state: FL

facility_name: Crestview Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy - Non-secure
Youth Opportunity Investment, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straight Line Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Skillstreaming the Adolescent
SPEP Review Period: March 1, 2023-February 29, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: April 26, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/17/2025
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 Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program uses Skillstreaming the Adolescent (Skillstreaming) as a primary service for all youth
in the program. All therapy staff are trained by the clinical director in a two-hour training that
includes the manual, review of skill cards, and group observation to conduct Skillstreaming
groups.
There were ten (10) staff trained to facilitate Skillstreaming groups during the review period, with
four current therapist, one intern, and the clinical director. The clinical director or past assistant
clinical director conducted internal fidelity monitoring. All training records were provided for
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 Prepare Curriculum manual by Arnold Goldstein, in conjunction with the
Skillstreaming the Adolescent (Skillstreaming) skill cards. The manual does not have a specific
script for each lesson. It is divided into exercises for each lesson. Each lesson also contains the
objective, materials, procedure: guided questions and discussion. Once the lesson is completed,
the following exercise is practicing the skill using the identified skill card.
Skillstreaming groups are held Tuesdays and Thursdays. The program maintains documentation
for the groups in three separate binders. One contains all sign-in sheets, a second binder contains
all fidelity monitoring forms, and a third binder contains all training records. Skillstreaming is held
as an open group, meaning the youth may enter the group upon admission to the program. All
youth receive the service during their stay at the program.
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.
Technical Assistance Specialist observed a session of Skillstreaming on April 25, 2024 at 3:00pm.
There were seven youth, two staff, and one therapist present. The therapist began group with
youth check-in. The therapist then went through group expectations. The lesson was reviewed
and discussed in detail. Skill cards were handed out to the youth in the group with steps on them.
The youth completed role-play excerises. The youth had a hard time grasping the concept of the
lesson and completing the lesson steps. The group ended with an activity related to the lesson.
The group ended at 3:47pm.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program has a process in place to limit interruption to service delivery due to turnover of
Skillstreaming the Adolescent facilitators. In the event of facilitator turnover for Skillstreaming the
Adolescent, another trained staff will continue facilitating the group. Skillstreaming the Adolescent
is an open group run year-round, with all trained facilitators rotating delivering the service. Two
therapist left in March and April of 2023, but there was no interuption in service. The program ran
groups during every month of the review period and all sign-in sheets were provided for review;
there were no gaps in service during the annual review period.
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 a process in place to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators
of Skillstreaming the Adolescent. There were four trained staff who facilitated the service during
the review period. Forty-seven (47) of forty-seven (47) possible monitoring activities were
completed as required and provided for review. There was no missing internal fidelity monitoring.
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 in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly
internal fidelity monitoring of Skillstreaming the Adolescent.
There were no corrective actions noted nor taken during the quarterly review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The programs protocol for evaluating staff is the staff get annual evaluations. All four therapist
received their annual evaluations in October 2023. In the staff evaluation the group in which the
staff facilitates is noted.
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 28 youth in the
sample, 100% (28 of 28) 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 28 youth in the
sample, 100% (28 of 28) 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: 89%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 10 youth
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 28 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 43%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 28 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% (25 of 28) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 43% (12 of 28) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 83 85 98%
This SPEP report evaluates Skillstreaming the Adolescent, an intervention delivered at Crestview
Youth Academy.
28 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 28 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 28 total youth sampled,
only 28 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
28 received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between
18 and 30 weeks of service, with an average of 27 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 28 total youth
sampled, only 28 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 28
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 37
and 50 hours of service, with an average of 49 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Crestview Youth Academy 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 CYA Skillstreaming.pdf

program_name_raw: Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Skillstreaming the Adolescent


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy - Secure
Youth Opportunity Investment, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straight Line Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Seven Challenges
SPEP Review Period: March 1, 2023-February 29, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: April 26, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/16/2025
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: 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 Seven Challenges.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 utilizes Seven Challenges as a primary service. All therapy staff are trained to
facilitate the Seven Challenges groups, using a formal training protocol. Nine therapy staff were
trained to facilitate the groups during the review period, with four current therapist, one intern, and
the clinical director. The intern was in the process of being trained as a Seven Challenges
facilitator during the group observation. Clinical therapist are the primary facilitators for the
program. All training records were provided for review.
The clinical director and/or the assistant clinical director conducts internal fidelity monitoring for
Seven Challenges facilitators.
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 currently uses the Seven Challenges manual by Robert Schwebel, PhD. The youth
also have “reader books” to work through at their own pace. These workbooks include the lesson
readings and journaling pages. The facilitator has a Master manual which has all the lessons.
Seven Challenges groups were held Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays. Around the beginning of
the 2024 year, the schedule changed to Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays at 2pm. This
curriculum is eligible for youth who have a substance abuse diagnosis. Documentation for the
curriculum is maintained in three binders kept in the clinical director's office. The first binder
includes all sign-in sheets, the second binder includes internal fidelity monitoring forms, and the
third binder includes all training documentation. Seven Challenges is held as an open group,
meaning the youth may enter the group upon admission to the program.
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.
Technical Assistance Specialist observed a session of Seven Challenges on April 24, 2024 at
1:59pm. There were fifteen youth, two staff, and one facilitator with another training facilitator
observing. The group began with a youth conducting the youth check-in and the group rules were
read out loud. The facilitator had a youth read the lesson regarding planning for the future and
processed with the youth ways they make plans for their future. The youth then participated in the
group activity "Drug Hangman" for the remainder of the group which ended at 2:45pm. The
program currently uses the Seven Challenges manual by Rober Schwebel, PhD. The youth also
have “reader books” to work through at their own pace. These workbooks include the lesson
readings and journaling pages. The facilitator has a Master manual which has all the lessons.
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 process in place to limit interruption to service delivery due to turnover of
Seven Challenges facilitators. In the event of facilitator turnover for Seven Challenges, another
trained staff will continue facilitating the group. Seven Challenges is an open group run year-
round, with all trained facilitators rotating delivering the service.
The program experienced facilitator turnover for the Seven Challenges groups during the review
period. Several therapists left employment; however, the program has been able to quickly hire
new therapy staff and the turnover did not affect service delivery. Other trained staff provide
coverage for the other facilitators when needed. This turnover did not affect service delivery. All
sign-in sheets were provided for review and there were no gaps in service.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
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 a process in place to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators
of Seven Challenges. There were nine trained staff, but only four facilitators required internal
fedility monitoring for the review period. Fifty (50) monitoring activities were completed as required
and provided for review. There was no missing internal fidelity monitoring.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly
internal fidelity monitoring of Seven Challenges.
There were no corrective actions noted nor taken during the quarterly review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The programs protocol for evaluating staff is the staff get annual evaluations. All four therapist
received their annual evaluations in October 2023. In the staff evaluation the group in which the
staff facilitates is noted.
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 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 34 youth in the
sample, 100% (34 of 34) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 34 youth in the
sample, 100% (34 of 34) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 79%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 9 youth
Moderate-High = 12 youth
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 34 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 18%
High Score: 3 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 23%
Table 2
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 34 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 79% (27 of 34) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 18% (6 of 34) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 3 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 10 25 40%
Totals 80 95 84%
This SPEP report evaluates Seven Challenges, an intervention delivered at Crestview Youth
Academy.
34 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 34 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 34 total youth sampled,
only 34 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
34 received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between
32 and 37 weeks of service, with an average of 34 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 34 total youth
sampled, only 34 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 34
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 100
and 100 hours of service, with an average of 100 hours.
The program was awarded 10 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 100%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
Crestview Youth Academy 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

file_name: FY2023-24 CYA Secure 7C.pdf

program_name_raw: Crestview Youth Academy Secure

service_type: Seven Challenges


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy - Non Secure
Youth Opportunity Investment, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straight Line Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: March 1, 2023-February 29, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: April 26, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/17/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 uses Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service. Impact of Crime: Addressing the
Harm is an integrated, cognitive behavioral approach designed to use with adjudicated youth in
residential treatment programs. This curriculum uses cognitive restructuring, social skills
development, and development of peaceful conflict resolution skills. The case management and
direct care staff are trained to facilitate IOC groups. There are eight total staff trained to facilitated
IOC during the annual review period. The trained staff are two directors of case management,
both past and prsent, and six case managers. The trained staff who stopped facilitating the
service at the program are one director of case management and four case managers. Case
Managerment staff are the primary facilitators for the program. All training records were provided
for the review.
Any trained IOC facilitator can conduct internal fidelity monitoring for IOC groups.
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 for the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum with all
current lessons. The youth receive separate workbooks, which are copied from the back of the
IOC manual. The curriculum also includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the
lessons should be delivered, and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of every lesson.
IOC groups are completed twice a week on varied schedules.
The documentation for IOC groups is maintained in a binder kept in the director of case
managements office. The binder includes sign-in sheets and internal fidelity monitoring
documentation. Impact of Crime groups are closed groups meaning youth should not be added to
a cohort once the first lesson has been completed.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Technical Assistance Specialist observed a session of Impact of Crime (IOC) on April 25, 2024 at
3:58pm. There were three youth, one staff, and one facilitator present. The facilitator began group
with youth check-in. The faciliator then went through definitions of the lesson and review myths
and reality. The lesson was reviewed and discussed in detail. The group ended at 4:48pm, ten
(10) minutes early.
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's protocol in the event of facilitator turnover for Impact of Crime (IOC) is for either
the director of case management to take the cohort or, if available, another trained facilitator to
continue with group facilitation. The program had five facilitators leave in the middle of a cohort
during the annual review period. A certified facilitator did facilitate all groups. There were four
cohorts completed. The program reports there was a gap in serivce from May 31, 2023 to June
26, 2023 and from October 16, 2023 to November 28, 2023 while waiting on intakes to have
enough members to be admitted to the program to fill an IOC class.
A cohort began November 15, 2022 and ended March 8, 2023. The cohort started with twelve
(12) youth and end with twelve (12) youth completing the group.
A cohort began February 7, 2023 and ended May 31, 2023. This co-facilitated cohort included
nine youth who started and nine youth successfully finished the service. One facilitator terminated
their employment during the cohort, but the co-facilitator continued the service without
interruption.
A cohort began on June 26, 2023 and ended October 16, 2023. The cohort started with twelve
(12) youth and ended with twelve (12) youth completing the group.
A cohort started on November 28, 2023 and went to the review period of February 29, 2024. The
cohort started with nine youth and ended with nine youth currently in the group. On February 15,
2024, a different certified faciliator conducted the session.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program's protocol is for the director of case management to conduct all fidelity. The program
has been low on case management staff and sometimes the most senior case manager will
conduct fidelity during this time. There were six IOC facilitators who facilitated IOC groups on the
secure side of the program during the review period. Two facilitators were not monitored at all,
two were monitored once in March, and one was monitored in March and April. No internal fidelity
monitoring occurred between May and July. No fidelity monitoring was completed for the two
facilitators in October 2023 and one facilitator did not get fidelity monitoring for February 2024.
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.
The director of case management addresses any signficant issues or corrective actions with the
facilitators of Impact of Crime (IOC). Depending on the severity of the issues, the facilitator could
complete staff development sessions, further retraining, or receive a staff write-up.
The director of case management reported no corrective actions for the facilitators during the
review period. Due to the high turnover during the annual review period, minimal internal fidelity
monitoring occurred for any facilitator. Internal fidelity monitoring must occur regularly for points to
be awarded in this section.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The programs protocol for evaluating staff is that the staff get annual evaluations around their
date of hire. Of the three remaining staff providing Impact of Crime cohorts, one staff was
applicable to have received an evaluation in October 2023. In the staff evaluation, the group the
staff facilitates is noted.
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 28 youth in the
sample, 100% (28 of 28) 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 28 youth in the
sample, 100% (28 of 28) 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: 89%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 10 youth
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 28 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 43%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 28 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% (25 of 28) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 43% (12 of 28) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 83 85 98%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Crestview Youth
Academy.
28 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 28 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 28 total youth sampled,
only 28 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
28 received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between
16 and 17 weeks of service, with an average of 17 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 28 total youth
sampled, only 28 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 28
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 32
and 38 hours of service, with an average of 33 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups and fidelity monitoring is completed every month for
each facilitator.
Crestview Youth Academy 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

file_name: FY2023-24 CYA IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy - Secure
Youth Opportunity Investment, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straight Line Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: March 1, 2023-February 29, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: April 26, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/17/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 uses Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service. Impact of Crime: Addressing the
Harm is an integrated, cognitive behavioral approach designed to use with adjudicated youth in
residential treatment programs. This curriculum uses cognitive restructuring, social skills
development, and development of peaceful conflict resolution skills. The case management and
direct care staff are trained to facilitate IOC groups. There are eight total staff trained to facilitated
IOC during the annual review period. The trained staff are two directors of case management,
both past and prsent, and six case managers. The trained staff who stopped facilitating the
service at the program are one director of case management and four case managers. Case
Managerment staff are the primary facilitators for the program. All training records were provided
for the review.
Any trained IOC facilitator can conduct internal fidelity monitoring for IOC groups.
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 manual for the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum with all current lessons.
The youth receive separate workbooks, which are copied from the back of the IOC manual. The
curriculum also includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be
delivered, and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of every lesson. IOC groups are
completed twice a week on varied schedules.
The documentation for IOC groups is maintained in a binder kept in the director of case
managements office. The binder includes sign-in sheets and internal fidelity monitoring
documentation. Impact of Crime groups are closed groups meaning youth should not be added to
a cohort once the first lesson has been completed.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Technical Assistance Specialist observed a session of Impact of Crime (IOC) on April 25, 2024 at
3:58pm. There were three youth, one staff, and one facilitator present. The facilitator began group
with youth check-in. The faciliator then went through definitions of the lesson and review myths
and reality. The lesson was reviewed and discussed in detail. The group ended at 4:48pm, ten
(10) minutes early.
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's protocol in the event of facilitator turnover for Impact of Crime (IOC) is for either
the director of case management to take the cohort or, if available, another trained facilitator to
continue with group facilitation. The program had five facilitators leave in the middle of a cohort
during the annual review period. A certified facilitator did facilitate all groups. There were four
cohorts completed. The program reports there was a gap in serivce from May 31, 2023 to June
26, 2023 and from October 16, 2023 to November 28, 2023 while waiting on intakes to have
enough members to be admitted to the program to fill an IOC class.
A cohort began November 15, 2022 and ended March 8, 2023. The cohort started with twelve
(12) youth and end with twelve (12) youth completing the group.
A cohort began February 7, 2023 and ended May 31, 2023. This co-facilitated cohort included
nine youth who started and nine youth successfully finished the service. One facilitator terminated
their employment during the cohort, but the co-facilitator continued the service without
interruption.
A cohort began on June 26, 2023 and ended October 16, 2023. The cohort started with twelve
(12) youth and ended with twelve (12) youth completing the group.
A cohort started on November 28, 2023 and went to the review period of February 29, 2024. The
cohort started with nine youth and ended with nine youth currently in the group. On February 15,
2024, a different certified faciliator conducted the session.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program's protocol is for the director of case management to conduct all fidelity. The program
has been low on case management staff and sometimes the most senior case manager will
conduct fidelity during this time. There were six IOC facilitators who facilitated IOC groups on the
secure side of the program during the review period. Two facilitators were not monitored at all,
two were monitored once in March, and one was monitored in March and April. No internal fidelity
monitoring occurred between May and July. No fidelity monitoring was completed for the two
facilitators in October 2023 and one facilitator did not get fidelity monitoring for February 2024.
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.
The director of case management addresses any signficant issues or corrective actions with the
facilitators of Impact of Crime (IOC). Depending on the severity of the issues, the facilitator could
complete staff development sessions, further retraining, or receive a staff write-up.
The director of case management reported no corrective actions for the facilitators during the
review period. Due to the high turnover during the annual review period, minimal internal fidelity
monitoring occurred for any facilitator. Internal fidelity monitoring must occur regularly for points to
be awarded in this section.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The programs protocol for evaluating staff is that the staff get annual evaluations around their
date of hire. Of the three remaining staff providing Impact of Crime cohorts, one staff was
applicable to have received an evaluation in October 2023. In the staff evaluation, the group in
which the staff facilitates is noted.
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 34 youth in the
sample, 100% (34 of 34) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 34 youth in the
sample, 100% (34 of 34) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 79%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 9 youth
Moderate-High = 12 youth
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 34 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 18%
High Score: 3 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 23%
Table 2
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 34 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 79% (27 of 34) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 18% (6 of 34) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 3 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 10 25 40%
Totals 70 85 82%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Crestview Youth
Academy.
34 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 34 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 34 total youth sampled,
only 34 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
34 received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between
17 and 17 weeks of service, with an average of 17 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 34 total youth
sampled, only 34 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 34
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 32
and 33 hours of service, with an average of 32 hours.
The program was awarded 10 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 100%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups and fidelity monitoring is completed every month for
each facilitator
Crestview Youth Academy 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

file_name: FY2023-24 CYA Secure IOC.pdf