summary: SPEP - FY19-20

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Brevard Group Treatment Home
Aspire Health Partners
(Contract Provider)
3905 Grissom Parkway
Cocoa, Florida 32926
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): May 11-13, 2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): May 18, 2020
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve (12) months
of records. According to documentation provided by the program, two staff were trained in Impact
of Crime during the review period. Both staff facilitated groups during the previous year.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the curriculum Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm to Victims and the
Community. The curriculum was updated in 2009. It is highly detailed providing a facilitator's
manual, and student workbook. The facilitator's manual provides lessons plans, classroom
management ideas, and tips for engaging youth discussions. The student manual provides
reproducible worksheets to help facilitate group discussions, and review concepts learned during
the group sessions. Homework materials are also utilized in the student manual to re-enforce
learned concepts. Impact of Crime is a closed group meaning once a group commences, new
youth cannot be added to the group.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime was observed. The group was conducted in one of the classrooms
and held twelve (12) youth. A copy of the lesson was provided to the reviewer and the facilitator
followed the outline of lesson. Good group discussion took place and no behavioral issues were
observed.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
In reviewing documentation, there has been no turnover causing gaps in service. The program did
have a freeze in admissions which caused a gap in Impact of Crime being conducted, but a new
cohort began when the population increased enough to begin new group.
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.
According to documentation, the program completed three cohorts of Impact of Crime. During the
first two cohorts, monthly internal fidelity monitoring took place by trained staff. During the current
cohort, no internal fidelity monitoring has occurred. Only one program staff member is currently
trained in the primary service. The other trained staff member who was available is currently on
medical leave and their return is questionable.
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.
In reviewing the twelve months of fidelity monitoring documentation, no need for corrective actions
were documented.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include evaluation
of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The annual performance evaluations of facilitators of Impact of Crime were reviewed. Those
evaluations showed all facilitators who delivered the primary service were rated on their facilitator
proficency and given credit on evaluations.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 31 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 31) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 31 youth in the
sample, 55% (17 of 31) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 94%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 7 youth
High = 21 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 31 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 68%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 21 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 31 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 94% (29 of 31) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 68% (21 of 31) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 67 85 79%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Brevard Group
Treatment Home.
41 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 31 total youth sampled, only
17 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 8
and 15 weeks of service, with an average of 12 weeks.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 31 total youth
sampled, all 31 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 17 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 16 and 24 hours of
service, with an average of 21 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Impact of Crime is an intervention suitable for all youth. The Department recommends providing
this service to every youth in the program.
Brevard Group Treatment Home can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Brevard Group Treatment Home can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9


state: FL

facility_name: Brevard Juvenile Detention Center

summary: SPEP - FY19-20

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Brevard Group Treatment Home
Aspire Health Partners
(Contract Provider)
3905 Grissom Parkway
Cocoa, Florida 32926
Primary Service: Lifeskills Training
SPEP Review Date(s): May 11-13, 2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): May 19, 2020
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 LifeSkills Training.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilitzes LifeSkills Training (LST) as a primary service. According to documentation,
all facilitators and internal fidelity monitors of LST were trained by a qualified master trainer prior
to delivering serivces to youth.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the commercially produced LifeSkills Training curriculum from Botvin. The
curriculum contains reproduceable student worksheets, as well as facilitator notes and
instructions. LifeSkills training is a substance abuse prevention program which aims to deter
alcohol, tobacco, drug abuse, and violence among teenagers by teaching them the necessary
skills to resist social peer pressures to engage in alcohol and substance use, increasing their
understanding of the consequences of substance abuse, and promoting individual self-esteem
and confidence.
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.
During the annual review, no cohort was taking place; therefore, this indicatior will score as N/A.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
In reviewing documentation and an informal interview with the director of case management, it
was confirmed there was no facilitator turnover during the review period which adversely affected
delivery of LifeSkills Training.
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.
According to documentation, the program conducted internal monthly fidelity monitoring for each
month LifeSkills Training (LST) was conducted. LST was facilitated nine of twelve months.
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.
In reviewing the twelve months of fidelity monitoring documentation, no need for corrective actions
were documented. The director of case management stated during an informal interview a policy
and procedure does exist of corrective actions if a facilitator is found to be in need of additional
support.
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 evaluations were reviewed of facilitators of LifeSkills Training. Those
evaluations showed all facilitators who delivered the primary service were rated on their facilitator
proficency and given credit on evaluations.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 40 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 40) 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 15 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 40 youth in the
sample, 38% (15 of 40) 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: 93%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 28 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 40 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 70%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 28 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 40 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, 93% (37 of 40) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 70% (28 of 40) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 65 85 76%
This SPEP report evaluates LifeSkills Training, an intervention delivered at Brevard Group
Treatment Home.
41 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 40 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 15 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 15 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 3 services (16 weeks; 24
hours).
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 41 total youth sampled, only
15 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 7
and 9 weeks of service, with an average of 8 weeks.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 41 total youth
sampled, only 15 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 15
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 15 hours of
service.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Brevard Group Treatment Home can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Brevard Group Treatment Home can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Brevard Group Treatment Home

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: LifeSkills Training


summary: SPEP - FY19-20

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Brevard Group Treatment Home
Aspire Health Partners
(Contract Provider)
3905 Grisson Parkway
Cocoa, Florida 32936
Primary Service: Moral Reconation Therapy
SPEP Review Date(s): May 11-13, 2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): May 19, 2020
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 Moral Reconation Therapy.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
Moral Reconation Therapy is designated as a primary service. According to documentation
provided by the program, all staff facilitating groups or providing internal fidelity monitoring were
trained by a qualified master trainer prior to delivering services to youth.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes a commercially produced curriculum for the primary service Moral
Reconation Therapy (MRT). The MRT curriculum contains individual and group counseling
discussions, prescribed homework assignments and structured group exercises to address seven
basic treatment issues.
MRT was initially designed as a treatment program for adults residing in prison-based substance
abuse therapeutic communities. MRT is designed to help participants reexamine their choices and
develop cognitive structures that will improve decision-making skills. The curriculum for juveniles,
entitled “Juvenile MRT- How to Escape Your Prison” is appropriate for both juvenile offenders and
juvenile substance abusers, and is appropriate for general treatment and substance abuse
treatment. Based on cognitive-behavioral therapy principles, characteristics that guide MRT
practice include: 1) self-assessment of attitudes, beliefs, defense mechanisms, and behavior, 2)
current relationship assessment, 3) positive reinforcement, 4) alteration of self-concept in the
positive direction, 5) changes in gratification stimuli, and 6) enhance moral reasoning.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Moral Reconation Therapy was unable to be observed due to the COVID-19
pandemic; therefore, this indicatior will score as N/A.
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.
In reviewing documentation, there was no facilitator turnover during the review period which
adversely affected delivery of Moral Reconation Therapy.
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.
According to documentation, the program conducted internal monthly fidelity monitoring for each
month Moral Reconation Therapy was conducted. The primary service was facilitated nine of
twelve months.
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.
In reviewing the fidelity monitoring documentation, no need for corrective actions were
documented. The director of case management stated during an informal interview a policy and
procedure does exist of corrective actions if a facilitator is found to be in need of additional
support.
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 evaluations were reviewed for facilitators of Moral Reconation Therapy.
Those evaluations showed all facilitators who delivered the primary service were rated on their
facilitator proficency and given credit on evaluations.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 33% (9 of 27) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 27) 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: 93%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 67%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 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, 93% (25 of 27) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 67% (18 of 27) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 1000%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 80 100 80%
This SPEP report evaluates Moral Reconation Therapy, an intervention delivered at Brevard
Group Treatment Home.
41 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 27 total youth sampled, only
26 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 9
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6
and 15 weeks of service, with an average of 13 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 27 total youth
sampled, all 27 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 0 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 16 and 17 hours of
service, with an average of 16 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Brevard Group Treatment Home can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Brevard Group Treatment Home can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8

service_type: Moral Reconation Therapy


summary: SPEP - FY20-21

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Brevard Group Treatment Home
Aspire Health Partners
(Contract Provider)
3905 Grissom Parkway
Cocoa, Florida 32926
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: February 1, 2020-January 31, 2021
SPEP Review Conducted: February 15, 2021
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: April 6, 2021
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses three months of
SPEP records. According to records provided by the program, transitional services manager,
clinical manager, and director of case management were all trained in Impact of Crime. Currently
the transitional services manager is facilitating group and the clinical manager is providing internal
fidelity monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the curriculum Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm to Victims and the
Community, updated in 2009. It is highly detailed, providing a facilitator's manual and student
workbook. The facilitator's manual provides lesson plans, classroom management ideas, and tips
for engaging youth discussions. The student manual provides reproducible worksheets to help
facilitate group discussions, and review concepts learned during the group sessions. Homework
materials are also utilized in the student manual to re-enforce learned concepts. The group
operates as a closed group meaning once a group has started, no new youth can be added and
must wait until next cohort.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime was observed during the annual review. The group took place in the
cafeteria and was attended by six youth. A direct care staff was also with the group, along with
the facilitator. The facilitator effectively reviewed the group's prior chapter vocabulary words, and
introducted the new chapter ideas and terms. The facilitator did not read directly from the script,
but did follow the outline of the lesson. The youth were engaged in the discussion and no
disciplinary problems were observed.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program has had a turnover in facilitators of Impact of Crime. Previously trained staffed left
the program during September 2020, and the director of case management filled in to complete
that cohort. New staff were hired and trained and a new cohort did not begin until December
2020.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
According to records provided by the program, internal fidelity monitoring of Impact of Crime took
place monthly. Another trained facilitator provided internal fidelity monitoring the month the
director of case management took over facilitating group.
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 arising from internal fidelity
monitoring of Impact of Crime. In reviewing the corrective action plans, none of the plans made
note of the need for any corrective action for any facilitator.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The facilitators of Impact of Crime have not been employed long enough for annual reviews, but
90-day evaluations mentioned their facilitation of the primary service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 17 youth in the
sample, 47% (8 of 17) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 17 youth in the
sample, 76% (13 of 17) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 88%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 17 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 59%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 17 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 88% (15 of 17) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 59% (10 of 17) 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 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 73 85 86%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Brevard Group
Treatment Home.
20 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 17 total youth sampled, only
13 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 8
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 13
and 17 weeks of service, with an average of 15 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 17 total youth
sampled, all 17 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 13 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 17 and 35 hours of
service, with an average of 25 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Impact of Crime is an intervention suitable for all youth. The Department recommends providing
this service to every youth in the program.
Brevard Group Treatment Home can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
Brevard Group Treatment Home can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY20-21

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Brevard Group Treatment Home
Aspire Health Partners
(Contract Provider)
3905 Grissom Parkway
Cocoa, Florida 32926
Primary Service: LifeSkills Training
SPEP Review Period: February 1, 2020-January 31, 2021
SPEP Review Conducted: February 15, 2021
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: April 6, 2021
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 LifeSkills Training.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 7 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
LifeSkills Training (LST) is a substance abuse prevention program which aims to deter alcohol,
tobacco, drug abuse, and violence among teenagers by teaching them the necessary skills to
resist social peer pressures to engage in alcohol and substance use, increasing their
understanding of the consequences of substance abuse, and promoting individual self-esteem
and confidence. According to documentation, all facilitators and internal fidelity monitors of LST
were trained by a qualified master trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the commercially produced curriculum LifeSkills Training from Botvin. The
curriculum contains reproduceable student worksheets, as well as facilitator notes and
instructions for how to deliver the service.
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.
During the annual review, the program reported LifeSkills Training is being facilitated on
Saturdays. A session of the primary service could not be reviewed at this time; therefore, this
indicator is rated as non-applicable.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
According to documentation provided by the program and an informal conversation with the
clinical manager, facilitators did leave the program which adversely affected the delivery of
LifeSkills Training. New staff needed to be hired and trained for the primary service to be
delivered. The primary service was not facilitated from August 2020 to January 2021. The primary
service is currently not being facilitated weekly.
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.
According to documentation provided by the program, internal fidelity monitoring of LifeSkills
Training took place during the month of January 2021. This was the first month of delivery of the
primary service since August 2020.
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 stemming from internal fidelity
monitoring. A review of internal fidelity monitoring documents showed no need for corrective
actions for the facilitator of LifeSkills Training.
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 facilitators of LifeSkills Training have not been employed long enough for annual reviews, but
90-day evaluations mentioned their facilitation of the primary service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 20) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 15 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 60% (12 of 20) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 90%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 13 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 65%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 13 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 90% (18 of 20) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 65% (13 of 20) 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 59 85 69%
This SPEP report evaluates LifeSkills Training, an intervention delivered at Brevard Group
Treatment Home.
20 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 15 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 15 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 3 services (16 weeks; 24
hours).
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 20 total youth sampled, only
12 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 7
and 14 weeks of service, with an average of 12 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 20 total youth
sampled, only 12 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 12
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 15 hours of
service.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Brevard Group Treatment Home can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring facilitator turnover does not impact groups and fidelity monitoring is completed every
month for each facilitator.
Brevard Group Treatment Home can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8


summary: SPEP - FY20-21

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Brevard Group Treatment Home
Aspire Health Partners
(Contract Provider)
Street Address
Cocoa , Florida 32926
Primary Service: Moral Reconation Therapy
SPEP Review Period: February 1, 2020-January 31, 2021
SPEP Review Conducted: February 15, 2021
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: April 7, 2021
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 Moral Reconation Therapy.
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): 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.
According to documentation provided by the program, the clinical manager and senior youth
counselor are currently trained in Moral Reconation Therapy.
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 a commercially produced curriculum consisting of both student
worksheets/activities and facilitator guide book. The student edition contains reproduceable
activities which reinforce various concepts discussed in group. The facilitator's edition provides
helpful notes in facilitating the ideas, as well as ways to spark youth engagement.
Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) was initially designed as a treatment program for adults
residing in prison-based substance abuse therapeutic communities. MRT is designed to help
participants reexamine their choices and develop cognitive structures that will improve decision-
making skills. The curriculum for juveniles, entitled “Juvenile MRT- How to Escape Your Prison” is
appropriate for both juvenile offenders and juvenile substance abusers, and is appropriate for
general treatment and substance abuse treatment. Based on cognitive-behavioral therapy
principles, characteristics that guide MRT practice include: 1) self-assessment of attitudes, beliefs,
defense mechanisms, and behavior, 2) current relationship assessment, 3) positive
reinforcement, 4) alteration of self-concept in the positive direction, 5) changes in gratification
stimuli, and 6) enhance 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 Moral Reconation Therapy was observed during the annual review. Six youth and
direct care staff attended group, along with the facilitator. The group was held in a conference
room, with youth seated around a large conference table. Youth worked independently on the
assigned task. The youth were engaged in the discussion of time management and no disciplinary
problems were noted during the group. The facilitator did not read from the script, but did follow
the outline of the lesson.
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.
According to documentation and an informal conversation with the clinical manager, there has
been some facilitator turnover. The last cohort of Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) was
conducted in August 2020 and a new cohort started in December 2020. The lag time in service
delivery was due to the need to hire new staff and train them in the primary service. MRT groups
are held twice a week and appear to be on a regular schedule since December.
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.
According to documentation provided by the program, internal fidelity monitoring has begun at the
program. One session of Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) occurred in December 2020, and
sessions continued in January and February 2021. A session of MRT was observed in January
2021, and the month of February was still on-going at the time of the review.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions based in internal fidelity
monitoring. A review of internal fidelity monitoring of Moral Reconation Therapy revealed no
corrective actions were noted nor taken.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The facilitators of Moral Reconation Therapy have not been employed long enough for annual
reviews, but 90-day evaluations mentioned their facilitation of the primary service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 20) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 20) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 90%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 13 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 65%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 13 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 90% (18 of 20) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 65% (13 of 20) 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 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 78 100 78%
This SPEP report evaluates Moral Reconation Therapy, an intervention delivered at Brevard
Group Treatment Home.
20 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 20 total youth sampled, all
20 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 0 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6 and 14 weeks of
service, with an average of 11 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 20 total youth
sampled, all 20 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 0 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 16 and 36 hours of
service, with an average of 21 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Brevard Group Treatment Home can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring facilitator turnover does not impact groups and fidelity monitoring is completed every
month for each facilitator.
Brevard Group Treatment Home 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


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Brevard Group Treatment Home
Aspire Health Partners, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
3905 Grissom Parkway
Cocoa, Florida 32926
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: Feburary 1, 2021-January 31, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: February 8, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 3/24/2022
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
SPEP 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
(IOC) is to help offenders understand the harm they have created, and then assisting them in
taking personal accountability for their actions. Together, the victim, offender, and the community
arrive at a viable solution to the repair the harm caused and the offender. Once the harm is
repaired, the offender subsequently reintegrates back into the community. Facilitators are
encouraged to bring in victim impact speakers throughout the course of the curriculum.
The program provided documentation of the former executive director, clinical director, and two
case managers trained in IOC. Both the executive director and one case manager facilitated the
primary service during the past year. The clinical director provided internal fidelity monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the curriculum Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm to Victims and the
Community, published in 2009. It is highly detailed, providing a facilitator's manual and student
workbook. The facilitator's manual provides lessons plans, classroom management ideas, and
tips for engaging youth discussions. The student manual provides reproducible worksheets to
help facilitate group discussions, and review concepts learned during the group sessions.
Homework materials are also utilized in the student manual to re-enforce learned concepts. IOC is
facilitated as a closed group, meaning once a cohort begins, no new youth can be added to the
cohort.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime was observed during the review period. The facilitator had a copy of
the facilitators guide open as a reference during the group. The group consisted of the facilitator
reviewing key points from the previous lesson, then having the youth read definations of new key
words to be introduced in this group. The youth both completed individual exercises in their
student editions and had a large group discussion about the ripple effects of crime.The youth
were generally engaged and did participate in the discussion. No behavioral issues were
observed during the group.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation confirmed no turnover of facilitators took place during a cohort of
Impact of Crime (IOC).
Documentation provided indicated two cohorts of IOC were conducted during the review period.
One cohort started on May 17, 2021 with nine youth and concluded on November 1, 2021, with
seven youth. Two youth were discharged from the program. A second cohort was started on
December 13, 2021 and was ongoing at the time of the review. The cohort started with nine youth
and continued with all nine youth in the cohort.
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.
According to documentation provided by the program, internal fidelity monitoring took place each
month Impact of Crime groups were conducted. No group was conducted during the month of
November 2021. For eleven of the previous twelve months, fidelity monitoring was completed by
another trained facilitator in the primary service.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a policy for corrective actions for facilitators of Impact of Crime. In the event a
facilitator is in need of help with service delivery, the director of case management will sit with the
facilitator and develop a plan to improve the facilitator's skills.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of annual evaluations documented the facilitators were given credit for their group
facilitation. The facilitators' skills in the delivery of Impact of Crime was also evaluated by
supervisors.
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 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 12 youth in the
sample, 75% (9 of 12) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 12 youth in the
sample, 75% (9 of 12) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 3 youth
High = 9 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 12 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 75%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 9 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 12 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (12 of 12) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 75% (9 of 12) 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 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 77 85 91%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Brevard Group
Treatment Home.
12 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 12 total youth sampled, all
12 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 9 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9 and 25 weeks of
service, with an average of 17 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 12 total youth
sampled, all 12 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 9 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 16 and 34 hours of
service, with an average of 29 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) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Brevard Group Treatment Home can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Brevard Group Treatment Home 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 BGTH IOC.pdf