summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Orange Youth Academy
Truecore Behavioral LLC
(Contract Provider)
3150 39th Street
Orlando, Florida 32839
Primary Service: Male Healthy Relationships
SPEP Review Date(s): 04/17/18‐04/20/18
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 04/20/18
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Orange Youth Academy/Orlando Intensive MQI Program Code: 10145
Provider Name: Truecore Behavorial LLC Contract Number: R1227
Location: Orange County / Circuit: 9 Number of Beds: 41/16
Review Date(s): April 17-20, 2018 Lead Reviewer Code: 148
Persons Interviewed
Program Director 2 # Case Managers 5#
DJJ Monitor 2 # Clinical Staff 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 5 # Program Supervisors
Corporate QI/QA staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 7 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 7 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100 %
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The primary service is Male Healthy Relationships, which is a bundle of the Teen Relationships
Workbook and Young Men's Work interventions. During the review period, facilitators were being
trained separately for each service. There were 7 staff trained in the Teen Relationships
curriculum-six Therapists, and one Director Clinical Services. Seven of the facilitators had
facilitated this group during the review period. There were 14 staff trained in the Teen
Relationships curriculum-eleven Therapists, one Director of Case Management, one Director
Clinical Services and one Assistant Facility Administrator. Seven of the facilitators had been
consistently facilitating this group 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 program has designated Male Healthy Relationships as a primary Standardized Program
Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) service which is a combination of Teen Relationship Workbook and
Young Men's Work curriculums. The program uses the Teen Relationship Workbook which is
designed in a spiral-bound, easily reproducible format. There are fifty activities, in six sections of
the book. Each activity includes one or more worksheets to be photocopied and given to the teen
participant, as well as a facilitator’s information page with suggestions for using the worksheets in
a group or individual settings. Facilitators can choose which activities to use based on the
presenting issues and goals of the group and in response to the content of the previous lesson.
The facilitator is essentially able to customize a curriculum for each group or individual.
Curriculum delivery is conducted one time per week by the trained therapists. The Teen
Relationship Workbook groups require no time frame for youth to complete the primary service.
This is considered an open group, meaning once the group begins, new youth can be added to
the group.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program also uses the Young Men’s Work (YMW), which is a twenty-six session curriculum
which helps young men break the cycle of violence from generation to generation. It is a gender
specific curriculum created for young men ages 14-19 years old. The curriculum helps young men
examine inner influences of anger, fear, and frustration that lead to aggressive behavior. It
teaches at-risk or delinquent young men to solve problems without resorting to violence. It helps
young men explore many issues such as healthy relationships, self-destructive behavior, alcohol
and drug abuse, being allies to young women, and community responsibility.
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 Young Men's Work group was observed on Tuesday, 04/17/18; The Teen Relationships
Workbook group was observed on Thursday, 04/19/18. The facilitator for each group provided a
copy of the lesson plans to the observer from the program manual. The facilitator followed the
lessons according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim and used her own words to
convey the lessons to the group. She was easy to follow and adhered to the lesson plans in every
aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There has been recent facilitator turnover prior to this review. However, a review of
documentation provided, and an interview with the Director of Case Management (DCM),
confirmed the turnover itself did not adversely affect the services to the youth and did not occur
during a cohort. The first group in the newly bundled Teen Relationships/Young Men's Work
Intervention was just held on 04/03/18. Therefore there have been no gaps in service.
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.
There is no missing fidelity monitoring for the 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.
An interview with the Directors of Clinical Services (DCS) and Case Management (DCM) 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 bundled Male
Healthy Relationships intervention (Young Men's Work/Teen Relationship Workbook). A review of
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
documentation provided and an interview with the DCS and DCM verified there was no corrective
action noted nor taken.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The performance evaluation of all trained facilitators found entries on all evaluations of the staff's
performance in the delivery of the Young Men's Work and Teen Relationships Workbook
curricula. These included comments on any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator
should be aware.
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 40% (8 of 20) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 45% (9 of 20) 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%
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 9 youth
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 youth
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 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% (20 of 20) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (10 of 20) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 83 95 87%
This SPEP report evaluates Male Healthy Relationships, an intervention delivered at Orange
Youth Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 20 total youth sampled, only
8 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 34
and 39 weeks of service, with an average of 36 weeks.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 20 total youth
sampled, all 20 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 9 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 5 and 59 hours of
service, with an average of 31 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Orange Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Male Healthy Relationships


state: FL

facility_name: Orange Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Orange Youth Academy
Truecore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
3150 39th Street
Orlando, Florida 32839
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): 01/08/19-01/11/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 01/11/19
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
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.
There were five staff trained in the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum - one Assistant Facility
Administrator, one Transition Services Manager, one Director of Case Management, and two
Case Managers. Two of the facilitators had been consistently facilitating this group 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 to this reviewer was Impact of Crime - Addressing the Harm. The manual
contains a script for the facilitator for the groups. It provides 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: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This curriculum was not able to be observed; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable.
The Impact of Crime (IOC) group was not running during the review period, as the facility had
switched to running another group and did not have enough new youth required to start a new
IOC group.
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.
There has been recent facilitator turnover prior to this review. However, after a review of
documentation provided and an interview with the Director of Case Management (DCM), it was
determined the turnover itself did not adversely affect the services to the youth. There has been a
gap in service 03/18-09/01/18. According to the DCM, the gap was due to the need for the youth
to be placed into another intervention, and the lack of enough new youth to begin a new Impact of
Crime (IOC) group. The last IOC group prior to this review, in January 2019, had completed on
11/02/18. The program, in the case of turnover, would use administrative or other trained staff to
facilitate the curriculum.
A review of the Juvenile Justice Information System revealed an average daily population of 40
youth for the review period, with only 24 of 60 successful completers receiving this intervention.
The program can earn 2 points if there are no unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 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.
Fidelity monitoring was completed for each facilitator during all months in the review period,
except for November 2018.
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.
An interview with the Director of Case Management 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 Impact of Crime. A review of documentation
provided and an interview with the Clinical Director verified there was no corrective action noted
nor taken during the review period.
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.
The performance evaluations of all trained facilitators found entries on each evaluation of the
staff's performance in the delivery of the Impact of Crime curriculum. These included comments
on any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 24 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 24) 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: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 24 youth in the
sample, 38% (9 of 24) 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%
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 24 youth
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 24 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% (24 of 24) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (12 of 24) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 57 85 67%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Orange Youth
Academy.
60 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 24 total youth sampled, only
12 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9
and 15 weeks of service, with an average of 13 weeks.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 24 total youth
sampled, all 24 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 9
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 16
and 24 hours of service, with an average of 21 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Impact of Crime is an intervention suitable for all youth. The Department recommends providing
this service to every youth in the program.
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
there are no unnecessary gaps in service, and by ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every
month for each facilitator.
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Orange Youth Academy - TrueCore

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Orange Youth Academy
Truecore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
3150 39th Street
Orlando, Florida 32839
Primary Service: Living in Balance
SPEP Review Date(s): 01/08/19--1/11/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 01/11/19
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 1
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Living in Balance. The program was awarded 25 points
because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4 Service. The specific Sub-Component
Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary Service was identified as this type of
service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal problems or issues faced by an individual
and involves a group of youths interacting with each other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated while on-site during the annual compliance review.
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.
There were six staff trained in the Living In Balance curriculum - five Therapists and one Director
Clinical Services. All six of the facilitators had facilitated this group 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 to this reviewer was Living In Balance-Research Based Addiction Treatment
by Hoffman. The manual contains a script for the facilitator for the groups and provides
instructions for 12 core client sessions, 21 supplemental client sessions, visualization-relaxation
exercises, role play exercises and homework assignments.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
The Living in Balance group was not observed during the review period as it is only scheduled on
Saturdays and Sundays. Therefore, the indicator rates as non-applicable.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
There has been recent facilitator turnover prior to this review. However, after review of
documentation provided and an interview with the Director of Clinical Services, it was determined
the turnover itself has not affected the services of Living in Balance to the youth. There were no
gaps in services 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.
Fidelity monitoring was completed for each facilitator for all months during the 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.
An interview with the Director of Clinical Services (DCS) 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 Living In Balance. A review of documentation
provided and an interview with the DCS verified there was no corrective action noted nor taken.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The performance evaluation of all trained facilitators found entries on all evaluations of the staff's
performance in the delivery of the Living In Balance curriculum. These included comments on any
strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 23 youth in the
sample, 87% (20 of 23) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 23 youth in the
sample, 87% (20 of 23) 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 = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 9 youth
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 23 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 43%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 23 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% (23 of 23) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 43% (10 of 23) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 25%
Totals 91 95 96%
This SPEP report evaluates Living in Balance, an intervention delivered at Orange Youth
Academy.
60 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 23 total youth sampled, all
23 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 20 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 11 and 54 weeks of
service, with an average of 35 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 23 total youth
sampled, all 23 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 20 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 27 and 160 hours of
service, with an average of 80 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Orange Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8

service_type: Living in Balance


summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Orange Youth Academy
Truecore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
3150 39th Street
Orlando, Florida 32839
Primary Service: Male Healthy Relationships
SPEP Review Date(s): 01/08/19-01/11/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 01/11/19
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
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: 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.
There were nine staff trained in the Male Healthy Relationships curriculum. There were eight
Therapists, and one Director Clinical Services. Nine have facilitated 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 to this reviewer was The Teen Relationship Workbook and Young Men's
Work. The manuals contain a script for the facilitator for the groups. It provides 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 Male Healthy Relationships group was observed on 01/08/19. The facilitator provided a copy
of the lesson plan, "Acting Like a Man", to the observer from the program manual. The facilitator
followed the lesson according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim and used her own
words to convey the lesson to the group. She was easy to follow and adhered to the lesson plan
in every aspect.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
There has been recent facilitator turnover prior to this review. However, after a review of
documentation provided and an interview with the Director of Clinical Services, it was determined
the turnover itself has not affected services to the youth. There have been no gaps in service of
Male Healthy Relationships to the youth.
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.
All fidelity monitoring has been completed monthly for each facilitator of this group during the
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.
An interview with the Director of Clinical Services (DCS) 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 Male Healthy Relationships bundle of the
Teen Relationship Workbook and Young Men's Work. A review of documentation provided and an
interview with the DCS verified there was no corrective action noted nor taken.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The performance evaluation of all trained facilitators found entries on each evaluation of the staff's
performance in the delivery of the Male Healthy Relationship's curriculum. These included
comments on any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 36 youth in the
sample, 81% (29 of 36) 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 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 36 youth in the
sample, 75% (27 of 36) 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: 97%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 16 youth
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 36 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 44%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 36 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, 97% (35 of 36) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 44% (16 of 36) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 89 95 94%
This SPEP report evaluates Male Healthy Relationships, an intervention delivered at Orange
Youth Academy.
60 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 36 total youth sampled, only
34 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 29
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4
and 49 weeks of service, with an average of 32 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 36 total youth
sampled, all 36 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 27 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 5 and 78 hours of
service, with an average of 46 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Orange Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8


summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Orange Youth Academy
Truecore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
3150 39th Street
Orlando, Florida 32839
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Date(s): 01/08/19-01/11/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 01/11/19
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 Thinking for a Change. The program was awarded 30
points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5 Service. The specific Sub-
Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The Primary Service was
identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty cognitions and perceptions and
provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated while on-site during the annual compliance review.
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.
Documentation reviewed confirmed there were 14 staff trained in the Thinking for a Change
curriculum during the review period; four of the facilitators had been consistently facilitating this
group 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 to this reviewer was Thinking for a Change 3.1. The manual contains a
script for the facilitator for the groups. It provides 25 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 Thinking for a Change group was observed on 01/11/19. The facilitator provided a copy of the
lesson plan to the observer from the program manual. The facilitator followed the lesson
according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim and used her own words to convey the
lesson to the group. She was easy to follow and adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
There has been recent facilitator turnover during the review period; however, this did not adversly
affect the service of Thinking for a Change to the youth. There were no gaps in service.
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.
Fidelity monitoring was missing for the months of September and December, 2018. All other
fidelity monitoring had been completed for each facilitator during the review period.
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.
An interview with the Director of Case Management (DCM) 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 Thinking for a Change. A review of
documentation provided and an interview with the DCM verified there was no corrective actions
noted nor taken during the review period.
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 performance evaluations of all trained facilitators found entries on each evaluation of the
staff's performance in delivering Thinking for a Change (T4C). These included comments on any
strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 17 youth in the
sample, 76% (13 of 17) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 17 youth in the
sample, 12% (2 of 17) 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 = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 17 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 35%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 17 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% (16 of 17) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 35% (6 of 17) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 84 100 84%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Orange Youth
Academy.
60 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 17 total youth sampled, all
17 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 13 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10 and 28 weeks of
service, with an average of 20 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 17 total youth
sampled, all 17 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 2 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 15 and 47 hours of
service, with an average of 34 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8

service_type: Thinking for a Change


summary: SPEP - FY19-20

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Orange Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
3150 39th Street
Orlando, Florida 32839
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): 1/21/20 - 1/23/20
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/13/20
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
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.
There were four staff formally trained in the Impact of Crime curriculum, one Transition Services
Manager, two Case Managers, and one Director of Case Management (DCM). The DCM provides
fidelity monitoring. All staff were trained by a qualified trainer prior to delivering services to youth.
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 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.
A session of Impact of Crime was observed. Both facilitators were well prepared and used
materials available to them. Both were knowledgable of the material and used appropriate
motivational interviewing skills. The Direct Care Staff present for group appeared to be sleeping
throughout the session and did not address any behavioral issues which arose; the facilitators
handled the behavioral issues. The facilitators covered the material in the lesson plan.
After the session, the Assistant Facility Administrator was made aware of the concern with the
Direct Care Staff and was advised the Office of Programming and Technical Assistance is
available to provide additional training on behavior management.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
There has been recent facilitator turnover prior to this review; however, a review of documentation
provided confirmed the turnover itself did not adversely affect services to the youth. There have
been no gaps in service 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.
Fidelity monitoring for Impact of Crime was completed for each facilitator each month in the
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.
An interview with the Director of Case Management 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 Impact of Crime. A review of documentation
provided and an interview with the Clinical Director verified that there was no corrective action
taken.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include evaluation
of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
All staff evaluations were reviewed and found entries on all evaluations of the staff's performance
in the delivery of the Impact of Crime curriculum. These included comments on any strengths or
weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 31 youth in the
sample, 58% (18 of 31) 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 31 youth in the
sample, 71% (22 of 31) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 9 youth
High = 20 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 31 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 65%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 20 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 31 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% (31 of 31) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 65% (20 of 31) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 85 88%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Orange Youth
Academy.
59 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 31 total youth sampled, all
31 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 18 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 2 and 18 weeks of
service, with an average of 14 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 31 total youth
sampled, all 31 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 22 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 3 and 40 hours of
service, with an average of 25 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Impact of Crime is an intervention suitable for all youth. The Department recommends providing
this service to every youth in the program.
Orange Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8


summary: SPEP - FY19-20

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Orange Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
3150 39th Street
Orlando, Florida 32839
Primary Service: Living in Balance
SPEP Review Date(s): 1/22/20
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/15/20
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Living in Balance.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated while on-site during the annual compliance review.
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 has a process in place to provide training for Living in Balance before staff provide
the service to youth. There were two staff trained in the Living In Balance curriculum - one
Therapist and one Director of Clinical Services. The Therapist facilitated groups during the review
period; the Director of Clinical Services conducted 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 manual provided for review was Living In Balance-Research Based Addiction Treatment by
Hoffman. The manual contains a script for the facilitator for the groups and provides instructions
for 12 core client sessions, 21 supplemental client sessions, visualization-relaxation exercises,
role play exercises and homework assignments.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Living in Balance was unable to be observed; therefore, this indicator is rated as not
applicable.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
There has been recent facilitator turnover prior to this review; however, after review of
documentation provided and an interview with the Director of Clinical Services, it was discovered
the turnover itself has not adversely affected the services of Living in Balance to the youth. There
were no gaps in services 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.
Fidelity monitoring of Living in Balance was completed for all months during the review period,
without exception.
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 Clinical Services (DCS) 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 Living In Balance. A review of documentation
provided and an interview with the DCS verified there was no corrective action noted nor taken.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include evaluation
of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The performance evaluations of all trained facilitators found entries on each of the staff's
performance in the delivery of the Living In Balance curriculum. These included comments on any
strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 25 youth in the
sample, 56% (14 of 25) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 25 youth in the
sample, 100% (25 of 25) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 96%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 25 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 64%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 25 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 96% (24 of 25) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 64% (16 of 25) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 89 95 94%
This SPEP report evaluates Living in Balance, an intervention delivered at Orange Youth
Academy.
59 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 25 total youth sampled, all
25 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 14 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 1 and 41 weeks of
service, with an average of 24 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 25 total youth
sampled, all 25 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 25 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 46 and 86 hours of
service, with an average of 63 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Orange Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8