summary: SPEP - FY19-20

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami-Dade, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Date(s): November 19-20, 2019
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): November 25, 2019
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Thinking for a Change. The program was awarded 30
points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5 Service. The specific Sub-
Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The Primary Service was
identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty cognitions and perceptions and
provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records. According to documentation provided by the program, and confirmed by the
department's learning management systen, Skillpro, two staff members are currently trained in
Thinking for a Change.
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 documents and records revealed the program is utilizing the evidence-based
curriculum Thinking for a Change (T4C) 3.1. The program utilizes a highly detailed, commercially
produced manual that provides lessons plans, facilitator notes, ideas to facilitate the curriculum,
and long-term planning schedules. Groups were conducted as closed groups, meaning once a
group commenced, no new youth could be added to the group.
T4C utilizes a problem-solving program with both cognitive restructuring, and social skills
interventions bringing the identification of thinking, beliefs, attitudes and values to behavior. Effort
is focused on helping youth become aware of their thoughts, feelings and beliefs in particular
circumstances.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
An informal interview with the program's clinical director revealed Thinking for a Change is usually
conducted on Friday and Sunday during the week. A session of the primary service was not
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
conducted during the annual review period, and could not be observed by the review team.
Future quarterly reviews will be set up to allow for observations.
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.
During the previous twelve months, no facilitator turnover took place which adversely affected the
facilitation of Thinking for a Change (T4C). During an informal discussion with the clinical director
it was explained that if a facilitator left the program, a new facilitor would be identified and trained
at the next available opportunity. The facility administrator is also trained in the primary service,
and is available to facilitate until new staff is trained. A cohort of T4C commenced on October 15,
2019 and is on-going. Additionally, the program provided documentation of two cohorts being
completed during the twelve month review period. An additional fourth cohort was completed in
November 2018, but commenced outside of the twelve month time frame.
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.
Documentation provided showed internal fidelity monitoring took place on a monthly basis for
each cohort of Thinking for a Change completed during the previous twelve months. The internal
fidelity monitoring was completed by a staff member who was trained 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 action plans for facilitators of Thinking for a Change. In
the event a facilitator is in need of help with service delivery, the clinical director will sit with the
facilitator and develop a plan to improve the facilitator's skills.
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.
According to an informal interview with the facility administrator, the current annual employee
evaluations are in progress and not currently completed. The previous annual performance
summaries did show that facilitators were rated on their skills in delivery of Thinking for a Change.
The company's annual employee evaluations have a section dedicated to rate the skills of
employees facilitating groups. Company practice is not only to rate the employee, but also list the
name of group(s) the employee is facilitating.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 11 youth in the
sample, 91% (10 of 11) 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 11 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 11) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 3 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 11 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 36%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 11 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% (11 of 11) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 36% (4 of 11) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 88 100 88%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Miami Youth
Academy.
28 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 11 total youth sampled, all
11 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 10 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12 and 39 weeks of
service, with an average of 26 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 11 total youth
sampled, all 11 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 5 and 25 hours of
service, with an average of 21 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8


state: FL

facility_name: Miami Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY20-21

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84TH Street
Miami-Dade, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: November 15, 2019-November 14, 2020
SPEP Review Conducted: November 23, 2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 1/28/21
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
records. One Youth Care Worker II and the Assistant Facility Administrator, who were trained in
Impact of Crime, facilitated groups and 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. 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 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 small in number, but the facilitator
was able to lead a discussion with the youth. The facilitator was knowledgeable of the material
and used their own words to convey the lesson to the youth.
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 there was no facilitator turnover during the review period
which affected delivery of Impact of Crime. If a facilitator leaves, other trained staff would
continue to deliver the group. A new facilitator would be hired and trained before the beginning of
a new cohort of the primary service. If only one facilitator is delivering the primary service, and
leaves the program, the director of case management would take over and complete 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 of Impact of
Crime took place. In each cohort, internal fidelity monitoring took place monthly. All internal
fidelity was completed by an individual trained 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.
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.
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: 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 25 youth in the
sample, 72% (18 of 25) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 25 youth in the
sample, 72% (18 of 25) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 92%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 25 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 48%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 25 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 92% (23 of 25) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 48% (12 of 25) 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 23 25 92%
Totals 75 85 88%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Miami Youth Academy.
30 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 25 total youth sampled, all
25 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 18 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6 and 30 weeks of
service, with an average of 18 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 25 total youth
sampled, all 25 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 18 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9 and 33 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.
Miami Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Miami Youth Academy - TrueCore

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY20-21

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami-Dade, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change
SPEP Review Period: November 15, 2019-November 14, 2020
SPEP Review Conducted: November 23, 2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 1/28/21
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Pathways to Self Discovery and Change.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) annual review encompasses twelve
months of records. The program is currently utilizing Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change as a
primary service. he program is utilizing the curriculum, Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse
Treatment for Adolescents Pathways for Self-Discovery and Change. The program provided
documentation of the facilitators being trained by a qualified therapist. The facilitators practice
teaching a session of the curriculum with the master trainer, and documentation showed the
facilitators completed the training successfully.
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 is utilizing a commerical published curriculum Pathways to Self-Discovery and
Change, which is highly organized. It is designed to be delivered in 32 sessions. The service has
facilitator's guide for tips and ideas on how to facilitate discussions, as well as a participant guide
to reinforce learned concepts and ideas brought about by the youth's discussions and self
discovery of thoughts and ideas.
According to the curriculum, Pathways "provides the specific tools necessary for improving
evaluation and treatment of at-risk youth, a particularly vulnerable patient population in the justice
system. Using an adolescent-focused format, this protocol identifies psychological, biological, and
social factors that contribute to the onset of adolescent deviance, and establishes guidelines for
delivery of a 32-session treatment curriculum designed to rehabilitate both male and female
adolescents with co-occurring substance abuse and criminal conduct. Now in its Second Edition,
this guide provides treatment practitioners, program evaluators, and youth services administrators
with the most up to date, comprehensive, and accessible information for the treatment and
rehabilitation of juvenile justice clients. It is built on theoretical and research advances in the
treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile justice clients, as well as feedback over the past seven
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
years from PSDC counselees, treatment providers, and program administrators." The curriculum
strives to help youth learn to make different, and hopefully better, choices about usage substance
in their lives. The curriculum is facilitated by at least master-level therapists at the program.
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 Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change was observed.The facilitator was able to
lead a discussion with the group. The facilitator was knowledgeable of the material and used their
own words to convey the lesson to the youth.
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.
According to documentation provided by the program, there has been no facilitator turnover
during the previous twelve months which adversely affected the delivery Pathways to Self-
Discovery and Change. Should a facilitator leave, the licensed and trained staff would cover any
groups until a new facilitator could be hired and trained in delivery of the primary service.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program provided documentation of internal fidelity monitoring taking place monthly in all
cohorts of Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change. The program's clinical director conducted all
internal monitorings.
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 and procedure in place for corrective action plans based on results of
internal fidelity monitoring. According to documentation provided by the program, no need of
corrective actions were needed for facilitators in the primary service.
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 the facilitators' last evaluations noted their work in Pathways to Self-Discovery and
Change. They were evaluated on their skills as facilitators.
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 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 30 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 30) 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 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 30 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 30) 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 = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 10 youth
High = 14 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 30 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 47%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 14 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 30 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% (27 of 30) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 47% (14 of 30) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 73 95 77%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change, an intervention delivered at
Miami Youth Academy.
30 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 30 were included in
the sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 30 total youth sampled, only
26 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 1
and 22 weeks of service, with an average of 18 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 30 total youth
sampled, only 26 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 13
and 32 hours of service, with an average of 31 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):
Miami Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Pathways to Self‐Discovery and Change


summary: SPEP - FY20-21

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami-Dade, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Period: November 15, 2019-November 14, 2020
SPEP Review Conducted: November 23, 2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 1/28/21
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Thinking for a Change.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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
records. The program is currently utilizing the Thinking for a Change (T4C) 3.1 curriculum. T4C
utilizes a problem-solving program with both cognitive restructuring, and social skills interventions
bringing the identification of thinking, beliefs, attitudes and values to behavior. Effort is focused on
helping youth become aware of their thoughts, feelings and beliefs in particular circumstances.
According to documentation provided by the program, all facilitators were trained in the primary
service by a qualified 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.
A review of documents and records confirmed the use of the evidence-based curriculum, Thinking
for a Change (T4C) 3.1. The program utilizes a highly detailed, commercially-produced manual
which provides lesson plans, facilitator notes, ideas to facilitate the curriculum, and long-term
planning schedules. The manual is maintained on-line. Facilitators are given access to the
materials once they have successfully completed train-the-trainer training. Groups are conducted
as closed groups, meaning once a group commenced, no new youth can be added to the group.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Thinking for a Change was observed. The facilitator followed the script, but did not
read it word for word. No behavioral issues were observed during the group, and the youth
participated in the group activities which included reading, group discoussion, and role plays.
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.
A review of documentation revealed there has been no turnover of faciliators which interrupted
delivery of Thinking for a Change. If a facilitator leaves, the co-facilitator completes the cohort,
and the program works to hire and train a new facilitator. If no one was co-facilitating, another
trained facilitator would step in and complete 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 of Thinking for a
Change took place on a monthly basis for each facilitator, without exception. The 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.
No corrective action plans were initated during the review period. The program has a policy for
corrective action plans for facilitators of Thinking for a Change. In the event a facilitator is in need
of help with service delivery, the facilitator's supervisor will sit with the facilitator and they will
develop a plan to improve the facilitator's skills.
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 of Thinking for a Change. The facilitators' skills in the delivery of the service was also
evaluated by supervisors.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 25 youth in the
sample, 88% (22 of 25) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 25 youth in the
sample, 40% (10 of 25) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 92%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 9 youth
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 25 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 48%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 25 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 92% (23 of 25) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 48% (12 of 25) 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 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 90 100 90%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Miami Youth
Academy.
30 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 25 total youth sampled, all
25 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 22 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4 and 24 weeks of
service, with an average of 17 weeks.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 25 total youth
sampled, all 25 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 10 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 9 and 51 hours of
service, with an average of 34 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community 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):
Miami Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8

service_type: Thinking for a Change


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami-Dade, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: November 15, 2020-November 14, 2021
SPEP Review Conducted: December 21, 2021
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/10/22
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 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) annual review encompasses twelve
months of records. Currently, four staff members are trained facilitators in Impact of Crime. The
director of case management, case manager, staff development specialist and recreational
therapist are all trained facilitators, and three of the four have facilitated during the last twelve
months. The program showed documentation of all staff either facilitating or providing internal
fidelity monitoring having been trained in the primary service. The program has a training protocol
which states all case managers will be trained in the primary service.
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 assist 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.
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, "Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm", a manual published by the
Department of Juvenile Justice. It is a detailed curriculum with both facilitator and student
volumes. The facilitator edition provides a script, lesson plans, classroom management ideas and
statements to facilitate large group discussions. The student volume has reproduceable handouts
for both reading, and written assignments. Impact of Crime is a closed group, meaning once a
cohort has started, no new youth can be added and must wait until a new cohort begins to receive
services. Additionally, the program indicated all youth must complete the primary service.
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 virtually. The group took place in a classroom with
twelve youth and one direct care staff member present. The group was facilitated by the director
of case management. The topic was from chapter 7 and focused on apologies. The facilitator did
not read the script, but had it open to move to various discussion points. he facilitator did a great
job of not only reviewing key vocabulary words from the previous lesson, but also lead a large
group discussion of various situations and prosocial behavioral choices to be made in each
situation. 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.
During a review of documentation and an informal interview with the clinical director, the program
has had turnover of Impact of Crime facilitators. The turnover of facilitators did not occur during a
cohort, nor did it affect the delivery of service during the review period.
The program provided documentation of five cohorts of the primary service being facilitated during
the past year. The first cohort began before the review period, September 18, 2020 and was
completed on January 8, 2021. The cohort began with six youth and ended with five. On
December 30, 2021 one youth was released from the program.
A second cohort began on January 29, 2021 and was completed on May 27, 2021. Seven youth
started the cohort and six youth successfully completed the cohort. One youth was transferred
from the program.
A third cohort started on March 16, 2021 and had three youth in the cohort. The cohort ended on
April 23, 2021 as all youth in the cohort were released from the program. In informal conversation
with the director of case management as to why have such a small cohort with youth leaving so
soon, she stated this happened before she was working at the program. She also stated the
facility administrator instructed the clinical director to begin a cohort during one of the monthly
SPEP meetings held at the program.
A fourth cohort commenced on June 17, 2021 and ended on October 7, 2021. The cohort started
and ended with six youth.
A fifth cohort started on September 9, 2021 and was ongoing at the time of the annual review.
Twelve youth were in the cohort at the start and twelve youth were attending the cohort as of date
of the review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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
monthly for facilitators of Impact of Crime, without exception. The fidelity monitoring was
completed by another trained facilitator.
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 action plans for facilitators of Impact of Crime. In the
event a facilitator needs help with service delivery, the director of case management will sit with
the facilitator and develop a plan to improve the facilitator's skills.
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 19 youth in the
sample, 68% (13 of 19) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 19 youth in the
sample, 79% (15 of 19) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 18 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 72%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 68%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 42%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 68% (13 of 19) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 42% (8 of 19) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 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 18 25 72%
Totals 70 85 82%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Miami Youth Academy.
19 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 19 total youth sampled, all
19 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 13 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6 and 17 weeks of
service, with an average of 15 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 19 total youth
sampled, all 19 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 15 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 10 and 33 hours of
service, with an average of 28 hours.
The program was awarded 18 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.
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 91%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2021-22 MYA - IOC.pdf


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
Truecore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami-Dade, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Pathways to Self Discovery and Change
SPEP Review Period: November 15, 2020-November 14, 2021
SPEP Review Conducted: December 21, 2021
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/10/22
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Pathways to Self Discovery and Change.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records. The program is currently utilizing the primary service, Pathways to Self-Discovery and
Change. According to the curriculum, Pathways "provides the specific tools necessary for
improving evaluation and treatment of at-risk youth, a particularly vulnerable patient population in
the justice system. Using an adolescent-focused format, this protocol identifies psychological,
biological, and social factors that contribute to the onset of adolescent deviance, and establishes
guidelines for delivery of a 32-session treatment curriculum designed to rehabilitate both male and
female adolescents with co-occurring substance abuse and criminal conduct. In its Second
Edition, this guide provides treatment practitioners, program evaluators, and youth services
administrators with the most up to date, comprehensive, and accessible information for the
treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile justice clients. It is built on theoretical and research
advances in the treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile justice clients, as well as feedback over
the past seven years from PSDC counselees, treatment providers, and program administrators."
The curriculum strives to help youth learn to make different, and hopefully better, choices about
usage substance in their lives.
The program provided documentation of three staffed trained in the primary service. The staffs'
positions are: clinical director, two counselors. One counselor is not currently faciliting group as
they are not licensed. The mental health counselors are trained by onsite clinical director.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program is utilizing a commercially published curriculum Criminal Conduct and Substance
Abuse Treatment for Adolescents Pathways for Self-Discovery and Change, which is highly
organized. It is designed to be delivered in 32 sessions. The service has participants guide which
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
is used to facilitate large group discussions. The participants handbook also has reinforcement
exercises used for both classwork and homework.
Groups are held on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and all youth must complete the primary service. It
should be noted the service is being discontinued as a SPEP group at the program with approval
from the Department.
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 Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change was observed virtually. The group consisted
of eleven youth, one direct care staff, and the clinical director. Lesson twenty-one was the topic
for the group, which was about overcoming prejudices. The facilitator reviewed the rules of the
group, the previous concepts discussed during last group, and listed the goals for this session. A
large group discussion was held about how our own prejudices influence the way we view the
world around us. No behavioral issues were observed and the facilitator appeared to hold the
youths' attention.
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.
Although facilitator turnover did occur, it did not happen during a cohort of Pathways to Self-
Discovery and Change, nor did it delay the delivery of services.
The program completed three cohorts of the primary service during the review period, and had
two cohorts on going at the time of the annual review. The first cohort started before the review
period began on September 24, 2020 with five youth, and was completed on January 30, 2021
with four youth. One youth was successfully discharged.
A second cohort began on February 7, 2021 with seven youth and was completed on July 22,
2021 with five youth. The program documented one youth was transferred to adult jail and one
youth was successfully discharged from the program.
A third cohort started on March 10, 2021 with five youth, and was completed on August 26, 2021
with one youth. The program documented four youth were successfully discharged from the
program.
A fourth cohort started on August 31, 2021 with eleven youth and was ongoing December 14,
2021 with eleven youth.
A fifth cohort began June 23, 2021 with six youth and ended after the review period on December
14, 2021 with four youth. The program had documentation of two youth being discharged
successfully from the program.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 on a
monthly basis for facilitators of Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change, without exception. The
fidelity monitoring was completed by another trained facilitator.
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 action plans for facilitators of Pathways to Self-Discovery
and Change. 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.
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 Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change was
also evaluated by supervisors.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 26% (5 of 19) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 37% (7 of 19) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 18 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 72%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 68%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 42%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 68% (13 of 19) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 42% (8 of 19) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 18 25 72%
Totals 72 95 76%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways to Self Discovery and Change, an intervention delivered at
Miami Youth Academy.
19 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 19 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 19 total youth sampled, all
19 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 5 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 3 and 25 weeks of
service, with an average of 16 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 19 total youth
sampled, all 19 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 7 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 8 and 57 hours of
service, with an average of 35 hours.
The program was awarded 18 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.
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 83%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2021-22 MYA - Pathways.pdf