state: FL

summary: PREA

raw_content:
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S SUMMARY REPORT
JUVENILE FACILITIES
Name of Facility: Polk Halfway House
Physical Address: 2145 Bob Phillips Road, Bartow FL 33830
Date report submitted: January 13, 2015
Auditor information: Shirley L. Turner
Address: 3199 Kings Bay Circle, Decatur, GA 30034
Email: shirleyturner3199@comcast.net
Telephone number: 678-895-2829
Date of facility visit: July 21-22, 2014
Facility Information
Facility Mailing Address: Same as Physical Address
Telephone Number: 863-519-5581
The Facility is: Military County Federal
X Private for profit Municipal State
Private not for profit
Facility Type: Detention X Correction Other:
Name of PREA Compliance Manager: Denise Lovett Title: Facility
Administrator
Email Address: Denise.Lovett@us.g4s.com Telephone Number:
863-519-5581
Agency Information
Name of Agency: G4S Youth Services, LLC
Governing Authority or
Parent Agency: G4S plc
Physical Address: 6302 Benjamin Road, Suite 400, Tampa, FL 33634
Mailing Address: Same as Physical Address
Telephone Number: 813-514-6275
Agency Chief Executive Officer
Name: James C. Hill, Jr. Title: President
Email Address: jim.hill@us.g4s.com Telephone Number: 8 1 3 - 5 1 4 - 6 2 7 5 , e x t . 2 0 2
Agency Wide PREA Coordinator
Name: Bobbi Pohlman-Rogers Title: JJDPA/PREA Director
954-818-5131
Email Address: bobbi.pohlman@us.g4s.com Telephone Number:
1
AUDIT FINDINGS
NARRATIVE:
The Polk Halfway House is operated by G4S Youth Services, LLC through a contract with the Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). It is a moderate risk facility for male juvenile offenders that
range from 10 to 14 years of age. Specialized mental health services are provided to residents with
moderate to serious mental or emotional disturbances whose level of functioning make them unsuitable
for a general offender program but not at the level of requiring intensive mental health services. The
program and services that the residents receive include mental health; medical; case management;
individual, family, group therapeutic interventions; life skills training; recreation; and specialized
community re-entry preparedness.
The mental health staff helps residents work on personal issues and provide individual therapy and
daily group therapy services. A therapist works with the family on identified family treatment needs. A
Licensed Practical Nurse is available within the program and provides sick call, makes medical
appointments as needed and is part of the treatment team. Oversight to medical services is provided by
the Registered Nurse at another G4S facility, located in close proximity down the street from the Polk
Halfway House. Education services are provided by the Polk County School District and the courses
provided are English, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Reading, and one elective course.
Residents are provided the opportunity to attend non-denominational religious services once a week on
a voluntary basis.
There are five levels to the program plus an orientation period. Incentives increase as the resident
progresses through each level. As the incentives increase so do the program expectations and the
responsibilities of the resident. In order to obtain a level advancement the resident must meet all
requirements of that level and his treatment and performance plan goals. The designed facility capacity
is 24. Forty (40) residents were admitted to the facility during the past 12 months. The length of stay is
six to nine months.
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS:
The Polk Halfway House program is maintained in one single-story building that contains a housing
unit; dayroom; multi-purpose room; dining area; three classrooms, with one containing the library; small
medical office; small maintenance office with an area for storing tools; laundry room; storage and other
closets; and an extended back porch. There are administrative offices in the front of the building and the
control room is located in the front at the entrance of the building. The housing unit contains 10 rooms
that are occupied by one to three residents. Mental health staff offices are located on the housing unit.
The area of the grounds located in the rear of the building is used for recreation and contains a
basketball goal and a kickball field.
The multi-purpose room provides space that allows for residents to congregate in a comfortable and
orderly manner. Use of the day room, located off the housing unit, is a part of the behavior management
level system. When earned, residents may use the day room to play games and participate in activities
that are aligned with the incentives of a particular level.
2
SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS:
The notifications of the on-site audit were posted in the facility prior to the site visit. The Pre-Audit
Questionnaire was uploaded to a flash drive with some policies and little supporting documentation and
was received prior to the site visit. Supplementary supporting documentation and other policies had been
assembled for review and presented at the beginning of the site visit.
The on-site audit was conducted July 21-22, 2014. An entrance meeting was held, followed by a
comprehensive tour of the facility. During the tour, staff members were observed directly supervising
and interacting with residents. Randomly selected staff, specialized staff and residents were interviewed.
The results of the interviews confirmed that both groups had been involved in PREA training. Staff
members were interviewed from all shifts. During the on-site audit, additional documentation was
provided as requested and in a timely manner.
An interim report of findings was submitted in August 2014 and the eight following standards were not
met: 115.315; 115.321; 115.331; 115.335; 115.351; 115.352; 115.353; and 115.365. Corrective actions
have been implemented and those standards have been met.
Number of standards exceeded: 0
Number of standards met: 38
Number of standards not met: 0
Number of standards not applicable: 3
3
Standard 115.311 Zero Tolerance of Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harassment.
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25, The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), provides guidelines for implementing
the facility’s approach to complying with the requirements of the PREA standards and the zero
tolerance of all forms of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. The policy contains definitions
of prohibited behaviors regarding sexual abuse and sexual harassment. The Policy also
identifies the Facility Administrator as the PREA Compliance Manager. Policy 3-3, Employee
Standards of Conduct and Performance, contains prohibited behaviors for staff and includes
sanctions for employees who have participated in prohibited behaviors.
Standard 115.312 Contract With Other Entities for the Confinement of Residents.
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Standard Not Applicable
This standard is not applicable. The facility does not contract with other entities for the
confinement of their residents.
Standard 115.313 Supervision and Monitoring
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 requires a periodic internal review of the staffing plan to ensure adequate levels
of staffing and staff interviews confirm this practice. A review of documents showed that a
Staffing Plan Assessment has been conducted by the DJJ Statewide PREA Coordinator based
on the staffing requirements of the contract as well as the ratios stated in the standards.
Reportedly, there have not been any deviations from the staffing ratios as outlined in the
contract. The facility uses holdovers, when needed, to comply with the required ratios for the
contract and the standard. The Policy requires supervisory level staff to conduct unannounced
rounds. Interviews and documentation confirm that the unannounced rounds are conducted by
the Assistant Facility Administrator and the Facility Administrator.
4
Standard 115.315 Limits to Cross Gender Viewing and Searches
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-3 and staff and resident interviews revealed that cross-gender strip searches and
cross-gender frisk searches are not conducted. Policy 10-3 has been revised and addresses staff
conducting searches of transgender and intersex residents. Facility policy and resident and
staff interviews supported that residents are able to shower, perform bodily functions, and
change clothing without being viewed by the opposite gender. Policy 10-25 and staff
interviews supported that transgender or intersex residents shall not be searched or physically
examined for the sole purpose of determining the resident’s genital status.
Standard 115.316 Residents with Disabilities and Residents Who are Limited English
Proficient
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 includes that residents may not be used as interpreters unless an extended delay
in obtaining an interpreter could compromise the resident’s safety, the performance of the first
responder duties, or the investigation of the resident’s allegation. The facility practice is to use
bilingual staff members as interpreters and the assistance of education and mental health staff,
as needed. Interviews with staff and residents confirmed that staff members are used as
interpreters and to provide other assistance to ensure residents’ understanding of the
information provided. The PREA pamphlets are provided in other dominant languages and
according to staff, DJJ may be contacted for assistance, if needed.
Standard 115.317 Hiring and Promotion Decisions
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
5
The facility adheres to the guidelines in Policy 3-16, Employee Recruitment and Selection,
and DJJ Policy 1800. The policies prohibit hiring, promoting or contracting with anyone who
has been convicted of engaging in any activity prohibited within the standards and discusses
background checks and screenings. A review of the policies and procedures, interviews with
staff, and a review of a sample of documentation revealed that background checks and the
local child abuse registry check are supposed to be conducted.
Standard 115.318 Upgrades to Facilities and Technology
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
The installation of the camera system began in early 2014 and the complete installment was
recently completed. The system supports the direct supervision of the residents which is
provided by staff. There are a total of 16 cameras located in the primary areas frequented by
residents. The monitor is located in the Facility Administrator’s office where she and the
Assistant Facility Administrator may have constant access.
Standard 115.321 Evidence Protocol and Forensic Medical Examinations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Victim advocacy services have been obtained and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
has been signed with Peace River Center Rape Recovery & Resource Center. Policy 7-30
provides that all services related to sexual assault allegations are provided at no cost to the
victim. According to staff interviews, residents who experience sexual abuse will have access
to forensic medical services at the local hospital.
Policy 10-25 states that the facility is not responsible for conducting administrative or
criminal investigations. According to the Policy and DJJ 1919, the DJJ Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) is responsible for conducting administrative investigations; the Florida
Department of Children and Families (DCF) is responsible for conducting allegations of child
abuse; and the local law enforcement agency is responsible for conducting criminal
investigations.
6
Standard 115.322 Policies to Ensure Referrals of Allegations for Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 and DJJ 1919 Procedures identify the units that will conduct the criminal and
administrative investigations and instructs staff to cooperate with the investigations. Related
policies are published on the DJJ website. During the past 12 months, there were no
allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment reported.
Standard 115.331 Employee Training
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
The PREA training covers the areas referenced in the standard. Staff training rosters are
maintained and staff has received the PREA training as provided. A review of documentation
and staff interviews confirmed that staff members receive the PREA training.
Standard 115. 332 Volunteer and Contractor Training
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 Procedures require that volunteers and contractors be trained on their
responsibilities regarding the agency’s zero tolerance of sexual assault and sexual
harassment. There are three volunteers that conduct religious services at the Polk Halfway
House and they have received the required training.
Standard 115.333 Resident Education
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
7
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 states that all residents are provided PREA information during the intake
process. Staff and resident interviews and a review of documentation confirm that residents
are provided PREA education during the intake process. Staff members in the education and
treatment units and direct care staff may assist with the PREA education for residents that are
limited English proficient, visually impaired, otherwise disabled, or have limited reading
skills. It was also reported that assistance could be provided from another facility. The PREA
information is provided on posters and pamphlets that are accessible to all residents.
Pamphlets are available in the two other dominant languages of youth that are admitted to the
facility.
Standard 115.334 Specialized Training: Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
The FDJJ 1919 Procedures state that staff in the OIG will be trained on the related policies and
procedures regarding the handling of sexual misconduct incidents and reports. Appropriate
training is provided to investigative staff regarding conducting investigations in the DJJ
settings.
Standard 115.335 Specialized Training: Medical and Mental Health Care
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
The facility’s Nurse and mental health staff have received the specialized PREA related
training. Documentation supports that the training is provided.
Standard 115.341 Screening for Risk of Victimization and Abusiveness
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
8
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policies 9-1 and 9-2 provide information concerning the classification process. It is required
that all residents are screened for risk of victimization and abusiveness within 24 hours of
intake. The screening is conducted using the DJJ objective instrument, Screening for
Vulnerability to Victimization and Sexuality Aggressive Behavior (VSAB). The VSAB
gleans the information outlined in the standard. Interviews and documentation confirm that
the VSAB is used. The resident’s risk may be re-assessed periodically through interaction
with treatment staff.
Standard 115.342 Use of Screening Information
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Three Policies address this standard, 8-14, 9-2 and 10-18. The Policies reference the
information used from the VSAB and outlines what is used to help determine housing and
program assignments with the goal of keeping all residents safe. Policy prohibits placing gay,
bisexual, transgender or intersex residents in specific housing or other assignments solely
based on how they self-identify or their status. Documentation did not reveal any resident
held in isolation or segregated housing because they were at risk for sexual victimization
during the past 12 months.
Standard 115.351 Resident Reporting
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 8-3 provides information on residents’ access to the Florida Abuse Hotline. There are
internal ways a resident may report allegations of sexual abuse; sexual harassment; retaliation
for reporting; and staff neglect or other violation(s) that led to abuse. A resident may file a
grievance; complete the Conference Request Form indicating a specific staff member to meet
with; talk to any staff; and third parties may report allegations to staff.
Standard 115.352 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
9
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 8-4 was revised to more clearly state that the informal process of the grievance
system was not required when the grievance concerned sexual abuse or sexual harassment.
The completed grievance forms are placed in a locked box and are collected by the Assistant
Facility Administrator. According to the Policy, all allegations of sexual abuse or sexual
retaliation will be given to the Facility Administrator and that she will respond immediately.
The Policy provides a timeline for other grievances to be responded to within 72 hours of
receipt of the grievance.
Policy 8-4 allows for receipt of reports from third parties and that third parties may assist
residents in filing grievances. Policy 10-25 provides staff with the required information for
reporting sexual abuse and sexual harassment of residents.
Standard 115.353 Resident Access to Outside Confidential Support Services
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 addresses this standard. Victim advocacy services have been arranged and a
MOU has been signed. The advocacy agency staff confirmed that advocacy services will be
provided to victims as outlined in the MOU. The services that will be provided also include
resident and staff education. The facility provides residents with reasonable and confidential
access to attorneys or other legal representation and reasonable access to their parents or
legal guardians.
Standard 115.354 Third-Party Reporting
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Third party reporting is contained in Policies 10-25 and 8-3. Information is provided through
posters that are located in areas of the facility, visible to the public. The facility’s letter to the
10
parents/guardians from the Facility Administrator contains information on how the parent or
guardian may file a grievance. The FDJJ website contains information for third party reporting
regarding juvenile facilities.
Standard 115.361 Staff and Agency Reporting Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policies 1-5, 8-3, 10-25 and FDJJ Policy 1919 support the requirement that all staff report any
knowledge, suspicion, or information regarding an incident of sexual abuse, sexual harassment
or incidents of retaliation. Staff interviews show that they are aware of the policies regarding
their reporting duties and understand that they are mandated reporters.
Standard 115.362 Agency Protection Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 instructs staff to take immediate action to keep residents safe when they learn
that there is substantial risk of imminent threat of sexual abuse. Interviews with staff
confirmed their knowledge of this policy and they were able to verbalize measures they would
take to protect residents who are at substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse.
Standard 115.363 Reporting to Other Confinement Facilities
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 Procedures address this standard and identifies the contacts to be made and the
process. It was reported that, during the past 12 months, the facility has not received any
reports from a resident about an incident of abuse occurring while they were confined in
another facility.
Standard 115.364 Staff First Responder Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
11
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 provides the requirements for the first responder. Interviews with staff
confirmed their awareness of their responsibilities in responding to allegations of sexual
abuse. During this audit period there was not an incident that involved first responder duties
of secure or non-secure staff.
Standard 115.365 Coordinated Response
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
The coordinated response has been developed and documented and provides for the
appropriate responses by various staff to an incident of sexual assault.
Standard 115.366 Preservation of Ability to Protect Residents From Contact With Abusers.
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Standard Not Applicable
This standard is not applicable. The Polk Halfway House does not maintain any collective
bargaining agreements.
Standard 115.367 Agency Protection Against Retaliation
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 addresses the facility’s efforts to provide protection to residents and staff from
retaliation. The retaliation monitors have been identified and charged with the responsibility of
observing whether or not retaliation occurs after a resident or staff reports allegations of sexual
abuse or cooperates with an investigation.
Policy directs staff to report any neglect or violations of responsibilities by other staff that may
have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or retaliation. There have been no reports of
allegations of sexual abuse at this facility during this audit period.
12
Standard 115.368 Post Allegation Protective Custody
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Standard Not Applicable
This standard is not applicable. Segregated housing is not used at this facility.
Standard 115.371 Criminal and Administrative Agency Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 and FDJJ 1919 addresses this standard. According to Policy 10-25,
administrative investigations are conducted by the DJJ Office of Inspector General and
criminal investigations are conducted by the local law enforcement agency. The Florida
Department of Children and Families are also called when there is an allegation of sexual
abuse. Both Policies direct facility staff to cooperate with the investigations.
Standard 115.372 Evidentiary Standards for Administrative Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
The OIG, responsible for administrative investigations, imposes a standard of a preponderance
of the evidence for determining whether allegations are substantiated.
Standard 115.373 Reporting to Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 and FDJJ 1919 allows for the victim to be informed that the investigation has
been concluded. At the conclusion of an investigation, the victim or the victim’s parents or
legal guardian will be notified when the investigation has been completed.
13
Standard 115.376 Disciplinary Sanctions for Staff
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 3-3, Employee Standards of Conduct and Performance, addresses disciplinary
sanctions, up to and including termination for those staff that violate the facility’s sexual abuse
and sexual harassment zero tolerance policy.
Standard 115.377 Corrective Action for Contractors and Volunteers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy requires that any contractor or volunteer who engages in sexual abuse be prohibited
from contact with residents. It also provides for contractors and volunteers who engage in
sexual abuse to be reported to law enforcement agencies and to relevant licensing bodies.
Standard 115.378 Disciplinary Sanctions for Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
The Resident Handbook outlines the administrative process and the measures to be taken
regarding major violations, including sexual attack of peers or staff and lewd and lascivious
behavior. According to the Handbook and staff, the resident could be referred to law
enforcement for charges and possible removal from the facility. There are no reports of
resident-on-resident sexual abuse during this audit period
Standard 115.381 Medical and Mental Health Screenings; History of Sexual Abuse
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
14
Policy 9-1 requires a follow-up meeting with a medical or mental health practitioner within 14
days when the resident discloses any prior incidents of sexual victimization. Policy states that
information related to sexual victimization or abusiveness that occurred in an institutional
setting is limited to medical and mental health practitioners. Medical and mental health staff
members maintain documentation of the services they provide to the residents.
Standard 115.382 Access to Emergency Medical and Mental Health Services
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy provides for access to emergency services. Staff interviews and a review of current files
revealed that documentation regarding medical and crisis intervention services will be
maintained by medical and mental health staff. Staff interviews also revealed that the
documentation would include the timelines of services and the other requirements of the
standard.
Standard 115.383 Ongoing Medical and Mental Health Care for Sexual Abuse Victims and
Abusers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
This standard is addressed in Policy 10-25. Interviews with medical and mental health staff
confirmed their awareness of the policy and how the policy would be implemented. Staff
interviews revealed the professional opinions to be that the medical and mental health services
are consistent with the community level of care and that appropriate ongoing medical and
mental health services can be provided at the facility.
Standard 115.386 Sexual Abuse Incident Reviews
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 and FDJJ 1919 Procedures provide for and identify an incident review team to
review all incidents within 30 days of the conclusion of an investigation. The Policy outlines
the requirements of the standard for discussion and review by the team. The team members
review all significant incidents. Interviews confirm their understanding of the policy and the
purpose of the team and that it will operate according to the standard.
15
Standard 115.387 Data Collection
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ Procedures 1919, the Department’s FY 13-14 PREA Incident Report and interviews
with staff confirmed that DJJ collects incident-based, uniform and aggregated data regarding
allegations of sexual abuse at facilities under its direct control using a standardized
instrument and set of definitions. The agency provides DOJ with data as requested.
Standard 115.388 Data Review for Corrective Action
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 addresses this standard on a statewide basis. The DJJ PREA Coordinator will
review the collected and aggregated data to assess and improve the effectiveness of the PREA
related efforts and initiatives. The Policy also states that an annual report will be prepared that
will provide an assessment of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual misconduct.
Standard 115.389 Data Storage, Publication and Destruction
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 Procedures provide that all data collected will be maintained for at least 10 years
after the initial collection date. According to the Policy, the report will be approved and posted
on the agency’s website, accessible to the public, as required by the standard.
AUDITOR CERTIFICATION:
The auditor certifies that the contents of the report are accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and
no conflict of interest exists with respect to his or her ability to conduct an audit of the agency under
review.
January 13, 2015
Auditor Signature Date
16

source: DJJ


facility_name: Polk Halfway House

summary: PREA - Year 1 Cycle 4

raw_content:
Program: Polk Halfway House
Report Type: PREA
Fiscal Year:
Status:
PDF URL: https://www.djj.state.fl.us/content/download/807666/file/Florida_Polk Halfway House_year1cycle4.pdf?version=1

report_type: PREA

program_name_raw: Polk Halfway House

cycle: Year 1 Cycle 4


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
G4S Youth Services, Inc
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): February 23‐26, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/3/2017
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: Polk Halfway House QI Program Code: 1049
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services Contract Number: R2095
Location: Polk County / Circuit: 10 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): February 23-26, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 132
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # 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 (IOC). 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): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has two facilitators on campus who have each received formal training by qualified
trainers in the Impact of Crime (IOC) intervention. One of the facilitators is a non-licensed mental
health clinician and the other facilitator is a licensed clinical social worker. During the review year,
there were two other facilitators who delivered the IOC intervention, each having received formal
training by a qualified trainer in the IOC intervention. Both of them had resigned and were no
longer employed by the program at the time of the review.
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 Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum manual and which contains detailed
lesson plans, instructions, and addresses how the curriculum is to be implemented.
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 IOC was observed during the review. The session was facilitated by a trained
facilitator. The reviewer was provided a copy of the lesson in advance to read and follow along.
The lesson was from chapter seven: The Road to Reparation. The group consisted of the
facilitator, one direct care staff and one recently hired licensed clinician observing along with eight
youth. The youth proposed an icebreaker which they facilitated, prior to the beginning of the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
lesson. The facilitator walked through the exercises, covered the items on the lesson in order,
called on youth to participate, and elicited responses to the material throughout the lesson.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There was turnover during the review period due to staff injury and resignation. During one cohort,
the original facilitator was injured and the substitute took over for one lesson. The injured
facilitator returned for one lesson and resigned before the next lesson. The substitute took over
facilitation of the intervention. There was no documentation regarding how the transition was
handled. The program has a standardized program evaluation protocol for facilitator turnover, but
it does not address documentation of transition activity when there is facilitator turnover.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
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 has a process for fidelity monitoring. The program documented fidelity monitoring
completed by a qualified facilitator in the intervention, once each month while IOC was being
delivered. The fidelity monitoring was conducted on a specialized form designed to monitor the
specific curriculum.
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.
There was no corrective action noted on any of the six monthly fidelity monitoring tools reviewed.
The comments stated the facilitator completed the lesson as planned in each case. The steps
outlined in the program’s standardized program evaluation protocol include coaching, supervision
written warning, and performance improvement plan with target dates of completion.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0Point
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Each of the qualified facilitator’s annual evaluations included a section which documented
acceptable performance in service delivery, however neither of the evaluations reviewed
specifically included the facilitator’s performance in the delivery of the Impact of Crime (IOC)
curriculum.
The program can earn 1 point if facilitators are evaluated specifically on their skill in delivering
IOC.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 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 26 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 26) 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 26 youth in the
sample, 96% (25 of 26) 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 = 6 youth
High = 20 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 26 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 77%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 20 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 26 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% (26 of 26) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 77% (20 of 26) 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 25 25 100%
Totals 73 85 86%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Polk Halfway House.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 26 total youth sampled,
none received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 10 and 11 weeks of service.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 26 total youth
sampled, 25 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 22 and 24 hours of service, with an average of 24 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
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
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):
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover is planned for and transitions are handled smoothly. Facilitators should be
specifically evaluated on their skill in delivering IOC on their performance evaluations.
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

report_type: SPEP

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
G4S Youth Services, Inc
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change (T4C)
SPEP Review Date(s): February 23‐26, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/3/2017
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: Polk Halfway House QI Program Code: 1049
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services Contract Number: R2095
Location: Polk County / Circuit: 10 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): February 23-26, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 132
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # 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): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has two facilitators who have received formal training by qualified trainers in the
Thinking for a Change (T4C) curriculum. Both facilitators are master’s-level therapists. The
regional clinical director is also trained to provide the intervention.
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 manual for delivery of this service and provided a copy for reference during the
review. The manual includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order lessons are to be
delivered, and includes instructions for delivering 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 team observed one session of Thinking for a Change during the annual compliance review.
The reviewer was provided with a copy of the lesson plan. The facilitator followed the lesson plan,
but could not complete all the activities during the single session. The facilitator engaged all youth
in the discussion and provided real world examples to illustrate key points.
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.
There were no gaps in the provision of this service. One trained facilitator provided each session
of Thinking for a Change throughout the entire year.
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 documented fidelity monitoring by a trained facilitator each month the intervention
was provided. A specialized form designed to specifically monitor Thinking for a Change was
used to conduct the fidelity monitoring.
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.
No corrective action was noted on the forms used to conduct fidelity monitoring. Suggestions
made on the fidelity monitoring forms included, being mindful of the time involved in delivering the
services and completing all activities.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0Point
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 for the facilitator of this service includes a section regarding skill in
delivering delinquency interventions, but the evaluation did not specifically evaluate the
facilitator’s performance in delivering Thinking for a Change.
The program can earn 1 point if the evaluation specifically addresses skill in delivering T4C.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 25 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 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: 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 25 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 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 = 10 youth
High = 11 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: 44%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 11 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, 44% (11 of 25) 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 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 78 100 78%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Polk Halfway
House.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 25 total youth sampled,
none received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 7 and 13 weeks of service, with an average of 12 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 25 total youth
sampled, none received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample
completed between 17 and 26 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):
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilittaors are evaluated specifically on their skill in delivering T4C.
Polk Halfway House 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


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
G4S Youth Services, Inc
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Young Men's Work
SPEP Review Date(s): February 23‐26, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/3/2017
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: Polk Halfway House QI Program Code: 1049
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services Contract Number: R2095
Location: Polk County / Circuit: 10 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): February 23-26, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 132
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # 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 Young Men's Work. 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): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program currently has two master’s-level therapists trained by a qualified trainer to facilitate
this intervention. Three other facilitators have received formal training, but no longer facilitate the
service.
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 Young Men’s Work facilitator’s guide. The guide is detailed to the extent it
explains how each specific session is delivered and there is a script or outline for each session.
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 Young Men’s Work was observed during the review. The facilitator provided a copy
of the lesson plan and it was adhered to by the facilitator in delivering the intervention.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
There was no gap in service and no facilitator turnover in three of six cohorts delivered over the
past year. Three other cohorts experienced turnover when the facilitator left the program. For
some groups a new facilitator was assigned to the group. In others youth were reassigned to
another group. The service was not interrupted but the youth were impacted by turnover.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact youth in a group cycle.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
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.
Documentation showed fidelity monitoring was conducted each month since the initiation of the
primary service. Each monitoring was conducted by a therapist trained in the delivery of Young
Men’s Work.
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.
Fidelity monitoring reports did not identify a need for corrective action related to the delivery of
Young Men’s Work. There were general recommendations identified related to group facilitation
and it was evident these recommendations were implemented by the facilitators.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0Point
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 for the facilitators of this service included a section regarding skill in
delivering delinquency interventions, however it did not specifically evaluate the facilitator’s
performance in delivering Young Men’s Work.
The program can earn 1 point if facilitators are evaluated specifically on their skill in delievring
Young Men's Work.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 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 0 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 0) 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 0 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 0) 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: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 0%
Moderate to High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 0 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 0 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, 0% (0 of 0) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0
points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 0) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 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 0 25 0%
Totals 50 95 53%
This SPEP report evaluates Young Men's Work, an intervention delivered at Polk Halfway House.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration and Amount of Service: Contact
Hours. There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information system (JJIS) Evidence-
Based Services (EBS) module for any youths. With no JJIS data to review, the SPEP score was
reduced. The program must enter dosage data into JJIS in order to receive any score in this
area.
The program was awarded 0 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served due to the lack of
data entered in the EBS Module. This is calculated using data from the Community - Positive
Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This score reflects youths' most recent C-
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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):
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by planning to
minimize the impact of facilitator turnover and evaluating facilitators specifically on their delivery of
Youth Men's Work.
Polk Halfway House 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: Young Men's Work


summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Impact of Crime (IOC)
SPEP Review Date(s): February 28 ‐ March 3, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 6/13/2017
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: Polk Halfway House MQI Program Code: 1049
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2095
Location: Polk County / Circuit: 10 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): February 28 - March 3, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 152
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 3 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # 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 (IOC). 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): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has a protocol for primary service facilitator training, which states the youth care
worker or therapist, who are facilitators of the primary service, will have conducted a formalized
training from a qualified trainer. Upon review of the primary service, the cohorts were delivered by
four facilitators during the SPEP review period. Three of the facilitators are program therapists,
one of whom is no longer employed with the program. The additional facilitator is the program’s
Regional Clinical Director. For this primary service, all facilitators completed the minimum required
training, 28-hour Impact of Crime Facilitator Training, prior to conducting the primary service;
dates of training were March 6, 2014, August 14, 2015, October 9, 2015 and July 14, 2016. The
facilitator who completed the training on July 14, 2016, did not facilitate an IOC until October 10,
2016. The training documentation was provided and documented through the Department’s
Learning Management Systems (CORE and SkillPro).
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 brand-name facilitator manual for IOC, Impact of Crime: Addressing the
Harm Facilitator’s Guide and the Impact of Crime Student Workbook. The program utilized the
brand-name facilitator manual for every group session, which was reviewed during the SPEP
review. There are seven chapters in the manual which address cognitive restructuring, social
skills development, development of peaceful conflict resolution skills and problem-solving skills.
Each curriculum chapter, in the facilitator manual, is comprised of the same elements and
includes the following: objectives, words to know and definitions, introduction, discussion points,
facilitator’s notes, note of caution, teaching tips, student exercises, additional student exercise,
and additional resources. Each student manual is comprised of the same elements: objectives,
words to know and definitions, and student exercises. The facilitator manual recommends the
group include between 8-12 members to preserve program integrity. During the SPEP review
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
period, each of the four cohorts had eight youth, with the exception of one cohort, which had 7
youth. The curriculum is designed to be conducted in a minimum of 28 lessons. The manual
recommends at least two sessions a week. During the SPEP review period, the program delivered
this primary service two times a week. The first 2 cohorts were weekly on Tuesday and Thursday
and the 2 most recent cohorts were weekly on Monday and Wednesday.
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.
During the SPEP review period, the primary service, Impact of Crime (IOC), was observed by
Monitoring and Quality Improvement (MQI) staff. The facilitator provided the MQI staff, observing
the session, with a copy of the lesson being delivered. The facilitator reviewed chapter six with the
youth during the observed session. The youth were engaged and all youth participated during the
lesson. The youth participated in role plays during the observation. Role plays are done by youth
every Wednesday during IOC, according to the facilitator. The facilitator adhered to the manual for
both the lesson and utilized the white board as an aide when conducting the lesson.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program has a protocol for facilitator turnover, which states in the event of facilitator turnover,
the co-facilitator will assume the role of the facilitator for the group. The protocol further states, if a
co-facilitator is not present, a new qualified facilitator for the primary service will take over
conducting the service. A review of the sign-in sheets, during the SPEP review period,
documented there was facilitator turnover for the primary service Impact of Crime. During the
turnover, there was no gap in service. The staff, who left the program, last conducted a group
session on January 22, 2016, and another trained facilitator conducted the next session on
January 28, 2016, and the cohort continued and was completed on March 2, 2016. There were no
gaps in service during the twelve month SPEP review period.
The program can earn 2 points by minimizing facilitator turnover.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
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 has a protocol for fidelity monitoring which, in part, states designated staff are
responsible for conducting fidelity monitoring of each facilitator of a primary service on a monthly
basis. The protocol further states, the staff conducting the monitoring has received formal training
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
by a qualified trainer in the primary service. The fidelity monitor is required, per their protocol, to
verify the facilitator adheres to the session plan, group size, population, frequency, needed
materials, duration and interventions. During the 12 month SPEP review period, the two fidelity
monitors, both program therapist, completed the required training, 32-hour Impact of Crime
Facilitator Training, on October 9, 2015, and July 14, 2016, respectively, as documented in the
Department’s Learning Management System (CORE and SkillPro). During the 12 month SPEP
review period, Fidelity Adherence Checklists were provided, documenting fidelity monitoring was
completed monthly for all four cohorts. The fidelity monitoring’s were conducted on December 8,
2015, January 1, 2016, and February 18, 2016, for cohort 1; July 20, 2016, August 28, 2016, and
September 13, 2016, for cohort 2; October 28, 2016, November 4, 2016, and December 2, 2016,
for cohort 3; January 25, 2017, for cohort 4, which is ongoing. The Fidelity Adherence Checklist
noted all required documentation per the program protocol.
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 protocol for corrective action planning which states in part, based on the
results of the monthly fidelity monitoring, correction action may be needed. The protocol further
states the first stage of addressing areas identified as needing improvement through fidelity
monitoring is providing coaching and supervision to the facilitator on that issue by a qualified
facilitator in the primary service. The protocol continues, by stating if during additional fidelity
monitoring the previously identified area addressed continues to be an issue, the next step is to
completing a written warning and placing facilitator on a Performance Improvement Plan. During
the SPEP review period there were no corrective action plans and no identified issues on the
fidelity monitoring plans.
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 has a protocol on Annual Evaluation of Service Delivery which states, an annual
evaluation of performance will be conducted on all facilitators of each primary service. During the
performance evaluation, feedback from the fidelity monitoring tools and an assessment of the
facilitator’s skill delivering the primary service, is utilized. A review of three of the four facilitator’s
evaluations documented they were conducted during the SPEP review period and included the
evaluation of the primary service skills for Impact of Crime. The facilitator who left employment,
left during the month of January 2016; therefore, the facilitator’s evaluation was not completed
during the SPEP review period.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 7 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 7) 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 7 youth in the
sample, 100% (7 of 7) 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 = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 71%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 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% (7 of 7) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 71% (5 of 7) 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 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 85 88%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime (IOC), an intervention delivered at Polk Halfway
House.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 7 total youth sampled, all
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, none
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 8
and 10 weeks of service, with an average of 10 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 7 total youth
sampled, all included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, all received
at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 25 and 28.5
hours of service, with an average of 26 hours.
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):
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by minimizing
facilitator turnover.
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10