summary: SPEP - FY21-22

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 Period: 01/01/21-12/31/21
SPEP Review Conducted: 01/11/22
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 3/3/22
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Living in Balance.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilizes Living In Balance (LIB) as a primary service. The program maintains all
SPEP documentation in a tabbed binder separated into sections then organized by intervention.
There is a formal training protocol for this intervention which is taught by the Director of Clinical
Services. The training consists of reviewing and learning the curriculum manual and conducting
mock groups. During the review period from 01/01/21 to 12/31/21 there were five staff formally
trained in the LIB curriculum, four Master Level Therapists and one Licensed Therapist. Services
are only provided by the Licensed Therapist, per contract requirements. During the last twelve
months, there were five Therapists who facilitated LIB along with four former Licensed Therapists
and three non-licensed Therapists who are no longer employed.
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 uses the brandname manual Living In Balance. There are both facilitator and
student manuals. The manual provides a script and instructions for the lessons. The curriculum
also includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered and
includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson. The Living in Balance group is held
on Tuesdays and Thursdays for youth diagnosed with substance use/abuse disorder.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Living In Balance was observed via Microsoft Teams on 01/11/22 from 2:00 to 3:00
p.m. There was one staff and six youth present in the group. The facilitator provided a copy of the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
the Lesson, You and Your Parents. The facilitator followed the lesson plan according to the
manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but rather used her own words to convey the meaning of
the discussed topic. She was very easy for the youth to follow. The facilitator adhered to the
lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation provided and an interview with the Director of Clinical Services
confirmed the program has had some turnover during the review period. The program lost four
licensed Therapists and three non-licensed Therapists. The turnover did not adversly affect the
services of Living in Balance to the youth. The program's policy regarding anticipated turnover is
addressed by having other licensed Therapists facilitate the groups or the Regional or Corporate
Clinical Directors would provide coverage. The program would defer to the Director of Clinical
Services should there be a gap longer than one month following a turnover and there is no one
else to fill the gap.
There is currently one cohort running, which started on 05/08/21.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators of
Living in Balance (LIB). The monitoring was completed by the Director of Clinical Services. The
program uses internal fidelity monitoring checklists specific to LIB to document the monitoring.
The program had completed checklists for all facilitators for each month they facilitated groups.
All completed fidelity checklists are maintained in the SPEP binder under a tab entitled "Fidelity
Monitoring for LIB". Each tab had a copy of the fidelity checklist completed on the facilitator(s)
who perfomed groups during the specific month.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity/monitoring of Living in Balance. The program uses internal fidelity
montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Living in Balance curriculum. Each
completed checklist includes feedback specifying either the facilitator did not require any
corrective action or, if the facilitator did require corrective action, it would include
recommendations for future improvement. The following month's checklist would then include
comments the previous month's recommendations were applied and demonstrated.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
An interview with the Director of Clinical Services and a review of the documentation provided
verified the program did not take any corrective action 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.
A review of employee records for the current trained facilitators including the Director of Clinical
Services found these staff received an evaluation within the last year. The performance
evaluations for these staff found entries of the staff's skill in delivering Living in Balance. 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 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 35 youth in the
sample, 97% (34 of 35) 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 35 youth in the
sample, 100% (35 of 35) 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 = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 12 youth
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 35 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 51%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 35 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% (34 of 35) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 51% (18 of 35) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 93 95 98%
This SPEP report evaluates Living in Balance, an intervention delivered at Orange Youth
Academy.
98 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 35 total youth sampled, all
35 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 34 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 23 and 83 weeks of
service, with an average of 37 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 35 total youth
sampled, all 35 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 35 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 45 and 147 hours of
service, with an average of 66 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
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

file_name: FY2021-22 OYA - LIB.pdf


state: FL

facility_name: Orange Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY21-22

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 Period: 01/01/21-12/31/21
SPEP Review Conducted: 01/11/22
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 3/2/22
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Male Healthy Relationships.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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.
A Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review consists of twelve months of
documentation of the program's efforts in providing the primary service, Male Healthy
Relationships.
Male Healthy Relationships (MHR) is a combination of two curricula: Teen Relationships
Workbook and Young Men's Work. The program maintains all SPEP documentation in a tabbed
binder separated into sections, then organized by intervention. There is a formal training protocol
for these interventions which staff must attend, facilitated by the Director of Clinical Services. The
training consists of reviewing and learning the curriculum manuals and conducting mock groups.
During the review period from 01/01/21 to 12/31/21, there were five Therapists formally trained in
the curriculum- four master level Therapists and one licensed Therapist. All fiveTherapists
facilitated group during the review period. There were also previous employees who facilitated the
groups (two non-licensed Therapists and four icensed Therapists) who are no longer employed at
the program.
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 uses the brand name manuals "Young Men's Work" and "Teen Relationships
Workbook" for the Male Healthy Relationships combined bundle. There are facilitator and student
manuals. The manual provides a script and instructions for lessons. The curriculum also includes
implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered and includes
detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
All youth receive the Male Health Relationships intervention as a part of their programming.
Groups are held on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 2:00 to 3:00 and from 3:00 to 4:00 for MHOS
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
and Intensive youth. The SAOS youth receive the intervention on Saturdays and Sundays
between 8:30 and 11:30.
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 Male Healthy Relationships was was observed via Microsoft Teams on Wednesday
01/11/22 from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. There was one staff and seven youth present in the group. The
facilitator provided a copy of the the lesson, My Future. The facilitator followed the lesson plan
according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but rather used her own words to
convey the meaning of the discussed topic. She was very easy for the youth to follow. The
facilitator adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation provided and an interview with the Director of Clinical Services
confirmed the program has had some turnover during the review period. The program lost two
non-licensed Therapists and four licensed Therapists during the review period; however, there
were also new Master Level Therapists hired. This turnover did not adversely affect the services
of Male Health Relationships to the youth. There are currently two groups ongoing which began
on 09/12/21 and 10/12/21.
All clinical staff are trained in MHR to manage facilitator turnover if it occurs, as well as Regional
and Corporate Clinical Directors who provide coverage when necessary. The program would also
defer to the Director of Clinical Services should there be a gap longer than one month following
turnover if there is no one else to fill the gap. There was no disruption in service of the
intervention.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators of Male
Healthy Relationships. The monitoring was completed by the Director of Clinical Services who is
formally trained in the Male Healthy Relationships bundle. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring checklists specific to Male Healthy Relationships to document the monitoring.
The program completed checklists monthly for all facilitators. All completed fidelity checklists are
maintained in the SPEP binder under a tab entitled "Fidelity Monitoring for Male Healthy
Relationships". Each tab had a copy of the fidelity checklist completed on the facilitator(s) who
perfomed groups during the specific month.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity/monitoring of Male Healthy Relationships. The program uses internal fidelity
montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the each curriculum. The completed checklist
includes feedback specifying either the facilitator did not require any corrective action or, if the
facilitator did require corrective action, would include recommendations for future improvement.
The following month's checklist would then include comments the previous month's
recommendations were applied and demonstrated.
An interview with the Director of Clinical Services and a review of the documentation provided
verified the program did not take any corrective action 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.
A review of employee records for the five current trained facilitators found two Therapists received
an evaluation within the last year in, December 2021. The performance evaluations for these staff
found entries of the staff's ability in delivering the Male Healthy Relationships bundled service.
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 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 62 youth in the
sample, 90% (56 of 62) 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 62 youth in the
sample, 87% (54 of 62) 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: 92%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 20 youth
High = 33 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 62 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 53%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 33 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 62 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, 92% (57 of 62) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 53% (33 of 62) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 89 95 94%
This SPEP report evaluates Male Healthy Relationships, an intervention delivered at Orange
Youth Academy.
98 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 62 total youth sampled, all
62 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 56 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 13 and 53 weeks of
service, with an average of 31 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 62 total youth
sampled, all 62 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 54 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 21 and 95 hours of
service, with an average of 52 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
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

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2021-22 OYA - MHR.pdf

program_name_raw: Orange Youth Academy - TrueCore

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Male Healthy Relationships


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

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 Period: 01/01/21-12/31/21
SPEP Review Conducted: 01/11/22
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 3/2/22
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 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 during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
A Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review consists of twelve months
documentation of the program's efforts in providing the primary service, Thinking for A Change
(T4C).
The program maintains all SPEP documentation in a tabbed binder separated into sections then
organized by intervention. There is a formal training protocol (five days, twenty hours) for this
intervention which staff must attend, facilitated by a certified Thinking for a Change trainer. The
training consists of reviewing and learning the curriculum manual and conducting mock groups.
During the review period from 01/01/21 to 12/31/21, there were seven staff formally trained in the
T4C curriculum, one Director Case Management, two Transition Service Managers, and four
Case Managers. Four Case Managers and two Transition Services Managers facilitated 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 uses the commercially-produced manual Thinking for A Change, version 3.1. There
is a facilitator manual only which provides a script and instructions for twenty five lessons. The
curriculum also includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be
delivered and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
All youth receive the Thinking for a Change (T4C) intervention as a part of their programming.
Groups are held on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 2:00 to 3:00 and 3:00 to 4:00 p.m.,
depending on assigned program.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Thinking for A Change was observed via Microsoft Teams on Wednesday 01/12/22
from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. There were two staff and ten youth present in the group. The facilitator
provided a copy of lesson 25, Next Steps. The facilitator followed the lesson plan according to the
manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but rather used her own words to convey the meaning of
the discussed topic. She was very easy for the youth to follow. The facilitator adhered to the
lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation and an interview with the Director of Case Management confirmed the
program has had some turnover during the review period. The program lost one Case Manager
01/04/22, after the cohort of Thinking for a Change (T4C) she was facilitating completed. The
turnover did not adversely affect the services of T4C to the youth. The program's policy regarding
anticipated turnover is addressed by having administrative or other trained staff step in and
facilitate the group if necessary. The program experienced a short gap in services of T4C from
02/02/21 to 03/01/21.
Five cohorts of T4C were completed during the review period. There are two groups currently
ongoing which started on 11/01/21 and 11/15/21. The finished cohorts ran from 03/01/21 to
06/28/21, 06/02/21 to 09/17/21, 07/12/21 to 11/12/21, and two groups which ran simultaneously
from 08/23/21 to 12/08/21.
The program can earn 2 points if there are no unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators of
Thinking for a Change (T4C). The monitoring was completed by the Director of Case
Management, who is formally trained in the curriculum. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring checklists specific to T4C to document the monitoring. The program completed
checklists for all facilitators each month they completed their T4C groups. The completed fidelity
checklists are maintained in the SPEP binder under a tab entitled "Fidelity Monitoring for T4C".
Each tab had a copy of the fidelity checklist completed on the facilitator(s) who perfomed groups
during the specific month.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity/monitoring of Thinking for a Change. The program uses internal fidelity
montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Thinking for A Change curriculum. Each
completed checklist includes feedback specifying either the facilitator did not require any
corrective action or, if the facilitator did require corrective action, it would include
recommendations for future improvement. The following month's checklist would then include
comments the previous month's recommendations were applied and demonstrated.
An interview with the Director of Case Management and a review of the documentation provided
verified the program did not take any corrective action 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.
A review of employee records for the six current trained facilitators found these staff had received
an evaluation within the last year, in December of 2021. The performance evaluations for these
staff found entries of the staff's skill in delivering Thinking for A Change. These included
comments on any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator delivering the curriculum
should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 41 youth in the
sample, 68% (28 of 41) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 41 youth in the
sample, 51% (21 of 41) 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: 88%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 5 youth
Moderate-High = 12 youth
High = 19 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 41 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 46%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 19 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 41 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, 88% (36 of 41) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 46% (19 of 41) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 88 100 88%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Orange Youth
Academy.
98 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 41 total youth sampled, all
41 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 28 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 3 and 27 weeks of
service, with an average of 16 weeks.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 41 total youth
sampled, all 41 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 21 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6 and 66 hours of
service, with an average of 38 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
there are no unnecessary gaps in service.
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

file_name: FY2021-22 OYA - T4C.pdf

service_type: Thinking for a Change


summary: SPEP - FY22-23

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 Period: 01/01/22-12/31/22
SPEP Review Conducted: 01/31/23
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: April 10, 2023
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
An annual review is being conducted of the Impact of Crime (IOC) intervention for the dates of
01/01/22-12/31/22. The program has a formal training protocol. All Case Managers are trained in
the curriculum by Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) trained personnel or corporate train-the-
trainers. The training consists of reviewing and learning the curriculum manual and conducting
mock groups.
There were seven staff who were trained in the curriculum during the review period. Six of these
staff facilitated the group. One Transition Services Manager (TSM) and three Case Managers left
employment during the review period. Two new Case Managers were hired and trained and are
now facilitating IOC. A new TSM has also been hired but has not been fully trained yet. One Case
Manager is currently out on FMLA leave and one Case Manager was promoted to a new position
within the program. The Director of Case Management provided fidelity monitoring as well as
support as a facilitator, when needed. The Director of Case Management or her trained designee
provided fidelity monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the brand name manual Impact of Crime-Addressing the Harm. There is both a
facilitator and student manual. The manual provides a script and instructions for the lessons. The
curriculum also includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be
delivered and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
Impact of Crime (IOC) groups are held on Mondays and Wednesdays from 2:00-3:00 p.m. and
3:00-4:00 p.m. All youth receive IOC as a part of their required programming for restorative
justice. Impact of Crime is a closed group meaning once a group is started, no new youth may be
added.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
The program maintains all SPEP documentation in tabbed binders separated into sections which
are then organized for each intervention.
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 via Microsoft Teams on Friday 02/10/23 from 3pm to
4pm. There were nine youth and two staff present in the group. The facilitator provided the
reviewer a copy of the the lesson, Introduction to Harm-Property Crimes. The facilitator followed
the lesson plan according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but rather used her own
words to convey the meaning of the discussed topic. She was very easy for the youth to follow.
The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation provided and an interview with the Director of Case Management
confirmed the program has had significant turnover during the review period. They originally had
seven staff trained in the curriculum, six of who facilitated Impact of Crime (IOC) during the review
period.
Three Case Managers terminated employment. One left while she was facilitating two IOC
cohorts; those cohorts were transferred to new facilitators without a gap in service. One additional
Case Manager was promoted to another position within the program. One Transition Services
Manager terminated employment and one other Transition Services Manager promoted to
another position at the program. Two new Case Managers have been hired, trained, and are now
facilitating group.
The program's policy regarding anticipated turnover is addressed by having administrative or
other trained staff step in to facilitate the group, if necessary, before a one month lapse occurs.
They also ensure their groups overlap dates of service.
The were ten (10) completed cohorts during the annual review period. The first cohort ran
11/01/21-02/16/22 with ten (10) youth. The second ran 11/15/21-02/28/22 with ten (10) youth.
The third ran 12/13/21-04/06/22 with six youth. The fourth ran 12/31/21-04/08/22 with six youth.
The fifth ran 02/21/22-06/17/22 with seven youth. The sixth ran 03/04/22-06/20/22 with six youth.
The seventh ran 04/11/22-07/25/22 with four youth. The eighth ran 05/16/22-08/29/22 with six
youth. The ninth ran 06/27/22-10/17/22 with seven youth. the tenth ran 07/13/22-10/28/22 with
seven youth.
There are three current groups which began on 10/07/22 with ten (10) youth. One ongoing group
began on 12/23/22 with eight youth.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators of
Impact of Crime (IOC). The monitoring was completed by the Director of Case Management, who
is formally trained in the curriculum, or her designee. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring checklists specific to IOC to document the monitoring.
The program completed internal fidelity monitoring for all facilitators for each month they facilitated
an IOC group. All completed fidelity checklists are maintained in a SPEP binder under a tab
entitled "Fidelity Monitoring for IOC". Each tab had a copy of the fidelity checklist completed on
the facilitator(s) who perfomed groups during the specific month.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity/monitoring of Impact of Crime. The program uses internal fidelity montoring /
corrective action checklists specific to the curriculum. Each completed checklist includes feedback
specifying either the facilitator did not require any corrective action or, if the facilitator did require
corrective action, it would include recommendations for future improvement. The following
month's checklist would then include comments the previous month's recommendations were
applied and demonstrated.
An interview with the Director of Case Management and a review of documentation provided
verified the program did not take any corrective actions 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.
A review of employee records for three current trained facilitators and the Director of Case
Management found these staff had received a yearly evaluation or a ninety (90)-day evaluation
within the last year. The performance evaluations for these staff found entries of the staff's skill in
delivering Impact of Crime. These included comments on any strengths or weaknesses of which
the facilitator should be aware. One Transition Services Manager has not been at the program
long enough to receive an evaluation.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 37 youth in the
sample, 89% (33 of 37) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 37 youth in the
sample, 97% (36 of 37) 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: 92%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 16 youth
High = 14 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 37 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 38%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 14 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 37 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, 92% (34 of 37) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 38% (14 of 37) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 79 85 93%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Orange Youth
Academy.
39 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 37 total youth sampled, all
37 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 33 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 3 and 29 weeks of
service, with an average of 17 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 37 total youth
sampled, all 37 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 36 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 5 and 56 hours of
service, with an average of 33 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
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
facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
Orange Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for
all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2022-23 OYA IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY22-23

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 Period: 01/01/22-12/31/22
SPEP Review Conducted: 01/31/23
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date:
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Living in Balance.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Living In Balance (LIB) intervention is being reviewed. The program maintains all SPEP
documentation in a tabbed binder separated into sections, which are then organized by
intervention. There is a formal training protocol for this intervention taught by the Director of
Clinical Services. The training consists of reviewing and learning the curriculum manual and
conducting mock groups. During the review period of 01/01/22 to 12/31/22, there were five staff
formally trained in the LIB curriculum: three masters level non-licensed Therapists, two licensed
Therapists, and one (prior) licensed Clinical Director. The prior licensed Clinical Director and one
licensed Therapist resigned; a new licensed Clinical Director was hired on 08/15/22. Since that
time, two non-licensed Therapists and one licensed Therapist have been running the group under
the supervision of the new licensed Clinical Director.
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 uses the brand name manual, Living In Balance.There are both a facilitator and
student manuals. The manual provides a script and instructions for the lessons. The curriculum
also includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered and
includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
All youth with substance use diagnosis receive the intervention, but primarily those in the SAOS
program. Living in Balance groups are held on Tuesdays and Thursdays for the SAOS youth.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Living In Balance was observed via Microsoft Teams on 01/11/22 from 2:00 to 3:00
pm. There was one staff and six youth present in the group. The facilitator provided a copy of the
the lesson, You and Your Parents. The facilitator followed the lesson plan according to the
manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but rather used her own words to convey the meaning of
the discussed topic. She was very easy for the youth to follow. The facilitator adhered to the
lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation provided and an interview with the Director of Clinical Services
confirmed the program has had some turnover during the review period. The program lost four
licensed Therapists and three non-licensed Therapists. The turnover did not adversely affect the
delivery of Living in Balance (LIB). The program's policy regarding anticipated turnover is
addressed by having other licensed Therapists facilitate the groups, or the Regional or Corporate
Clinical Directors would provide coverage.The program would defer to the Director of Clinical
Services should there be a gap longer than one month following a turnover and there is no one
else to fill the gap.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators of
Living in Balance (LIB). The monitoring was completed by the Director of Clinical Services. The
program uses internal fidelity monitoring checklists specific to LIB to document the monitoring.
The program provided completed checklists for all facilitators for each month they completed their
LIB groups. All completed fidelity checklists are maintained in the SPEP binder under a tab
entitled "Fidelity Monitoring for LIB". Each tab had a copy of the fidelity checklist completed on the
facilitator(s) who perfomed groups during the specific month.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity monitoring of Living in Balance (LIB). The program uses internal fidelity
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the curriculum. Each completed checklist
includes feedback specifying either the facilitator did not require any corrective action or, if the
facilitator did require corrective action, it would include recommendations for future improvement.
The following month's checklist would then include comments the previous month's
recommendations were applied and demonstrated.
An interview with the Director of Clinical Services and a review of the documentation provided
verified the program did not take any corrective action 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.
A review of employee records for the current trained facilitators including the Director of Clinical
Services confirmed these staff received an evaluation within the last year.
The performance evaluations for these staff found entries of the staff's skill in delivering Living in
Balance. 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 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 74% (14 of 19) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 37% (7 of 19) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 95%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 58%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 95% (18 of 19) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 58% (11 of 19) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 83 95 87%
This SPEP report evaluates Living in Balance, an intervention delivered at Orange Youth
Academy.
39 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 19 total youth sampled, only
16 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 14
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 3
and 67 weeks of service, with an average of 38 weeks.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 19 total youth
sampled, all 19 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 7 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 22 and 73 hours of
service, with an average of 41 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
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 dosage for
all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2022-23 OYA LIB.pdf

service_type: Living in Balance


summary: SPEP - FY22-23

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 Period: 01/01/22-12/31/22
SPEP Review Conducted: 01/31/23
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: April 10, 2023
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Male Healthy Relationships.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 Male Healthy Relationsips bundled intervention is being reviewed. This bundle includes
Young Men's Work and The Teen Relationships Workbook. There is a formal training protocol for
these interventions that staff must attend facilitated by the Director of Clinical Services. The
training consists of reviewing and learning the curriculum manuals and conducting mock groups.
During the review period of 01/01/22 through 12/31/22, there were four Therapists formally trained
in the curriculum- two unlicensed Therapists, one licensed Therapist, and one licensed Clinical
Director. All four facilitated group during the review period. There were also previous employees
who facilitated the groups -two non-licensed Therapists and four licensed Therapists- who are no
longer employed. All Clinical staff are trained in these areas to manage facilitator turnover if it
occurs, as well as the Regional and Corporate Clinical Directors who also provide coverage. The
program would also defer to the Director of Clinical Services should there be a gap longer than
one month following turnover if there is no one else to fill the gap.
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 uses the brand name manuals "Young Men's Work" and "The Teen Relationships
Workbook" for the Male Healthy Relationships combined bundle. There are facilitator and student
manuals. The manual provides a script and instructions for lessons. The curriculum also includes
implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered and includes
detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson. All youth receive the Male Health
Relationships intervention as a part of their programming.
The program maintains all SPEP documentation in a tabbed binder separated into sections, then
organized by intervention. Male Healthy Relationships groups are held on Tuesdays and
Thursdays 2:00p-3:00p and 3:00p-4:00p for MHOS and Intensive youth. SAOS youth receive the
intervention on Saturdays and Sundays, 8:30a-11:30a.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Male Healthy Relationships was observed during the review period, specically The
Teen Relationships Workbook component. The group was observed via Microsoft Teams on
Thursday 02/02/23 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm. There were two staff and eight youth present in the
group. The facilitator provided a copy of the the lesson "Assert Myself with I Statements". The
facilitators followed the lesson plan according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but
rather used their own words to convey the meaning of the discussed topic. They were very easy
for the youth to follow. The facilitators adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation provided and an interview with the Director of Clinical Services
confirmed the program has had some turnover during the review period. The program lost two
non-licensed Therapists and four licensed Therapists during the review period; however, there
were also new Masters Level Therapists hired. This turnover did not adversely affect the services
of Male Health Relationships to the youth. The program's policy regarding anticipated turnover is
addressed by having Clinical Staff as well as Regional and Corporate Clinical staff trained to step
in and facilitate the groups if necessary. The interventions in this bundled service are open and
ongoing groups. There were five to nine youth in each group session of Male Healthy
Relationships.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators of Male
Healthy Relationships. The monitoring was completed by the Director of Clinical Services who is
formally trained in the service. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring checklists specific to
Young Men's Work and Teen Relationships to document the monitoring.
The program provided completed checklists monthly for all facilitators except for the months of
September, October, and November. Some fidelity checks were missed during these months due
to limited staffing and the Clinical Director conducting groups herself or conducting group at the
samed time as the other facilitators. All completed fidelity checklists are maintained in the SPEP
binder under a tab entitled "Fidelity Monitoring for Male Healthy Relationships". Each tab had a
copy of the fidelity checklist completed on the facilitator(s) who perfomed groups during the
specific month.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity monitoring of Male Healthy Relationships. The program uses internal fidelity
montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the each curriculum. The completed checklists
include feedback specifying either the facilitator did not require any corrective action or, if the
facilitator did require corrective action, would include recommendations for future improvement.
The following month's checklist would then include comments the previous month's
recommendations were applied and demonstrated.
An interview with the Director of Clinical Services and a review of the documentation provided
verified the program did not take any corrective action 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.
A review of employee records for the four current trained facilitators confirmed the Clinical
Director who facilitates group received a ninety (90) -day evaluation between October and
November 2022. One licensed and one unlicensed Therapist received ninety (90)-day evaluations
between October and November 2022 as well. The one additional unlicensed Therapist is not
eligible for review as of this review date.
The performance evaluations for these staff found entries of the staff's ability in delivering the
Male Healthy Relationships bundled services. 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 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 18 youth in the
sample, 78% (14 of 18) 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 18 youth in the
sample, 100% (18 of 18) 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: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 52%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 89%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 11 youth
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 18 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 17%
High Score: 3 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 23%
Table 2
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 18 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, 89% (16 of 18) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 17% (3 of 18) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 3 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 13 25 52%
Totals 81 95 85%
This SPEP report evaluates Male Healthy Relationships, an intervention delivered at Orange
Youth Academy.
39 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 18 total youth sampled, all
18 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 18 and 70 weeks of
service, with an average of 42 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 18 total youth
sampled, all 18 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 18 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 56 and 140 hours of
service, with an average of 90 hours.
The program was awarded 13 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 98%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
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 dosage for
all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2022-23 OYA MHR.pdf