state: FL

facility_name: JoAnn Bridges Academy

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
JoAnn Bridges Academy
Rite of Passage, INC
(Contract Provider)
950 SW Greenville Hill's Rd
Greenville, Florida 32331
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training (ART)
SPEP Review Period: April 1, 2023-March 31, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: 4/23/2024; 5/6/2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/19/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Aggrssion Replacement Training.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
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: 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): 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 documentation for the annual review period of April 1, 2023 through March 31, 2024 shows
the program uses Aggression Replacement Training (ART) for their primary service. Aggression
Replacement Training is provided by a qualified trainer over a three-day period. There were five
staff members trained in the primary service. The trained staff members were four therapeutic
managers and the clinical director. Three therapeutic managers facilitated the primary service
during the annual review period. The clinical director conducted all monthly internal fidelity
monitoring during the annual review period. The primary service is a closed group. The program
used to run the primary service on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but the program was
running into issues with maintaining the same facilitator for each cohort. The therapeutic
managers rotated their days off so the program would have two different facilitators running
groups each week for the same cohort. The clinical director decided to change the days the
primary service is held to Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays in order to maintain consistency
with the 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.
A review of the documentation for the annual review period of April 1, 2023 through March 31,
2024 shows the program utilizes the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) manual. Technical
assistance specialist reviewed the manual. The manual is broken down into six sections. The first
section covers Skillstreaming. The second section deals with anger control. The third section
covers moral reasoning. Each of the first three sections has a script for the facilitator to use for
each lesson. Sections four through six are for the facilitator's use. It includes training step guides,
fidelity forms and hassle logs, and the program materials. The program provides the students with
copies of handouts for each lesson. The program conducts the primary service on Mondays,
Tuesdays, and Wednesdays.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
The program keeps their documentation for the primary service in a SPEP binder labeled ART in
the clinical director’s office. The binder contains all attendance sheets, internal fidelity monitoring
checklists, training certificates, and group schedules. All youth who are admitted to the program
receive the primary service. The primary service is held as a closed group.
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 the primary service on 4/23/2024. The group was held in
one of the program’s classrooms. There were five youth, one staff, and one facilitator present for
the group. The group began at 9:27a. The facilitator began the group with the group oath and
review of the anger control chain and homework. The youth went into the main lesson which was
self-evaluation. The facilitator was knowledgeable of the material and was able to present the
material in a manner that the youth were able to understand. The youth were engaged and
participated in group. The group ended at 10:30a.
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 documentation for Aggression Replacement Training (ART) for the annual review period of
April 1, 2023 through March 31, 2024 shows there was facilitator turnover. The facilitator turnover
did not negatively affect the delivery of the primary service as the staff member who left the
program was not running a group at the time they left. There were three cohorts completed and
two currently ongoing. The dates of the cohorts were: 3/27/2023-6/9/2023, 9/11/2023-11/17/2023,
12/4/2023-2/16/2024, 3/4/2024-current (as of 3/31/2024), and 3/19/2024-current (as of
3/31/2024). Three therapeutic managers facilitated all cohorts during the annual review period.
There was a gap in service from 6/9/2023 and 9/11/2023. The clinical director stated the gap in
service was due to a training scheduling problem. A new therapeutic manager was unable to get
trained until the beginning of September 2023. There was also a gap of nineteen (19) days
between the cohort which ended on 11/17/2023 and the cohort which began on 12/4/2023. That
gap was during the Thanksgiving holiday.
The cohort which began on 3/27/2023 began with seven youth and ended with six youth
completing the service. One youth was released from the program on 6/5/2023.
The cohort which began on 9/11/2023 began with seven youth and ended with seven youth
completing the service.
The cohort which began on 12/4/2023 began with five youth and ended with five youth.
The cohort which began on 3/4/2024 began with ten (10) youth currently has ten (10) youth (as of
3/31/2024).
The cohort which began on 3/19/2024 began with five youth currently has five youth (as of
3/31/2024).
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The clinical director stated the program rotates the facilitating therapeutic managers during the
cohort due to their schedule. The therapeutic managers split the weekend schedule during each
month. One therapeutic manager will have off one weekend while the other works and vice versa.
The therapeutic manager who works the weekend would not facilitate the cohort during that week
since they are off on Friday. The other therapeutic manager would cover all three components
during the week. The therapeutic manager who was off during the weekend would have to work
the following weekend. This schedule rotates each week. The clinical director stated “the program
has the therapeutic manager facilitate all three components of the primary service for that week if
they are off on the weekend. The other therapeutic manager will facilitate all components of the
primary service the following week since they would have the weekend off.” Technical assistance
specialist recommended “the program should only rotate the facilitator on the specific Friday they
have off. For instance, the therapeutic manager who is working the weekend will have off that
Friday. Have the other therapeutic manager cover the session on Friday instead of rotating them
each week. This would decrease the need to continually rotate the facilitators.” The clinical
director decided to shift the group’s scheduled days to Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays to
decrease the staff rotation.
The program’s policy in the event of facilitator turnover is to have the clinical director provide back
up coverage.
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
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
A review of the documentation for Aggression Replacement Training (ART) for the annual review
period of April 1, 2023 through March 31, 2024 shows there were forty-six (46) monthly fidelity
monitorings completed.
There were three missing fidelity monitoring. A fidelity check was missing for one Therapeutic
Manager for the month of June 2023 for the Skillstreaming component. A fidelity check was
missing for one therapeutic manager for the month of December 2023 for the Moral Reasoning
component. The clinical director stated the facilitator did not facilitate a group that covered the
Moral Reasoning component during the month of December 2023. The therapeutic manager went
on vacation in November 2023 and did not come back to work until the middle of December 2023.
The other therapeutic manager covered all Moral Reasoning components due to the schedule.
There was a missing fidelity check for a therapeutic manager for the month of February 2024 for
Skillstreaming. All other fidelity monitorings were completed.
The program’s policy is for the clinical director, regional clinical director, or other trained clinicians
to conduct the fidelity monitoring in person or virtually.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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 documentation reviewed for Aggression Replacement Training (ART) for the annual review
period of April 1, 2023 through March 31, 2024 shows the program did not have any corrective
actions noted on the internal monthly fidelity checks. The clinical director addresses any
significant issues or concerns documented during the fidelity check with the facilitator.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 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 did not provide an annual performance evaluation for any staff trained in Aggression
Replacement Training (ART). The Clinical Director stated none of the current trained staff have
been employed at the program long enough to receive a staff evaluation.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 10 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: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 28 youth in the
sample, 96% (27 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: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 64%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 5 youth
Moderate-High = 11 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 28 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 7%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 2 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, 64% (18 of 28) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 7% (2 of 28) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 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 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 68 100 68%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at JoAnn
Bridges Academy.
28 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 28 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium 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
10 and 11 weeks of service, with an average of 10.6 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 8 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, 27
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 29
and 33 hours of service, with an average of 30 hours.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 10 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 30 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 88%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
JoAnn Bridges Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups, fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each
facilitator, and each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of their skill in
delivering this primary service.
JoAnn Bridges Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2023-24 JoAnn Bridges Academy ART.pdf

program_name_raw: JoAnn Bridges Academy

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
JoAnn Bridges Academy
Rite of Passage, INC
(Contract Provider)
950 SW Greenville Hill's Rd
Greenville, Florida 32331
Primary Service: Impact of Crime (IOC)
SPEP Review Period: April 1, 2023-March 31, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: 4/23/2024; 5/6/2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date:
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): 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 uses the Impact of Crime Curriculum (IOC) for their primary service. The training is a
three-day, twenty-four (24) hour training via Microsoft Teams which is delivered by a qualified
trainer. The program had four staff trained to facilitate the primary service during the annual
review period. The trained staff members were three coach ccounselors and the director of
student services. One coach counselor left the program in April 2023. The Director of Student
Services conducted all monthly internal fidelity monitorings for the quarterly review period. The
primary service is a closed group. The program runs the primary service on Sundays and
Tuesdays for one cohort and Mondays and Wednesdays for another cohort.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm manual.The manual opens with an
introduction to the Impact of Crime Curriculum. Then the manual goes over all seven chapters of
the service and provides a script for the facilitator to follow. The manual also has an appendix and
a student guide with all the student exercises. The program makes copies of the student
exercises and passes them out to the youth during each lesson. The program conducts the
primary service on Mondays and Wednesdays for one cohort and Sundays and Tuesdays for the
other cohort.
The program keeps all SPEP documentation (attendance sheets, fidelity checks, and copies of
training certificates) in a binder labeled IOC SPEP documentation in the case management office.
All youth admitted to the program are required to participate in the primary service. The primary
service is a closed group with no more than twelve youth in the cohort.
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 the primary service via Microsoft Teams on 5/6/2024.
There were eight youth, one staff, and one facilitator present for the group. The group began at
3:24p. The facilitator began the group with the group oath and review of the previous content. The
facilitator was knowledgeable of the material and was able to present the material in a manner
that the youth were able to understand. The youth were engaged and participated in group. The
group ended at 4:27p.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There was facilitator turnover during the review period which negatively impacted service delivery.
The staff member who left the program was running a group at the time they left. There were no
gaps in service during the annual review period. The program completed four cohorts during the
review period and currently has two cohorts ongoing. The dates of the cohorts are 11/29/2022-
5/2/2023, 2/7/2023-6/13/2023, 4/30/2023-9/12/2023, 9/12/2023-12/28/2023, 12/5/2023-current
(as of 3/31/2024), and 1/16/2024-current (as of 3/31/2024).
The cohort which began on 11/29/2022 started with five youth and ended with three youth. Two
youth were released from the program in February 2023 (which was before the current annual
review period) without completing the primary service.
The cohort which began on 2/7/2023 began with five youth and ended with four youth. One youth
was discharged on 6/4/2023. The Coach Counselor who began the cohort left the program in April
2023. Another trained Coach Counselor took over the cohort on 4/18/2023 with no gap in service.
The cohort which began on 4/30/2023 began with six youth and ended with five youth. One youth
left the group between 5/9/2023 and 5/14/2023. The primary service was ran back to back on
7/10/2023 and 7/11/2023.
The cohort which began on 9/12/2023 began with five youth and ended with five youth. There was
a note on the attendance sheet dated 9/26/2023 stating one youth was given an assignment
because she missed the group due to her behavior.
The cohort which began on 12/5/2023 began with five youth and currently has five youth (as of
3/31/2024). There was a note on the attendance sheet dated 1/23/2024 stating two youth did not
attend group due to being upset. Homework was given to both youths.
The cohort which began on 1/16/2024 began with seven youth and currently has seven youth (as
of 3/31/2024).
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program’s policy for facilitator turnover is for another trained staff member to continue with
the group.
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.
A review of the documentation for Impact of Crime (IOC) for the annual review period of April 1,
2023 through March 31, 2024 shows there were thirty-one (31) monthly fidelity monitorings
completed. One Coach Counselor went on vacation for the month of November 2023 so there
were no fidelity monitorings conducted for the facilitator for that month. The program had another
trained facilitator take over the group for that month so there would be no gaps in service. The
Director of Student Services conducted all monthly internal fidelity monitorings for the annual
review period. There were no missing fidelity monitorings.
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 did not have any corrective actions noted on the internal monthly fidelity checks. The
program’s policy is for the Director of Student Services to address any significant issues or
corrective actions for the facilitators of Impact of Crime (IOC).
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 an annual performance evaluation for two Coach Counselors and the
Director of Student Services. The evaluations had an addendum added which specifically
addressed the staff member’s skill in delivering the primary service. The addendums for the two
Coach Counselors contained the same information almost verbatim.
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 28 youth in the
sample, 68% (19 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: 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 28 youth in the
sample, 68% (19 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: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 64%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 5 youth
Moderate-High = 11 youth
High = 2 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: 7%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 2 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, 64% (18 of 28) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 7% (2 of 28) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 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 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 57 85 67%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at JoAnn Bridges
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 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 28 total youth sampled, only
19 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 19
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 16
and 24 weeks of service, with an average of 20 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 28 total youth
sampled, only 19 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 19
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 32
and 35 hours of service, with an average of 32 hours.
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 91%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
JoAnn Bridges Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
JoAnn Bridges Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2023-24 JoAnn Bridges Academy IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime