated Living in Balance was rated in their effectiveness in service delivery.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 43 youth in the
sample, 93% (40 of 43) 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 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 43 youth in the
sample, 100% (43 of 43) 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: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 86%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 6 youth
Moderate-High = 14 youth
High = 17 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 43 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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 = 17 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 43 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, 86% (37 of 43) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 40% (17 of 43) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 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 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 91 95 96%
This SPEP report evaluates Living in Balance, an intervention delivered at Broward Youth
Treatment Center.
43 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 43 were included in
the sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 43 total youth sampled, all
43 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 40
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 19
and 62 weeks of service, with an average of 37 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 43 total youth
sampled, all 43 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, all 43
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 55
and 154 hours of service, with an average of 90 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Broward Youth Treatment Center can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Broward Youth Treatment Center can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8

file_name: FY2023-24 BYTC LIB.pdf

service_type: Living in Balance


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Broward Youth Treatment Center
Youth Opportunity Investments, LLC
(Contract Provider)
8301 South Palm Drive, Bldg. #2
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33025
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Period: November 1, 2022-October 31, 2023
SPEP Review Conducted: November 6, 2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 6/20/2024
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
1. Primary Basic Score: 35
Service and Points
Supplemental POS: 35 Points
Service Types 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 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 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve (12) months
of records. Thinking for a Change utilizes a problem-solving program with both cognitive
restructuring and social skills interventions bringing the identification of thinking, beliefs, attitudes,
and values to behavior. Effort is focused on helping youth become aware of their thoughts,
feelings, and beliefs in particular circumstances. There is a training protocol and all facilitators
were trained prior to delivering services.
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 Thinking for a Change (T4C), version 4.0. The curriculum is a highly
detailed, commercially produced manual which provides lesson plans, facilitator notes, ideas to
facilitate the curriculum, and long-term planning schedules. The manual is maintained on-line.
Facilitators are given access to the materials once they have successfully completed train-the-
trainer training. All youth assigned to the program complete the primary service. Groups are
conducted as closed groups, meaning once a group commenced, no new youth may be added.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Living in Balance was observed during an the review period. The group consisted of
one facilitator, one direct care staff and twelve (12) youth. The group was held in a classroom
setting. The faciltator began the group with "check ins" on the youth's feelings/attitudes of the day.
The group then discussed elements of the cognitive iceberg, and how our behaviors are driven by
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
not only thoughts and feelings, but attitudes and beliefs. The group also then conducted role plays
to show how their thinking errors leads to poor behavior choices, and verbalized what other
behavior options they could chose. No behavioral issues were observed during the group.
Basic Score: 0 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.
According to documentation provided by the program, and an informal interview with the director
of case management, the program did lose a facilitator during the review period. No other
facilitator was available to deliver Thinking for a Change, and a gap in service delivery occurred.
The program can earn 2 points if there are no unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet 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.
Internal fidelity monitoring took place on a monthly basis for facilitators of Thinking for a Change.
Each person facilitating group was observed, and the monitoring was conducted by staff member
trained in the service.
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.
A review of documentation confirmed no corrective action was initated during the review period.
The facilitators were found to be delivering Thinking for a Change in an acceptable manner.
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.
A copy of the annual employee evaluations were provided as part of the review. Each employee
who facilitated Thinking for a Change was rated in their effectiveness in service delivery.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 21 youth in the
sample, 57% (12 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: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 21 youth in the
sample, 57% (12 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: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
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 = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 21 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 57%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 12 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, 57% (12 of 21) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 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 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 88 100 88%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Broward Youth
Treatment Center.
43 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 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 21 total youth sampled, only
12 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, all 12
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 17
and 19 weeks of service, with an average of 17 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
The program earned 4 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, 12
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 3
and 45 hours of service, with an average of 27 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Broward Youth Treatment Center can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring there are no unnecessary gaps in service.
Broward Youth Treatment Center can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8

file_name: FY2023-24 BYTC T4C.pdf

service_type: Thinking for a Change