summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery
SPEP Review Date(s): 4/30/19‐5/3/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 5/7/19
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
 Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
 Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
 Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
 Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery.
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 provided documentation for therapists trained in the Pathways/Roadmaps to
Recovery curriculum. There are four current therapists trained to conduct Pathways groups. One
of the four therapists consistently facilitates Pathways groups. The designated mental health
clinical authority stated informal training is provided to therapists as they are hired. The training
sign-in sheets were provided for review.
Basic Score: 1 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 provided documentation for the twelve-month review period. Pathways/Roadmaps to
Recovery is a curriculum designed for sexual offenders. All youth admitted into the program
attend the Pathways group prior to being released. Pathways is provided four days a week,
Monday through Thursday from 2:15pm to 3:15pm and 3:15pm to 4:15pm. Attendance sheets are
bound by month with all other substance abuse and mental health groups and maintained in the
designated mental health clinical authority's (DMHCA) office. Pathways is held as an open group
meaning youth can enter the group at any time.
The program provided the Pathways, 4th edition, manual for review. The manual is a guided
workbook the youth work through in a group setting or on their own with a therapist. The
curriculum is split into seventeen (17) sections, including a preface, an introduction, fourteen (14)
work chapters, and a conclusion. There is not a script for the facilitator to follow nor a specific
facilitator manual, nor is there an internal protocol in place for either. The manual is broken into
individual assignments and reading passages.
The program can earn 2 points if the manual specifically details the delivery of this primary
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
There was a change in schedule during the review week and a Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery
group was not able to be observed; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable.
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.
There has not been turnover in regards to facilitators for the Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery
curriculum. A review of the JJIS Evidence-Based Services module and a random sample of the
attendance sheets, showed no gaps in service. Should turnover occur, or a therapist is out for a
significant period of time, there are three other therapists trained who can facilitate Pathways
groups.
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.
All internal fidelity monitoring for Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery is conducted by the
designated mental health clinical authority. All internal fidelity monitoring forms were accounted
for and reviewed for the therapist who conducts Pathways groups.
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 based on fidelity monitoring.
The designated mental health clinical authority conducts weekly supervisons with therapy staff.
Any issue or corrective actions are addressed during those meetings or one-to-one, when
necessary. Upon review of the internal fidelity monitoring forms, there were no noted corrective
actions.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program provided the yearly performance evaluation for the therapist who conducts
Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery for the program. There is a section for group facilitation which
includes a list of all curricula the therapist facilitates indicated by a check mark.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 89% (17 of 19) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 19 youth in the
sample, 100% (19 of 19) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 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 = 7 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 32%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 89% (17 of 19) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 32% (6 of 19) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 88 95 93%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery, an intervention delivered at
Crestview Sex Offender Program.
19 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 19 were included in
the sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 19 total youth sampled, all
19 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 17 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 11 and 66 weeks of
service, with an average of 45 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 19 total youth
sampled, all 19 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 19 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 52 hours of service.
The program was awarded 20 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (80% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
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 98%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Program can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring the manual specifically details the delivery of this primary service.
Crestview Sex Offender Program can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery


state: FL

facility_name: Crestview Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure
Youth Opportunity Investments, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): 2/12/19-2/15/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 2/20/19
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
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): 7 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 provided documentation of five case management staff trained during the review
period. All five staff were formally trained in the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum. The program
protocol is for case management staff to facilitate. Two case managers left during the review
period and one was promoted to the assistant facility administrator and no longer facilitates group.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program has a manual for the delivery of services and provided a copy for this reviewer for
reference during the annual review. The program uses the current Impact of Crime (IOC) manual.
The youth are provided copies of IOC workbooks with all of the needed worksheets. The manual
includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered, includes
detailed instructions for lesson delivery, and all needed worksheets for the youth.
IOC is considered a closed group, which no youth can begin the group once it has completed the
first lesson. IOC takes pace on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11:00am-12:00pm, during the
lunch hour for the youth. The youth are able to eat during group. The group time was moved due
to the youth being unable to participate in recreational time. The current time does not match the
program group schedule and the information was obtained during an interview with the IOC
facilitator. All youth are eligible to attend and complete IOC curriculum.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
An Impact of Crime (IOC) group was observed on Thursday, February 14, 2019 from 2:30pm-
3:30pm. The group was moved to this time just during the review week. There were ten youth in
group and this was the second meeting of this IOC group. The facilitator had an inventive
icebreaker for the youth. The facilitator wrote "Restorative Justice" on the white board. The youth
had to create as many words from the phrase as possible in one minute. The rules were they had
to be real words and could not be curse words. The youth loved this exercise and did a great job
with it. The winner, who created sixteen words, received an incentive prize.
The facilitator provided the reviewer with an outline of the lesson. This facilitator has consistently
created outlines for each group to break down the lessons. The information meets all objectives
for each chapter. This group does well when they are able to color during the group. The facilitator
provided the group a picture of a steak to color during group. This was utilized during the
introduction of the three stakeholders in restorative justice. The youth enjoyed the use of the
homonym. All youth were attentive during the group. There was one behavioral issue. The staff in
the group room was asked to remove the youth from group. This occurred without incident.
The group completed all objectives to complete chapter during this group meeting and conducted
a review of what was learned so far in group.
Basic Score: 0 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.
Two case management staff left during the review period and one case manager was promoted to
assistant facility administrator for the secured program. There is currently one trained facilitator for
the Impact of Crime (IOC) group. The clinical director was interviewed and it was discussed that
the assistant facility administrator is eligible to conduct group to assist in ensuring all youth are
attending and completing IOC.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) encompasses twelve months of records.
The program conducted two cohorts of the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum. One cohort was
held from December 4, 2017 to May 1, 2018. The second cohort was held May 16, 2018 to
September 28, 2018. A new cohort began on February 12, 2019.
There was a 4.5 month gap in services (9/29/18-2/11/19). This was disscused with the clinical
director. According to the clinical director, the gap in service was not due to facilitator turnover, but
was caused due to the reduction of youth being sent to the program. The clinical director was
going by the IOC manual which indicates a group should start with eight to ten youth. This
reviewer discussed with the clinical director some alternatives in being able to begin a group with
six to seven youth, however this should not happen all the time. The plan moving forward is for
the clinical director to be trained in IOC to gain a better understanding of the curriculum.
The program can earn 2 points if there are no unnecessary gaps in service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
A previous case manager was conducting internal fidelity monitoring for the Impact of Crime
curriculum. Of the nine months of group being conducted, five months of internal fidelity
monitoring was reviewed. Four months were missing. These missing forms were not due to the
observer leaving the program, as the case manager did not leave until February 2019. There was
no reason given as to why the internal fidelity monitoring was not conducting for those four
months.
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 clinical director meets with the case management and theraputic staff during weekly
supervision meetings. Any corrective actions and issues are discussed during that time. There
were no corrective actions or issues identified on the reviewed internal fidelity monitoring forms.
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 program provided the yearly performance evaluation for the case manager who is still
employed at the program and is still currently facilitating Impact of Crime (IOC) groups. The
yearly performance evaluation includes an evaluation of skill in delivering IOC.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 38 youth in the
sample, 24% (9 of 38) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 38 youth in the
sample, 24% (9 of 38) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 97%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 18 youth
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 38 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 47%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 38 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, 97% (37 of 38) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 47% (18 of 38) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 59 85 69%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Crestview Youth
Academy Nonsecure.
39 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 38 total youth sampled, only
15 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 9
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 8
and 22 weeks of service, with an average of 16 weeks.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 38 total youth
sampled, only 15 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 9
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 8
and 32 hours of service, with an average of 24 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by ensuring there are no unnecessary gaps in service, and by ensuring fidelity monitoring is
completed every month for each facilitator.
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by
ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth
receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure
Youth Opportunity Investments, INC
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Male Healthy Relationships
SPEP Review Date(s): 2/12/19-2/15/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 2/20/19
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 Male Healthy Relationships. 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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 provided documentation of six therapuetic staff informally trained to facilitate Male
Healthy Relationships. The clinical director conducts training for new therapy staff when needed.
The training consists of the clinical director picking a lesson from the manuals and conducting the
lesson with the group to show them how to facilitate the information. This information was
obtained by a conversation with the clinical director.
Currently there are two therapists who regularly facilitate Male Healthy Relationships, and the
clinical director may facilitate as needed.
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 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses six months of
records, specifically for Male Healthy Relationships. Male Healthy Relationships is a bundled
group of Teen Relationships Workbook and Young Men's Work. This group began at the facility in
August 2018 per review of the primary group designation form. Male Healthy Relationships is held
as an open group and all youth eligible for this service. The group is held on Fridays from 3:30pm-
4:30pm and Sundays during group time between 9:30am-12:30pm. The attendance sheets are
maintained in a binder in the clinical director's office.
The program maintains two manuals that therapists work from; Young Men's Work and Teen
Relationships. The Young Men's Work manual is maintained in a binder in the clinical director's
office. It is approximately ten sessions and includes videos and handouts. The manual is broken
into individual sessions that include the objective, agenda, session outline, and all handouts. The
lessons also include a script to follow.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
The manual for Teen Relationships is maintained in a binder in the clinical director's office. It is
five main topics broken down into individual lessons. All lessons and handouts are included.
Facilitator guidelines are also included, but no script is provided.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This reviewer did not observe Male Healthy Relationships during the annual review due to the
times of group. This curriculum was not able to be observed; therefore, this indicator rates as
non-applicable.
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.
Three therapists left during the review period, but this turnover did not adversely affect services to
youth. There were no gaps in service for this group. Other therapists facilitated the group when
the therapists left employment. The clinical director is also able to facilitate when a therapist is out
as needed.
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 clinical director conducts internal fidelity monitoring for Male Healthy Relationships. The
group has been a primary service since August 2018. Six months of internal fidelity monitoring
forms provided for review. All internal fidelity monitoring forms were accounted for all facilitators.
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 clinical director conducts weekly supervisions with all therapy and case management staff.
Attendance sheets were reviewed for the weekly supervisions. If any issues or corrective actions
are noted on internal fidelity forms they are addressed during this time. The clinical director
maintains a binder with all internal fidelity forms in that office. There were no corrective actions or
issues noted on the internal fidelity forms.
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 program provided yearly performance evaluations for the clinical staff that faciliitate Male
Healthy Relationships. The performance evaluations include a section for skills in delivering the
intervention.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 44% (17 of 39) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 26% (10 of 39) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 95%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 18 youth
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 46%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 95% (37 of 39) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 46% (18 of 39) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 81 95 85%
This SPEP report evaluates Male Healthy Relationships, an intervention delivered at Crestview
Youth Academy Nonsecure.
39 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 39 total youth sampled, only
34 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 17
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6
and 41 weeks of service, with an average of 22 weeks.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 39 total youth
sampled, only 34 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 10
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 6
and 52 hours of service, with an average of 29 hours.
This bundled primary service was designated August 2, 2018, six months into the review period.
Prior to that date, dosage was entered for only the Young Men's Work component. As such, each
youth in the sample documented dosage for only one part of the whole intervention, thus affecting
the overall score. As of the date of the review, dosage was being entered for the bundled service.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by continuing the processes in place at the time of this review.
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by
ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth
receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Male Healthy Relationships


summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure
Youth Opportunity Investments, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Skillstreaming the Adolescent
SPEP Review Date(s): 2/12/19-2/15/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 2/20/19
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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's documentation reflected the program had a training protocol for the clinical director
to informally train all therapuetic staff to conduct Skillstreaming the Adolescent. There were seven
therapy staff trained in the curriculum during the review period. The therapy staff was trained by
the head clinical director for Youth Opportunity Investments, including the program clinical
director. There are currently three therapists trained in Skillstreaming the Adolescent who
facilitate 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.
Skillstreaming the Adolescent is held as an open group. The group is designed as a cognitive
behavioral group and it is designed to teach adolescents essential social skills. The group is held
on Mondays and Wednesdays from 3:30pm-4:30pm. All youth are eligible to attend this group.
The program has a manual for the delivery of services and provided a copy for the team for
reference during the review. The program currently uses The Prepare Curriculum manual by
Arnold Goldstein. The program also utilizes the Skillstreaming the Adolescent skill cards. The
manual is divided into three sections to address skills, anger control and moral reasoning training.
The manual does not contact 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.
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.
Skillstreaming the Adolescent was observed on Wednesday, February 13, 2019 from 3:30pm-
4:30pm. There were eight youth in attendance. The facilitator of this group is the assistant clinical
director. The assistant clinical director explained that Skillstreaming the Adolescent is facilitated
by picking a topic/skill, the youth are given scenarios to choose from, the skill is explained and
then the youth are to practice the skill through role plays. Homework includes practicing the skill
outside of group to discuss during the next group. The clinical director reported that there are
times it is difficult to get these specific youth to conduct role plays.
The group began with a check-in and all youth provided one goal that they were currently working
on. All youth participated in the role plays and were engaged throughout the group. The group
duration was appropriate and the youth were released from group without incident.
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 reviewed documentation confirmed there were four therapists who left employment during the
review period. The program's protocol is for the therapists to rotate around conducting group. The
program's protocol includes for all therapy staff to be trained in Skillstreaming the Adolescent. The
clinical director provided the binder that maintains all attendance sheets. There were no gaps in
service due to facilitator turnover.
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.
Internal fidelity forms were provided for review. The clinical director keeps all fidelity monitoring
forms in a binder in that office. There were no internal fidelity monitoring forms missing for the
review period for all therapists who facilitated Skillstreaming the Adolescent.
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 clinical director conducts weekly supervision with therapy and case management staff. Any
corrective actions or issues are discussed during weekly supervisions. No corrective actions or
issues were identified on the internal fidelity monitoring forms for the review period.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
Three of the seven therapists continue employment at the program. The yearly performance
evaluations were provided for review. The performance evaluations include a section that
addresses the facilitator's skills in delivering the intervention.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 4 youth in the
sample, 75% (3 of 4) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 4 youth in the
sample, 75% (3 of 4) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 2 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 4 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 4 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (4 of 4) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (2 of 4) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 77 85 91%
This SPEP report evaluates Skillstreaming the Adolescent, an intervention delivered at Crestview
Youth Academy Nonsecure.
39 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 4 total youth sampled, all 4
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 3 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 11 and 31 weeks of
service, with an average of 22 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 4 total youth sampled,
all 4 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 3 received at least the recommended
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4 and 32 hours of service, with an
average of 39 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by
ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth
receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Skillstreaming the Adolescent


summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy Secure
Youth Opportunities Investment, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straighline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Seven Challenges
SPEP Review Date(s): 2/12/19-2/15/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 2/18/19
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program's documentation reflected the program had a training protocol for all therapy staff to
be informally trained to conduct Seven Challenges curriculum. The program had five therapists
and the clinical director as trained staff members during the review period. The clinical director
maintains a training binder with all training sign-in sheets for informal training. All six therapeutic
staff facilitate Seven Challenges during the review period as indicated on the group attendance
sheets. Pursuant to the Seven Challenges manual the training is approximately two eight-hour
training days.
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 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses eight months of
records examinations, specifically for the Seven Challenges. The program converted to substance
abuse overlay services during the review period. Substance abuse treatment began in June 2018,
four months into the review period.
Seven Challenges is held as an open group and can be held for up to ninety-minutes per session.
The program conducts Seven Challenges three times per week on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and
Saturdays. Tuesdays and Thursdays are held from 2:30pm-3:30pm and on Saturdays, groups are
9:30am-12:30pm. Youth who have a substance abuse diagnosis are able to attend Seven
Challenges group. The attendance sheets for Seven Challenges are kept in a binder in the clinical
director's office.
The program has a manual for the delivery of services and provided a copy for review. The
program currently uses the Seven Challenges manual by Rober Schwebel, PhD. The youth also
have workbooks to work through at their own pace. These workbooks include the lesson readings
and journaling pages. The facilitator has a Master manual that has all of the lessons.
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.
This reviewer observed Seven Challenges group on Tuesday from 2:30pm-3:30pm. There were
nine youth in group. Group was held in a classroom on the dorm. There was one facilitator and
one youth care worker in the group. The group conducted a check-in. Youth were also chosen as
volunteers to write on the board. The faciltator had the lesson to look off of and ask questions, but
did not have to rely on the lesson material. The facilitator was knowledgable and confident in
teaching the material to the youth. Two of the youth were not participating at the beginning of
group, but by the end of group all youth participated and were interacting.
Group lasted thirty-five minutes instead of an hour. However, the group did complete all objectives
for the lesson and successfully completed Challenge two. It was suggested to conduct a review
and allow the youth to journal when there is extra time in a group.
This particular facilitator did an excellent job with this group. The group has not been meeting very
long and the facilitator had already built a good rapport with the youth. This was evidenced by
their interactions and the youths' willingness to openly discuss issues and concerns. The youth
also enjoyed the activities during the group and it allowed them to be open.
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 reviewed documentation confirmed there has been turnover which did not adversely affect
the youth during the review period. Two therapists left during the review period. There were three
other therapists who continued to facilitate group. There were no gaps in service longer than one
month throughout the review period.
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.
There were five therapists and the clinical director who were trained during the reivew period to
facilitate Seven Challenges. The clinical director conducts internal fidelity monitoring for the Seven
Challenges curriculum. Seven Challenges curriculum began in June 2018, due to the program
converting to to substance abuse overlay in April 2018. Two of the five staff received internal
fidelity monitoring for the eight months they facilitated Seven Challenges. Three therapists, who
are no longer employed at the program, did not receive internal fidelity monitoring for the months
they facilitated Seven Challenges. The clinical director did facilitate Seven Challenges group on
occasion, but did not receive internal fidelity monitoring. If the clinical director conducted group, all
other therapists were also in group at the same time and unable to complete internal fidelity
monitoring. This information was provided during an interview with the clinical director.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 clinical director conducts weekly supervisions for therapeutic staff and case management
staff. If any issues or corrective actions are noted it is addressed during weekly supervisions. The
clinical director maintains a binder with documentation of all weekly supervisions. Each meeting
contains attendees, signatures, dates, and an agenda.
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 program provided one yearly performance evaluation for the therapeutic staff who conducted
Seven Challenges group during the review period. The yearly performance evaluations contain a
section for the facilitator's skill delivering evidence based practices. There is also a section to list
all of the curricula a staff member facilitates.
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 7 youth in the
sample, 100% (7 of 7) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 7 youth in the
sample, 100% (7 of 7) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 2 youth
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 71%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (7 of 7) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 71% (5 of 7) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 95 95 100%
This SPEP report evaluates Seven Challenges, an intervention delivered at Crestview Youth
Academy Secure.
24 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 7 total youth sampled, all 7
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 7 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 34 and 39 weeks of
service, with an average of 36 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 7 total youth
sampled,all 7 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 7 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 100 hours of service.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy Secure can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Crestview Youth Academy Secure 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

program_name_raw: Crestview Youth Academy Secure

service_type: Seven Challenges


summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy Secure
Youth Opportunities Investment, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straighline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): 2/12/19-2/15/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 2/17/19
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program's documentation reflected the program had a training protocol for all case
management staff to be trained to conduct the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum. The program
had five staff formally trained in IOC during the review period, but only two staff members
facilitated IOC groups. Three staff are case managers, one staff was the transition specialist, and
the assistant facility administrator. The transition specialist left during the review period. There are
currently three staff members trained in the IOC curriculum.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records examinations. The program conducted one cohort during the review period. During the
review period, the program converted to substance abuse overlay services. Youth were
transferred to the program from Kissimmee Youth Academy in April 2018. These youth had
already received Impact of Crime (IOC). The facilitator had to wait for a new group of youth to
come to the facility to begin a group. Therefore the cohort ran from October 12, 2018 to January
28, 2019. This group started with eight youth and ended with five youth. Three youth were
released during the cohort. Per an interview with the facilitator, a new cohort will begin by
February 28, 2019.
All youth at the program are eligible to attend IOC group. The attendance forms are kept in a
binder labeled "IOC sign in sheets". Groups are conducted on Tuesdays and Thursdays during
the lunch hour. This was changed due to the youth not being able to receive recreational time.
The youth are able to eat lunch during group.
The program has a manual for the delivery of services and provided a copy for this reviewer for
reference during the annual review. The program uses the current IOC manual. The youth are
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
provided copies of IOC workbooks with all of the needed worksheets. The manual includes
implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered, includes detailed
instructions for lesson delivery, and all needed worksheets for the youth.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Impact of Crime group was not observed during the annual review. The prior group ended on
January 28, 2019 and a new group had not yet started. This curriculum was not able to be
observed; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable.
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 reviewed documentation confirmed that there has been no turnover that adversely affected
the youth during the review period for the secured program. One case manager left the program,
one case manager was promoted to assistant facility administrator, and the transition case
manager left the program. There are currently two case managers trained. Per a conversation
with the clinical director the goal is to get all new case management staff trained in the Impact of
Crime curriculum to avoid any gaps due to turnover.
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.
All internal fidelity monitoring was reviewed for the facilitators who conducted Impact of Crime
group. This reviewer evaluated four months of internal fidelity monitoring reports. The program
has an internal process to conduct internal fidlielty monitoring for review. The current process is
for the nonsecure case manager to observe the secure case managers once a month. The
internal fidelity monitoring forms are reviewed by the clinical director.
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 clinical director conducts weekly supervision with case management staff. Any issues and
corrective actions are discussed during weekly supervision. This process was discussed during
an interview with the clinical director.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program provided two yearly performance evaluations for the two facilitators who conducted
Impact of Crime during the review period. The yearly performance evaluations contain a section
for facilitators skill delivering evidnece based practices. There is also a section to list all of the
curricula a staff member facilitates.
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 19 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 19) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 63% (12 of 19) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 9 youth
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 53%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (19 of 19) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 53% (10 of 19) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 71 85 84%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Crestview Youth
Academy Secure.
24 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 19 had not previously
received this intervention in another setting.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 19 total youth sampled, only
3 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 14
and 15 weeks of service, with an average of 15 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 19 total youth
sampled, only 12 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 12
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 27
and 32 hours of service, with an average of 31 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy Secure can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Crestview Youth Academy Secure 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