state: FL

facility_name: Cypress Creek

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center
Truecore Behavorial Solutions, LLC.
(Contract Provider)
2855 West Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Agression Replacement Training (ART)
SPEP Review Date(s): 1/1/2024 - 4/30/2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 9/29/2025
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 Agression Replacement Training.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve (12) months.
A review of the documentation for the annual review period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024,
shows the program uses the Aggression Replacement Training for their primary service starting
on January 1, 2024. This review will encompass January 1, 2024 through April 30, 2024.
Facilitator training is provided by a qualified trainer over a three-day period.
There were ten (10) staff members trained to facilitate Aggression Replacement Training (ART)
which included one regional clinical director, one clinical director, and eight therapists. During this
review period, three staff facilitated ART: the regional clinical director and two therapists. Internal
fidelity was conducted by the regional clinical director and clinical director.
According to the program’s Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, the facilitator for each
primary service will have completed a formalized training for that primary service from a qualified
trainer. In order to enhance the continuity of the service due to unexpected facilitator absence and
provide more individualized instruction as needed during the service, when possible, Cypress
Creek will make all efforts to have a co-facilitator for the primary service. The co-facilitator will
have completed a formalized training for the primary service from a qualified trainer. All facilitators
of a primary service will receive training prior to conducting the services.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the current version of Aggression Replacement Training (ART). ART is held
three days a week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. There is a facilitator manual which
outlines the three components of ART: skillstreaming, anger control, and moral reasoning.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART) was observed on February 5, 2024 that
lasted from 2:24pm until 3:21pm. In attendance were the facilitator (therapist), three floor staff and
ten (10) youth. The topic for the day was lesson 7, stillstreaming, skill forty-one (41), "Getting
ready for a difficult conversation". The facilitator was knowledgeable of the material and ensured
all youth grasped the concepts prior to moving on to the next topic. The facilitator completed all of
the required steps for a skillstreaming session. The facilitator showed good rapport and was able
to re-direct behavior when needed.
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 the documentation for the quarterly review period of January 1, 2024 through April 30,
2024, shows there was no facilitator turnover. The program has a process in place to address
facilitator turnover and prevent gaps in service.
There were two cohorts held from Janaury 22, 2024, to April 5, 2024, one for each dorm
combination consisting of North and South. The two cohorts stayed on the same schedule.
The North cohort started with ten (10) youth, ended with nine youth, and had a therapist
facilitating. During this cohort, one youth was dropped due to being arrested. One youth was
removed to South and then added back to North. Another youth was added from South, but then
dropped for refusing to follow directions. Seven make-up sessions were required and five were
completed.
The South cohort started ten (10) youth, ended with seven youth and had a therapist facilitating.
During this cohort, two youth were dropped due to being arrested. One youth was added from
North, but then removed back to North again. Another youth was removed to North. There were
four make-ups needed and five were completed. When asked why the fifth youth needed a make-
up when he had signed in for that lession, the program stated that another youth had forged his
signature and he, in fact, was not present and needed that make-up session.
There were two cohorts that started on April 22, 2024, one for each dorm combination consisting
of North and South and are currenlty running as the end of the review period April 30, 2024. The
two cohorts stayed on the same schedule.
The North cohort started with ten (10) youth, currenlty has nine youth, and had a therapist
facilitating. During this cohort, one youth was dropped due to being arrested.
The South cohort started nine youth, currently has nine youth and had a therapist facilitating.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Within these closed cohorts, youth are only moved for safety and security purposes. There were
minor documentation errors within the cohort documentation unless more severe documenation
errors were noted.
According to the program's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, Cypress Creek Academy
utilizes a probationary review status process designed for effective management of risk though
individualized coaching, training, and verification activities of all new employees during their first
ninety days. The process encourages personal growth and development, recognizes areas of
improvement, thus reducing staff turnover. In addition, the program provides positive incentives,
which in our experience has shown to improve employee motivation and dedication and thus
leads to better employee retention. Through this policy, employees receive credit for years of
service, employment referrals, and for contributing to the positive culture, teamwork environment
and for going above and beyond normal job expectations. Each employee that receives credit for
doing these things is entered in a monthly drawing at each facility. In the event of facilitator
turnover, the co-facilitator will assume the role of the facilitator for the group. If a co-facilitator is
not present, a new qualified facilitator for the primary service will take over conducting the service.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring of Agression
Replacement Therapy (ART) facilitators. A review of documentation for the review period of
January 1, 2024 through April 30, 2024 showed the program did not complete all required internal
fidelity monitoring. Of the seventeen (17) required internal fidelity monitorings, sixteen (16) were
completed. Internal fidelity was conducted by the regional clinical director and clinical director.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly
internal fidelity monitoring. A review of documentation for the review period showed there were no
corrective actions noted nor taken on the fidelity monitoring of Agression Replacement Training
(ART) facilitators.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The annual performance evaluation the program utilizes includes a section to document what
curricula the employees are trained in and evaluated the facilitation. Of the three employees that
facilitated Aggression Training Replacement (ART), two performance reviews were provided. One
therapist's annual review happened prior to when ART started. The other annual review provided
for a therapist did not evaluate how they did facilitating ART.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 54 youth in the
sample, 17% (9 of 54) 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
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 54 youth in the
sample, 17% (9 of 54) 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: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 87%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 14 youth
Moderate-High = 17 youth
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 54 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 30%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 54 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, 87% (47 of 54) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 30% (16 of 54) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 75 100 75%
This SPEP report evaluates Agression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center.
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
56 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 54 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 54 total youth sampled, only
9 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10
and 10 weeks of service, with an average of 10 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 54 total youth
sampled, only 9 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 9
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 30
and 30 hours of service, with an average of 30 hours.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 10 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 30 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program was awarded 20 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):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service
Delivery score by ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator and
each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary
service.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service
score by ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that
youth receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2023-24 Cypress Creek ART.pdf

program_name_raw: Cypress Creek Treatment Center - TrueCore

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center
Truecore Behavorial Solutions, LLC.
(Contract Provider)
2855 West Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): 5/1/2023-4/30/2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 9/29/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 7 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve (12) months
of records. Impact of Crime is based on the belief that crime is more than just a legal definition,
but rather crime affects the victim, the offender, their families, and the community. The harm
caused brings with it the moral responsibility to all involved. The focus of Impact of Crime is to
help offenders understand the harm they have created, and then assisting them in taking personal
accountability for their actions. Together, the victim, offender, and the community arrive at a viable
solution to the repair the harm caused and the offender. Once the harm is repaired, the offender
subsequently reintegrates back into the community. Facilitators are encouraged to bring in victim
impact speakers throughout the course of the curriculum.
A review of the documentation for the quarterly review period of May 1, 2023 through April 30,
2024, shows the program uses the Impact of Crime Curriculum (IOC) for their primary service.
The training is a three-day, twenty-four (24) hour training which is delivered from a qualified
trainer. The program showed evidence of twelve (12) staff trained in the Impact of Crime (IOC)
curriculum: five case managers, two former case managers, one former youth care worker, one
intake specialist, two transitional service managers and one director of case management. During
this review period, nine staff facilitated Impact of Crime: five case managers, two formal case
managers, one intake specialist and one transitional service manager. The director of case
management, two transition service managers, and three case managers conducted the monthly
internal fidelity checks.
According to the program’s Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, the facilitator for each
primary service will have completed a formalized training for that primary service from a qualified
trainer. In order to enhance the continuity of the service due to unexpected facilitator absence and
provide more individualized instruction as needed during the service, when possible, Cypress
Creek will make all efforts to have a co-facilitator for the primary service. The co-facilitator will
have completed a formalized training for the primary service from a qualified trainer. All facilitators
of a primary service will receive training prior to conducting the services.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the curriculum Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm to Victims and the
Community, originally published in 2009. It provides a facilitator's manual and
student workbook. The facilitator's manual has lesson plans, classroom management ideas,
and tips for engaging youth discussions. The student manual provides reproducible worksheets to
help facilitate group discussions and review concepts learned during the group sessions.
Homework materials are also used in the student manual to re-enforce learned concepts. The
primary service is facilitated as a closed group, meaning once a cohort commences, no new youth
may be added.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime (IOC) was observed on November 7, 2023 that started at 2:24pm. In
attendance were one case manager facilitator, one case manager conducting an internal fidelity
monitoring, and nine youth. The lesson for the day was Chapter Two, Objective 4. The IOC
curriculum material stopped at 3:06pm and the group kept talking until 3:22pm. The facilitator
stated that they were in "group discussion time", however, the group was talking about different
vacation destinations and it was not related to IOC. For the fourty-two (42) minutes that IOC
instruction was taking place, the facilitator was knowledgeable of the material and ensured all
youth grasped the concepts prior to moving on to the next topic. IOC is required to be an hour in
length. There were two youth who had to leave the classroom for vital administrative procedures
at 2:35pm. The program was informed that those two youth would need a make-up session as
they only received eleven (11) minutes of instruction. It was not noted on the attendance sheet
that the youth had to leave early or that they needed a make-up. The two youth never received a
make-up session.
The program can earn 1 point if the program follows the manual/protocol when delivering the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
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 the documentation for the quarterly review period of May 1, 2023 through April 30,
2024, shows there was facilitator turnover. The facilitator turnover did negatively affect the
delivery of the primary service. The program has a process in place to address facilitator turnover
and prevent gaps in service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
There were three cohorts held from May 9, 2023, to August 31, 2023, one for each dorm
combination consisting of Alpha/Bravo/Charlie, Delta/Omega, and Echo. All three cohorts stayed
on the same schedule.
The Alpha/Bravo/Charlie cohort started with ten (10) youth, ended with nine youth, and had a
facilitator and a co-facilitator, both case managers, and a second co-facilitator, a former case
manager. During this cohort, three youth were added from Delta/Omega and two youth were
removed to Delta/Omega and one youth was removed to Echo. One youth was discharged early.
The youth that was discharged early received extra sessions prior to leaving, however, the youth
was still in the regular cohort sessions and received the last three chapters of the curriculum out
of order. Sessions were typically held on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The Delta/Omega cohort started with nine youth, ended with ten (10) youth, and had a facilitator
and a co-facilitator, both case managers. During this cohort, one youth was added from Echo and
then removed to Alpha/Bravo/Charlie. Two youth were added from Alpha/Bravo/Charlie, three
youth were added from Echo, 2 youth were removed to Alpha/Bravo/Charlie, and 2 youth were
removed to Echo. There was one youth signature and additional notes added to the original
documentation in September of 2023. Two make-up sessions were required and they were not
completed. Sessions were typically held on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The Echo cohort started with ten (10) youth, ended with eight youth, and was facilitated and co-
facilitated by a case manager and former case manager, respectively. During this cohort, one
youth was added from Alpha/Bravo/Charlie and three youth were removed to Delta/Omega. There
were three youth signatures and additional notes added to the original documentation in
September of 2023. Three make-up sessions were required and they were not completed.
Sessions were typically held on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There was turnover in this cohort as
the main facilitator was out sick, and instead of the co-facilitator filling in, there were two other
facilitators that conducted sessions during that time with out the cohorts co-facilitator.
There were two cohorts held from September 19, 2023, to January 16, 2024, one for each dorm
combination consisting of Alpha/Bravo/Charlie and Echo. The two cohorts stayed on the same
schedule.
The Alpha/Bravo/Charlie cohort started with eight youth, ended with eight youth, and was
facilitated by a case manager. During this cohort, two youth were removed for an altercation and
disruptive behavior. Two youth were added from Echo. There was one make-up needed and it
was completed. Sessions were typically held on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The Echo cohort started with ten (10) youth, ended with seven youth, and was facilitated by a
case manager. During this cohort, one youth was dropped early as his release date was
overlooked when planning the cohorts. Two youth were removed to Alpha/Bravo/Charlie. Two
make-up sessions were required and they were not completed. Sessions were typically held on
Tuesdays and Thursdays.
There were two cohorts started on February 6, 2024, one for each dorm combination consisting of
Alpha/Bravo/Charlie and Delta/Echo, and are currenlty running as the end of the review period
April 30, 2024. The two cohorts stayed on the same schedule.
The Alpha/Bravo/Charlie cohort started with eleven (11) youth, currently has ten (10) youth, and
was facilitated and co-facilitated by a case manager and former case manager, respectively.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
During this cohort, one youth was removed to Delta/Echo, added back to Alpha/Bravo/Charlie and
then removed again back to Delta/Echo. One youth as removed to Delta/Echo and one youth was
added from Delta/Echo. One session ran too long and the rest of the sessions were only fifty
minutes (50) long. IOC is required to be an hour. One make-up session was required and it was
not completed. Sessions were typically held on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The Delta/Echo cohort started with ten (10) youth, currently has ten (10) youth, and was facilitated
and by a case manager. There was turnover during this cohort. The facilitator had to go on
medical leave on February 23, 2024 and two case managers took over as facilitator and co-
facilitator for the rest of the cohort. During this cohort, one youth was dropped due to being
arrested. One youth was added from Alpha/Bravo/Charlie, removed back to Alpha/Bravo/Charlie
and then aded back again. One youth was added from Alpha/Bravo/Charlie and one was removed
to Alpha/Bravo/Charlie. Two sessions ran too long and thirteen sessions ran too short. IOC is
required to be an hour. Sessions were typically held on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Within these closed cohorts, youth are only moved for safety and security purposes. There were
minor documentation errors within the cohort documentation unless more severe documenation
errors were noted.
According to the program's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, Cypress Creek Academy
utilizes a probationary review status process designed for effective management of risk though
individualized coaching, training, and verification activities of all new employees during their first
ninety days. The process encourages personal growth and development, recognizes areas of
improvement, thus reducing staff turnover. In addition, the program provides positive incentives,
which in our experience has shown to improve employee motivation and dedication and thus
leads to better employee retention. Through this policy, employees receive credit for years of
service, employment referrals, and for contributing to the positive culture, teamwork environment
and for going above and beyond normal job expectations. Each employee that receives credit for
doing these things is entered in a monthly drawing at each facility. In the event of facilitator
turnover, the co-facilitator will assume the role of the facilitator for the group. If a co-facilitator is
not present, a new qualified facilitator for the primary service will take over conducting the service.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring of Impact of
Crime facilitators. A review of documentation for the annual period of May 1, 2023 through April
30, 2024 showed the program did not complete all required internal fidelity monitoring. Of the
forty-six (46) required internal fidelity monitorings, twenty-nine (29) were completed. There was
one additional internal fidelity monitoring submitted, however, it was completed by the facilitator's
co-facilitator when there were ten (10) other trained staff who could have completed it. The
director of case management, two transition service managers, and three case managers
conducted the monthly internal fidelity checks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly
internal fidelity monitoring. A review of documentation for the review period showed there were no
corrective actions noted nor taken on the fidelity monitoring of Impact of Crime facilitators.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The annual performance evaluation the program utilizes includes a section to document what
curricula the employees are trained in and evaluated the facilitation. Of the nine employees that
facilitated Impact of Crime (IOC), eight performance reviews were provided. One case manager
left prior to the annual reviews and one case manager moved to a different position within the
program. The case manager that moved to a different position had only co-facilitated cohorts and
the program reported because she hadn't led one by herself, they did not believe the review
required applied.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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 53 youth in the
sample, 96% (51 of 53) 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 53 youth in the
sample, 98% (52 of 53) 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: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 87%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 13 youth
Moderate-High = 17 youth
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 53 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 30%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 53 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, 87% (46 of 53) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 30% (16 of 53) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 66 85 78%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Cypress Creek Juvenile
Offender Correctional Center.
56 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 53 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 53 total youth sampled, only
53 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 51
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 3
and 33 weeks of service, with an average of 17.60 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 53 total youth
sampled, only 53 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 52
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4
and 45 hours of service, with an average of 24.43 hours.
The program was awarded 20 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):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service
Delivery score by ensuring the program adheres to the manual/protocol when faciliting the primary
service, facilitator turnover does not impact groups, and fidelity monitoring is completed every
month for each facilitator.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center 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 11

file_name: FY2023-24 Cypress Creek IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center
Truecore Behavorial Solutions, LLC.
(Contract Provider)
2855 West Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Skillstreaming the Adolescent
SPEP Review Date(s): 5/1/2023-1/2/2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 9/29/2025
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 Skillstreaming the Adolescent.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 6 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve (12) months.
A review of the documentation for the annual review period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024,
shows the program uses Skillstreaming for their primary service from May 1, 2023 to January 2,
2024. This review will encompass May 1, 2023 to January 2, 2024. Facilitator training is provided
by a qualified trainer.
There were fifteen (15) staff members trained to facilitate Skillstreaming which included one
regional clinical director, two former clinical directors, one former assistant clinical director, five
therapists, four former therapists, and one therapist that works at a different residential program
that came to help. During this review period, eleven (11) staff facilitated ART: the regional clinical
director, one clinical director, one former clinical director, seven therapists, and one therapist that
works at a different residential program. Internal fidelity was conducted by the clinical director and
assistant clinical director. Six of the trained facilitators did not have anything specific that stated
they were trained in Skillstreaming. The program informed that it was done during their "On the
Job" introductory training.
According to the program’s Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, the facilitator for each
primary service will have completed a formalized training for that primary service from a qualified
trainer. In order to enhance the continuity of the service due to unexpected facilitator absence and
provide more individualized instruction as needed during the service. All facilitators of a primary
service will receive training prior to conducting the services.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
The program uses the curriculum Skillstreaming the Adolescent. The manual introduces
Skillstreaming, contains scripts for the facilitators to follow as well as specific instructions for each
skill taught, example role plays, and student exercises. There are no separate student manuals.
The facilitator makes copies of the skill cards for each skill and hands out those copies to the
youth in the group. There are fifty (50) skills taught to the youth. Skillstreaming is an open group
with groups being run year-round.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
An observation of Skillstreaming was unable to be conducted during the review period, therefore
this indicator is rated as non-applicable.
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 the documentation for the quarterly review period of May 1, 2023 through January 2,
2024, shows there was facilitator turnover. The program has a process in place to address
facilitator turnover and prevent gaps in service. There were seven staff that left the program
during the review period: two clinical directors, one assistant clinical director, and four therapists.
All but the assistant clinical director was facilitating at the time they left. The program transitioned
the youth to another trained facilitator without any gaps in service.
Skillstreaming is held year-round as an open group and up to twelve (12) groups were being held
at one time. During the review, it was discovered that many of the sessions were being held at the
exact same time, some even with the same facilitator for both sessions. When asked, the program
reported that the therapists were combining groups and either facilitating more than the ten (10)
allowable youth at a time or combining groups with another facilitator and facilitating both groups
together in the same room. When management discovered what was happening and introduced a
correction that they were not allowed to do this, three of the therapists quit. At least sixty-four
sessions were affected by this from May to October 2023. The combined sessions had up to
eighteen (18) youth. It is unknown if there were more sessions affected as the documentation was
incomplete. There was one session that was too short, one session that was too long, and two
sessions that had overlapping times with the same facilitator.
There were also "supplemental" sessions that ranged from five to twenty (20) minutes. The
program had prior knowledge that these supplemental sessions were not to be done, and all
sessions must be forty-five (45) to sixty (60) minutes as indicated in their contract. There were at
least fifty-two (52) of the short supplemental sessions.
There were minor documentation errors within the documentation provided unless more severe
documenation errors were noted.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
According to the program's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, Cypress Creek Academy
utilizes a probationary review status process designed for effective management of risk though
individualized coaching, training, and verification activities of all new employees during their first
ninety days. The process encourages personal growth and development, recognizes areas of
improvement, thus reducing staff turnover. In addition, the program provides positive incentives,
which in our experience has shown to improve employee motivation and dedication and thus
leads to better employee retention. Through this policy, employees receive credit for years of
service, employment referrals, and for contributing to the positive culture, teamwork environment
and for going above and beyond normal job expectations. Each employee that receives credit for
doing these things is entered in a monthly drawing at each facility. In the event of facilitator
turnover, the co-facilitator will assume the role of the facilitator for the group. If a co-facilitator is
not present, a new qualified facilitator for the primary service will take over conducting the service.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring of
Skillstreaming facilitators. A review of documentation for the review period of May 1, 2023 through
January 2, 2024, showed the program did not complete all required internal fidelity monitoring. Of
the thirty-five (35) required internal fidelity monitorings, twelve (12) were completed. There were
zero internal fidelity checks completed for September, October, November, December of 2023
and January of 2024. Internal fidelity was conducted by the clinical director and assistant clinical
director.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly
internal fidelity monitoring. A review of documentation for the review period showed there were no
corrective actions noted nor taken on the fidelity monitoring of Impact of Crime facilitators. Apart
from documenation, it was reported that a corrective action was put in place when it was
discovered that therapists were combining groups going over the ten (10) allowable youth per
session.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The annual performance evaluation the program utilizes includes a section to document what
curricula the employees are trained in and evaluated the facilitation. Of the eleven (11) employees
that facilitated Skillstreaming, zero performance reviews were provided.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 54 youth in the
sample, 100% (54 of 54) 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 54 youth in the
sample, 93% (50 of 54) 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: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 87%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 14 youth
Moderate-High = 17 youth
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 54 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 30%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 54 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, 87% (47 of 54) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 30% (16 of 54) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 68 85 80%
This SPEP report evaluates Skillstreaming the Adolescent, an intervention delivered at Cypress
Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center.
56 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 54 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 54 total youth sampled,
only 54 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
54 received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between
17 and 59 weeks of service, with an average of 34.57 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 54 total youth
sampled, only 54 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 50
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 20
and 64 hours of service, with an average of 39.72 hours.
The program was awarded 20 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):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service
Delivery score by ensuring the program adheres to the manual/protocol when delivering the
primary service, facilitator turnover does not impact groups, fidelity monitoring is completed every
month for each facilitator, and each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Centercan optimize their SPEP Amount of Service
score by ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that
youth receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

file_name: FY2023-24 Cypress Creek Skillstreaming.pdf

service_type: Skillstreaming the Adolescent