state: FL

facility_name: Wimauma Academy

summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Wimauma Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
4337 Saffold Road
Wimauma, Florida 33598
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training (ART)
SPEP Review Period: 09/01/2024-08/31/2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 09/08/25
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 12/12/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Aggression Replacement Training.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 6 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
A SPEP review is being conducted at Wimauma Academy for the dates of 09/01/2024-
08/31/2025.The Aggression Replacement Training (ART) intervention is being evaluated. The
program has a formal training protocol for this intervention that is provided by licensed clinical
staff members or the clinical director. During the review dates there were six prior staff trained in
the ART curriculum, the prior clinical director and five therapists. All six of these staff have
resigned and are no longer at the program. Two of these staff facilitated the ART curriculum
during the review dates including the prior clinical director and one therapist. Currently there are
four staff trained in ART, one corporate clinical director, one regional clinical director, the current
clinical director and one licensed therapist. The current clinical director facilitated the group during
the review period. The regional clinical director provided fidelity monitoring.
The program can earn one point if all facilitators are trained in the primary service prior to
facilitating groups.
The program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) manual. The manual is broken
down into six sections. The first section covers Skillstreaming. The second section deals with
anger control. The third section covers moral reasoning. Each of the first three sections has a
script for the facilitator to use for each lesson. Sections four through six are for the facilitator's
use. It includes training step guides, fidelity forms and hassle logs, and the program materials.
The program provides the students with copies of the handouts for each lesson. The intervention
is held on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays usually from 3:30-4:30 p.m.; however, the group
is not currently running. The program maintains their records in SPEP binders separated by
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
intervention. The binders are then tabbed by individual sections. All youth are assigned to ART
based on need to address anger/communication of emotions.
The program can earn two points if the manual/protocol is detailed to the extent it explains how
each specific session is delivered and if there is a script or outline for each session.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of two.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This primary service could not be observed: therefore this indicator rates as non-applicable.
Aggression Replacement Training could not be observed as the group was not running at the time
of the review. The last group ended on 06/26/2025. The program stated that due to transition and
staffing, a new group cannot start until a newly hired therapist is trained and onboard. This
primary service could not be observed; therefore this indicator rates as non-applicable.
Note that a prior observation was not completed during the quarterly review in July 2025. The
group was not running during those review dates either.
The program can earn one point if the program follows the manual/protocol when delivering the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet the criteria to earn a score of one.
Basic Score: 0 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's protocol in the event of facilitator turnover for Aggression Replacement Training
(ART) is for either the clinical director or a trained designee to facilitate the cohort. The program
had facilitator turnover during the review period. The prior clinical director left the program in
08/2024; however, she was not facilitating the group at the time. She was providing fidelity
monitoring for the therapists. There were also four therapists who left the program, all of whom
had been facilitating the cohort. A new clinical director was hired and trained; however, she has
since stepped back into the role as a therapist. The corporate clinical director stepped in to assist
with fidelity monitoring. Since then, a new clinical director was hired and one licensed therapist.
There have been no ART groups conducted since 06/26/2025. This has caused three gaps in
service of ART over thirty (30) days from 10/19/2024-12/08/2024, and forty-nine (49) days; from
02/13/2025-04/21/2025. Since the end date of the last cohort, there has also been a gap of sixty-
seven (67) days from 06/27/2025 to present. The clinical director stated another group will start as
soon as a newly hired therapist can be trained.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program completed three cohorts during the review period from 07/31/24-10/18/24 with five
youth and one staff, 12/09/24-02/12/25 with eight youth and one staff and from 04/22/25-06/26/25
with six youth and one staff.
The program can earn two points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet the criteria to earn a score of two.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program's protocol has been for the clinical director or her trained designee to conduct fidelity
monitoring. The regional clinical director and the licensed therapist provided monitoring. There
were three facilitators who ran Aggression Replacement Training (ART) groups during the review
period including one prior clinical director, one prior therapist and the current clinical director. Two
of these staff are no longer at the program. During the review period, overall, there were only
three fidelity monitoring sessions completed. No monitoring took place for the months of 09/2024,
10/2024, 11/2024, 12/2024, 01/2025, 02/2025, 03/2025, 07/2025, and 08/2025. Monitoring was
completed for the months of 04/2025, 05/2025, and 06/2025.
The program can earn two points if fidelity monitoring is completed monthly every month for each
facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of two.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the clinical director verified the program has a process for corrective actions
based on fidelity monitoring completed. The program utilizes fidelity monitoring checklists specific
to Aggression Replacement Training (ART). The clinical director would then address any
signficant issues or corrective actions with the facilitators of ART. Depending on the severity of
the issues, the facilitator could complete staff development sessions, further retraining, or receive
a staff write-up.
The clinical director verified the corporate clinical director took in-house correction to address the
completion of Internal fidelity monitoring which must occur monthly for each facilitator in order for
points to be awarded for this indicator. The action will be a trained facilitator will complete fidelity
monitoring monthly for each facilitator. This action will be documented on the provided fidelity
monitoring forms. The corporate clinical director will monitor this process. It is noted this was not
formal corrective action.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The program can earn one point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
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 program's protocol for evaluating current staff is each facilitator is to receive annual
evaluations around their date of hire each year. Neither the clinical director nor the licensed
therapist have reached the six-month mark with the program. The regional clinical director stated
the ninety (90) day reviews will be completed as soon as the staff reach their date of hire.
The three prior licensed therapists and six prior non-licensed therapists had either had an annual
review or a ninety (90) day review completed during the past year.
The program can earn one point if each facilitator's performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 13 youth in the
sample, 92% (12 of 13) 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 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 13 youth in the
sample, 46% (6 of 13) 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: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 48%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 77%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 23%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 38%
Table 2
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 77% (10 of 13) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 23% (3 of 13) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 12 25 48%
Totals 69 100 69%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at
Wimauma Academy.
34 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 13 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 13 total youth sampled, all
13 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 12
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 8
and 12 weeks of service, with an average of 10.69 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 13 total youth
sampled, all 13 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 6
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 24
and 38 hours of service, with an average of 31.15 hours.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 10 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 30 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program was awarded 12 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 82%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring there
are no unnecessary gaps in service, all facilitators are trained prior to facilitating groups, fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, and the program provides the primary
service regularly throughout the year so it can be observed for adherence to the manual/protocol.
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2025-26 Wimauma Academy ART.pdf

program_name_raw: Wimauma Academy

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Wimauma Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
4337 Saffold Road
Wimauma, Florida 33598
Primary Service: Cannabis Youth Treatment
SPEP Review Period: 09/01/2024-08/31/2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 09/08/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 12/12/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Cannabis Youth Treatment.
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: 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.
An annual SPEP review is being conducted at Wimauma Academy for the dates of 09/01/2024-
08/31/2025. The program utilizes Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) as a primary service. The
program has a formal training protocol for CYT which is provided by licensed clinical staff
members or the clinical director at the program. During the review period there were three prior
licensed therapists and six prior non-licensed therapists trained in the CYT curriculum. There are
currently three licensed therapists trained in the CYT curriculum including one corporate clinical
director, one clinical director, and one licensed therapist. The corporate clinical director, regional
clinical director, and current clinical director provided fidelity monitoring during the review period.
The program can earn one point if all facilitators are trained in the primary service prior to
facilitating groups.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Series Volumes One and Two. The
manuals provide step-by-step procedures for implementing the program. There are no student
manuals. The facilitators make copies of the worksheets and pass them out to the youth during
group. The first two lessons of CYT are conducted as individual sessions. These sessions are one
hour in length. Lessons 3 through 12 are conducted as a group. All Substance Abuse Overlay
Service (SAOS) youth are required to receive CYT. Any Mental Health Overlay Service (MHOS)
youth with co-occurring "Cannabis Use Disorder" may also participate.
The program maintains all documentation in a binder labeled "Cannabis Youth Treatment" located
in the clinical director’s office. The binder contains all attendance sheets, internal fidelity
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
checklists, and training certificates. All other SPEP related documentation is maintained in a
tabbed separate binder labeled “SPEP Binder."The program provides the primary service one
time per week on Thursdays for one hour. CYT is run as a closed group. The intervention was
previously held on Mondays and the cohort that just completed was being held on Thursdays from
4:30-5:30 p.m. A new cohort will begin after the therapist has completed training and there are
enough youth to start a group.
The program can earn two points if the manual/protocol is detailed to the extent it explains how
each specific session is delivered and if there is a script or outline for each session.
At the time of the review, the program did meet the criteria to earn a score of two.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
The last cohort had completed on 08/28/2025. The clinical director stated that she has hired
another therapist who is currently in training; and, as soon as she is trained, they will begin a new
cohort of Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT). However, a CYT group observation was completed
during the last quarterly SPEP Review on 07/09/25. This occurred less than six months ago. This
observation is being utilized for the current indicator.
The Cannabis Youth Treatment curriculum was observed virtually by Microsoft Teams on
Thursday 07/09/25 from 6-7 p.m. There were eleven (11) youth and two staff in the group. A copy
of the lesson plan for Session 5-"Planning for Emergencies and Coping With Relapse" was
provided to the reviewer prior to the group session. The session adhered to the manual. The
facilitator was knowledgable of the materials, she ensured the youth grasped the concepts prior to
moving on in the lesson and she did not read the script verbatim. She used her own words to
convey what was being presented to the youth and was easy to understand.
The program can earn one point if the program follows the manual/protocol when delivering the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
Basic Score: 0 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's protocol in the event of facilitator turnover for Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) is
for either the clinical director or the designated trained clinical staff to facilitate the group. The
program had some facilitator turnover during the review period. The prior clinical director left the
program in 08/2024; however, she was not facilitating the group at the time. She was providing
fidelity monitoring for the therapists. A new clinical director was hired and trained who began
providing support to the therapists. However, she stepped back down to the role of therapist.
Another new clinical director was hired and trained. She was promoted to regional clinical director.
The current clinical director has been at the program less than six months. Additionally, there
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
were three licensed therapists and six non-licensed therapists that left the program including two
of which facilitated groups. Those groups transferred to other remaining therapists.The corporate
clinical director stepped in to assist with fidelity monitoring.
The program experienced two major gaps in service during this review period: 10/18/2024-
02/09/2025 for one hundred thirteen (113) days, and 04/29/2025-06/18/2025 for forty-eight (48)
days. The program completed three cohorts from10/17/2024-08/07/2024 with twelve youth and
two staff; 02/10/2025-04/28/2025 with nine youth and two staff; and 06/19/2025-08/28/2025 with
ten (10) youth and two staff. CYT is not currently running (as of 8/28/2025).
The program can earn two points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet the criteria to earn a score of two.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program's protocol has been for the clinical director or the trained designee to conduct fidelity
monitoring. There were seven facilitators who facilitated Cannabis Youth Treatment groups during
the review period. Five of those therapists, along with every previous clinical director, have since
departed from the program. The corporate clinical director stepped in during the month of
September 2024 to complete a fidelity monitoring session. There were only four fidelity monitoring
sessions completed for 09/2024, 03/2025, 07/2025 and 08/2025.
However, there were missed fidelity monitorings. No monitoring took place for the months of
10/2024, 11/2024, 12/2024, 01/2025, 02/2025, 04/2025, 05/2025, and 06/2025.
The program can earn two points if fidelity monitoring is completed monthly for earh facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of two.
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.
A review of the documentation provided and an interview with the clinical director verified there
was an ongoing in-house corrective action process developed by the corporate clinical director.
This was to address fidelity monitoring for each facilitator on a monthly basis to which the
corporate clinical director was to proceed with a follow-up. The clinical director will facilitate fidelity
monitoring monthly for each Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) facilitator. It is noted the program
has experienced turnover. One former clinical director left in 08/2024. An interim was appointed.
She then stepped down back to therapist. Another clinical director was hired, trained, and then
was promoted to regional clinical director. The current clinical director has been at the program
less than six months. However there was no formal corrective action taken.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The program can earn one point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program did meet the criteria to earn a score of one.
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 programs protocol for evaluating staff is that the each staff are to receive annual evaluations
around their date of hire each year. The current clinical director and therapist have not been at the
program long enough to have an annual review. Per the regional clinical director, both will receive
a review as soon as they reach one year of employment.
The program can earn one point if each facilitator's performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 12 weeks for this type of service. Of the 14 youth in the
sample, 7% (1 of 14) 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 12 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 14 youth in the
sample, 36% (5 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: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 86%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 14 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 14%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 14 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, 86% (12 of 14) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 14% (2 of 14) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 10 25 40%
Totals 57 100 57%
This SPEP report evaluates Cannabis Youth Treatment, an intervention delivered at Wimauma
Academy .
34 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 14 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 14 total youth sampled, all
14 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 1
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 7
and 20 weeks of service, with an average of 10.21 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 14 total youth
sampled, all 14 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 14
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9
and 23.25 hours of service, with an average of 11.80 hours.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 12 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 12 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program was awarded 10 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 72%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring there
are no unnecessary gaps in service, facilitator turnover does not impact groups, and fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

file_name: FY2025-26 Wimauma Academy CYT.pdf

service_type: Cannabis Youth Treatment


summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Wimauma Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
4337 Saffold Road
Wimauma, Florida 33598
Primary Service: Impact of Crime (IOC)
SPEP Review Period: 09/01/2024-08/31/2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 09/08/2025; 09/12/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 09/08/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
An annual SPEP review is being conducted at Wimauma Academy for the dates of 09/01/2024-
08/31/2025. The Impact of Crime (IOC) intervention is being evaluated. The program uses IOC as
a primary service. Training is received from the Department of Juvenile Justice either in person or
online and encompasses three days. There were two case managers, one therapist, and one
transition services manager trained in the IOC curriculum. The therapist and transition services
manager are no longer at the program. The prior clinical director, regional clinical director, and
transition services manager provided fidelity monitoring.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators are trained in the primary service prior to facilitating
groups.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
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.
A review of the documentation for the annual review period of 09/01/2024-08/31/2025 shows the
program utilizes the Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm v 4.0 as the manual. The fidelity
support specialist reviewed the manual. The facilitator’s manual is divided into seven chapters, an
appendix with handouts, and the student guide section (which includes the student exercises).
The manual addresses the order in which to deliver the content and provides the facilitator an
outline to follow. The facility does not have separate student workbooks to give out. The
facilitators make copies of the exercises before each session to hand out to the youth.
The group is a closed group with no more than twelve (12) youth in each cohort. The curriculum is
to be delivered to the youth over a minimum of sixteen (16) weeks for thirty-two (32) hours. The
program runs the primary service on Wednesdays and Fridays from 12:30-1:30 p.m. The program
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
keeps all documentation in a binder labeled "IOC SPEP" in the case management office. All youth
who are admitted to the program receive the primary service. Impact of Crime groups are closed
groups; meaning, youth should not be added to a cohort once the first lesson has been
completed.
The program can earn 2 points if the manual/protocol is detailed to the extent it explains how
each specific session is delivered and if there is a script or outline for each session.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
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 by Zoom on Friday 09/12/2025 from 12:30-1:30 p.m.
There were ten (10) youth, and two staff present. A copy of the lesson plan Chapter #13, "Ripple
Effect," was provided to the reviewer prior to the group. The facilitator began group with youth
check-ins. The facilitator then went through definitions of the lesson. The lesson was reviewed
and discussed in detail. The facilitator was very knowledgeable of the materials and ensured that
the youth grasped the concepts before he moved on in the lesson. He did not read the script
verbatim, rather he used his own words to convey the points of the lesson and facilitated
discussion with the youth.
The program can earn 1 point if the program follows the manual/protocol when delivering the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
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.
The reviewed documentation and an informal interview with the clinical director confirmed that
there was facilitator turnover during the review period. One trained therapist and the transition
services manager left the program. However this turnover did not adversely affect the service of
Impact of Crime (IOC) to the youth. Neither of these staff were facilitating groups at that time.
There was no gap in the service of Impact of Crime to the youth.
The program's policy requires that anticipated turnover be addressed by having potentially
affected groups co-facilitated from the outset. If there is no co-facilitator, in the event of turnover,
other trained staff would facilitate the group. The program completed four cohorts of IOC during
the review period: 07/09/2024-11/01/2024 with two youth and two staff; 09/18/2024-01/15/2025
with seven youth and two staff; 02/05/2025-05/28/2025 with nine youth and two staff; and
03/17/2025-07/11/25 with ten (10) youth and two staff. There is one ongoing group that began on
07/30/25 with eleven (11) youth and two staff.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has an internal process for conducting fidelity monitoring specific to Impact of Crime
(IOC). Their process is for the clinical director or her designee to perform all IOC monitoring. The
clinical director is not trained in the IOC curriculum, yet. The clinical director has been at the
program less than six months. The previous clinical director, regional clinical director, and the
transition services manager performed the internal fidelity monitoring. There were four staff who
facilitated IOC during the review period: two case managers, one non-licensed therapist, and one
transition services manager. The therapist and transition services manager are no longer at the
program. The prior clinical director, regional clinical director, and the transition services manager
performed the monitoring. Fidelity monitoring was missed for the months of 10/2024, 11/2024,
02/2025, 04/2025, 05/2025, 06/2025, 07/2025, and 08/2025. Monitoring was completed for the
months of 12/2024, 01/2025, 03/2025. There were no gaps in serivces of IOC to the youth. The
progam overlaps the groups to prevent gaps.
The program can earn 1 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 1.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the clinical director verified that the program has a process for corrective actions
based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring /corrective
action checklists specific to Impact of Crime (IOC).
The clinical director reported no corrective actions for the facilitators during the review period. The
corporate clinical director did, however, executed in-house correction to address the completion of
internal fidelity monitoring. This must occur monthly for each facilitator in order for points to be
awarded for this indicator. The action will be that a trained facilitator will complete fidelity
monitoring monthly for each IOC facilitator. This action will be documented on the fidelity
monitoring forms.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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 the two facilitators' performance evaluations found that one had received an annual
review and one received a ninety (90) day review. The reviews included comments on any
strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware. The program's protocol for
evaluating staff is the staff will receive an annual evaluation around their date of hire each year.
The annual evaluations for the prior therapist and transition service manager who facilitated this
group was completed during the past year.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator's performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 34 youth in the
sample, 29% (10 of 34) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 34 youth in the
sample, 29% (10 of 34) 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: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 48%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 82%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 7 youth
Moderate-High = 14 youth
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 34 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 21%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 38%
Table 2
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 34 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, 82% (28 of 34) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 21% (7 of 34) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 12 25 48%
Totals 56 85 66%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Wimauma Academy.
34 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 34 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 34 total youth sampled, only
14 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 10
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10
and 18 weeks of service, with an average of 15.29 weeks.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 34 total youth
sampled, only 14 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 10
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 19
and 31 hours of service, with an average of 27.71 hours.
The program was awarded 12 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 81%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

file_name: FY2025-26 Wimauma Academy IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime