summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Thinking For A Change (T4C)
SPEP Review Date(s): March 14‐17, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 6/21/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Tampa Residential Facility MQI Program Code: 1281
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: 10098
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): March 14-17, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 119
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 3 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 7 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 1 # Other (listed by title): Lead
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff Teacher
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 7 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 7 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 3 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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 (T4C). 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program had four facilitators conduct Thinking for a Change (T4C) groups since the last
annual compliance review. All four facilitators are currently working at the program. A review of
the four facilitator’s training files contained documentation each facilitator had been certified to
teach the T4C curriculum. The training each facilitator received was conducted by a qualified T4C
trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the Thinking for a Change (T4C) manual developed by the National Institute of
Corrections Thinking for a Change manual version 3.1. The manual is a guide for the facilitators to
use while delivering the primary service and contains worksheets for the youth receiving the
service. A review of the manual indicated it was very detailed and explained how each session is
to be delivered, as wells ascontains an outline for each session. The program determines a
youth’s need for T4C based on each youth’s risk and needs assessment completed upon their
admission to 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.
This delinquency intervention was observed during this annual compliance review. The group
began on February 12, 2017. The group meets every Tuesday and Thursday from 5:30 p.m. to
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
6:30 p.m. The facilitator provided a copy of the lesson plan to the observer to review. The
facilitator followed the design of the program to include an opening ritual, theme introduction,
warm-up activity, check-in, activity, reflection, and closing ritual. The facilitator adhered to the
lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of the program’s Thinking for a Change (T4C) documentation confirmed there was no
staff turnover during the time the three groups had been completed in the last year. The three
groups were facilitated by two co-facilitators , who were both were present for each session
taught. The first T4C group started on April 19, 2016 and ended on August 22, 2016. There was
one week between the first T4C group and the beginning of T4C Aftercare in order to ensure the
groups consisted of the remaining boys remaining in the facility who were in need of this service.
The cycles go back-to-back with T4C, then T4C Aftercare, then back to T4C. There have been no
gaps in service delivery longer than one month.
BasicScore: 2Point(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 uses a trained facilitator to conduct fidelity monitoring for the Thinking for a Change
(T4C) groups conducted during the last year. The program provided documentation each of the
four fidelity monitors had been certified to deliver this primary service. The program uses fidelity
adherence checklists to document fidelity monitoring of T4C. The program was able to provide
documentation showing fidelity monitoring had been conducted each month the primary service
was delivered. Each checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator
improvement.
BasicScore: 1Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on the
fidelity monitoring of the primary service. The program uses a fidelity monitoring corrective action
checklist to specify if a facilitator is in need of corrective action or improvement. A review of all of
the fidelity monitoring checklists over the last year indicated there had not been any corrective
action or improvements needed for any of the four facilitators who conducted Thinking for a
Change groups.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
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 conducts evaluations for each staff annually and ninety-days from their hire date. A
review of the program’s personnel files indicated all four employees had received an evaluation.
Each of the evaluations showed the facilitators were evaluated based on how they delivered the
primary service. These included comments on any strengths and weaknesses of which the
facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 8 youth in the
sample, 100% (8 of 8) 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 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 8 youth in the
sample, 63% (5 of 8) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 2 youth
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 8 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 75%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 8 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% (8 of 8) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 75% (6 of 8) 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 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 96 100 96%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking For A Change (T4C), an intervention delivered at Tampa
Residential Facility.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 8 total youth sampled, all
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 16
and 24 weeks of service, with an average of 22 weeks. Dosage calculations included Thinking For
A Change (T4C) and Thinking For A Change Aftercare.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 8 total youth sampled,
5 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between
33 and 49 hours of service, with an average of 45 hours. Dosage calculations included Thinking
For A Change (T4C) and Thinking For A Change Aftercare.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
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):
Tampa Residential Facility can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
youth receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10


state: FL

facility_name: Tampa Residential Facility

summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
TrueCore Behavorial Solutions
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619‐7715
Primary Service: Boys Council
SPEP Review Date(s): November 14‐17, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 05/23/2018
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Tampa Residential Facility MQI Program Code: 1281
Provider Name: TrueCore Behavorial Contract Number: 10098
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): November 14-17, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 7 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 7 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 1 # Other (listed by title): Lead
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff Teacher
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 14 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 14 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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 Boys Council. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
There are seven therapists formally trained in the Boys Council curriculum. Two of the facilitators
have been consistently facilitating this group during the review period.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The manual provided to this reviewer was The Council for Boys and Young Men-Growing Healthy,
Growing Strong. The manual contains a script for the facilitator for the groups. It provides10
weeks of lessons and includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should
be delivered, and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
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 Boys Council group was observed on November 14, 2017 from 2:30-3:30 pm. The facilitator
provided a copy of the lesson plan to the observer from the program manual. The facilitator
followed the lesson according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim and used his own
words to convey the lesson to the group. He was easy to follow and adhered to the lesson plan in
every aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Per review of the documentation provided and an interview with the Regional Complaince
Manager, there has been no facilitator turnover during the review period that adversly affected the
services to the youth. There have been no gaps in 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 documentation for fidelity monitoring was reviewed. The program completed fidelity
monitoring for Boys Council each month during the review period. The trained staff monitored
each other.
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 Regional Compliance Manager and the documentation provided verified that
the program has a process for corrective actions based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. The
program uses internal fidelity monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to Boys Council. A
review of documentation provided and an interview with the Regional Compliance Manager
verified that there was no corrective action needed nor taken.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The performance evaluation of all trained facilitators found entries on all evaluations of the staff's
performance in delivering Boys Council. These included comments on any strengths or
weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 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 20 youth in the
sample, 5% (1 of 20) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 20) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 95%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 80%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 95% (19 of 20) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 80% (16 of 20) 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 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 25 25 100%
Totals 75 95 79%
This SPEP report evaluates Boys Council, an intervention delivered at Tampa Residential Facility.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 20 total youth sampled, all
20 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 0 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12 and 26 weeks of
service, with an average of 19 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 20 total youth
sampled, all 20 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 0 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 24 and 36 hours of
service, with an average of 31 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility 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: Tampa Residential Facility

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: The Council for Boys and Young Men


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
TrueCore Behavorial Solutions
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619‐7715
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): November 14‐17, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 05/23/2018
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Tampa Residential Facility MQI Program Code: 1281
Provider Name: TrueCore Behavorial Contract Number: 10098
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): November 14-17, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 7 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 7 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 1 # Other (listed by title): Lead
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff Teacher
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 14 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 14 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
There are five staff trained in the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum. Two have facilitated groups
during the review period.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The manual provided to this reviewer was Impact of Crime-Addressing the Harm. The manual
contains a script for the facilitator for the groups. It provides lessons and includes implementation
guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered in and includes detailed
instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
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.
An IOC group was observed on November 14, 2017 from 11:20-12:20. The facilitator provided a
copy of the lesson plan to the observer from the program manual. The facilitator followed the
lesson according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim and used his own words to
convey the lesson to the group. He was easy to follow and adhered to the lesson plan in every
aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Review of the documentation and an interview with the Regional Compliance Manager showed
there had been no facilitator turnover during the review period that adversly affected services to
youth. There have been no gaps in service. The program, in the case of turnover, would utilize
other trained staff to facilitate the curriculum.
BasicScore: 2Point(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 documentation for fidelity monitoring was reviewed. The program completed fidelity
monitoring for IOC each month during the review period for each faciliator. The trained staff
monitored each other.
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 Regional Compliance Manager and the documentation provided verified that
the program has a process for corrective actions based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. The
program uses internal fidelity monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to IOC. The program
did not have any corrective actions noted during the review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The performance evaluations of all trained facilitators found entries on the evaluations of the
staff's performance in delivering IOC. These included comments on any strengths or weaknesses
of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration .
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 10 youth in the
sample, 10% (1 of 10) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 10 youth in the
sample, 90% (9 of 10) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 90%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 80%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 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% (9 of 10) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 80% (8 of 10) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 100%
Totals 71 85 84%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Tampa Residential
Facility.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 10 total youth sampled, all
10 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth,1 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 8 and 26 weeks of
service, with an average of 13 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 10 total youth
sampled, all 10 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 9 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 15 and 28 hours of
service, with an average of 24 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
TrueCore Behavorial Solutions
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619‐7715
Primary Service: LifeSkills Training
SPEP Review Date(s): November 14‐17, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 05/23/2018
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Tampa Residential Facility MQI Program Code: 1281
Provider Name: TrueCore Behavorial Contract Number: 10098
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): November 14-17, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 7 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 7 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 1 # Other (listed by title): Lead
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff Teacher
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 14 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 14 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is LifeSkills Training. The program was awarded 15 points
because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3 Service. The specific Sub-Component
Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The Primary Service was identified as this type of
service as it focuses on developing social skills required for an individual to interact in a positive
way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
There are five case managers formally trained in the LifeSkills Training (LST) curriculum. Two of
these consistently facilitated group during the review period.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program has the LifeSkills Training manual. The manual contains a script for the facilitator to
follow for the groups. It provides lessons and includes implementation guidelines, identifies the
order the lessons should be delivered in, and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each
lesson.
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 group session was observed on November 15, 2017 from 11:20-12:20. The facilitator provided
a copy of the lesson plan to the observer from the program manual. The facilitator followed the
lesson according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim and used his own words to
convey the lesson to the group. He was easy to follow and adhered to the lesson plan in every
aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Per a review of the documentation provided and an interview with the Regional Compliance
Manager, there was no turnover that adversly affected the services to the youth. There have
been no gaps in service. The program, in the case of turnover, would use other trained staff to
facilitate the curriculum.
Basic Score: 2Point(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 documentation for fidelity monitoring was reviewed. The program completed fidelity
monitoring for LST each month during the review period. The trained staff monitored each other.
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 Regional Compliance Manager verified the program has a process for
corrective actions based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to LST. A review of documentation provided and
an interview with the Regional Compliance Manager verified no corrective action was needed.
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 performance evaluations of all trained facilitators were reviewed and found to have entries on
all evaluations of the staff's performance in delivering LST. These included comments on any
strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 11 youth in the
sample, 9% (1 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: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 11 youth in the
sample, 45% (5 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 = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 3 youth
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 11 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 64%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 7 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, 64% (7 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 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 69 85 81%
This SPEP report evaluates LifeSkills Training, an intervention delivered at Tampa Residential
Facility.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 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, 1 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 1 and 17 weeks of
service, with an average of 10 weeks.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 11 total youth
sampled, all 11 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 5 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 2 and 24 hours of
service, with an average of 19 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility 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: LifeSkills Training


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
TrueCore Behavorial Solutions
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619‐7715
Primary Service: Pathways to Self Discovery and Change
SPEP Review Date(s): November 14‐17, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 05/23/2018
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Tampa Residential Facility MQI Program Code: 1281
Provider Name: TrueCore Behavorial Contract Number: 10098
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): November 14-17, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 7 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 7 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 1 # Other (listed by title): Lead
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff Teacher
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 14 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 14 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
There are two case managers formally trained in the Pathways to Self Discovery and Change
curriculum. Those two staff consistently facilitated the group during the review period.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The manual provided for review was Pathways to Self Discovery and Change. The manual
contains a script for the facilitator for the groups. It provides lessons and includes implementation
guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered in and includes detailed
instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
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 Pathways to Self Discovery and Change group was observed on November 15, 2017. The
facilitator provided a copy of the lesson plan to the observer from the program manual. The
facilitator followed the lesson according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim and used
his own words to convey the lesson to the group. He was easy to follow and adhered to the
lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Per a review of the documentation provided and an interview with the Regional Compliance
Manager, there was no turnover that adversly affected the services to the youth. There have
been no gaps in service. The program, in the case of turnover, would use other trained staff to
facilitate the curriculum.
BasicScore: 2Point(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 documentation for fidelity monitoring was reviewed. The program completed fidelity
monitoring for Pathways to Self Discovery and Change each month during the review period. The
trained staff monitored each other.
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 Regional Compliance Manager verified that the program has a process for
corrective actions based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Pathways to Self Discovery and Change
curriculum. A review of documentation provided and an interview with the Regional Compliance
Manager verified that there was no corrective action noted.
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 performance evaluations of all trained facilitators were reviewed and found to have entries on
all evaluations of the staff's performance in delivering the Pathways to Self Discovery and Change
curriculum. These included comments on any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator
should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 10 youth in the
sample, 100% (10 of 10) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 10 youth in the
sample, 100% (10 of 10) 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 = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 2 youth
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 70%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 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% (10 of 10) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 70% (7 of 10) 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 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 95 95 100%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change, an intervention delivered at
Tampa Residential Facility.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 10 total youth sampled, all
10 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, all 10 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 17 and 20 weeks of
service, with an average of 19 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 10 total youth
sampled, all 10 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, all 10 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 39 and 41 hours of
service, with an average of 40 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility 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 - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
TrueCore Behavorial Solutions
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619‐7715
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Date(s): November 14‐17, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 05/23/2018
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Tampa Residential Facility MQI Program Code: 1281
Provider Name: TrueCore Behavorial Contract Number: 10098
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): November 14-17, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 7 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 7 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 1 # Other (listed by title): Lead
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff Teacher
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 14 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 14 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
There are 5 case managers formally trained in the Thinking for a Change(T4C) curriculum and
one TSM. All six received training from a qualified trainer who was formally trained in the T4C
curriculum. Four faciilated groups during the review period.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The manual provided to this reviewer was Thinking for a Change 3.1. The manual contains a
script for the facilitator for the groups. It provides 25 lessons and includes implementation
guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered in and includes detailed
instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
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 Thinking for a Change group was observed on November 14, 2017 from 5:30-6:30 pm. The
facilitator provided a copy of the lesson plan to the observer from the program manual. The
facilitator followed the lesson according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim and used
her own words to convey the lesson to the group. She was easy to follow and adhered to the
lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Review of the documentation provided and an interview with the Regional Compliance Manager
showed there has been no facilitator turnover in the past 12 months that impacted services to
youth. There have been no gaps in 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 documentation for fidelity monitoring was reviewed. The program completed fidelity
monitoring for T4C each month during the review period. The fomally trained staff monitored each
other.
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 Regional Compliance Manager verified that the program has a process for
corrective actions based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to T4C. A review of documentation provided and
an interview with the Regional Compliance Manager verified that there was no corrective action
needed or taken.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The performance evaluation of all trained facilitators had entries regarding the staff's performance
in delivering T4C. These included comments on any strengths or weaknesses of which the
facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 10 youth in the
sample, 100% (10 of 10) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 10 youth in the
sample, 100% (10 of 10) 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 = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 80%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 8 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 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% (10 of 10) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 80% (8 of 10) 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 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 100 100 100%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Tampa
Residential Facility.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 10 total youth sampled, all
10 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, all 10 received at least
the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 15 and 32 weeks of
service, with an average of 21 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 10 total youth
sampled, all 10 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, all 10 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 46 and 48 hours of
service, with an average of 48 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility 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: Thinking for a Change