facility_name: Pompano Youth Academy

summary: PREA

raw_content:
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S SUMMARY
REPORT JUVENILE FACILITIES
Name of Facility: Pompano Youth Treatment Center
Physical Address: 3090 North Powerline Rd., Pompano, FL 33069
Date report submitted: October 25, 2015
Auditor information: Shirley L. Turner
Address: 3199 Kings Bay Circle, Decatur, GA 30034
Email: shirleyturner3199@comcast.net
Telephone number: 678-895-2829
Date of facility visit: October 12, 2015
Facility Information
Facility Mailing Address: 3090 North Powerline Rd., Pompano, FL 33069
Telephone Number: (954) 984-4545
The Facility is: Military County Federal
X Private for profit Municipal State
Private not for profit
Facility Type: Detention Correction X Other: Residential
Name of PREA Compliance Manager: Tameko Gore Title: Program Director
Email Address: Tomeko.Gore@youthservices.com Telephone Number:
(954) 984-4545
Agency Information
Name of Agency: Youth Services International
Governing Authority or Parent Agency: NA
Physical Address: 6000 Cattleridge Dr., Suite 200, Sarasota, FL 34232
Mailing Address: Same as Above
Telephone Number: (941) 953-9199
Agency Chief Executive Officer
Name: Jim Slattery Title: Chief Executive Officer
Telephone (941) 953-9199
Email Address: Jim.Slattery@ysii.com
Number:
Agency Wide PREA Coordinator
Name: Jesse Williams Title: PREA Coordinator
Email Address: Jesse.Williams@ysii.com Telephone (941) 953-9199
Number:
1
AUDIT FINDINGS
NARRATIVE:
The Pompano Youth Treatment Center is a 24-bed residential program for male juvenile offenders
who have been committed to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The facility is located
in Pompano Beach, Florida and is operated through a contract between DJJ and Youth Services
International (YSI). Residents participate in daily substance abuse groups. Individual, family and
mental health sessions are provided based on the resident’s treatment needs. The age range of the
population served is 13-19 and the residents have been assessed as moderate risk.
The program places an emphasis on the cognitive behavioral model where the focus is on changing
thinking patterns, which will help change behavior. Successfully completing the cognitive behavioral
program requires the resident to progress through a series of four levels. The four levels consist of
Level 1: Learning Past Patterns of Delinquent Thinking and Behavior; Level 2: Learning Victim
Impact and Interpersonal Responsibilities; Level 3: Learning Past Delinquent Thinking and Behavior;
Level 4: Relapse Prevention and Community Transition. The program also incorporates the DJJ”s
Restorative Justice Practices
On-site medical services are provided by a full-time Registered Nurse who serves as the Nurse
Manager and a contract physician who visits the facility weekly. Mental health staff consists of the
Clinical Director; two Therapists; Recreation Therapist; contract psychiatrist who visits the facility
weekly; and a contract psychologist as needed. Education/vocational services are provided on-site
through the Broward County School District. The vocational training includes the Horticulture
Program and Computing for College and Careers. Youth Counselors provide direct care and
supervision to residents during their movement throughout the facility’s programs and services.
Supervisors provide oversight to the general operations of each shift. Social services and other
activities and services are also provided.
The facility hosts a Career and Resource Day where representatives from various occupations agree to
participate and speak with residents about the career they represent and the career options of the
residents. The career representatives are encouraged to bring posters, pictures, models, or other
displays, and handouts. Residents are prepared for the activity and are responsible for completion of a
worksheet that has questions they will seek the answers to regarding the careers represented. The
Companies in attendance for the upcoming Career and Resource Day are: Florida Barber Academy;
Florida Youth Automotive Center; Urban League of Broward County; ITT Tech; McFatter Technical
School; Florida Career Center; and the Florida Art Institute.
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS:
The program is housed in one main building, contains 12 rooms on the housing unit with two
residents assigned to each room. The entrance lobby contains a reception area and seating for visitors.
The building contains offices; medical clinic, conference room; laundry room; kitchen; and a
2
large room where a section of it is used as the dining room and visitation and the other section is used
as the dayroom. A small area of the dayroom, known as the Knowledge Center, is used by the
residents to store small projects or items and an area where they can choose reading materials. A
soft/quiet room, where therapy occurs, is located in the facility and has been accessorized to convey a
serene environment. Two of the rooms on the housing unit have been designated as honor rooms.
Facility staff votes on who is assigned to these rooms based on criteria that consider the overall
positive behavior of the resident. One room on the living unit is used as a game room and for group
sessions. The bathrooms provide the residents with a reasonable amount of privacy for changing
clothes, using the toilet and taking showers. Isolation is not used at this facility.
Located in the back of the building on the outside is a large patio and the grounds provide for sports
and other recreation activities. There are four portable buildings on the outside that are used for
education services. The grounds also contain a garden area that is maintained by the residents under
staff supervision.
SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS:
The process began with a conference call which included the facility and other YSI staff, DJJ
statewide PREA Coordinator, and the PREA Auditor to discuss the audit process. The notifications
of the on-site audit were later posted in various parts of the facility at least six weeks prior to the site
visit. Photographs were taken of the various sites where the notices had been posted and the
photographs were electronically sent to this Auditor, noting their locations. The Pre-Audit
Questionnaire and the supporting documentation were uploaded to a flash drive which was mailed to
the Auditor. After reviewing the information on the flash drive, follow-up telephone conversations
were held with the Program Director to discuss the data and for clarification of information.
The on-site audit was conducted on October 12, 2015. An entrance meeting was held with the
Program Director and a comprehensive tour was provided. Interviews were conducted with staff that
covered all three shifts. Six random staff and six residents were interviewed. Twelve specialized
interviews were conducted and included a contractor and a volunteer. Observations of program
activities revealed that staff members were engaged with the residents.
File folders were set up in a very neat and organized manner and supplementary information was
provided. A close-out meeting was held at the conclusion of the on-site audit and a summary of the
audit findings was provided to the Program Director, Assistant Program Director, Clinical Director,
YSI Program Director from another residential facility, and the YSI PREA Coordinator who
participated by telephone.
Number of Standards Exceeded: 0
Number of Standards Met: 39
Number of Standards Not Met: 0
Number of Standards Not Applicable: 2
3
Standard 115.311 Zero Tolerance of Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harassment.
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
The facility has a zero-tolerance policy, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), that provides
strategies and guidelines for achieving the requirements of the PREA standards. Policy 1.28
contains definitions of the prohibited behaviors and sanctions for those who participate in such
behaviors. The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 (FDJJ 1919) is also used
and adhered to for support of the PREA standards. FDJJ 1919 Policy and Procedures serve as
the overarching guide to the facility for ensuring PREA compliance.
Standard 115.312 Contract With Other Entities for the Confinement of Residents.
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
This standard is Not Applicable; the facility does not contract with other facilities for the
confinement of its residents.
Standard 115.313 Supervision and Monitoring
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
XMeets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 provides for the implementation of a staffing plan to protect residents against
sexual abuse and refers to the current staffing assignments of a minimum of 1: 8 during the
resident waking hours and 1:10 during the resident sleeping hours. A hold-over system and
schedules are in place to maintain the required staff ratios for the current contract. Policy 1.28
provides details regarding scheduling requirements. The annual assessment of the staffing
plan and other related areas have been conducted to determine whether adjustments are
needed. A review of the staffing and other areas has been documented through the
completion of the Staffing Plan Assessment form by the Program Director who also serves as
the PREA Compliance Manager.
4
Unannounced rounds of the facility for the maintenance of a safe environment are conducted
and documented by appropriate staff as identified by Policy 1.28. The Policy and facility’s
practice prohibit staff from alerting other staff while the unannounced rounds are being
conducted. Staff interviews and a review of documentation confirmed the practice of
unannounced rounds being conducted.
Standard 115.315 Limits to Cross-Gender Viewing and Searches
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 prohibits cross-gender pat-down searches, cross-gender strip searches and cross-
gender visual body cavity searches of residents, except in exigent circumstances or when
performed by medical practitioners. Additionally, Policy 1.28 further provides that in the
event of any occurrence, documentation of the situation is required. Staff interviews, as well
as resident interviews, supported that the facility practice is that no type of cross-gender
searches are conducted.
Policy 1.28 states that staff shall not search a transgender or intersex resident to determine the
resident’s genital status. The Policy also directs staff to ask a transgender or intersex resident
which gender of employee they would prefer to conduct the search. Training documents
were reviewed regarding staff training.
Policy 1.28 has been implemented providing for residents to shower, perform bodily
functions, and change clothes without being observed by staff of the opposite gender and
female staff members are directed to announce their presence when entering the housing area.
Staff and resident interviews confirmed the practices.
Standard 115.316 Residents With Disabilities and Residents Who are Limited English
Proficient
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 provide that support services are provided for residents with disabilities and
residents who are limited English proficient so that they may benefit from and participate in
the PREA training sessions. The facility has an agency form that residents may complete to
directly request support services. Resident education materials are accessible in languages
other than English. Policy 1.28 ensures that the facility will not rely on resident interpreters
or resident readers. The policy contains information regarding the resources to be used and
how they will be accessed. A review of the documentation provided and staff interviews
confirmed that residents will not be used as interpreters or readers to assist other residents.
5
Standard 115.317 Hiring and Promotion Decisions
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 and FDJJ 1919 provide for background checks on all employees and contractors
through a process that is aligned with the standard and used statewide. A review of
documentation and interviews with staff confirmed that prior to the hiring of an employee or
contractor, background checks are conducted. Both Policies require that criminal background
checks be conducted every five years on employees and on contractors who may have
contact with residents. The facility considers prior incidents of sexual harassment in
determining whether to hire or promote anyone or to enlist the services of any contractor.
Standard 115.318 Upgrades to Facilities and Technology
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
The camera system supplements direct supervision provided by staff. Upgrades to the system
during this audit period involved the installation of a new DVR and six additional cameras to
cover identified blind spots.
Standard 115.321 Evidence Protocol and Forensic Medical Examinations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 states that staff will cooperate in investigations conducted by the FDJJ Office of
the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG is responsible for administrative investigations and
investigations are conducted by the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF).
The Broward County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for conducting criminal investigations.
The Program Director is aware of how the DJJ PREA Compliance form regarding
investigations that may be criminal in nature is to be used by the Sheriff’s Office.
Policy 1.28 provides for forensic medical examinations to be completed at no financial cost
to the victim. There have been no forensic examinations conducted during this audit period.
The facility does not have a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with an
advocacy agency at this time; however, The Nancy J. Cotterman Center (NJCC) is reviewing
a draft MOU. The NJCC is Broward County’s children’s advocacy center and certified rape
6
crisis center and there is documentation of collaboration between NJCC and the facility. The
personnel of NJCC indicate and correspondence shows that the advocacy services are
available to everyone in the community and flyers convey that there is no cost to the victim.
Services also include crisis/intake and sexual assault/child abuse counseling.
Standard 115.322 Policies to Ensure Referrals of Allegations for Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 provides that the appropriate investigative entity will be contacted regarding the
reporting of allegations. Additionally, Policy FDJJ 1919 requires that staff report all
allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. There has been no allegation from a
resident during this audit period.
Information about reporting allegations of sexual assault or sexual harassment is posted in
areas of the facility which are accessible to residents, staff and the public. The DJJ website
also contains information regarding the referral of allegations for investigations of sexual
abuse.
Standard 115.331 Employee Training
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 and FDJJ 1919 provides for the PREA training of all staff. The facility staff
received the DJJ training and the facility has conducted refresher training in the key areas
referenced in the standards. Documentation of staff participating in training is maintained
and staff interviews confirmed that PREA training is provided.
Standard 115. 332 Volunteer and Contractor Training
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Volunteers and contractors who have contact with residents are provided training according
to the standard and Policy 1.28. Receipt of the training is documented on the Prison Rape
Elimination Act Acknowledgement information sheet, which is signed by the participant.
An interview with a contractor and a volunteer and a review of training documents
7
confirmed the training.
Standard 115.333 Resident Education
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 addresses resident education. Interviews with residents and staff and a review of
documentation confirmed that residents receive information about the facility’s zero-
tolerance policy and how to report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse or sexual
harassment. Training sessions with residents are documented. Policy 1.28 identifies training
resources that are used for resident education. The facility will provide support services in
accessible formats for residents who are limited English proficient, deaf, visually impaired,
or otherwise disabled.
Standard 115.334 Specialized Training: Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
FDJJ 1919 states that staff in the OIG will be trained on the related policies and procedures
regarding the handling of sexual misconduct incidents and reports. Training is provided to
investigative staff regarding conducting investigations in the DJJ settings.
Standard 115.335 Specialized Training: Medical and Mental Health Care
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 addresses PREA training for medical and mental health staff. A review of
documentation and staff interviews confirmed the specialized training for medical and
mental health staff. Forensic medical examinations are not conducted at the facility.
Standard 115.341 Screening for Risk of Victimization and Abusiveness
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
8
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 and practice document that each resident is screened for vulnerability to
victimization and sexually aggressive behavior. A review of documentation and staff and
resident interviews confirmed that screening for risk of sexual abuse victimization or sexual
abusiveness toward other residents is being conducted on each admission to the facility. The
initial screening is done during the intake process. Policy 1.28 provide that residents receive
reassessments periodically throughout their stay at the facility.
Standard 115.342 Use of Screening Information
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 and FDJJ 1919 prohibits placing gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex residents
into particular housing, bed or other assignments solely on such identification or status.
According to Policy 1.28 housing and program assignments require determinations on each
transgender or intersex resident on a case by case basis. The Policies also prohibits
considering gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex identification or status as an indicator of
likelihood of being sexually abusive. Isolation is not used at the facility.
Policy 1.28 provides that residents may be separated or isolated from others only as a last
resort when less restrictive measures are inadequate and until other arrangements can be
made to keep the resident safe. The Policy also provides that if separation or isolation should
occur, residents must be afforded their rights as required.
Standard 115.351 Resident Reporting
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 and staff and resident interviews confirmed that there are internal ways a resident
may report allegations of sexual abuse; sexual harassment; retaliation for reporting; and staff
neglect or other violations that may lead to abuse. A resident may report allegations of abuse
or sexual harassment by completing a grievance form; requesting to talk to a specific staff
member; talking to any staff member; and third parties may report allegations to staff. PREA
related information is posted within the facility, accessible to the residents, staff and visitors.
Residents are provided access to a telephone to report allegations of sexual abuse and sexual
harassment to the abuse reporting hotline or law enforcement, depending on the age of the
9
resident.
Interviews revealed that staff members are aware of their responsibility to report sexual abuse
and sexual harassment. They are also aware that they are to accept reports of sexual abuse
and sexual harassment made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties in
accordance with Policies 1.28 and FDJJ 1919. Staff members are directed to promptly
document any verbal reports, as verified by interviews.
Standard 115.352 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Residents may put a completed grievance form in the locked grievance box. Residents are
not required to use an informal grievance process regarding allegations of sexual abuse and
sexual harassment. The facility considers resident complaints regarding sexual abuse or
sexual harassment to be an allegation and when such a complaint is received, Policy 1.28
provides that the procedures for reporting allegations be initiated.
Standard 115.353 Resident Access to Outside Confidential Support Services
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 requires the facility to provide the residents with access to outside victim
advocacy services by the Nancy J. Cotterman Center (NJCC). The MOU drafted by the
facility is currently in the review process of the NJCC. There is documented collaboration
with the NJCC, a certified rape crisis center for Broward County. Information about the NJCC
is provided to the residents. Visitation is allowed at the facility three days a week and
residents may make weekly telephone calls. Attorneys or other legal representation may visit
the facility and these visits are conducted in a confidential manner.
Standard 115.354 Third-Party Reporting
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 provides guidelines regarding third-party reporting. Information about reporting
incidents of sexual abuse is posted in the facility, accessible to the public. Staff and resident
10
interviews supported that the facility has a method for third-party reporting. The YSI website
contains a link to DJJ’s website which provides information on how to report resident sexual
abuse or sexual harassment.
Standard 115.361 Staff and Agency Reporting Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28, FDJJ 1919 and Florida Statute address this standard and provide that all staff
members are mandated reporters. Staff members are to immediately report any knowledge,
suspicion or information they receive regarding sexual abuse and sexual harassment;
retaliation against residents or staff who report any incidents; or any staff neglect or violation
of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident or retaliation. Policy prohibits
staff from sharing information regarding sexual abuse other than as needed to make
treatment, investigation, and other security and management decisions.
Standard 115.362 Agency Protection Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 states that when a staff member learns that a resident is subject to substantial risk
of imminent sexual abuse, immediate action is taken to protect the resident. Protection
measures may include one-to-one staff supervision; reassignment of a room; or change in
classroom assignment as provided for in Policy. There have been no incidents in the last 12
months where the agency or the facility took any action in regards to a resident being in
substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse while in this facility.
Standard 115.363 Reporting to Other Confinement Facilities
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 provides that upon receiving an allegation that a resident was sexually abused
while confined in another facility, the Program Director will notify the Central
Communications Center of the allegation within two hours. The Policy also provides that the
Program Director will notify the facility of which the allegation was made, no later than 24
11
hours.
Standard 115.364 Staff First Responder Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 provides a detailed account of first responder duties and responses. There has not
been an allegation by a resident regarding sexual abuse within the last 12 months. Initial
PREA training and refresher training have been provided to all staff as confirmed through
staff interviews and training records.
Standard 115.365 Coordinated Response
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
There is a written Facility Coordinated Response Plan for Reports of Sexual Abuse. A
review of training records and interviews with staff confirmed staff members’ knowledge of
their responsibilities. The Plan coordinates the actions to be taken among staff including first
responders, leadership, medical and mental health in response to an incident of sexual abuse.
Standard 115.366 Preservation of Ability to Protect Residents from Contact with Abusers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
This standard is Not Applicable; the facility does not maintain any collective bargaining
agreements.
Standard 115.367 Agency Protection Against Retaliation
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
12
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 provides for protection against retaliation for residents and staff who report
allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment and identifies the staff that has the
responsibility of retaliation monitoring which is the Program Director or the Assistant
Program Director. If the conduct is identified the practice is that the monitoring is ongoing
during the length of stay for the resident and the duration of the staff member’s employment.
There have been no allegations of sexual assault or sexual harassment during the past 12
months.
Standard 115.368 Post Allegation Protective Custody
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 ensures that if there is any use of segregated housing, it will only be used as a
last resort and that the resident is afforded access to the program and services provided by
the facility. Staff interviews supported that the facility does not use isolation; however,
Policy provides information on how a resident will be separated and protected from potential
abusers when needed.
Standard 115.371 Criminal and Administrative Agency Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 and FDJJ 1919 address this standard. Administrative investigations are
conducted by OIG and DCF is called for all allegations of sexual assault. The Broward
County Sheriff’s Office conducts criminal investigations. Both Policies direct facility staff to
cooperate with the OIG investigations. Substantiated allegations of conduct that appear to be
criminal are referred for prosecution.
Standard 115.372 Evidentiary Standards for Administrative Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
According to FDJJ 1919 and Policy 1.28, a standard of the preponderance of the evidence is
used for determining if allegations are substantiated.
13
Standard 115.373 Reporting to Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 and FDJJ 1919 provide for notifying residents following an investigation of
whether an allegation has been determined to be substantiated, unsubstantiated, or
unfounded. It is required that all notifications or attempted notifications are documented.
There has not been an allegation of sexual assault or sexual harassment during this audit
period; however, the Program Director is aware of the requirements of the Policies.
Standard 115.376 Disciplinary Sanctions for Staff
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 and FDJJ 1919 provide for disciplinary sanctions for staff to be up to and
including termination for violation of the sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies. The
Policies require that staff terminations or resignations by staff who would have been
terminated for violating the Policies, be reported to local law enforcement and that relevant
licensing bodies be contacted. No staff has been terminated or has resigned for violating
PREA related policies during this audit period.
Standard 115.377 Corrective Action for Contractors and Volunteers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 addresses the standard by providing that a contractor or volunteer who engages in
sexual abuse will have no contact with residents and will be reported to law enforcement,
unless the activity was clearly not criminal, and to relevant licensing bodies. The Policy
requires that remedial measures be taken and prohibits future contact with residents in the case
of any other violation of the PREA related policies. During the past 12 months, no contractor
or volunteer has been reported to law enforcement or any investigative entity for allegations of
sexual abuse.
14
Standard 115.378 Disciplinary Sanctions for Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 provides direction to staff regarding this standard. A resident who engages in
resident-on-resident sexual abuse will be placed in a DJJ Juvenile Detention Center and
receive a court hearing and a determination will be made regarding the subsequent placement.
Standard 115.381 Medical and Mental Health Screenings; History of Sexual Abuse
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 states that residents who disclose a history of sexual abuse or who disclose
previously perpetrating sexual abuse will be referred for a follow-up meeting with a medical
or mental health practitioner within 24 hours of the screening. Staff interviewed confirmed
awareness of the policy and the requirements of the standard. A meeting with mental health
staff is a part of the intake process for all residents.
Standard 115.382 Access to Emergency Medical and Mental Health Services
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 provides for timely access to emergency medical treatment and crisis
intervention services for victims of sexual abuse. According to the Policy and staff
interviews, the nature and scope of the services are determined by medical and mental health
practitioners’ professional judgment. Policy 1.28 states that emergency medical and mental
health services will be provided to the victim whether or not the abuser is named or whether
the victim cooperates with any investigation arising out of the incident. Interviews with
medical and mental health staff confirmed access to emergency medical and mental health
services.
15
Standard 115.383 Ongoing Medical and Mental Health Care for Sexual Abuse Victims and
Abusers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 provides for ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse victims. It
also provides for medical and mental health evaluations and appropriate treatment and
follow-up services as referred to in the standard. According to Policy 1.28, staff interviews
and observations medical and mental health care are consistent with the community level of
care.
Standard 115.386 Sexual Abuse Incident Reviews
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28, FDJJ 1919 and a DJJ Interoffice Memorandum serve to provide the guidelines
for staff in conducting incident reviews. The incident review team members are identified in
Policy and the Memorandum. Interviews revealed an understanding of the purpose of the
process and how it operates. The PREA Sexual Abuse Incident Review form will be used to
document the meeting and the process.
Standard 115.387 Data collection
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
According to Policy 1.28, the facility reports data to DJJ on a monthly basis. Policy 1.28 and
FDJJ 1919 provide for the collection of accurate, uniform data for every allegation of sexual
assault. The DJJ has developed a data collection instrument that includes the required data.
Standard 115.388 Data Review for Corrective Action
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
16
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policy 1.28 and FDJJ 1919 address this standard and require the review of data for corrective
action towards improving the effectiveness of the agencies’ prevention, protection and
response policies, practices, and training. The annual report prepared by DJJ is made
available to the public and has been reviewed.
Standard 115.389 Data Storage, Publication and Destruction
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor Comments:
Policies 1.28 and FDJJ 1919 address this standard and provide that data is collected and
securely retained for 10 years. The aggregated PREA data is reviewed, all personal
identifiers are removed, and the information is posted on the DJJ website.
AUDITOR CERTIFICATION:
The auditor certifies that the contents of the report are accurate to the best of her knowledge and no
conflict of interest exists with respect to her ability to conduct an audit of the agency under review.
October 25, 2015
Auditor Signature Date
17

report_type: PREA

program_name_raw: pompano youth treatment center


state: FL

facility_name: AMIKids Polk Inc.

summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
AMI Kids Polk
AMI Kids Inc.
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Rd.
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training (ART)
SPEP Review Period: 09/01/2024-08/31/2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 09/02/2025; 09/05/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 12/12/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Aggression Replacement 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 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.
All of the Agression Replacement Training facilitators were trained in the service before providing
it. Facilitator training consists of a three-day course provided by a qualified instructor. During the
review period, there were three staff trained in the curriculum, one director of treatment and two
master licensed counselors. The two master level counselors facilitated the group. The director of
treatment or the trained designee provided fidelity monitoring.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators are trained in the primary service prior to facilitating
groups.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
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 Aggression Replacement Training (ART) manual. The manual is broken
down into six sections. The first section covers Skillstreaming. The second section deals with
anger control. The third section covers moral reasoning. Each of the first three sections has a
script for the facilitator to use for each lesson. Sections four through six are for the facilitator's
use. It includes training step guides, fidelity forms and hassle logs, and the program materials.
The program provides the students with copies of the handouts for each lesson. The intervention
is held on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for one hour. The program maintains their records
in SPEP binders by intervention. The binders are then tabbed by individual sections. All youth are
assigned to ART based on need to address anger/communication of emotions.
The program can earn 2 points if the manual/protocol is detailed to the extent it explains how each
specific session is delivered and if there is a script or outline for each session.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
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.
The Aggression Replacement Training group was observed virtually on Friday, 09/05/25 from
12:15-1:15 p.m. There were nine youth and two staff in the session. The facilitator provided a
copy of the lesson "Moral Reasoning" to the reviewer prior to the group. The facilitator followed
the lesson plan according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but rather used her own
words to convey the meaning of the discussed topic. She was very knowledgeable of the
materials. She was very easy for the youth to follow. She ensured that the youth understood and
grasped each concept prior to moving forward in the lesson. The facilitator adhered to the lesson
plan in every aspect.
The program can earn one point if the program follows the manual/protocol when delivering the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one as the group was
observed and the facilitators did adhere to the lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program had no facilitator turnover during the review period. The program's policy is to have
administrative or other trained staff step in and facilitate the group, if necessary. Aggression
Replacement Training (ART) was approved as a SPEP intervention for AMI Kids Polk in 02/2025
to replace Skillstreaming for SPEP. However, due to the training needs of the staff and having to
have enough youth that required ART, the first cohort did not start until 06/02/2025. That cohort
completed on 08/06/25 with ten (10) youth and two staff. The current cohort began on 08/12/2025
with nine youth and two staff. There was a gap in service of ART from 02/01/2025-06/02/2025 of
one hundred-twenty (120) days . However, Skillstreaming ran the entire time from 09/01/2024-
09/01/2025 with no gaps in services to the youth until ART began.
The program can earn two points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
There were gaps in services of Aggression Replacement Training to the youth during the review
period. The program did not meet the criteria to earn two points, however did earn one point.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program has a process to perform internal fidelity monitoring. The monitoring is to be
completed by the director of treatment or the trained designee. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring checklists specific to Aggression Replacement Training. There were two staff that
facilitated the group during the review period. Aggression Replacement Training was approved for
the program as an intervention on 02/01/2025. However, the first cohort did not start until
06/02/2025. The program had completed checklists for the months of 06/2025, 07/2025 and
08/2025 for all facilitators for each month they completed the group.
Documentation for the monitoring is kept in the SPEP binder for ART under a tab entitled "Fidelity
Monitoring for ART". Each tab had a copy of the fidelity checklist completed on the facilitator(s)
who performed groups during the specific month the group has ran.
The program can earn two points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each
facilitator.
At the time of the review, all the criteria was not met, therefore the program was only able to earn
a score of one.
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 by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity monitoring of the primary service. The program uses internal fidelity
montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Aggression Replacement Training
curriculum. Each completed checklist includes feedback specifying either that the facilitator did
not require any corrective action or they did. If the facilitator did require corrective action, it would
include recommendations for future improvement. The following month's checklist would then
include comments that the previous month's recommendations were applied and demonstrated.
An interview with the director of treatment and a review of the documentation verified that the
program did not take any corrective action during the review period.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
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.
A review of employee records for the current trained facilitators found that one staff had received
an annual review. The other two staff received eighty (80) day evaluations. The performance
evaluation included the staff's skill in delivering the curriculum. These included comments on any
strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator delivering the curriculum should be aware.
The program can earn one point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 10 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
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 30 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:
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
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%
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 0 youth
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 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 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 Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at AMI
Kids Polk.
19 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 0 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
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 targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 10 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 30 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program was awarded 0 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 80%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
AMI Kids Polk can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring there are no
unnecessary gaps in service and fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
AMI Kids Polk can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2025-26 AMI Polk ART.pdf

program_name_raw: AMIKids Polk Inc.

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
AMI Kids Polk
AMI Kids Inc.
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Rd.
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: 09/01/2024-08/31/2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 09/02/2025; 09/04/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 09/02/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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.
All facilitators who provided Impact of Crime were trained to do so. During the review period, there
were two staff trained in the Impact of Crime curriculum, one case manager and one recreational
therapist. Both facilitated the groups during the review period. The director of mental health
services, the trained case manager and recreational therapist conducted fidelity monitoring for
each other.
The program can earn one point if the facilitator completed formal training in the primary service
and if co-facilitators (if any) have completed formal training in the primary service as well.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm v 4.0 as the manual. SPEP
coordinator reviewed the manual. The facilitator’s manual is divided into seven chapters, an
appendix with handouts, and the student guide section (which includes the student exercises).
The manual addresses the order in which to deliver the content and gives the facilitators an
outline to follow. The facility does not have separate student workbooks to give out. The
facilitators make copies of the exercises before each session to hand out to the youth. The group
is a closed group with no more than twelve youth in each cohort. The curriculum is to be delivered
to the youth over a minimum of sixteen (16) weeks for thirty-two (32) hours. The program runs the
primary service on Tuesdays and Thursdays for one hour. The program keeps all documentation
in a binder labeled IOC SPEP in the case management office. All youth who are admitted to the
program receive the primary service. The primary service is run as a closed group.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
The program can earn 2 points if the manual/protocol is detailed to the extent it explains how
each specific session is delivered and if there is a script or outline for each session.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
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.
The Impact of Crime group was observed virtually on Thursday 09/04/2025 from 12:30-1:30 p.m.
There were seven youth and two staff present in the group. The facilitator provided a copy of the
Lesson Chapter 7 "Road to Reparation" to the reviewer prior to the group. The facilitator followed
the lesson plan according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but rather used her own
words to convey the meaning of the topic. She was very knowledgeable of the materials. She was
easy for the youth to follow. She ensured that the youth understood and grasped each concept
prior to moving forward in the lesson. The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan.
The program can earn one point if the facilitator adhered to the manual/protocol.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program has had no facilitator turnover during the review period. The program's policy
regarding anticipated turnover is addressed by having administrative or other trained staff step in
and facilitate the group, if necessary. There was a gap of forty-nine (49) days in service from
09/01/2024-12/08/2025 and a short gap of nine days from 04/18/2025-05/27/2025. The program
stated that the gap of forty-nine (49) days was due to the transition from Polk Halfway House to
AMIKids Polk and having to wait for the program to be populated, staff to be trained, etc.
There were two completed cohorts of Impact of Crime during the review period from 12/09/2024-
04/04/2025 with five youth and one staff. (Note: this group began with ten (10) youth, however,
five youth were released). There was also a group that ran from 01/09/2025-04/17/2025 with nine
youth and one staff. There is an ongoing cohort that began on 05/28/2025 with eleven (11) youth
and one staff.
The program can earn two points if there has been no gap in service delivery and no turnover of
facilitator since the last SPEP evaluation that adversly affected service of the intervention.
There were gaps in services of Impact of Crime to the youth during the review period. The
program did not meet the criteria to earn two points, however did earn one point.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 to perform internal fidelity monitoring. The monitoring was completed
by the director of mental health services, the case manager and the recreational therapist, all
formally trained in the curriculum. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring checklists specific
to Impact of Crime to document the monitoring. The program had completed checklists for all
facilitators for each month they completed the groups except for the months of 03/2025, 04/2025,
07/2025 and 08/2025. All completed fidelity checklists are maintained in the SPEP binder under a
tab entitled "Fidelity Monitoring for Impact of Crime". Each tab had a copy of the fidelity checklist
completed on the facilitator(s) who perfomed groups during the specific month.
The program can earn two 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 two.
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 action based on the fidelity monitoring. The program
uses internal fidelity montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Impact of Crime
curriculum. Each completed checklist includes feedback specifying either that the facilitator did
not require any corrective action. If the facilitator did require corrective action, it would include
recommendations for future improvement. The following month's checklist would then include
comments that the previous month's recommendations were applied and demonstrated. An
interview with the clinical director and a review of the documentation provided verified that the
program did not take any corrective action during the review period.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
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 staff had received at least either a ninety (90) day evaluation or an annual evaluation within
the last year. Performance evaluations showed the staff's ability in delivering the curriculum.
These included comments on any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator delivering the
curriculum should be aware.
The program can earn one point if there is evidence of annual performance evaluations of
facilitators including assessment of the facilitator's proficiency in delivering the primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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 16 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: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 7 youth in the
sample, 71% (5 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: 18 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 72%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 86%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 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, 86% (6 of 7) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
10 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 Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 18 25 72%
Totals 68 85 80%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at AMI Kids Polk.
19 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 7 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 7 total youth sampled, all 7
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 3
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10
and 17 weeks of service, with an average of 14.29 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 7 total youth sampled,
all 7 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 5 received at least
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 20 and 29 hours of
service, with an average of 25.43 hours.
The program was awarded 18 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 88%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
AMI Kids Polk can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
AMI Kids Polk can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

file_name: FY2025-26 AMI Polk IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
AMI Kids Polk
AMI Kids Inc.
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Rd.
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Skillstreaming the Adolescent
SPEP Review Period: 09/01/2024-08/31/2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 09/02/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 12/11/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Skillstreaming the Adolescent.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
All facilitators of Skillstreaming received formal training in the primary service. AMIKids Inc. has
trained staff in the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) curriculum; Skillstreaming is a
component of the ART model. The training is a two day virtual training offerred by those
curriculum trainers. During the review period, there were three staff of AMIKids Polk staff trained
in the curriculum, one director of treatment and two master licensed counselors. The director of
treatment or her trained designee provided fidelity monitoring.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator completed formal training in the primary service and
if co-facilitators (if any) have completed formal training in the primary service as well.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
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 Skillstreaming the Adolescent curriculum for all youth assigned to the
program. There are no student manuals for this service. The curriculum includes a facilitator’s
manual and skill cards for the youth. This service is provided three times a week and groups are
run year-round with no more than ten (10) youth per group. Skillstreaming is an open group. The
intervention is held on Tuesdays from 3:30-4:30 pm, Wednesdays from 12:15-1:15pm and Friday
from 12:15-1:15pm. The program maintains their records in SPEP binders by intervention. The
binder is then tabbed by individual sections. All youth were required to attend Skillstreaming when
it was a SPEP intervention, however, since this intervention is now a supplemental service, all
youth within the program participate in Skillstreaming when not enrolled in a primary service.
The program can earn two points if the manual/protocol is detailed to the extent it explains how
each specific session is delivered and if there is a script or outline for each session.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of two.
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.
The Skillstreaming group was observed virtually by Zoom on Tuesday 09/02/2025 from 3:30-4:30
p.m. with six youth and two staff in the session. The facilitator provided a copy of Skill 11 "Giving
Instructions" to the reviewer prior to the group. The facilitator followed the lesson plan according
to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but rather used her own words to convey the
meaning of the discussed topic. She was very knowledgeable of the materials. She was very easy
for the youth to follow. She ensured that the youth understood and grasped each concept prior to
moving forward in the lesson. The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan.
The program can earn one point if the facilitator adhered to the manual/protocol.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one as the group was
observed and the facilitators did adhere to the lesson plan.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program did experience some facilitator turnover during the review period. However, AMIKids
Behavioral Health provided a trained facilitator to ensure that groups continued with no gaps in
the services to the youth. The program's policy regarding anticipated turnover is addressed by
having administrative or other trained staff step in and facilitate the group if necessary.
Aggression Replacement Training (ART) was approved as a SPEP intervention for AMI Kids Polk
in 02/2025. This was to take the place of Skillstreaming the Adolescent. However, due to the
training needs of the staff and having to have enough youth that required the new group, the first
cohort did not start until 06/02/2025.That cohort completed on 08/6/2025 with nine youth and two
staff. A new cohort of ART began on 08/12/2025 with ten (10) youth and two staff. There was a
gap in service of ART from 02/01/2025-06/02/2025 (120 days). However Skillstreaming ran that
entire time with no gaps in service.
NOTE: Skillstreaming is now a supplemental service and all youth within the program participate
in Skillstreaming when not enrolled in a primary intervention.
The program can earn two points if there has been no gap in service delivery and no turnover of
facilitator since the last SPEP evaluation that adversly affected service of the intervention.
There were no gaps in services of Skillstreaming to the youth during the review period. The
program met the criteria to earn two points.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 to perform internal fidelity monitoring. The monitoring is to be
completed by the director of treatment or the trained designee. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring checklists specific to Skillstreaming to document the monitoring. There were five staff
that facilitated the group during the review period. The months of 11/2024 and 05/2025 were
missed and no monitoring was performed for these months. All other months, each facilitator was
monitored monthly.
The program can earn two 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 two.
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 by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity monitoring of the primary service. The program uses internal fidelity
montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Skillstreaming curriculum. Each completed
checklist includes feedback specifying either that the facilitator did not require any corrective
action or they did. If the facilitator did require corrective action, it would include recommendations
for future improvement. The following month's checklist would then include comments that the
previous month's recommendations were applied and demonstrated. An interview with the
Director of Treatment and a review of the documentation provided verified that the program did
not take any corrective action during the review period.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
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.
A review of employee records for the current trained facilitators found that one staff had received
an annual review. The other two staff received eighty (80) day evaluations within the review
period. The performance evaluation for the staff found entries of the staff's ability in delivering the
curriculum. These included comments on any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator
delivering the Skillstreaming curriculum should be aware.
The program can earn 1 point if there is evidence of annual performance evaluations of facilitators
including assessment of the facilitator's proficiency in delivering the primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of one.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 1 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 1) 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 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 1 youth in the
sample, 100% (1 of 1) 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: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 48%
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 = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 1 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 1 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% (1 of 1) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 1) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 12 25 48%
Totals 62 85 73%
This SPEP report evaluates Skillstreaming the Adolescent, an intervention delivered at AMI Kids
Polk.
19 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 1 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 1 total youth sampled, 1
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 15
and 15 weeks of service, with an average of 15 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 1 total youth
sampled, 1 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 1 received
at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 26 and 26
hours of service, with an average of 26 hours.
The program was awarded 12 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 88%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
AMI Kids Polk can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by can maintain their
SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing the practices in place at the time of this
review.
AMI Kids Polk can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

file_name: FY2025-26 AMI Polk Skillstreaming.pdf

service_type: Skillstreaming the Adolescent