summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Okaloosa Youth Academy/Okaloosa Sex Offender Progam
Gulf Coast Treatment Center
(Contract Provider)
4455 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: May 1, 2023 - April 30, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: August 13 - 16, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/30/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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 uses Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service. There is a formal training protocol
for IOC, delivered by a qualified trainer. Case management staff are trained to facilitate IOC
groups. The program maintains six case management staff trained in IOC. One staff left in
November 2023 and one staff was trained in December of 2023. There were seven staff total
trained in IOC for the annual review period. The staff trained are one case management
supervisor and five case managers. All six case management staff facilitated IOC groups; the
case management supervisor conducted internal fidelity monitoring with the exception of a case
manager doing fidelity monitoring for the supervisor's groups.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the current Impact of Crime (IOC) manual, developed by the Department of
Juvenile Justice. There are four sections to the manual, which includes a separate workbook for
the youth. The manual includes all worksheets and facilitator forms to conduct IOC.
Impact of Crime groups (IOC) are held two days a week for one hour. The days of the week vary
based upon the work schedule of the facilitator, either Monday/Wednesday or Tuesday/Thursday.
The program maintains binders to include the separate cohorts conducted or being conducted,
and internal fidelity forms. All training documentation was provided by the program's training
coordinator. Impact of Crime (IOC) groups are closed, meaning no youth may be added to the
group once the first chapter has been completed. All youth participate in Impact of Crime during
their stay at the program.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime (IOC) was observed on August 17, 2023. Group began at 11:10am
and lasted approximately one hour. Ten (10) youth, two facilitators, and two direct care staff were
present. The group was working on Chapter Seven, working on writing apology letters. The
facilitators encouraged all youth to participate; youth were engaged, even while eating their
lunches. The facilitators were knowledgeable of the material and were able to keep youth on task.
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.
If the program experiences turnover, the program's policy is for another trained case manager to
conduct the group. The program experienced turnover with one staff leaving in the middle of a
cohort and the case management supervisor who was the co-facilitator took over for the group. A
case manager was hired and trained in December 2023 starting groups in February of 2024. One
facilitator was on medical leave for two months during a cohort; the program planned in advance
and ensured this cohort was co-facilitated. All sign-in sheets were provided for review. There were
no gaps in service. Group size ranged between two to eleven (11) youth during the review period.
Twelve (12) cohorts occurred during the annual review period. Ten (10) were finalized and two
were ongoing at the time of the review period ending.
Two cohorts began on February 14, 2023 and ended on June 1, 2023, prior to the start of the
review period. One group started with nine youth and ended with eight. One youth was released
prior to the completion of the group, during the previous review period. The second group started
and ended with nine youth.
A cohort began on May 2, 2023 and ended on August 17, 2023. Eleven (11) youth started and
successfully completed the group. This cohort was cofacilitated. Groups were held consistently on
Tuesdays and Thursdays.
A cohort began on July 10, 2023 and ended on October 30, 2023. Eight youth started and
successfully completed the group. Groups were held consistently on Mondays and Wednesdays.
This cohort transitioned to a new facilitator at the end of Chapter 6.
A cohort began on July 18, 2023 and ended on November 2, 2023. Eight youth started and
successfully completed the group. Groups were held consistently on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
A cohort began on October 17, 2023 and ended on February 1, 2024. Eight youth started and
successfully completed the group. Groups were held consistently on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
A cohort began on October 23, 2023 and ended on December 8, 2023. Two youth started and
successfully completed the group. This cohort is receiving accelerated lessons due to an
expected short length of stay. The program intends to have youth complete this service prior to
their departure. With the exception of one week in which three sessions were held on consecutive
days, groups were usually held on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
A cohort began on October 24, 2023 and ended on February 8, 2024. Eight youth started and
successfully completed the group. This group started with two facilitators and when one facilitator
left the program in November 2023, the cofacilitator took over. Groups were held consistently on
Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Two cohorts began on January 1, 2024 and ended on March 15, 2024. One group started and
ended with eight youth. Groups were held consistently on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
The second group had two facilitators and ten (10) youth which started and ended the group
successfully. This group was held consistently on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
A cohort began on February 26, 2024 and ended after the time of this review period. Three youth
started the group, but on April 1, 2024 one youth was released from the program and removed
from the group.
A cohort began on February 29, 2024 and ended after the time of this review period. Eight youth
started the group, but on April 1, 2024 one youth was released from the program and removed
from the group.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators
of Impact of Crime. Internal fidelity monitoring is conducted by the case manager supervisor
monthly for each Impact of Crime facilitator.
Forty (40) of forty-six (46) necessary internal fidelity monitorings occurred during the annual
review period. One facilitator was not monitored during the months of September and October in
2023. One monitoring did not get fidelity monitoring for the one group in February 2024. One of
two facilitators did not get fidelity monitoring for one cohort from January to March of 2024. One
co-facilitator was missing January and the other co-facilitator was missing February and March.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The program has a process to address corrective actions discovered during monthly internal
fidelity monitoring of Impact of Crime. The case management supervisor conducts monthly
internal fidelity monitoring and discusses the findings with the facilitator.
No corrective actions were noted nor taken during this quarterly review.
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 has a process to ensure facilitators of Impact of Crime are evaluated annually. The
program's staff annual evalutations were reviewed and no mention of specific interventions and/or
skills in the delivery of the intervention were made.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
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
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 18 youth in the
sample, 89% (16 of 18) 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
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 18 youth in the
sample, 100% (18 of 18) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 28%
Moderate to High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 18 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 18 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, 28% (5 of 18) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 0 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 18) 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 0 25 0%
Totals 48 85 56%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Okaloosa Sex Offender
Progam.
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
18 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 18 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 18 total youth sampled, only
18 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 16
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12
and 17 weeks of service, with an average of 16 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 18 total youth
sampled, only 18 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 18
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 32
and 54 hours of service, with an average of 34.50 hours.
The program was awarded 0 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 86%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (56% 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Okaloosa Sex Offender Progam 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.
Okaloosa Sex Offender Progam can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2023-24 Okaloosa Sex Offender Treatment Program IOC.pdf

program_name_raw: Okaloosa Sex Offender

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Impact of Crime


state: FL

facility_name: Okaloosa Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Okaloosa Youth Academy/Okaloosa Sex Offender Progam
Gulf Coast Treatment Center
(Contract Provider)
4455 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Pathways: Roadmaps to Recovery
SPEP Review Period: May 1, 2023 - April 30, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: August 13 - 16, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/30/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is 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 during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program uses Pathways: Roadmaps to Recovery as a primary service for youth admitted to
the juvenile sex offender program. Training is conducted by the clinical director and is conducted
in-house using the program manual. Only Department approved certified juvenile sex offender
therapists are allowed to facilitate Pathways: Roadmaps to Recovery. One therapist, assistant
clinical director, and the clinical director are all trained and qualified to facilitate groups. During the
review period, the therapist is the primary facilitator with the assistant clinical director and clinical
director providing coverage when needed.
The assistant clinical director or clinical director conducts internal fidelity monitoring for 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.
Pathways: Roadmaps to Recovery runs two days a week for one hour a session. The program
uses the Pathways Workbook and Roadmaps to Recovery Workbooks by Timothy Kahn. There is
a facilitator guide and separate youth workbooks.
All youth assigned to the sex offender program are required to participate in Pathways during their
stay. Documentation is maintained in a binder with sign-in sheets, internal fidelity monitoring, and
training information. Groups are held Monday and Thursday.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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 program has a process to address facilitator turnover to avoid gaps in service for Pathways:
Roadmaps to Recovery. This service is open and ongoing, running two days a week consistently
throughout the year. There has been no facilitator turnover during the annual review period.
There has been one cohort of Pathways running regularly during the review period. There are no
more than ten (10) youth in a group. When more than ten (10) youth require the service, the group
will be divided into two separate groups. From November 9 to December 14, 2023, one to two
youth received supportive services for a total of fourteen consective groups.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators
of Pathways. The treatment coordinator or clinical director conducts fidelity monitoring for each
facilitator each month.
Seven of fifteen necessary internal fidelity monitorings occurred during the review period. Fidelity
monitoring was missing for one therapist for May 2023, July to September 2023, and April 2024.
The assistant clinical director was missing fidelity monitoring May through July, 2023.
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 program has a process to address corrective actions discovered during monthly internal
fidelity monitoring for facilitators of Pathways/Roadmaps. In the event of needed corrective
actions, verbal/written documentation would outline the infraction and provide necessary changes
to prevent future infractions.
No corrective actions were noted nor taken during this annual review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program has a process to ensure facilitators of Pathways are evaluated annually. The
program's staff annual evalutations were reviewed and no mention of specific interventions and/or
skills in the delivery of the intervention were made.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
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 17 youth in the
sample, 47% (8 of 17) 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
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 18 youth in the
sample, 94% (16 of 18) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 29%
Moderate to High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 18 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 18 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, 29% (5 of 18) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 0 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 18) 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 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 0 25 0%
Totals 62 95 65%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways: Roadmaps to Recovery, an intervention delivered at
Okaloosa Sex Offender Progam.
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
18 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 17 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 17 total youth sampled, only
11 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 5
and 44 weeks of service, with an average of 27 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 17 total youth
sampled, only 16 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 16
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 67
and 219 hours of service, with an average of 118.50 hours.
The program was awarded 0 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 92%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (65% 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Okaloosa Sex Offender Progam can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring 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.
Okaloosa Sex Offender Progam can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

file_name: FY2023-24 Okaloosa Sex Offender Treatment Program Pathways.pdf

service_type: Pathways to Self‐Discovery and Change


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Okaloosa Youth Academy/Okaloosa Sex Offender Progam
Gulf Coast Treatment Center
(Contract Provider)
4455 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Seven Challenges
SPEP Review Period: May 1, 2023 - April 30, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: August 13 - 16, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/30/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Seven Challenges.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program uses Seven Challenges as a primary service for youth admitted to the juvenile
substance abuse program. Training is conducted by a certified Seven Challenges master trainer.
Training is conducted in-house using the program manual and activity book. All therapists are
trained to facilitate this service. Seven therapists, one assistant clinical director, and the clinical
director are all trained. During the annual review period, the program maintains five therapists
facilitate Seven Challenges and the assistant clinical director and clinical director provided
coverage when needed.
The assistant clinical director and clinical director conducts internal fidelity monitoring for 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.
The program uses The Seven Challenges manual and Seven Challenges activity book by Robert
Schwebel, PhD. The manual contains all lessons, worksheets, and a generalized script for the
facilitators. There are ten (10) separate student journals each youth must work through while
receiving the service.
All youth assigned to the substance abuse component of the program receive this service; mental
health overlay youth receive the service based on assessed needs. Documentation is maintained
in a binder with sign-in sheets, internal fidelity monitoring, and training information. Groups are
held Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday; when a second cohort is needed due to group size
limitations, that group is held by another therapist on the same days at the same time.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Seven Challenges was observed on August 17, 2023. Group began at 2:10 and
lasted approximately one hour. Eleven (11) youth, one facilitator, and three direct care staff were
present. The facilitator asked the youth to list their group norms and conducted a check-in at the
top of the session. They worked on refusal skills using interactive roleplay. The facilitator was
knowledgeable of the material and was able to deliver it in an easy-to-understand manner.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program has a process to address facilitator turnover to avoid gaps in service. The program’s
practice is to rotate facilitation of the one Seven Challenges cohort, based on staff schedules. All
facilitators are able to build rapport with youth, limiting the impact of turnover. This service is open
and ongoing, running three days a week consistently throughout the year. Two therapist left and
two therapist were hired during the annual review period. The program rotates four therapist to
facilitate this group.
There have been two cohorts of Seven Challenges running regularly throughout the annual review
period. There are no more than fifteen (15) youth in a session. When there are fewer than fifteen
(15) youth requiring the service, the two cohorts will merge.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators
of Seven Challenges. The treatment coordinator or clinical director conducts fidelity monitoring for
each facilitator each month.
Thirteen (13) of twenty-six (26) necessary internal fidelity monitorings occurred during the annual
review period. Fidelity monitoring was missing for one therapist for July to September 2023, a
second therapist for the months of June, August, and September 2023, and the assistant clinical
director for May, June, and August 2023. Two of the four therapist received fidelilty monitoring in
November and three of the four therapist received fidelity monitoring in December of 2023. All
three therapist received fidelity monitoring in March and none of the four therapist received fidelity
monitoring in April of 2024.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process to address corrective actions discovered during monthly internal
fidelity monitoring for facilitators of Seven Challenges. In the event of needed corrective actions,
verbal/written documentation would outline the infraction and provide necessary changes to
prevent future infractions.
No corrective actions were noted nor taken during this annual review period.
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 has a process to ensure facilitators of Seven Challenges are evaluated annually.
The program's staff annual evalutations were reviewed and no mention of specific interventions
and/or skills in the delivery of the intervention were made.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
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 41 youth in the
sample, 56% (23 of 41) 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
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
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 41 youth in the
sample, 100% (41 of 41) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 15 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 90%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 5 youth
Moderate-High = 22 youth
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 41 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 24%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 38%
Table 2
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 41 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, 90% (37 of 41) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 24% (10 of 41) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 15 25 60%
Totals 79 95 83%
This SPEP report evaluates Seven Challenges, an intervention delivered at Okaloosa Youth
Academy.
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
77 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 41 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 41 total youth sampled, only
29 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 23
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 18
and 45 weeks of service, with an average of 28 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 41 total youth
sampled, only 41 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 41
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 68
and 120 hours of service, with an average of 96 hours.
The program was awarded 15 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 94%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Okaloosa Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
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.
Okaloosa Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage
of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2023-24 Okaloosa Youth Academy 7C.pdf

program_name_raw: Okaloosa Youth Academy

service_type: Seven Challenges


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Okaloosa Youth Academy/Okaloosa Sex Offender Progam
Gulf Coast Treatment Center
(Contract Provider)
4455 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training (ART)
SPEP Review Period: May 1, 2023 - April 30, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: August 13 - 16, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/30/2025
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 Agression 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: 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 uses Aggression Replacement Training (ART) as a primary service for youth iwith
aggression issues. All therapists are trained to facilitate ART groups. There is a formal training
protocol in place, delivered by a qualified trainer.
There were nine trained staff- seven therapists, one assistant clinical director, and one clinical
director. The program maintains five therapists who facilitate ART, with the assistant clinical
director and clinical director providing coverage when needed. Internal fidelity monitoring is
conducted by either the assistant clinical director or the clinical director.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the manual for the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) curriculum,
authored by Barry Glick and John Gibbs, third edition, revised and expanded. The manual
includes all lessons. Each lesson has facilitation guidelines throughout the book. There are no
separate manuals for the youth in ART groups.
Groups are held Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Documentation is maintained in an
organized binder in the clinical director’s office. All mental health overlay assigned youth receive
the ART service; other youth receive the ART service based on assessed needs. During the
annual review period, ART was not run in accordance with the curriculum design. In the first half
of the review perod, this service was conducted as an open group. In the second half of the
review period, ART was conducted in more of a closed group format, but some lessons were out
of order and no make-up lessons were provided for youth who missed group. This was addressed
with the clinical director and assistant clinical director. Additionally, the program was not using the
correct sign-in sheet for this service. A copy of the ART sign-in sheet was provided to the clinical
director to be utilized.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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 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.
Aggression Replacement Training (ART) has been provided as an open group during the first six
months of the review period, due to facilitator availability. The therapists rotate facilitation of this
group based on their work schedule. This is not in alignment with the ART model and was
addressed with program management. In the last six months, there were two cohorts which were
completed as a closed group.
There were two cohorts of ART facilitated as an open group for the first six months. There were
no gaps in service.
A cohort began on January 8, 2024 and ended on March 28, 2024. Six youth began the group
with five youth present on the last lesson. On January 8, 2024, a combined group of twelve (12)
was conducted. There were thirteen (13) occassions in which at least one youth refused or
documented to receive supportive services and did not receive a make-up group.
A cohort began on April 1, 2024 and went to the review period of May 1 ,2024. Eight youth began
the group and eight youth were present in the group at the time of the review period ended.There
were two occassions in which at least one youth missed group and and did not receive a make-up
group. Lessons five and six were completed after lesson nine and no lesson ten documented.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators
of Aggression Replacement Training. The treatment coordinator or clinical director conducts
fidelity monitoring for each facilitator each month.
Nine of thirty-three (33) necessary internal fidelity monitorings occurred during the review period.
Fidelity monitoring was missing for one therapist for July through September 2023, a second
therapist for the months of August through October 2023, a third therapist for the month of June
2023, and the treatment coordinator for July and September 2023. From November 2023 to April
2024, only one fidelity out of the three required were completed for each facilitator. In April, the
assistant clincial director facilitated three groups with no fidelity monitoring.
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 program has a process to address corrective actions discovered during monthly internal
fidelity monitoring for facilitators of Aggression Replacement Training (ART). In the event of
needed corrective actions, verbal/written documentation would outline the infraction and provide
necessary changes to prevent future infractions.
No corrective actions were noted nor taken during this annual review period.
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 has a process to ensure facilitators of Aggression Replacement Training (ART) are
evaluated annually. The program's staff annual evalutations were reviewed and no mention of
specific interventions and/or skills in the delivery of the intervention were made.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 77 youth in the
sample, 27% (21 of 77) 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
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 77 youth in the
sample, 27% (21 of 77) 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: 91%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 10 youth
Moderate-High = 35 youth
High = 25 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 77 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 = 25 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 77 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, 91% (70 of 77) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 32% (25 of 77) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
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 20 25 80%
Totals 69 100 69%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at
Okaloosa Youth Academy.
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
77 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 77 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 77 total youth sampled, only
23 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 21
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10
and 27 weeks of service, with an average of 20 weeks.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 77 total youth
sampled, only 21 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 21
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 25
and 30 hours of service, with an average of 29.57 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 20 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Okaloosa Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
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.
Okaloosa Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage
of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2023-24 Okaloosa Youth Academy ART.pdf

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Okaloosa Youth Academy/Okaloosa Sex Offender Progam
Gulf Coast Treatment Center
(Contract Provider)
4455 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: May 1, 2023 - April 30, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: August 13 - 16, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/30/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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 uses Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service. There is a formal training protocol
for IOC, delivered by a qualified trainer. Case management staff are trained to facilitate IOC
groups. The program maintains six case management staff trained in IOC. One staff left in
November 2023 and one staff was trained in December of 2023. There were seven staff total
trained in IOC for the annual review period. The staff trained are one case management
supervisor and five case managers. All six case management staff facilitated IOC groups; the
case management supervisor conducted internal fidelity monitoring with the exception of a case
manager doing fidelity monitoring for the supervisor's groups.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the current Impact of Crime (IOC) manual, developed by the Department of
Juvenile Justice. There are four sections to the manual, which includes a separate workbook for
the youth. The manual includes all worksheets and facilitator forms to conduct IOC.
Impact of Crime groups (IOC) are held two days a week for one hour. The days of the week vary
based upon the work schedule of the facilitator, either Monday/Wednesday or Tuesday/Thursday.
The program maintains binders to include the separate cohorts conducted or being conducted,
and internal fidelity forms. All training documentation was provided by the program's training
coordinator. Impact of Crime (IOC) groups are closed, meaning no youth may be added to the
group once the first chapter has been completed. All youth participate in Impact of Crime during
their stay at the program.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime (IOC) was observed on August 17, 2023. Group began at 11:10am
and lasted approximately one hour. Ten (10) youth, two facilitators, and two direct care staff were
present. The group was working on Chapter Seven, working on writing apology letters. The
facilitators encouraged all youth to participate; youth were engaged, even while eating their
lunches. The facilitators were knowledgeable of the material and were able to keep youth on task.
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.
If the program experiences turnover, the program's policy is for another trained case manager to
conduct the group. The program experienced turnover with one staff leaving in the middle of a
cohort and the case management supervisor who was the co-facilitator took over for the group. A
case manager was hired and trained in December 2023 starting groups in February of 2024. One
facilitator was on medical leave for two months during a cohort; the program planned in advance
and ensured this cohort was co-facilitated. All sign-in sheets were provided for review. There were
no gaps in service. Group size ranged between two to eleven (11) youth during the review period.
Twelve (12) cohorts occurred during the annual review period. Ten (10) were finalized and two
were ongoing at the time of the review period ending.
Two cohorts began on February 14, 2023 and ended on June 1, 2023, prior to the start of the
review period. One group started with nine youth and ended with eight. One youth was released
prior to the completion of the group, during the previous review period. The second group started
and ended with nine youth.
A cohort began on May 2, 2023 and ended on August 17, 2023. Eleven (11) youth started and
successfully completed the group. This cohort was cofacilitated. Groups were held consistently on
Tuesdays and Thursdays.
A cohort began on July 10, 2023 and ended on October 30, 2023. Eight youth started and
successfully completed the group. Groups were held consistently on Mondays and Wednesdays.
This cohort transitioned to a new facilitator at the end of Chapter 6.
A cohort began on July 18, 2023 and ended on November 2, 2023. Eight youth started and
successfully completed the group. Groups were held consistently on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
A cohort began on October 17, 2023 and ended on February 1, 2024. Eight youth started and
successfully completed the group. Groups were held consistently on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
A cohort began on October 23, 2023 and ended on December 8, 2023. Two youth started and
successfully completed the group. This cohort is receiving accelerated lessons due to an
expected short length of stay. The program intends to have youth complete this service prior to
their departure. With the exception of one week in which three sessions were held on consecutive
days, groups were usually held on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
A cohort began on October 24, 2023 and ended on February 8, 2024. Eight youth started and
successfully completed the group. This group started with two facilitators and when one facilitator
left the program in November 2023, the cofacilitator took over. Groups were held consistently on
Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Two cohorts began on January 1, 2024 and ended on March 15, 2024. One group started and
ended with eight youth. Groups were held consistently on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
The second group had two facilitators and ten (10) youth which started and ended the group
successfully. This group was held consistently on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
A cohort began on February 26, 2024 and ended after the time of this review period. Three youth
started the group, but on April 1, 2024 one youth was released from the program and removed
from the group.
A cohort began on February 29, 2024 and ended after the time of this review period. Eight youth
started the group, but on April 1, 2024 one youth was released from the program and removed
from the group.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to conduct monthly internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators
of Impact of Crime. Internal fidelity monitoring is conducted by the case manager supervisor
monthly for each Impact of Crime facilitator.
Forty (40) of forty-six (46) necessary internal fidelity monitorings occurred during the annual
review period. One facilitator was not monitored during the months of September and October in
2023. One monitoring did not get fidelity monitoring for the one group in February 2024. One of
two facilitators did not get fidelity monitoring for one cohort from January to March of 2024. One
co-facilitator was missing January and the other co-facilitator was missing February and March.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The program has a process to address corrective actions discovered during monthly internal
fidelity monitoring of Impact of Crime. The case management supervisor conducts monthly
internal fidelity monitoring and discusses the findings with the facilitator.
No corrective actions were noted nor taken during this quarterly review.
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 has a process to ensure facilitators of Impact of Crime are evaluated annually. The
program's staff annual evalutations were reviewed and no mention of specific interventions and/or
skills in the delivery of the intervention were made.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
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
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
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 77 youth in the
sample, 77% (59 of 77) 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
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 77 youth in the
sample, 99% (76 of 77) 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: 91%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 10 youth
Moderate-High = 35 youth
High = 25 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 77 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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 = 25 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 77 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, 91% (70 of 77) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 32% (25 of 77) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 66 85 78%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Okaloosa Youth
Academy.
Due to the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) outage, this report does not contain data for
the period of March 2024 through April 2024. Data contained in this report is representative from
the period of May 2023 through February 2024.
77 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 77 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 77 total youth sampled, only
68 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 59
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 7
and 17 weeks of service, with an average of 15 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 77 total youth
sampled, only 76 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 76
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 29
and 32 hours of service, with an average of 32 hours.
The program was awarded 20 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Okaloosa Youth 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.
Okaloosa Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage
of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

file_name: FY2023-24 Okaloosa Youth Academy IOC.pdf