summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy - Nonsecure
Youth Opportunity Investments, LLC
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: February 14, 2021 - February 13, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: March 2, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 5/26/22
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): 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 utilizes Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service for the program. The case
management staff are trained to conduct IOC groups. There have been six staff who facilitated
IOC groups during the annual review period. Four of the six were trained during the review period.
The director of case management completes the majority of the internal fidelity monitoring
observations for facilitators. If the director of case management is facilitating a group, a more
senior facilitator will complete those internal fidelity monitoring observations.
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 has a manual for the delivery of services. The program uses the current Impact of
Crime (IOC) manual. The youth are provided copies of IOC workbooks with all of the needed
worksheets. The manual includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons
should be delivered, includes detailed instructions for lesson delivery, and all needed worksheets
for the youth.
Impact of Crime groups for the nonsecure program are held on Tuesdays and Thursdays from
2:30pm to 3:30pm. The documentation for the IOC groups is maintained in a binder kept in the
director of case management's office. The sign-in sheets are maintained in one binder and the
fidelity monitoring forms and training documentation is maintained in a second binder. Impact of
Crime groups are held as closed groups, meaning no youth may be added to the group once the
first lesson is completed.
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.
An Impact of Crime (IOC) group was observed on Monday, November 8, 2021 from 2:30pm to
3:30pm. There were seven youth in attendance, one youth care worker, and one facilitator
present during group. The facilitator conducted an ice breaker activity with the youth. A word
search was handed out with a list of words to choose from. The title was "I am thankful for…" and
the youth were to chose two to three words of what they were thankful for and then find the words
within the word search. Then the youth took turns explaining why they chose the words they did.
The youth then took turns writing out the definitions of the vocabulary words from chapter six on
the white board. They were able to put the definitions in their own words. The facilitator allowed
the youth to read what they wrote and provide an example for each word. The youth appeared to
enjoy these activities and all participated in the group activities. There were no behavioral issues
with the youth. The facilitator was confident in teaching the lesson. Exercises one and three were
completed for this chapter. The facilitator was able to summarize the sections and use his own
words to discuss the topics and activities for the youth. The facilitator ensured the youth
understood the concepts prior to moving on in the lesson. The session lasted one full hour.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program's policy is for another trained staff to continue with group facilitation if a facilitator
should leave during a cohort of Impact of Crime (IOC). The program tries to have co-facilitators for
the groups when possible. One trained facilitator for IOC did leave employment during the annual
review period, during a cohort. Another trained facilitator was able to continue with the group.
There was a gap in service from November 22, 2021 to January 4, 2022. The director of case
management reported there were not enough youth during that time to conduct an IOC group. It
was also reported all youth received the IOC curriculum prior to leaving the program.
The program completed four cohorts during the annual review period. The first cohort was from
October 8, 2020 to February 16, 2021. Eight youth began the group and six youth successfully
completed the group.
The second cohort was held from February 16, 2021 to June 10, 2021. Five youth started the
group and five youth successfully completed the group. Two youth were given early release dates
by the court. The faciltiator conducted one-to-one sessions to ensure the youth were able to
complete the curriculum prior to their release dates. This group was not held on consistent days
or times. For the groups to be provided with fidelity, the group should be conducted on the same
days and times as scheduled with minimal disruption to the schedule.
The third cohort started May 6, 2021 and was completed on September 9, 2021. This cohort was
co-facilitated to start and then one facilitator left (prior to this review period). The group started
with ten youth and ten youth successfully completed the cohort. One youth was released one
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
week earlier than the end of the cohort. The facilitator conducted individual sessions to cover the
last chapter with the youth prior to his release.
A fourth cohort began on August 2, 2021 and ended on November 22, 2021. Seven youth started
the group and seven youth successfully completed the group. This group is being co-facilitated
with a new case manager who was recently trained and the case management director. These
sessions were not held on consistent days due to limited trained staff, however the sessions were
held two times a week with a day in between groups.
A fifth cohort began on January 4, 2022 and is continuing to be held at this time. There were ten
youth who started the group and ten youth continue at the time of this review.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
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.
The director of case management typically conducts internal fidelity monitoring observations for
Impact of Crime (IOC) groups. If needed, the facilitators can monitor each other. The program
utilizes the correct fidelity monitoring form.
Four trained staff facilitated IOC groups during the twelve month review period. Based upon the
group schedules and when facilitators conducted groups, nine out of nine internal fidelity
monitoring observations were conducted during the annual review period.
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 director of case management addresses any issues or corrective actions with the facilitators
for the Impact of Crime (IOC). The IOC forms include a section for feedback and to document any
significant issues.
According to a review of the internal fidelity monitoring forms, there were no significant issues or
corrective actions during the twelve month review period.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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.
The program provided an annual performance evaluation form created by the provider. There is a
specific section for group facilitation and it has the specific group the facilitators conduct.
One of the facilitators for Impact of Crime received an annual performance evaluation during the
twleve month review period. All other facilitators have not been employed long enough to have
received their reviews at the time of the annual review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
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 26 youth in the
sample, 96% (25 of 26) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 26 youth in the
sample, 100% (25 of 26) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 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 = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 15 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 26 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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 = 15 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 26 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (26 of 26) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 58% (15 of 26) 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 25 25 100%
Totals 83 85 98%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Crestview Youth
Academy - Nonsecure.
26 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 26 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 26 total youth sampled, all
26 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 25 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12 and 34 weeks of
service, with an average of 22 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 26 total youth
sampled, all 26 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 26 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 30 and 33 hours of
service, with an average of 33 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):
Crestview Youth Academy - Nonsecure can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by ensuring facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
Crestview Youth Academy - Nonsecure can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by
ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth
receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

file_name: FY2021-22 CYA-NS IOC.pdf


state: FL

facility_name: Crestview Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy - Secure
Youth Opportunity Investments, LLC
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Male Healthy Relationships
SPEP Review Period: February 14, 2021 - February 13, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: March 2, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 5/31/22
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 Male Healthy Relationships.
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): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilizes Male Health Relationships (MHR) as a primary service. Male Healthy
Relationships combines the two curricula, The Teen Relationships Workbook and Young Men's
Work. The therapy staff at the program are trained to facilitate MHR groups.
During the twelve month review period there were thirteen trained staff to facilitate MHR groups.
During the twelve months, all thirteen facilitated MHR groups at some point. The program rotates
the therapists facilitating the groups on a regular basis. The clinical director conducts monthly
internal fidelity monitoring observations.
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.
Male Healthy Relationships (MHR) is a bundled group of The Teen Relationships Workbook and
Young Men's Work. The program maintains two manuals the therapists work from; Young Men's
Work and Teen Relationships. The Young Men's Work manual is maintained in a binder in the
clinical director's office. It is approximately ten sessions and includes videos and handouts. The
manual is broken into individual sessions which include the objective, agenda, session outline,
and all handouts. The lessons also include a script to follow.
The manual for Teen Relationships is maintained in a binder in the clinical director's office. It is
five main topics broken down into individual lessons. All lessons and handouts are included.
Facilitator guidelines are also included, but no script is provided.
Teen Relationships is held on Tuesdays from 2:30pm-3:30pm and Young Men's Work is held on
Fridays from 2:30pm to 3:30pm. All records for the group are kept in two binders maintained in the
clinical director's office. One binder has all sign-in sheets for the groups and the other binder
includes training documentation and internal fidelity monitoring observations. All youth in the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
program are eligible to attend the groups as it is a gender specific group. The groups are held as
open, meaning the youth can begin the group upon entry into the program and continue in the
group throughout their time in 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 Young Men's Work group was observed virtually on Friday, November 5, 2021 from 2:27pm to
3:27pm. The facilitator provided the observer with a copy of the lesson. The group was on the
lesson Taking Care of Myself. There was one staff, one facilitator, and ten youth in the group. The
facilitator did a good job following the lesson, putting it in her own words. The facilitator ensured
the youth were understanding the concepts before moving on. The facilitator was prepared for the
lesson having all of the worksheets printed for the youth. All youth were well behaved and
participated in the group. The only suggestion was to be sure the group expectations are
reviewed before each group meeting.
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 program's protocol is for another trained facilitator to continue with the group facilitation for
Male Healthy Relationships (MHR). The therapists rotate group facilitation on a regular basis to
allow the youth to get to know them as facilitators and to help avoid any gaps in service should
there be turnover.
The program did experience turnover during the twelve month review period for MHR groups.
There were seven facilitators who left during the review period. There were no gaps in service,
according to a review of the group sign-in sheets. The program followed their protocol and other
facilitators continued with the group.
Male Healthy Relationships is held as an open group, meaning it is held consistently and the
youth can begin the group upon arrival to the program and can stay in the group until they leave
the program. A review of sign-in sheets confirmed the groups are being held on a consistent basis
in accordance with the program schedule. There was an average of eight youth in the groups for
the annual review period.
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 clinical director conducts internal fidelity monitoring observations on a monthly basis for all
facilitators of Male Healthy Relationships (MHR). Youth Opportunity Investments conducts internal
fidelity observations two times for each facilitator, one for Teen Relationships and one for Male
Healthy Relationships.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
For the annual review year, sixty-six of seventy monthly fidelity monitoring observations were
completed. One facilitatior did not have obserations in November 2020 or January 2021 and two
other facilitators did not have observations for February 2022. This observer asked the clinical
director about the missing fidelity observations. The clinical director reported she also runs groups
on certain days due to some of the therapy staff having left employment, therefore she is unable
to conduct fidelity monitorings at those times.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program's protocol is for the clinical director to address any significant issues or corrective
actions for the faciliitators of Male Healthy Relationships. The internal fidelity monitoring forms are
detailed and include a section to document feedback and any issues that may occur during group.
The clinical director also meets with staff on a weekly basis to dicuss groups and facilitation.
All internal fidelity monitoring forms were reviewed for this annual review period. There were no
significant issues or corrective actions documented.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: N/A 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 evaluation document for Youth Opportunity Investments includes a
section for group facilitation with the specific groups the facilitator conducts.
All therapy staff who facilitate the Male Healthy Relationships groups have been employed less
than a year and have not received an annual performance evaluation. A blank copy was provided
for review.
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 33 youth in the
sample, 97% (32 of 33) 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 33 youth in the
sample, 100% (33 of 33) 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: 94%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 8 youth
Moderate-High = 9 youth
High = 14 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 33 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 42%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 14 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 33 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, 94% (32 of 33) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 42% (14 of 33) 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 Male Healthy Relationships, an intervention delivered at Crestview
Youth Academy - Secure.
33 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 33 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 33 total youth sampled, all
33 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 32 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 23 and 43 weeks of
service, with an average of 37 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 33 total youth
sampled, all 33 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 33 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 45 and 78 hours of
service, with an average of 74 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):
Crestview Youth Academy - Secure can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Crestview Youth Academy - Secure can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by
ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth
receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2021-22 CYA-SEC MHR.pdf

program_name_raw: Crestview Youth Academy Secure

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Male Healthy Relationships


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: ARISE Lifeskills
SPEP Review Period: May 1, 2021 - April 30, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: May 2, 2022 - May 6, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 8/10/22
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 ARISE Lifeskills.
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): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilizes ARISE Lifeskills as a primary service. The ARISE curricula are based on a
cognitive behavior and social learning theory. The curriculum uses role play and modeling to
teach youth to control and manage anger, to make choices and changes in their behavior. The
curriculum encourages group discussion where opinions are respected. The youth discuss the
consequences of their actions and the actions of others in the group, enabling them to see
beyond their choice.
The therapy staff are trained to facilitate the ARISE Lifeskills groups in the program. During the
annual review period the program had eight trained staff. All eight staff conducted ARISE Lifeskills
groups. The new clinical director is the only newly trained staff. All training records have been
provided for review. The program trainer provided a list of topics covered during a fourteen (14)
hour training provided for new staff. The training also includes participants conducting teachbacks
of the lessons for the ARISE Lifeskills group.
The trained therapists conduct internal fidelity monitoring for each other on a monthly basis.
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 ARISE Lifeskills facilitator training manual was provided for review. There are multiple
workbooks for the youth to complete working through various types of life skills. The instructor's
manual provides a guide for the lessons, lesson plan forms, and all necessary worksheets. There
is not a specific script for the facilitators to follow.
ARISE Lifeskills groups are held on Fridays from 2:15pm to 3:15pm and 3:15pm to 4:15pm. On
Saturdays and Sundays the groups is held in the mornings. The sign-in sheets for ARISE
Lifeskills groups are maintained in a binder kept in the clinical director's office. All youth in the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
program are eligible to attend ARISE Lifeskills groups. The groups are held as open, meaning the
group is run on a consistent basis throughout the year and youth are able to begin group upon
admission to 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.
An ARISE Lifeskills group was observed on May 5, 2022 from 2:15pm to 3:15pm. There were
seven youth present with one staff and one facilitator. The facilitator provided the reviewer with a
copy of the lesson, "Discussing self-esteem". The youth completed a check-in, defined self-
esteem, and completed a self-esteem crossword puzzle. The youth were all engaged with the
facilitator.
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 program's process in the event of a turnover is for another trained faciltiator to conduct the
ARISE Lifeskills groups. There have been four trained staff who left during the annual review
period: one clinical director and three therapists. ARISE Lifeskills are held as open groups, so the
staff did leave during the groups. The therapists rotate conducting the groups so the youth are
familiar with all of them.
All sign-in sheets were provided for review and there were no gaps for the annual review period.
There were between eight and ten (10) youth in the ARISE Lifeskills groups.
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's process is for the trained therapists to monitor each other on a monthly basis.
There were seven facilitators of ARISE Lifeskills during the annual review period. Fifty-eight (58)
out of sixty (60) internal fidelity monitoring observations were conducted during the annual review
year. One facilitator was missing an observation for December 2021 and another facilitator was
missing an observation for November 2021.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 clinical director addresses any signficant issues or corrective actions with the faciltiators of
ARISE Lifeskills. The internal fidelity monitoring forms include a section to document any
significant issues or corrective actions. A review of the internal fidelity monitoring forms confirmed
there were no significant issues or corrective actions noted.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program's annual performance evaluation does not include a section for facilitator evaluation.
This reviewer discussed this with the clinical director and suggested an addendum be added to
the performance evaluations which includes specific information on curricula the therapist is
trained in and an overall group facilitation evaluation.
The program provided annual performance evaluations for four staff trained to facilitate ARISE
Lifeskills. Three of the trained therapists are no longer employed at the program and did not
receive an annual performance evaluation. The new clinical director has not been employed long
enough to have received an annual performance evaluation.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 16 youth in the
sample, 100% (16 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: 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 16 youth in the
sample, 100% (16 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: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 8%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 44%
Moderate to High Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 17%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 16 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 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, 44% (7 of 16) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 2 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 16) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 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 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 2 25 8%
Totals 72 95 76%
This SPEP report evaluates ARISE Lifeskills, an intervention delivered at Crestview Sex Offender
Program.
16 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 16 were included in
the sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 16 total youth sampled, all
16 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 16 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 32 and 54 weeks of
service, with an average of 41 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 16 total youth
sampled, all 16 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 16 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 52 hours of service.
The program was awarded 2 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.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 100%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (8% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Program can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator and each facilitator’s
performance evaluation includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service.
Crestview Sex Offender Program 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

file_name: FY2021-22 CSOP ARISE.pdf

program_name_raw: Crestview Sex Offender Program

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: ARISE


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: May 1, 2021 - April 30, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: May 2, 2022 - May 6, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 8/10/22
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: 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): 7 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 utilizes Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service. The Impact of Crime curriculum
was created by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Office of Residential Services to assist
residential programs with following a balanced and restorative justice approach.
Case management staff are trained to conduct IOC groups in the program. Seven trained staff
facilitated IOC groups during the annual review year. Two of the seven staff were trained during
the annual review period and those training records were provided for review.
The case management supervisor conducts internal fidelity monitoring. If the case management
supervisor is facilitating a group, a senior case manager will conduct 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 provided the Impact of Crime (IOC) manual. The manual in use is not the most
recent version available. This reviewer requested four new IOC manuals be sent to the program
from residential services at the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Impact of Crime groups are held on Mondays and Wednesdays or Tuesdays and Thursdays in
the afternoons.
The program maintains the documentation for IOC groups in a binder kept in the case
management supervisor's office. The binder contains sign-in sheets, internal fidelity monitoring
documentation, and training documentation. All youth in the program are eligible to attend IOC
groups. Impact of Crime groups are closed groups, meaning no youth can be added to the group
once the initial lesson has been completed.
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 (IOC) was observed on November 15, 2021. There were eight
youth, one facilitator, and one youth care worker present for the group. The group lasted from
2:45pm to 3:45pm. The group time was moved up on this date due to therapy groups having to
change for the afternoon because one therapist went home ill.
The group was beginning Chapter four. The facilitator had the chapter four booklets printed and
ready for the group. The facilitator reviewed the objectives and words to know with the youth. The
group also reviewed stinkin thinkin concepts and chapter three. The group completed exercises
one and two. The facilitator provided feedback for the role plays conducted during group. There
were no significant behavioral issues, however one youth was disruptive throughout group. The
youth was given several warnings. The facilitator and case management supervisor spoke with
this reviewer about this particular youth and have been attempting to work with this youth on
behaviors.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program experienced turnover of Impact of Crime facilitators during the twelve (12)-month
review period. The previous case management supervisor and three case managers left
employment during the annual review period. Two of the four facilitators left during a cohort and
those groups were not being co-facilitated. The other two staff left between cohorts. Should an
employee leave during a cohort and the group is not being co-facilitated, another trained facilitator
will continue with the group.
A review of sign-in sheets revealed there were no gaps in service. The program completed ten
(10) cohorts during the annual review period and were running two groups at the time of this
review. Each group had between eight and ten (10) youth.
The first cohort started March 16, 2021 and ended on July 1, 2021. The group started with eight
youth and five youth successfully completed the group. Three youth were released from the
program prior to successfully completing the group.
The second cohort started April 6, 2021 and ended on July 22, 2021. The group started with eight
youth and eight youth successfully completed the group. The group was held two days a week
from 4:00pm to 5:00pm. There were four sign-in sheets with no thave documented for the group.
The third cohort started May 17, 2021 and ended on September 6, 2021. The group started with
eight youth and six youth successfully completed the group. Two youth were released early from
the program and did not successfully complete. One youth was added to the group who was a
transfer from another program.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The fourth cohort started June 29, 2021 and ended on October 7, 2021. The group started with
eight youth and eight youth successfully completed. The facilitator was out during the month of
August on medical leave. The case management superivsor facilitated the group during that
month.
The fifth cohort started July 5, 2021 and ended on September 3, 2021. The group started with two
youth and two youth successfully completed. The original facilitator left employment during the
cohort and the case management supervisor completed the cohort.
The sixth cohort started on October 14, 2021 and ended on January 19, 2022. The group started
with eight youth and four youth successfully completed. Four youth left the program and did not
successfully complete the IOC group. The group was held on Mondays and Wednesdays from
4:00pm to 5:00pm.
The seventh cohort started on October 5, 2021 and ended on January 20, 2022. The group
started with eight youth and two youth successfully completed. Six youth were released from the
program prior to successfully completing the group. This group was held on Tuesdays and
Thursdays. The group times varied, according to a review of the sign-in sheets.
The eighth cohort started October 19, 2021 and ended on January 13, 2022. The groups started
with eight youth and eight youth successfully completed. Eleven of the sessions were held for one
and a half hours.
The ninth cohort started on December 28, 2021 and ended on April 7, 2022. Ten (10) youth
started the group and seven youth successfully completed. Three youth were released from the
program prior to successfully completing the IOC group. This group was held on Tuesdays and
Thursdays from 3:00pm to 4:00pm.
The tenth cohort started December 28, 2021 and ended on March 24, 2022. The group started
with ten (10) youth and ten (10) youth. The group was held on Tuesdays and Thursdays from
3:30pm to 4:30pm. Groups on February 8, 2022, February 26, 2022, and March 18, 2022 were
held for two hours.
The eleventh cohort started January 31, 2022 and was ongoing at the time of the annual review.
The group started with nine youth and all nine youth were still in the group. The group is being
held on Mondays and Wednesdays from 3:30pm to 4:30pm. The group time changed in mid-
Feburary to 4:00pm to 5:00pm. One youth missed three sessions of the group due to being
transported for court. The facilitator completed individual sessions with this youth and those sign-
in sheets were provided for review.
The twelveth cohort started on February 22, 2022 and was ongoing at the time of the annual
review. The group started with twelve (12) youth and there were eleven (11) youth still enrolled at
the time of this review. One youth was transferred to another program due to behavioral issues.
Three sign-in sheets did not have signatures from the youth. This reviewer checked with the
facilitator about this. She could not remember why the youth did not sign the forms. The facilitator
did provide this reviewer the packets of worksheets completed for chapter six. Groups on April 12,
2022, April 19, 2022, and April 21, 2022 were held for two hours.
The thirteenth cohort started on April 19, 2022 and was ongoing at the time of the annual review.
The group started with seven youth and there continues to be seven youth at the time of the
review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
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's process is for the case management supervisor to conduct internal fidelity
monitoring for the Impact of Crime groups. There were seven facilitators during the annual review
period. One of the facilitators did not have internal fidelity monitoring due to only facilitating two
groups before leaving employment.
Thirty-five (35) out of thirty-seven (37) internal fidelity monitoring observations were completed
during the annual review period. One facilitator was missing two months of fidelity monitoring
observations. This reviewer spoke with the case management supervisor about the missing
fidelity. The case management supervisor stated the missing fidelity was prior to her starting
employment as the supervisor. The previous case management supervisor did not complete the
observations for the two months.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The case management supervisor addresses any significant issues or corrective actions for the
Impact of Crime facilitators. The internal fidelity monitoring forms include a section to document
any significant issues or corrective actions.
A review of the internal fidelity forms and an interview with the case management supervisor
confirmed there were no significant issues or corrective actions during the annual review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program provided annual performance evaluations for the Impact of Crime (IOC) facilitators.
Three IOC facilitators received their annual performance evaluations and those were provided for
review. Two facilitators have not been at the program long enough to have received an annual
performance evaluation and two other facilitators are no longer employed at the program.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
The annual performance evaluations do not include a section which includes an evaluation of
evidenced based service facilitation. This reviewer spoke with the case management supervisor
and suggested an addendum could be added to the performance evaluation to include evidenced
based group facilitation.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 16 youth in the
sample, 50% (8 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: 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 16 youth in the
sample, 100% (16 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: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 8%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 44%
Moderate to High Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 17%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 16 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 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, 44% (7 of 16) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 2 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 16) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 2 25 8%
Totals 46 85 54%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Crestview Sex Offender
Program.
16 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 16 were included in
the sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 16 total youth sampled, only
14 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 8
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 13
and 16 weeks of service, with an average of 15 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 16 total youth
sampled, all 16 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 16 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 27 and 33 hours of
service, with an average of 32 hours.
The program was awarded 2 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.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (8% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 81%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Program can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring facilitator turnover does not impact groups, fidelity monitoring is completed every month
for each facilitator, and each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of their skill
in delivering this primary service.
Crestview Sex Offender Program 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 11

file_name: FY2021-22 CSOP IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery
SPEP Review Period: May 1, 2021 - April 30, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: May 2, 2022 - May 6, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 8/10/22
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 Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery.
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: 5 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 25%
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): 3 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 0 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.
Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery is utilized as a primary service in the program. Pathways
Fourth Edition is a structured, guided workbook for use with adolescent males and females with
sexual behavior problems, including but not limited to sexual offending. The treatment focuses
extensively on helping clients develop healthy and responsible patterns of thinking and behavior,
and also provides concrete guidance about how to control sexual feelings in healthy and
responsible ways, including guidelines for successful friendships and dating relationships.
The clinical director and therapy staff are trained to conduct Pathways groups in the program.
During the annual review period the new clincal director has been trained to conduct Pathways
groups. The previous clinical director and two therapists were trained to facilitate Pathways
groups during the annual review period. There was one main facilitator for the groups. A part-time
trained therapist has also been facilitating indivdiual sessions with the youth since the previous
clinical director and the two therapists left employment.
According to a review of the sign-in sheets, three therapists facilitated groups and were not
trained in the curriculum. The untrained staff facilitated groups on August 16, 2021, September
20, 2021, and October 10, 2021. Training documentation was requested during each quarter of
the annual review period. The training records were never provided. This reviewer confirmed with
the new clinical director the staff were not trained in the curriculum.
The clinical director conducts internal fidelity monitoring for Pathways groups.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators receive formal training prior to delivering services to
youth.
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 4
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 provided the Pathways manual for review. The manual is a guided workbook the
youth work through on their own with a therapist. There are thirteen (13) chapters with twelve (12)
steps. There is not a script for the facilitator to follow. The manual is broken into individual
assignments and reading passages.
Pathways groups are scheduled for Mondays through Thursdays from 2:15pm to 3:15pm and
3:15pm to 4:15pm. Since November 2021, a trained part-time therapist comes to the program to
conduct individual sessions of Pathways with the youth.
The sign-in sheets are maintained in the clinical director's office. All youth in the program are
eligible to attend the Pathways groups. Pathways is held as an open group, meaning the youth
can enter the group upon admission to 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 Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery was observed on Wednesday, September 8, 2021
from 2:15pm to 3:15pm. There were six youth in group, one staff, and the facilitator. The facilitator
provided the reviewer a copy of the lesson and the sign-in sheet.
The facilitator conducted a check in and all the youth participated. The topic was boundaries. The
facilitator started the discussion topic. All youth participated and the group had a productive
discussion. The facilitator was supportive throughout the discussion and helped the youth identify
thinking errors. The facilitator utilized the lesson in the book as a guide, but was not dependent
upon the manual.
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.
The program's process for turnover is for another facilitator trained in Pathways/Roadmaps to
Recovery to continue with group facilitation. The program did experience turnover during the
annual review period. The clinical director and both trained therapists left employment. Pathways
is held as an open group, therefore the facilitators left during the cohort.
The program hired a part-time therapist to come in three days a week to conduct individual
sessions with the youth when the trained staff left employment. The individual sessions occurred
between November 2021 and March 2022. In March of 2022 the new clinical director provided
documentation of being trained and able to facilitate groups. At the time of the annual review,
another therapist is starting the training process for Pathways.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Sign-in sheets were reviewed from May 2021 to November 2021. Individual session notes were
provided for review from December 2021 to March 2022; groups were not held by the trained part-
time therapist. The individual session were held to ensure each youth received the contractually
required individual counseling.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 0 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 clinical director is designated to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring. Internal fidelity
monitoring was provided for review. There were forms to review between May 1, 2021 and
November 2021. When the individual sessions began, internal fidelity monitoring was not
conducted. At the time of the fourth quarter review, there were no other trained staff in the
program to conduct internal fidelity monitoring observations for the current facilitator.
Internal fidelity monitoring was conducted for the six months the previous facilitator was at the
program and facilitating groups. There were no other observations conducted after October 2021.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 0 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 clinical director addresses any significant issues or corrective actions for the facilitators of the
Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery groups. The internal fidelity monitoring forms include a section
for issues or corrective actions to be documented.
Internal fidelity monitoring forms were reviewed from May 2021 to November 2021 while groups
were being held. There were no significant issues or corrective actions during this time period.
Internal fidelity monitoring must be conducted on a regular basis for points to be awarded in this
section. Internal fidleity monitoring did not take place during the last six months of the review
period; therefore, no points may be awarded.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
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
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: N/A Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program provided annual performance evaluations for review. The evaluations did not include
a section to address group facilitation or list the specific groups the therapists facilitate. This was
discussed with the clinical director. It was suggested an addendum be added to the performance
evaluations to include what groups the therapists facilitate.
None of the therapists who were trained to facilitate Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery groups
received an annual performance evaluation due to leaving employment. The current clinical
director has not been employed long enough to have received an annual performance evaluation
at the time of the review.
This indicator is rated as non-applicable.
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 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 16 youth in the
sample, 100% (16 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: 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 16 youth in the
sample, 100% (16 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: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 8%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 44%
Moderate to High Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 17%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 16 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 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, 44% (7 of 16) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 2 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 16) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 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 5 20 25%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 2 25 8%
Totals 57 95 60%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery, an intervention delivered at
Crestview Sex Offender Program.
16 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 16 were included in
the sample.
The program scored Low for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 16 total youth sampled, all
16 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 16 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 32 and 54 weeks of
service, with an average of 40 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 16 total youth
sampled, all 16 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 16 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 52 hours of service.
The program was awarded 2 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.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (8% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 84%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Program can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring facilitators receive formal training prior to delivering services to youth, facilitator turnover
does not impact groups, fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, and any
corrective action needed is identified, applied, and demonstrated
Crestview Sex Offender Program 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 10

file_name: FY2021-22 CSOP Pathways SO 6-12.pdf

service_type: Pathways to Self‐Discovery and Change