summary: SPEP - FY20-21

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Charles Britt Academy
Sequel Youth and Family Services
(Contract Provider)
3001 26th Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida 33712
Primary Service: Living In Balance
SPEP Review Period: 06/15/20-06/14/21
SPEP Review Conducted: 06/15/21
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/2/21
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 Living in Balance.
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): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilizes Living in Balance as a primary service. There were five staff formally trained
in the Living In Balance curriculum - one Clinical Director, and five Therapists.
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 manual provided for review was Living In Balance, Research Based Addiction Treatment by
Hoffman. The manual contains a script for the facilitator for the groups. It provides instructions for
12 core client sessions, 21 supplemental client sessions, visualization-relaxation exercises, role
play exercises and homework assignments.
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.
A session of Living In Balance was observed on 06/16/21 via Zoom. The facilitator provided a
copy of Lesson One prior to the observation. The facilitator used her own words to convey the
meaning of the topic and was very easy to understand. She adhered to the lesson plan in every
aspect.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There was no facilitator turnover during the review period which adversely affected the delivery of
the Living In Balance intervention to the youth. There were no gaps in service.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The documentation for fidelity monitoring was reviewed. The program completed monitoring
monthly for each facilitator of Living in Balance. There was no missing monitoring.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the Clinical Director verified the program has a process for corrective actions
based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring /
corrective action checklists specific to the Living In Balance curriculum. A review of
documentation provided and an interview with the Clinical Director verified there was no corrective
action taken during the review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The performance evaluations of all trained facilitators found entries of the staffs' performance in
the delivery of the Living in Balance curriculum. These included comments on any strengths or
weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 34 youth in the
sample, 91% (31 of 34) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 34 youth in the
sample, 100% (34 of 34) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 97%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 7 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 34 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 53%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 34 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 97% (33 of 34) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 53% (18 of 34) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 93 95 98%
This SPEP report evaluates Living in Balance, an intervention delivered at Charles Britt Academy.
35 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 34 total youth sampled, only
31 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 31
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 25
and 58 weeks of service, with an average of 32 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 34 total youth
sampled, all 34 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 34 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 41 and 93 hours of
service, with an average of 54 hours.
The program was awarded 25 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Charles Britt Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Charles Britt 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 8

file_name: FY2020-21 Charles Britt LIB.pdf


state: FL

facility_name: Charles Britt Academy - Sequel

summary: SPEP - FY20-21

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Charles Britt Academy
Sequel Youth and Family Services
(Contract Provider)
3001 26th Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida 33712
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Period: 06/15/20-06/14/21
SPEP Review Conducted: 06/15/21
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/2/21
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 Thinking for a Change.
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): 6 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilizes Thinking for a Change as a primary service. There was one staff formally
trained in the Thinking for a Change curriculum, a Group Leader. That one staff facilitated the
group during the review period. However, he left employment on 04/15/21.
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 manual provided for review was Thinking for a Change, Version 3.1. The manual contains a
script for the facilitator for the groups. It provides 25 lessons and includes implementation
guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered in and includes detailed
instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
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.
A session of Thinking for a Change group was not observed during the review period. The
facilitator left prior to the review dates and there was no other staff trained in the Thinking for a
Change curriculum. This indicator is non-applicable.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
The program has experienced facilitator turnover during the review period which has adversely
affected the delivery of Thinking for a Change to the youth. There was a gap in services of
Thinking for a Change to the youth from 10/09/20-10/21/20, 02/24/21-03/10/21 and 04/16/21-
06/15/21. According to the Clinical Director, this gap was directly attributed to staff turnover. The
program has identified staff they will be training in the Thinking for a Change curriculum and are
currently working to set the training up for the staff.
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 documentation for fidelity monitoring of Thinking for a Change was reviewed. The program
was missing monitoring for the month of April 2021.
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.
An interview with the Clinical Director verified the program has a process for corrective actions
based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring /
corrective action checklists specific to Thinking for a Change. A review of documentation provided
and an interview with the Clinical Director verified there was no corrective action taken during the
review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The performance evaluation of the staff no longer employed at the program was reviewed. There
were entries found on the evaluation of their performance in the delivery of the Thinking for a
Change curriculum. These included comments on any strengths or weaknesses of which the
facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 74% (20 of 27) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 63% (17 of 27) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 96%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 17 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 63%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 17 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 96% (26 of 27) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 63% (17 of 27) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 82 100 82%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Charles Britt
Academy.
35 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 27 total youth sampled, only
25 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 20
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 22
and 21 weeks of service, with an average of 18 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 27 total youth
sampled, all 27 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 17 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12 and 49 hours of
service, with an average of 40 hours.
The program was awarded 25 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Charles Britt Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups and fidelity monitoring is completed every month for
each facilitator.
Charles Britt 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 8

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2020-21 Charles Britt T4C.pdf

program_name_raw: Charles Britt Academy - Sequel

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Thinking for a Change


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Charles Britt Academy
Sequel Youth and Family Services
(Contract Provider)
3001 26th Avenue South
St. Pete, Florida 33712
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: 06/15/21-06/14/22
SPEP Review Conducted: 06/20/22
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/6/22
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): 5 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Impact of Crime (IOC) intervention is being reviewed. The program maintains all SPEP
documentation in a tabbed binder separated into the SPEP indicator sections which are then
organized by intervention. The training protocol for this intervention staff must attend is facilitated
by either Department of Juvenile Justice certified trainers or a Corporate certified Impact of Crime
trainer. The training consists of reviewing and learning the curriculum manual and conducting
mock groups. During the review period from 06/15/21-06/14/22, there were three staff formally
trained in the IOC curriculum: two Case Managers and one Recreational Therapist. The Case
Managers and the Recreational Therapist facilitated group during the review period and all
received training in the Impact of Crime curriculum by a certified trainer who was trained in the
Impact of Crime intervention. A staff member was borrowed briefly from Columbus Youth
Academy (a Case Manager-PRN).
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 "Impact of Crime-Addressing the Harm." There are both facilitator
and student manuals. The manual provides a script and instructions for the lessons. The
curriculum also includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be
delivered in and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson. All youth receive the
Impact of Crime (IOC) intervention as a part of their required programming for restorative justice.
The IOC group is held on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3:30 to 4:30p.
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.
The Impact of Crime group was to be observed via RingCentral Video on Thursday 06/23/22 from
3:30 to 4:30 p.m. This observation could not be completed as the facility was closed; therefore,
this indicator rates as non-applicable.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation and an interview with the Clinical Director confirmed the program has
experienced turnover during the review period. One Case Manager, one Recreational Therapist,
and one Clinical Director ended their employment at the program. These staff vacancies have
since been filled. The prior Case Manager was facilitating a group which started on 08/10/21 and
this staff member left on 09/27/21. There was no co-facilitator and no one else at the time was
trained to facilitate the Impact of Crime group. This group was placed on hold and another group
was not started until 01/03/22 and is currently ongoing. That group is being facilitated by Case
Management staff and Recreational Therapist. The turnover did adversely affect the services of
Impact of Crime to the youth.
The program's policy regarding anticipated turnover is addressed by identifying and training
several staff trained in the curriculum in the event there is turnover. The alternate trained staff
could then assume the group to avoid gaps in service. The turnover during this review period was
great, causing gaps from 06/15/21-08/10/21 and from 09/28/21-01/02/22.
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 an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators of
Impact of Crime (IOC). The monitoring was completed by staff formally trained in the IOC
curriculum. During the review period, there were two staff who filled in as needed to facilitate and
performed fidelity monitoring. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring checklists specific to
IOC to document the monitoring. The program did not complete fidelity monitoring for the months
of 09/21, 05/22, and 06/22.
All completed fidelity checklists are maintained in the SPEP binder under a tab entitled "Fidelity
Monitoring for IOC". Each tab had a copy of the fidelity checklist completed on the facilitators who
perfomed groups during the specific month.
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: 0 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity/monitoring of Impact of Crime. The program uses internal fidelity montoring /
corrective action checklists specific to the Impact of Crime curriculum. Each completed checklist
includes feedback specifying either the facilitator did not require any corrective action or, if the
facilitator did require corrective action, it would include recommendations for future improvement.
The following month's checklist would then include comments the previous month's
recommendations were applied and demonstrated.
An interview with the Clinical Director and a review of the documentation provided verified the
program did take corrective action during the review period. A corrective action was needed and
discussed by the Regional Clinical Director with previous Clinical Director regarding training,
group implementation, and fidelity monitoring. Currently, the new Clinical Director will submit all
sign in sheets and monthly fidelity monitoring forms to the Regional Clinical Director by the 5th of
each month for the prior month to review, and ensure service delivery is occurring in accordance
with SPEP programming. Documentation was requested from the program in order for this
reviewer to verify the follow up for the corrective action with the new Clinical Director was
occurring but the documentation was not provided.
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.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: N/A Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of employee records for the three current trained facilitators found these staff had not
received an annual evalution as none of them have been employed for one year.
This indicator is rated as non-applicable.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 34 youth in the
sample, 44% (15 of 34) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 34 youth in the
sample, 33% (1 of 34) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
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 = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 11 youth
High = 17 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 34 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 17 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 34 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 91% (31 of 34) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (17 of 34) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 57 85 67%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Charles Britt Academy.
36 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 34 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 34 total youth sampled, only
15 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 15
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 16
and 19 weeks of service, with an average of 17 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 34 total youth
sampled, only 21 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 1
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 16
and 33 hours of service, with an average of 17 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Charles Britt 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 any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and demonstrated.
Charles Britt 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: FY2021-22 Charles Britt IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Charles Britt Academy
Sequel Youth and Family Services
(Contract Provider)
3001 26th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33712
Primary Service: Living In Balance
SPEP Review Period: 06/15/21-06/14/22
SPEP Review Conducted: 06/20/22
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/6/22
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 Living In Balance.
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: 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): 5 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 Living In Balance intervention (LIB) is being reviewed. The program maintains all SPEP
documentation in a tabbed binder separated into the SPEP indicator sections which are then
organized by intervention. The training protocol for this intervention which staff must attend is
facilitated by the Clinical Director. The training is two hours long and consists of reviewing and
learning the curriculum manual and conducting mock groups and includes mediation training.
During the review period from 06/15/21 to 06/14/22, there were five staff formally trained in the
curriculum: two Therapists (one who is PRN from another facility), one previous Recreational
Therapist, one previous Clinical Director, and the new Clinical Director who all facilitated the LIB
group during the review period.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the brand name manual Living In Balance. There is a facilitator manual only.
The manual is detailed and provides instruction for the lessons, question points for implenting the
materials and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson. It also utilizes role
plays, videos and participation discussions for the youth. Each manual also includes facilitator
resources and session handouts.
All youth receive the Living In Balance intervention as part of their required programming at
Charles Britt Academy. This is an open and ongoing group, held on Tuesdays, Wednesdays
Thursdays from 2:15-3:15p and from 3:20-4:20p.
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.
The Living in Balance group was to be observed via RingCentral on Thursday 06/23/22 from 2:30-
3:30 p.m. The observation could not be completed as scheduled as the program closed.
This indicator rates as non-applicable.
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.
A review of the program's documentation provided and an interview with the Clinical Director
confirmed the program has experienced turnover of Living in Balance (LIB) facilitators during the
review period. One Recreational Therapist and one Clinical Director ended their employment at
the program. The program utilized one Therapist from another faciity who filled in as needed so as
to ensure no gaps in service. These staff vacancies have since been filled. In the event of clinical
staff turnover, the Clinical Director is to conduct the LIB groups in the interim as recruitment
continues for hiring clinical staff.
The current cohort has thirteen (13) youth in the group.This cohort was started on 06/16/21 and
has only had one brief gap in service from 01/01/22-01/20/22 for Covid protocol.
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 an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring for facilitators of
Living in Balance (LIB). The process is for the Clinical Director to conduct fidelity monitoring for
LIB services monthly for each Therapist. In the event the Clinical Director is not available, the
Regional Clinical Director can conduct the fidelity monitoring. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring checklists specific to LIB to document the monitoring. The program only completed
monitoring for 06/21, 12/21, and 05/22.
All completed fidelity checklists are maintained in the SPEP binder under a tab entitled "Fidelity
Monitoring for LIB." Each tab had a copy of the fidelity checklist completed on the facilitators who
perfomed groups during the specific month.
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 5
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 0 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity/monitoring of Living in Balance (LIB). The program uses internal fidelity montoring /
corrective action checklists specific to the LIB curriculum. Each completed checklist includes
feedback specifying either the facilitator did not require any corrective action or, if the facilitator
did require corrective action, it would include recommendations for future improvement. The
following month's checklist would then include comments the previous month's recommendations
were applied and demonstrated.
An interview with the Clinical Director and a review of the documentation provided verified the
program did take corrective action during the review period. A corrective action was needed and
discussed by the Regional Clinical Director with previous Clinical Director regarding training,
group implementation, and fidelity monitoring. Currently, the new Clinical Director will submit all
sign in sheets and monthly fidelity monitoring forms to the Regional Clinical Director by the 5th of
each month for the prior month to review, and insure service delivery is occurring in accordance
with SPEP programming. This reviewer asked for the documentation to verify the monthly follow-
up for the current Clinical Director was being done but the documentation was not provided
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.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: N/A Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of employee records for the three current trained facilitators found these staff had not
received an annual evaluation yet. They have not been employed for one year.
This indicator is rated as non-applicable.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 36 youth in the
sample, 56% (20 of 36) 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: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 36 youth in the
sample, 58% (21 of 36) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 90%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 92%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 12 youth
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 36 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 36 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, 92% (33 of 36) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (18 of 36) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 71 95 75%
This SPEP report evaluates Living In Balance, an intervention delivered at Charles Britt Academy.
36 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 36 were included in
the sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 36 total youth sampled, only
22 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 20
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 19
and 91 weeks of service, with an average of 39 weeks.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 36 total youth
sampled, all 36 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 21 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 7 and 85 hours of
service, with an average of 45 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Charles Britt 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 any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and demonstrated.
Charles Britt 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: FY2021-22 Charles Britt LIB.pdf

service_type: Living in Balance


summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Charles Britt Academy
Sequel Youth and Family Services
(Contract Provider)
3001 26th Avenue South
St. Pete, Florida 33712
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Period: 06/15/21-06/14/22
SPEP Review Conducted: 06/20/22
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/6/22
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 Thinking for a Change.
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: 5 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 25%
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): 3 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 Thinking for a Change intervention (T4C) is being reviewed. The program maintains all SPEP
documentation in a tabbed binder separated into the SPEP indicator sections which are then
organized by intervention. The training protocol for this intervention is a four day training
conducted by a qualified T4C trainer. Case Management staff are normally identified as trainers
for T4C; they are referred to complete Motivational Interviewing and then T4C training as they are
scheduled. However, at the time of this annual review, there is currently only one Case
Management staff and she is new and has not received this training. During the review period
from 06/15/21-06/14/22, the program only had one staff member formally trained in the
curriculum, the Recreational Therapist. There was documentation he completed the T4C training.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the brand name manual Thinking for a Change. There is a facilitator manual
only which provides a script and instructions for twenty-five (25) lessons. The curriculum also
includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered, and
includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson. Youth identified as presenting with
criminogenic needs for antisocial attitudes, values and beliefs receive the T4C intervention.
The T4C group is scheduled to be held on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3:30-4:30p. This a
closed group, meaning once a cohort is started, no new youth can be added to that group.
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.
The Thinking for a Change group could not be observed during the review period. The group was
not running. The program has no staff trained to facilitate T4C.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of the program's documentation provided and an interview with the Clinical Director
confirmed the program has experienced turnover of Thinking for a Change (T4C) facilitators
during the review period. One Recreational Therapist and one Clinical Director ended their
employment at the program. This turnover proved to adversely affect the services of T4C to the
youth, as they do not have any other staff trained in the T4C curriculum. There were gaps in the
services of T4C to the youth from 06/15/21-08/09/21 and from 09/28/21-06/14/22.
A cohort of Thinking for a Change started on 08/10/21 and ran until 09/27/21. At that point, the
Recreational Therapist who was running the group left the program during the cohort. There was
no co-facilitator for the group so the group had to be placed on hold. Since that time, the group
has not been re-started.
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: 0 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring. The process is for
the Clinical Director to conduct fidelity monitoring for Thinking for a Change (T4C) services
monthly for each facilitator. In the event the Clinical Director is not trained in the service, another
trained facilitator will conduct the fidelity monitoring with the Clincal Director providing feedback.
Fidelity monitoring was completed once on 08/13/21 for T4C. There were no other fidelity
monitorings completed. All completed fidelity checklists are maintained in the SPEP binder under
a tab entitled "Fidelity Monitoring for T4C". Each tab is to have a copy of the fidelity checklist
completed on the facilitators who perfomed groups during the specific month.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 0 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity/monitoring of Thinking for a Change. The program uses internal fidelity montoring /
corrective action checklists specific to the Thinking for a Change curriculum. Each completed
checklist should include feedback specifying either the facilitator did not require any corrective
action or, if the facilitator did require corrective action, it would include recommendations for future
improvement. The following month's checklist would then include comments the previous month's
recommendations were applied and demonstrated.
Groups must be run and internal fidelity monitoring conducted regularly for points to be awarded
in this section.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
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.
An informal interview with the Clinical Director indicated there are no current staff trained in the
Thinking for a Change (T4C) curriculum. Therefore there were no annual evaluations completed.
The one staff who had facilitated T4C during the review period left Charles Britt Academy after
09/27/21. That evaluation could not be provided.
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 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 100% (9 of 9) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 11% (1 of 9) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 44%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (9 of 9) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 44% (4 of 9) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 5 20 25%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 100 75%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Charles Britt
Academy.
36 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored Low for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 9 total youth sampled, all 9
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 9 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 16 and 18 weeks of
service, with an average of 16 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 9 total youth sampled,
all 9 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 1 received at least the recommended
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12 and 48 hours of service, with an
average of 16 hours.
The program was awarded 25 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):
Charles Britt Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups, there are no unnecessary gaps in service, fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, if any corrective action needed is
identified, applied, and demonstrated, and each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes
discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service.
Charles Britt 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: FY2021-22 Charles Britt T4C.pdf


facility_name: Lake Academy (Secure)

summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Lake Academy Secure
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9504 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Individual Counseling
SPEP Review Period: 3/1/2022-2/28/2023
SPEP Review Conducted: 3/20/2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/13/2023
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: 10 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 10 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 Individual Counseling.
The program was awarded 5 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 1
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Individual Counseling. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it includes any range of treatment
techniques that focus on psychological or interpersonal problems or issues faced by an individual
that involves a one-on-one relationship with a therapist or counselor.
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.
Individual Counseling is designated as a primary service at Lake Academy. There were eleven
(11) trained clinicians, seven Therapists, two Assistant Clinical Directors, one licensed Clinical
Psychologist and one Clinical Director. The Therapists provide Individual Counseling to the youth
in the program and the Clinical Director provides monitoring. All Clinicians provided counseling
during the review period. There was documentation confirming each Therapist had the education
and experience to provide counseling sessions. This primary service does not have a formalized
curriculum; the facilitators receive ongoing training, documented during their clinical supervision.
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.
There is no written curriculum/manual for Individual Counseling. The program has a written
protocol for this intervention. The dosage is stated on the youth's individualized treatment plan.
This plan is then reviewed and signed by a licensed clinician. The program maintains all
information regarding Individual Counseling in the youth's mental health/substance abuse record.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
There was no observation completed during the review due to the confidential nature of Individual
Counseling; therefore, this indicator is rated as non-applicable.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
A review of documentation and an interview with the Clinical Director confirmed there has been
some facilitator turnover. One Therapist transferred to a different facility and one was promoted.
There were two new Clinicians hired to fill these positions and the youth were transitioned to a
new primary therapist. There were no gaps in service during the review period. In the event of
turnover, the facility has other Therapists employed by the program who could assist in the
delivery of Individual Counseling.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact service delivery.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program documents fidelity monitoring of Individual Counseling through weekly supervision
and reviewing weekly progress notes. The Clinical Director reviews and ensures compliance with
dosage. There was documentation of the Clinical Director conducting this review. The fidelity
monitoring was completed each month without exception.
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 for corrective actions based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. A
review of documentation provided and an interview with the Clinical Director verified there were
no corrective actions noted nor taken during the annual review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The performance evaluation of all Therapists providing Individual Counseling found entries on the
evaluations of the staff's performance in the delivery of the primary service. Each included
comments on any strengths or weaknesses the clinician should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 25 weeks for this type of service. Of the 2 youth in the
sample, 100% (2 of 2) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 2 youth in the
sample, 100% (2 of 2) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 2 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 2 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (2 of 2) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (1 of 2) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 10 10 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 75 100%
This SPEP report evaluates Individual Counseling, an intervention delivered at Lake Academy
Secure.
2 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 2 total youth sampled, both
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 2 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 37 and 39 weeks of
service, with an average of 38 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 2 total youth
sampled, both included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 2 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 46 and 57 hours of
service, with an average of 52 hours.
The program was awarded 25 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):
Lake Academy Secure can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact service delivery.
Lake Academy Secure 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 8

file_name: FY2022-23 Lake Secure Individual.pdf

program_name_raw: Lake Academy (Secure)

service_type: Individual Counseling