summary: SPEP - FY20-21

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth
AMIkids, Inc
(Contract Provider)
1000 Inspiration Lane
Melbourne, Florida 32934
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): 03/01/20-02/28/21
SPEP Review Conducted: 03/09/21
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 6/17/21
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
During the review period, there were five staff formally trained by a qualified trainer in the Impact
of Crime curriculum- one Director of Treatment Services, three Master Level Counselors and one
Therapist. Three staff facilitated groups during the review period.
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 manual provided for review was Impact of Crime-Addressing the Harm. The manual contains
a script for the facilitator for the groups. It provides sixteen (16) weeks of lessons and includes
implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered in and includes
detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
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.
The Impact of Crime intervention was observed on Friday 03/26/21, 4:00-5:00pm. The facilitator
provided a copy of the lesson plan for the observer from the program manual (Chapter 5,
"Gangs"). The facilitator followed the lesson according to the manual, did not read the lesson
verbatim, used her own words to convey the meaning of the discussed topic, and did so in an
easy to follow manner. The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
A review of documentation provided and an interview with the Director of Case Management
confirmed there has been some facilitator turnover during the review period. The program was
contracted with Circles of Care (COC) which provided the SPEP interventions to the youth. On
03/20/20, the COC staff left without providing notice to the facility. The program normally, in the
case of staff turnover, utilizes other trained staff to facilitate the curriculum. There were short gaps
in the service of the Impact of Crime intervention to the youth. The gaps were from 05/09/20-
06/05/20, 09/02/20-09/27/20, and from 01/09/21-01/11/21. The Director of Case Management
who was already co-facilitating the groups along with the Director of Treatment Services
continued on with the Impact of Crime group. New Master Level Counselors were hired and
trained and now facilitate was well. All sign in sheets were provided for 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 documentation for fidelity monitoring of Impact of Crime was reviewed. The program
completed fidelity monitoring each month during the review period the curriculum was running.
There was no missing monitoring. The monitoring was performed by a Therapist trained in the
Impact of Crime curriculum.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the Director of Case Management and a review of documentation verified the
program has a process for corrective actions based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. The
program uses internal fidelity monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Impact of
Crime intervention. The program did not take any corrective action during the review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: N/A Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The 90-day Performance Evaluations were reviewed for all facilitators of the Impact of Crime
curriculum. Annual Performance Evaluations have not been completed to date for these staff
members as they have not been employed for one full year as of the review date.
No staff were eligible for annual evaluations at the time of this review; therefore, this indicator is
rated as non-applicable.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 32 youth in the
sample, 34% (11 of 32) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 32 youth in the
sample, 63% (20 of 32) 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: 91%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 6 youth
Moderate-High = 10 youth
High = 13 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 32 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 41%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 13 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 32 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, 91% (29 of 32) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 41% (13 of 32) 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 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 71 85 84%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Melbourne Center for
Personal Growth.
34 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 32 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 32 total youth sampled, only
22 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 11
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 7
and 17 weeks of service, with an average of 15 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 32 total youth
sampled, only 22 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 20
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 15
and 32 hours of service, with an average of 30 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) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by ensuring facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth 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


state: FL

facility_name: melbourne center for personal growth

summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth
AMIKids, Inc
(Contract Provider)
1000 Inspiration Lane
Melbourne, Florida 32934
Primary Service: Seven Challenges
SPEP Review Period: March 1, 2021-February 28, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: March 22, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 6/30/22
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 Seven Challenges.
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 months of
records. The program has a process in place to ensure staff are trained in Seven Challeges prior
to delivering services to youth. The program provided documentation of seven master level
counselors and the director of treatment having been trained in the service.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The Seven Challenges program is designed for adolescents with drug problems. The program is
designed to motivate a decision and commitment to change, as well as support success in
implementing the desired change. The program helps juveniles address their drug problems and
also their co-occurring life skill deficits, situational problems, and psychological problems. Seven
specific challenges provide a framework for helping youth think through decisions about their lives
and their use of alcohol and other drugs. Furthermore, because trauma issues are often exposed
due to the program’s promotion of openness in relationships, “skill building for trauma recovery on
such issues as safety, trust, boundaries, and excessive self-blame are incorporated in this
program.”
The program utilizes a commerically produced curriculum which contains both facilitator guide and
student worksheets. The facilitators guide provides an outline of the entire program, group
discussion topics, homework assignments and ideas for successful group facilitation. The
curriculum also provides student activities in each challenge the youth works through. The various
sessions are held on a once per week.
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 Seven Challenges was observed during the review period. The group is structured a
little differently, as nearly thirty minutes of the group consists of the youth working independently
on their own challenge. The facilitator played backgound music over the speakers in the room and
provided a unique, peaceful working environment. The session concluded with different youth
sharing their challenge. The youth were generally engaged and participated in the discussion. No
behavioral issues were observed during the 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 by the program, no facilitator turnover occurred which
adversely affected delivery of Seven Challenges.
The program provided documentation of three cohorts of Seven Challenges being run at the same
time. Seven Challenges is run as an open group, with youth added and removed as they entered
and left the program.
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 Seven Challenges,
without exception. Each person facilitating group was observed and the monitoring was
conducted by staff member trained in the primary 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.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly
internal fidelity monitoring. A review of documentation revealed no corrective actions were initated
during the review period for facilitators of Seven Challenges. The facilitators were found to be
delivering the primary service 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.
Annual employee evaluations were provided as part of the review. Each employee who facilitated
Seven Challenges was rated in their effectiveness in delivering the services.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 68% (13 of 19) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 19 youth in the
sample, 100% (19 of 19) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 15 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 79%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 7 youth
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 26%
High Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 62%
Table 2
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 79% (15 of 19) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 26% (5 of 19) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 8 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 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 15 25 60%
Totals 81 95 85%
This SPEP report evaluates Seven Challenges, an intervention delivered at Melbourne Center for
Personal Growth.
22 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 19 total youth sampled, only
16 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 13
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 22
and 34 weeks of service, with an average of 27 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 19 total youth
sampled, all 19 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 19 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 57 and 171 hours of
service, with an average of 108 hours.
The program was awarded 15 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 96%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth 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 MCPG 7C.pdf

program_name_raw: Melbourne Center for Personal Growth

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Seven Challenges


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth
AMIKids, Inc
(Contract Provider)
1000 Inspiration Lane
Melbourne, Florida 32934
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: March 1, 2021-February 28, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: March 22, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 6/30/22
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): 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 months of
records. The program provided documentation of five master level case mangers and the director
of treatment having been trained in Impact of Crime. The director of treatment provides internal
fidelity monitoring of the facilitators. All staff were trained by a qualified trainer 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 the commercially produced curriculum Impact of Crime: Addressing the
Harm to Victims and the Community. 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 curriculum was published in 2009. 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. IOC is
conducted as a closed group, meaning once a group has started, no new youth can be added to
the cohort.
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. The facilitator had a copy of
the facilitators guide open as a reference during the group. The group consisted of the facilitator
reviewing key points from the previous lesson, then having the youth read definations of new key
words to be introduced in this group. The youth both completed individual exercises in their
student editions and had a large group discussion about the ripple effects of crime. The youth
were generally engaged and participated in the discussion. 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 delivery of Impact of Crime (IOC). The groups are co-facilitated with trained
staff so, if one person leaves, the other trained facilitator can complete the cohort with out delay.
The program provided documentation of three cohorts of IOC being delivered. The first cohort
began March 15, 2021 with seven youth, and was completed on July 5, 2021 with seven youth. A
second cohort began on October 4, 2021 with nine youth and was completed January 20, 2022
with nine youth. A third cohort began on November 8, 2021 with nine youth and was completed on
February 24, 2022 with nine youth. A fourth cohort started on March 21, 2022 with eight youth and
was ongoing at the time of the 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.
The program has a process in place to conduct internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators of Impact
of Crime. Internal fidelity monitoring took place on a monthly basis. Each person facilitating group
was observed and the monitoring was conducted by staff member trained in the primary 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.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly
internal fidelity monitoring. A review of documentation revealed no corrective actions were 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 annual employee evaluations for facilitators of Impact of Crime (IOC) were provided as
part of the review. Each employee who facilitated IOC were rated in their effectiveness in
delivering the service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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 22 youth in the
sample, 55% (12 of 22) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 22 youth in the
sample, 82% (18 of 22) 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: 15 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 77%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 22 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 27%
High Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 62%
Table 2
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 22 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 77% (17 of 22) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 27% (6 of 22) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 8 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 15 25 60%
Totals 67 85 79%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Melbourne Center for
Personal Growth.
22 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 22 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 22 total youth sampled, only
21 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 12
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12
and 17 weeks of service, with an average of 16 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 22 total youth
sampled, only 21 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 18
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 15
and 35 hours of service, with an average of 30 hours.
The program was awarded 15 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 91%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth 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

file_name: FY2021-22 MCPG IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth
AMIKids, Inc
(Contract Provider)
1000 Inspiration Lane
Melbourne, Florida 32934
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training
SPEP Review Period: March 1, 2021-February 28, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: March 22, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 6/30/2022
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Aggression Replacement Training.
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): 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 months of
records. The program has a process in place to ensure staff are trained in Aggression
Replacement Training (ART) before delivering services to youth. The program provided
documentation of five master level counslors and the director of treatment having been trained in
ART.
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.
Aggression Replacement Training is a multimodal psychoeducational intervention designed to
alter the behavior of chronically aggressive adolescents and young children.The goal of ART® is
to improve social skill competence, anger control, and moral reasoning. To accomplish this,
Aggression Replacement Training (ART) uses the following interventions: social skills training
teaches participants what to do, helping them replace antisocial behaviors with positive
alternatives; anger control teaches participants what not to do, helping them respond to anger in a
nonaggressive manner and rethink anger-provoking situations; moral reasoning helps raise
participants’ level of fairness, justice, and concern for the needs and rights of others.
The ART manual is highly detailed, providing 10 weeks (30 lessons) of scripts and handouts. The
director of treatment has a binder for the primary service. In the binder are the youth sign in
sheets, internal fidelity monitoring documents, staff training certificates and copies of the last
employee annual evaluations.
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 Aggression Replacement Training was observed during the review period. The
facilitator had a copy of the facilitators guide open as a reference during the group. The group
consisted of the facilitator reviewing key points from the previous lesson, then having the youth
read definations of new key words to be introduced in this group. The youth both completed
individual exercises in their student editions and had a large group discussion about the ripple
effects of crime. The youth were generally engaged and participated in the discussion. No
behavioral issues were observed during the 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 by the program, no facilitator turnover occurred which
adversely affected delivery of Aggression Replacement Training (ART). The groups are co-
facilitated with trained staff so if one person leaves, the other trained facilitator can complete the
cohort with out delay.
The program facilitated four cohorts of ART during the review period. The first cohort took place
beginning March 22, 2021 with seven youth, and was completed on June 28, 2021 with seven
youth. A second cohort began on July 12, 2021 with eight youth, and was completed on
September 17, 2021 with eight youth. A third cohort began October 25, 2021 with ten youth and
was completed on January 7, 2022 with ten youth. A fourth cohort was started on February 17
with nine youth and was ongoing at the time of the 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.
The program has a process in place to conduct internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators of
Aggression Replacement Training. Internal fidelity monitoring took place on a monthly basis.
Each person facilitating group was observed and the monitoring was conducted by staff member
trained in the primary 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.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly fidelity
monitoring of Aggression Replacement Training. A review of documentation revealed no
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
corrective actions were initated during the review period. The facilitators were found to be
delivering the primary 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 annual employee evaluations for facilitators of Aggression Replacement Training were
provided as part of the review. Each employee who facilitated the primary service was rated in
their effectiveness in delivering the service.
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 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 22 youth in the
sample, 100% (22 of 22) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 22 youth in the
sample, 100% (22 of 22) 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: 15 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 77%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 22 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 27%
High Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 62%
Table 2
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 22 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 77% (17 of 22) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 27% (6 of 22) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 8 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 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 15 25 60%
Totals 90 100 90%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth.
22 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 10 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 30 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 22 total youth sampled, all
22 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 22 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10 and 11 weeks of
service, with an average of 10 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 22 total youth
sampled, all 22 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 22 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 30 and 60 hours of
service, with an average of 31 hours.
The program was awarded 15 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth 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

file_name: FY2021-22 MCPG ART.pdf

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth
AMIkids, Inc
(Contract Provider)
1000 Inspiration Lane
Melbourne, Florida 32934
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: April 1, 2022-March 30, 2023
SPEP Review Conducted: April 25, 2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 08/02/2023
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 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 assist them in taking personal
accountability for their actions. Together, the victim, offender, and the community arrive at a viable
solution to 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 master level case mangers as well as the director
of treatment having been trained in IOC. The director of treatment 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, published in 2009. 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. Impact of Crime
is delivered 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 annual review. The group completed
chapter four, lesson three talking about regrets. The facilitator had a copy of the facilitators' guide
open as a reference during the group. The group consisted of the facilitator reviewing key points
from the previous lesson, then having the youth read definations of new key words to be
introduced in this group. The youth both completed individual exercises in their student editions
and had a large group discussion about regrets and peer presure. The youth were generally
engaged and participated in the discussion.
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 delivery of Impact of Crime (IOC). Groups are co-facilitated with trained staff so
if one person leaves, the other trained facilitator can complete the cohort with out delay.
The program provided documentation of four cohorts of IOC being completed during the review
period. The first cohort began before the review period started and was completed May 6, 2022.
Six youth began the cohort and three youth successfully completed the cohort. Three youth
completed the program before finishing IOC.
A second cohort began on February 14, 2022, and was completed on April 24, 2022. Eight youth
began the cohort and eight youth successfully completed the cohort. A third cohort began on May
30, 2022, and was completed on October 17, 2022. Ten (10) youth started the cohort and seven
youth successfully completed the cohort. Three youth completed the program before finishing
IOC.
A fourth cohort began November 4, 2022, and was completed February 24, 2023. Seven youth
began the cohort and six youth successfully completed the cohort. One youth completed the
program before finishing IOC. A fifth cohort began on March 16, 2023, with ten (10) youth and
was ongoing at the time of the 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 on a monthly basis for facilitators of Impact of Crime, without
exception. Each person facilitating group was observed and the monitoring was conducted by
staff member trained in the service.
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 program has a process in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly
internal fidelity monitoring. A review of documentation revealed no corrective actions were noted
nor taken during the review period. The facilitators were found to be delivering Impact of Crime 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 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 15 youth in the
sample, 80% (12 of 15) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 15 youth in the
sample, 80% (12 of 15) 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: 15 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 80%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 15 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 27%
High Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 62%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 15 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 80% (12 of 15) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 27% (4 of 15) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 8 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 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 15 25 60%
Totals 71 85 84%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Melbourne Center for
Personal Growth.
15 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 15 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 15 total youth sampled, all
15 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 12 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9 and 21 weeks of
service, with an average of 16 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 15 total youth
sampled, all 15 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 12 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 13 and 35 hours of
service, with an average of 29 hours.
The program was awarded 15 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 95%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth 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: FY2022-23 MCPG IOC.pdf


summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth
AMIkids, Inc
(Contract Provider)
1000 Inspiration Lane
Melbourne, Florida 32934
Primary Service: Seven Challenges
SPEP Review Period: April 1, 2022-March 30, 2023
SPEP Review Conducted: April 15, 2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 08/02/2023
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 Seven Challenges.
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. The Seven Challenges® Program is designed for adolescents with drug problems.
The program is designed to motivate a decision and commitment to change, as well as support
success in implementing the desired change. The Program helps juveniles address their drug
problems and also their co-occurring life skill deficits, situational problems, and psychological
problems. Seven specific challenges provide a framework for helping youth think through
decisions about their lives and their use of alcohol and other drugs. Furthermore, because trauma
issues are often exposed due to the program’s promotion of openness in relationships, “skill
building for trauma recovery on such issues as safety, trust, boundaries, and excessive self-blame
are incorporated in this program.”
The program provided documentation of three master level counselors and the director of
treatment having been trained in the primary service.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the commercially-produced curriculum for Seven Challenges, which contains
both facilitator guide and student worksheets. The facilitator guide provides an outline of the entire
program, group discussion topics, homework assignments, and ideas for successful group
facilitation. The curriculum also provides student activities in each challenge the youth works
through.
Seven Challenges is run as an open group, meaning youth were added and removed as they
entered and left the program. Groups are held three days per week.
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 Seven Challenges was observed during the review period. The group is structured
with thirty (30) minutes of the group consisting of the youth working independently on their own
challenge. The facilitator played backgound music over the speakers in the room and provided a
unique, peaceful working environment. The session concluded with different youth sharing their
challenge they had completed. The youth were generally engaged and participated in the
discussion.
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 delivery of Seven Challenges. The groups are co-facilitated with trained staff
so if one person leaves, the other trained facilitator can complete the cohort with out delay.
The program provided documentation of three cohorts of Seven Challenges being run on an
ongoing basis during the review period.
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 each Seven Challenges facilitator,
without exception. Each person facilitating group was observed and the monitoring was
conducted by staff member trained in the primary 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.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly
internal fidelity monitoring. A review of documentation revealed no corrective actions were noted
nor taken during the review period. The facilitators were found to be delivering Seven Challenges
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 Seven Challenges 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: 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 15 youth in the
sample, 100% (15 of 15) 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 15 youth in the
sample, 100% (15 of 15) 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: 15 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 80%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 15 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 27%
High Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 62%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 15 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 80% (12 of 15) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 27% (4 of 15) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 8 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 15 25 60%
Totals 85 95 89%
This SPEP report evaluates Seven Challenges, an intervention delivered at Melbourne Center for
Personal Growth.
15 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 15 total youth sampled, all
15 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 15 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 27 and 59 weeks of
service, with an average of 38 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 15 total youth
sampled, all 15 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 15 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 56 and 181 hours of
service, with an average of 118 hours.
The program was awarded 15 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by continuing the processes in place at the time of this review.
Melbourne Center for Personal Growth 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: FY2022-23 MCPG 7C.pdf