state: FL

facility_name: Polk Halfway House

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
Truecore Behavioral
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: 04/01/23-03/31/24
SPEP Review Conducted: 04/09/24
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/19/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Impact of Crime (IOC) intervention is being reviewed for the dates of 04/01/23-03/31/24. The
program maintains all SPEP documentation in a binder that is separated into sections which are
then organized by intervention. The IOC group is held on Mondays and Wednesdays. There is a
formal training protocol for this intervention that staff must attend facilitated by either Department
of Juvenile Justice certified trainers or a Corporate certified Impact of Crime trainer. The training
consists of reviewing and learning the curriculum manual and conducting mock groups. During the
review period from 04/01/23-03/31/24, there were three staff formally trained in the IOC
curriculum, one Recreational Therapist, one Case Manager, and the prior Clinical Director. The
current Clinical Director started at the program in 02/24. One Case Manager and one
Recreational Therapist facilitated group during the review dates and the prior Clinical Director,
current Clinical Director, and Regional Clinical Director provided fidelity monitoring. Note that the
prior Clinical Director is no longer at the program. There were three completed cohorts of Impact
of Crime during the review period from 03/22/23-07/19/23-8 youth and 1 staff, 05/30/23-09/19/23-
7 youth 1 staff and 09/26/23-01/21/24-9 youth, 1 staff. There is a current cohort that began on
03/06/24 and is ongoing.There was a gap of one month and twelve days from 01/22/24-03/05/25.
This was due to the program having to wait on enough new youth to start a new cohort.
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 brand name manual "Impact of Crime-Addressing the Harm". The reviewer
looked over the manual during the review. There are facilitator and student manuals. The manual
provides a script and instructions for the lessons. The curriculum also includes implementation
guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered and includes detailed instructions
for the delivery of each lesson. All youth receive the Impact of Crime intervention as a part of their
required programming for Restorative Justice.The Impact of Crime intervention is a closed group
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
meaning that once a group is started, no other youth can be added to that ongoing group and new
youth would have to be placed in next cohort.
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 Impact of Crime group was observed via Microsoft Teams on Wednesday 04/10/24 from
11:30a.m-12:30 p.m. There were two staff and twelve (12) youth present in the group. The
facilitator provided a copy of Lesson 4 "Consequences of Decision Making-Choices Under the
Influence" to the reviewer. The facilitator followed the lesson plan according to the manual, did not
read the lesson verbatim but rather used her own words to convey the meaning of the discussed
topic. She was easy for the youth to follow. The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan in every
aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of the program's documentation provided and an interview with the Clinical Director
confirmed that the program has had some turnover during the review period. The program lost the
prior Clinical Director. However, she was not facilitating group and a new Clinical Director was
hired in 02/24. This turnover did not adversly affect services of Impact of Crime to the youth. The
program's policy regarding anticipated turnover is addressed by having administrative or other
trained staff step in and facilitate the group if necessary. They also overlap groups when possible
so as to avoid any gaps in service.The program completed three cohorts of Impact of Crime
during the review period from 03/22/23-07/19/23 (eight youth, one staff), 05/3023-09/19/23 (seven
youth, one staff), and 09/26/23-01/21/24-(nine youth, one staff). There is a new cohort which
began on 03/06/24 with twelve youth and one staff that is currently ongoing. There was a gap of
one month and and twelve days. This was due to the program having to wait on enough new
youth to start a new cohort.
There were two short gaps in the service of Impact of Crime to the youth during the review period
from 07/22/22-08/18/22 and from 02/23/23-03/21/23. Note that these two gaps were not over one
month and they were not caused by staff turnover. They were due to the program having to wait
on enough new youth to restart the next group.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring. The monitoring is to
be completed by the Clinical Director, Regional Clinical Director or a trained designeed who are
formally trained in the Impact of Crime curriculum. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring
checklists specific to IOC to document the monitoring. The program had completed checklists for
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
all facilitators for each month they completed their IOC groups. All completed fidelity checklists
are maintained in the SPEP binder under a tab entitled "Fidelity Monitoring for IOC". Each tab had
a copy of the fidelity checklist completed on the facilitator (s) who perfomed groups during the
specific month.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity/monitoring of the primary service. The program uses internal fidelity
montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Impact of Crime curriculum. Each completed
checklist includes feedback specifying either that the facilitator did not require any corrective
action or if the facilitator did require corrective action, it would include recommendations for future
improvement. The following month's checklist would then include comments that the previous
month's recommendations were applied and demonstrated. An interview with the Clinical Director
and a review of the documentation revealed that no corrective action had been taken during the
review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of employee records for the Recreational Therapist and the Case Manager who are the
current trained facilitators found that the Recreational Therapist received a Performance
Evaluation in 12/23. The Case Manager has not been at the program for one year yet. Her
evaluation will be due in 10/24. The evaluation for the Recreational Therapist found an entry of
her ability in delivering the Impact of Crime curriculum.This included comments on any strengths
or weaknesses of which the facilitator delivering the curriculum should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 100% (27 of 27) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 27 youth in the
sample, 100% (27 of 27) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 89%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 5 youth
Moderate-High = 10 youth
High = 9 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 33%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 9 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 89% (24 of 27) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 33% (9 of 27) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 80 85 94%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Polk Halfway House.
28 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 27 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 27 total youth sampled,
only 27 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
27 received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between
16 and 19 weeks of service, with an average of 17 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 27 total youth
sampled, only 27 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 27
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 31
and 34 hours of service, with an average of 32 hours.
The program was awarded 20 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 100%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Polk Halfway House can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing the
practices in place at the time of this review.
Polk Halfway House can maintain their SPEP Amount of Service score by continuing to ensure
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by continuing to ensure youth receive the
full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2023-24 Polk Halfway House IOC.pdf

program_name_raw: Polk Halfway House

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
Truecore Behavioral
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Skillstreaming the Adolescent
SPEP Review Period: 04/01/23-03/31/24
SPEP Review Conducted: 04/09/24
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/19/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Skillstreaming the Adolescent.
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 Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 Skillstreaming the Adolescent intervention is being reviewed for the period of 04/01/23-
03/31/24. Note that Thinking for a Change ceased being a Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol (SPEP) intervention for Polk Halfway House as of 01/19/24. At that time, Skillstreaming
the Adolescent was implemented. The program maintains all SPEP documentation in a tabbed
binder that is separated into sections which is then organized by each intervention. Skillstreaming
is held on Wednesdays and Thursdays from 3:45 to 4:45. There is a formal training protocol for
this intervention that staff must attend facilitated by the program's Clinical Director. The training
consists of reviewing and learning the curriculum manual and conducting mock groups. During the
review period from 04/01/23-03/31/24, three staff were formally trained in the Skillstreamingt he
Adolescent curriculum, the Clinical Director and two non-licensed Therapists. The cohort of
Skillstreaming started on 01/19/24.There have not been any completed cohorts as it just became
a SPEP intervention for Polk Halfway House on that dates. There were no gaps in the service of
Skillstreaming the Adolescent to the youth.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program used the brand name manual "Skillstreaming the Adolescent". The reviewer looked
over the manual during the review. There is a facilitator manual only. The manual provides a
script and instructions for the lessons. The curriculum also includes implementation guidelines,
identifies the order in which the lessons should be delivered and includes detailed instructions for
the delivery of each lesson. All youth receive the Skillstreaming intervention as a part of their
programming. This is an open ongoing group with no completed cohorts.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Skillstreaming was observed virtually via Microsoft Teams on Thursday 04/11/24 by S. Wilson,
TAS from 3:45-4:45 p.m.There were five youth and two staff members present in the group. The
facilitator provided a copy of the lesson "Having a Conversation" to this reviewer. The facilitator
followed the lesson plan according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but rather
used her own words to convey the meaning of the discussed topic. She was very easy for the
youth to follow and ensured that each grasped the concept being taught before moving on to the
next concept. The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of the program's documentation provided and an interview with the Clinical Director
confirmed that the program had no turnover during the review period except for the resignation of
the prior Clinical Director. The new Clinical Director was hired on 02/28/24. The previous Clinical
Director had not been involved in Skillstreaming as it did not become a SPEP intervention until
after she left the program. Therefore there was no facilitator turnover that affected this intervention
since Skillstreaming was implemented on 01/19/24.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring. The monitoring was
completed by the Clinical Director. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring checklists
specific to Skillstreaming the Adolescent to document the monitoring. Note that Skillstreaming had
only been implemented 01/19/24. The program had completed checklists for both facilitators for
for the months of 02/24 and 03/24. The completed fidelity checklists are maintained in the SPEP
binder under a tab entitled "Fidelity Monitoring for Skillstreaming". Each tab had a copy of the
fidelity checklist completed on the facilitator (s) who perfomed groups during the specific
month.Skillstreaming is an open ongoing group. No fidelity checklists were completed for each
facilitator for the month of 01/24.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity/monitoring of the primary service. The program uses internal fidelity
montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Skillstreaming the Adolescent curriculum.
Each completed checklist includes feedback specifying either that the facilitator did not require
any corrective action or if the facilitator did require corrective action, it would include
recommendations for future improvement. The following month's checklist would then include
comments that the previous month's recommendations were applied and demonstrated. An
interview with the Clinical Director and a review of the documentation provided verified that the
program did not take any corrective action during the review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of employee records for one non-licensed Therapist shows she had an annual
evaluation completed within the last twelve months. Her evaluation found entry of this staff's
ability in delivering Skillstreaming the Adolescent including comments on any strengths or
weaknesses of which the facilitator delivering the curriculum should be award of. The Clinical
Director and the other non-licensed Therapist have not had review yet as they have not been at
the program for one year as of the review date.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 9) 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 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 9) 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: 15 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 89%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 22%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 38%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 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, 89% (8 of 9) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 22% (2 of 9) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 15 25 60%
Totals 55 85 65%
This SPEP report evaluates Skillstreaming the Adolescent, an intervention delivered at Polk
Halfway House.
28 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 9 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 9 total youth sampled, only
5 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4
and 11 weeks of service, with an average of 7 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 9 total youth sampled,
only 9 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0 received at
least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 5 and 17 hours
of service, with an average of 8 hours.
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 began this primary service on 1/1/2024 so there was only three months of data
available.
The program was awarded 15 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 76%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
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

file_name: FY2023-24 Polk Halfway House Skillstreaming.pdf

service_type: Skillstreaming the Adolescent