summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Treatment Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services, Inc..
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Anger Control
SPEP Review Date(s): July 19‐22, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 5/16/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Crestview Sex Offender Program MQI Program Code: 1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services Contract Number: R2073
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 15
Review Date(s): July 19-22, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 127
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 2 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 5 # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 4 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 3 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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 Anger Control. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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: 0 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.
Anger Control is a curriculum developed by the designated mental health clinical authority
(DMHCA) for Gulf Coast Youth Services. The facility utilizes the videos, workbooks, and manual
for Aggression Replacement Training (ART) for this group and training purposes. None of the staff
are formally trained in ART ART DVDs and manuals are used to train the staff in Anger Control
across Gulf Coast-operated programs. The facilitators of Anger Control receive ART materials to
use in their groups.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators are trained in the specific curriculum for Anger
Control instead of Aggression Replacement Training.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 0 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 are general lesson plans which have been developed for various anger control group
topics. Observation of the group found they were on a scheduled lesson and the facilitator
followed the lesson plan with additional outside information and questioning to highlight the focus
of the group. Informal interviews with facilitators indicate they meet weekly to decide what topics
they will cover for the week.
Anger Control does not have a specific manual. The facility utilizes the Aggression Replacement
Training (ART) worksheets and DVDs. The staff are not formally trained in ART, although the
groups and sessions are run as ART groups are designed.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program can earn 2 points if there was a detailed manual for the delivery of Anger Control
instead of Aggression Replacement Training.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 0 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 facilitator adhered to an ART lesson plan used for the observed session. ART is not Anger
Control. Interview with the lead mental health therapist found documentation on monthly fidelity
monitoring of the service.
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 within the past year for Anger Control and no documented 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 program has an internal monitoring process for fidelity. The Clinical Coordinator and the
Licensed Social Worker supervises facilitators and observes groups monthly.
BasicScore: 1Point
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.
No corrective action has been required according to reviewed fidelity monitoring forms. The
program has a process in place to address corrective action should corrections be required based
on fidelity monitoring.
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 6
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program addresses the facilitator skill in delivery of the primary service as a part of their
performance evaluation.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 5 youth in the
sample, 100% (5 of 5) 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 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 5 youth in the
sample, 100% (5 of 5) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 60%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 2 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 5 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 20%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 38%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 5 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, 60% (3 of 5) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 20% (1 of 5) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 10 25 40%
Totals 75 100 75%
This SPEP report evaluates Anger Control, an intervention delivered at Crestview Sex Offender
Treatment Program.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 5 total youth sampled, all
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 29
and 37 weeks of service, with an average of 31 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 5 total youth
sampled, all received at least the recommended hours of service. All youth completed 52 hours of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 10 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (40% 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):
Crestview Sex Offender Treatment Program can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery
score by developing a specific protocol and quality controls for Anger Control, as opposed to
utilizing curricula materials for Aggression Replacement Training (ART).
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10


state: FL

facility_name: Crestview Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Treatment Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services, Inc..
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Moral Reconation Therapy
SPEP Review Date(s): July 19‐22, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 5/16/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Crestview Sex Offender Program MQI Program Code: 1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services Contract Number: R2073
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 15
Review Date(s): July 19-22, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 127
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 2 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 5 # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 4 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 3 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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 Moral Reconation Therapy. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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 facilitator completed the facilitator training and was trained by a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program has the Moral Reconation Therapy facilitator's guide. The guide is detailed to the
extent that it explains how each specific session is delivered and there is a script or outline for
each session.
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.
Documentation received does not indicate that the curriculum was able to be observed during the
annual review.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
There was no facilitator turnover within the past year for Moral Reconation Therapy and no
documented gaps in service.
BasicScore: 2Point(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 does have an internal monitoring process for fidelity. The Clinical Coordinator and
Licensed Social Worker supervise the facilitators and observe groups monthly.
BasicScore: 1Point
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.
No corrective action has been required according to reviewed documentation. The program does
have a process in place to address corrective action should corrections be required based on
fidelity monitoring.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
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 provider does evaluate each facilitator annually specifically regarding their ability to deliver
the primary service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 0 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 0) 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 0 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 0) 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: 0%
Moderate to High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 0 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 = 0 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, 0% (0 of 0) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0
points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 0) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 0 25 0%
Totals 55 100 55%
This SPEP report evaluates Moral Reconation Therapy, an intervention delivered at Crestview
Sex Offender Treatment Program.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration and Amount of Service: Contact
Hours. There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information system (JJIS) Evidence-
Based Services (EBS) module for any youths. With no JJIS data to review, the SPEP score was
reduced. The program must enter dosage data into JJIS in order to receive any score in this
area.
The program was awarded no available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Treatment Program can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by
ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth
receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Crestview Sex Offender Program

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Moral Reconation Therapy


summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Treatment Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services, Inc..
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Pathways
SPEP Review Date(s): July 19‐22, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 5/16/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Crestview Sex Offender Program MQI Program Code: 1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services Contract Number: R2073
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 15
Review Date(s): July 19-22, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 127
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 2 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 5 # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 4 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 3 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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 and 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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 facilitator completed the facilitator training and a copy of the course training certification was
obtained during the annual compliance review. The facilitator was trained by a qualified trainer.
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's facilitators use the Pathways and Roadmaps to Recovery manuals. The manuals
are detailed and include the varied pace and levels of delivery for youth.
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 group was observed during the annual compliance review. The Pathways and Roadmaps to
Recovery component workbook was observed in the possession of each youth during the group
session. The group members took turns reading from the workbook and the facilitator of the group
led the discussion based upon the readings by the youth from the workbook.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
There was no facilitator turnover within the past year for Pathways and Roadmaps to Recovery
and there were no documented gaps in service.
BasicScore: 2Point(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 does have an internal monitoring process for fidelity. The Clinical Coordinator and
the Licensed Social Worker supervise the facilitators and observe groups monthly.
BasicScore: 1Point
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.
No corrective action was required according to the reviewed documentation. The provider does
have a process in place to address corrective action should corrections be required based on
fidelity monitoring.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
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 facilitator was specifically evaluated in performing the facilitation of the primary service with
no issues noted.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 6 youth in the
sample, 33% (2 of 6) 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 6 youth in the
sample, 100% (6 of 6) 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: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 32%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 67%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 2 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 6 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 17%
High Score: 3 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 23%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 6 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, 67% (4 of 6) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 17% (1 of 6) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 3 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 8 25 32%
Totals 70 95 74%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery, an intervention delivered at
Crestview Sex Offender Treatment Program.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 6 total youth sampled, 2
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 18
and 49 weeks of service, with an average of 28 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 6 total youth
sampled, all received at least the recommended hours of service. All youth completed 52 hours of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program was awarded 8 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (32% 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):
Crestview Sex Offender Treatment Program can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by
ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth
receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Okaloosa Youth Academy/Crestview Sex Offender Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32455
Primary Service: Pathways
SPEP Review Date(s): October 3 - 6, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 12/20/2017
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 1
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Okaloosa Youth Academy/Crestview Sex Offender Program
MQI Program Code: 830/1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services Contract Number: 10288
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 60/15
Review Date(s): October 3 - 6, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 145/144
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 2 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 2 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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 facility's Designated Mental Health Clinical Authority conducts a two day informal training for
all new hires in the Pathways curriculum.
Two therapists are trained in the Pathways curriculum. Both therapists were trained in April 2014.
Only one of the therapists consistently completes Pathways with the Crestview Sex Offender
Program (CSOP).
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 Pathways manual used for the curriculum is the 4th edition by Timothy J. Kahn. This
curriculum is designed with a restorative justice view with the focus being on the offender, the
victim, and the community. The curriculum is split into 17 sections including a preface, an
introduction, 14 work chapters, and a conclusion. Pathways is a treatment for youth who have
been charged with a sex crime.
There is no specific facilitator manual for this curriculum. Each chapter is designed to have the
youth and therapist to work together. It can be provided through individual and/or group sessions.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
This group is held every day from 3:15pm - 4:15pm. This reviewer monitored a group on
Wednesday, October 4, 2017. There were five youth in group, all of whom were covering
"Thinking Errors" during the sesion.
The group was very interactive and there was good diaglogue happening between the youth and
therapist. There was a positive rapport between the therapist and the youth and they had good
interaction. The youth appeared to feel comfortable around the staff that was in group as well as
the therapist that facilitated the group.
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 Designated Mental Health Authority provided attendance sheets for the review period. This
reviewer selected a random sampling of attendance sheets from the last 12 months. The
attendance were organized by month, but were put together with other groups and not easily
found. Out of the sampling, there were a few of the attendance sheets that did not have a group
session title and did not have therapist signatures. There were also a few sheets where the
therapist's name was not on the attendance sheet which made it difficult for this reviewer to
determine who conducted the group. The majority of the attendance sheets reviewed had all of
the information needed.
The therapist has been facilitating the Pathways group for the past year. Although there is a
second therapist trained in this curriculum, this therapist has not conducted Pathways during the
review period. There has been no turnover within the last 12 months.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
Internal fidelity monitoring was completed on a monthly basis for the past 12 months. All of the
forms were completed and organized in a binder labeled OYA fidelity monitoring. The internal
fidelity monitoring sheet was created by the facility. It included the name of the therapist, reviewer,
program, and date of review. There were four sections on the fidelity monitoring tool: introduction
session structure, additional comments, and corrective action/recommendations. All of the internal
fidelity forms had good ratings with no corrective actions or recommendations.
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.
There were no corrective actions indicated on the internal fidelity monitoring tools during the
review period. Eleven documents were reviewed for the therapist that facilitates the Pathways
group.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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 therapist that facilitates this curriculum received a yearly performance evaluation for this
review period.
On the yearly performance evaluations for therapists, there is a designated section for group
facilitation. Under this section, multiple service types are listed and a check mark is placed next to
anything the therapist facilitates.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
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 7 youth in the
sample, 43% (3 of 7) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 7 youth in the
sample, 100% (7 of 7) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
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 = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 3 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 29%
High Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 62%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (7 of 7) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 29% (2 of 7) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 8 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 84 95 88%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways, an intervention delivered at Crestview Sex Offender
Program.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. 43% received at least the
recommend weeks of service, with sample youth completing an average of 22 weeks of service.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. All received at least the
recommended hours of service, with sample youth completing an average of 52 hours of service.
Dosage was calculated for both Okaloosa Youth Academy and for Crestview Sex Offender
Program together as the programs were reviewed together; however, there was no dosage
recorded for this intervention from any youth from Okaloosa Youth Academy. This curriculum is
specific to Crestview Sex Offender Program.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 20 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Program can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
that youth receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure
Youth Opportunities Investment
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): May 15-18, 2018
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 5/16/18
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Crestview Youth Academy MQI Program Code: XXXX
Provider Name: Youth Opportunities Investment Contract Number: XXXX
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): 5/15/18-5/18/18 Lead Reviewer Code: 144
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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's documentation reflected that five staff have been formally trained to facilitate the
Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum. The staff included four case managers and the transition case
manager. One of the case managers was promoted to assistant facility administrator and is no
longer facilitating IOC. Two of the case managers have facilitated IOC groups. A third case
manager begins cofacilitating a group the month of this review.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
All of the trained staff maintain the most recent Impact of Crime manual. There are four sections
to the IOC manual. The manual includes all needed worksheets and facilitator forms to conduct
IOC. The facilitators also had the victim videos to go along with the curriculum.
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.
At the time of the review, the facilitators recently completed external fidelity monitoring with the
Technical Assistance Team. The program started IOC groups in December 2017 and the group is
held on Mondays and Wednesdays, from 2:15pm to 3:15pm. The facilitator for the non-secure
youth creates a lesson plan for each group and maintains these records. The facilitator provided a
copy of the attendance sheet with the new group of youth beginning group today, a lesson plan,
and a crossword puzzle fo the youth to complete with the words to know in chapter one, along
with a coloring sheet. The facilitator explained that the first session is for the youth to get to know
one another. Groups began in December 2017.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 facilitators for Impact of Crime have experienced turnover with one case manager being
promoted to assistance facility administrator. This did not impact any group. There have been no
gaps in service during the review period.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process for internal fideilty monitoring. At this time the two facilitators for
Impact of Crime (IOC) monitor each other once a month. Internal fidelity forms were completed
from January 2018 through April 2018. The only month missing was December 2017.
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's process for any corrective actions or issues that arise during group facilitation is
addressed during weekly clinical supervisions. Review of the internal fidelity forms did not show
corrective action noted for the faciltiators of Impact of Crime.
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.
The program has not conducted yearly performance evaluations. The program will be doing their
first yearly performance evaluations in or about July 2018.
The program did provide a blank example of a yearly performance evaluation and it did not have a
section to address group facilitation. It was suggested that when performance evaluations are
conducted that the case managers and therapists have a section on their evaluations that
addresses group facilitation.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 7 youth in the
sample, 29% (2 of 7) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 7 youth in the
sample, 29% (2 of 7) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 43%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Table 2
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (7 of 7) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 43% (3 of 7) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 69 85 81%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Crestview Youth
Academy Nonsecure.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 7 total youth sampled, all 7
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 2 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 3 and 21 weeks of
service, with an average of 12 weeks.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 7 total youth sampled,
all 7 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 2 received at least the recommended
hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4 and 30 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 - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by
ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth
receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

program_name_raw: Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure
Youth Opportunities Investments
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Young Men's Work
SPEP Review Date(s): May 15-18, 2018
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 5/16/18
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it 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 that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Crestview Youth Academy MQI Program Code: XXXX
Provider Name: Youth Opportunities Investment Contract Number: XXXX
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 60
Review Date(s): 5/15/18-5/18/18 Lead Reviewer Code: 144
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
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 Young Men's Work. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program requires the therapy staff to be trained and facilitate Young Men's Work (YMW).
There are currently five therapists and the clinical director who are trained to facilitate YMW. The
clinical director can also train facilitators. Upon further review, the curriculum does not require
formal training in order to facilitate or train facilitators. The program maintains training records and
provided copies to this reviewer.
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 Young Men's Work: Building Skills to Stop Violence: A Ten
Session Group Program. The authors for this curriculum are Allan Creighton and Paul Kivel. The
manual includes the following for each lesson: objectives, agenda, session outline, and script.
Each lesson also has a worksheet included in the manual. Young Men's Work group is held on
Fridays at 3:00pm.
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.
Young Men's Work (YMW) is held as an open group on Fridays at 3:00pm. There are two groups
held at the same time at the program. The program maintains a binder with all of the attendance
sheets for the groups and provided the binder for review. The average number of youth in a group
was 10. The attendance sheets were completed on a consistent basis. The facilitators need to
ensure they are signing the attendance sheets on a consistent basis.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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.
Clinical staff are trained to facilitate Young Men's Work (YMW). During the review period one
therapist has left, but it was not during a cohort and did not cause a gap in service. The program
maintains five therapist positions and a clinical director, all of whom are trained in the YMW. If the
program experiences turnover there are other therapists who are able to step in and facilitate
groups. The program also has the therapists rotate facilitation on a regular basis so it is not the
same facilitators each week. There were no gaps in service and the group has met on a
consistent basis.
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 provided documentation of all internal fidelity monitoring forms. The forms are kept
in a binder in the clinical director's office. The clinical director conducts all internal fidelity
monitoring. All internal fidelity forms were accounted for and located in the fidelity monitoring
folder.
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's process for corrective actions and facilitation issues is for the clinical director to
address these in clinical supervisions, which are conducted once a week.
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.
The program has not conducted yearly performance evaluations. The program will be doing their
first yearly performance evaluations in or about July 2018.
The program did provide a blank example of a yearly performance evaluation and it did not have a
section to address group facilitation. It was suggested that when performance evaluations are
conducted that the case managers and therapists have a section on their evaluations that
addresses group facilitation.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 2 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 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: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 2 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 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 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 = 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 Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 95 79%
This SPEP report evaluates Young Men's Work, an intervention delivered at Crestview Youth
Academy Nonsecure.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 2 total youth sampled, 2
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 0 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 5 and 10 weeks of
service, with an average of 7 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 2 total youth sampled,
2 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 0 received at least the recommended
hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6 and 8 hours of service, with an
average of 7 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Crestview Youth Academy Nonsecure can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by
ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth
receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

service_type: Young Men's Work