state: FL

facility_name: Hillsborough Juvenile Detention Center West

summary: PREA - Year 1 Cycle 4

raw_content:
Program: Hillsborough Juvenile Detention Center
Report Type: PREA
Fiscal Year:
Status:
PDF URL: https://www.djj.state.fl.us/content/download/908839/file/Florida_Hillsborough Juvenile Detention Center_year1cycle4.pdf?version=1

source: DJJ

report_type: PREA

program_name_raw: Hillsborough Juvenile Detention Center

cycle: Year 1 Cycle 4


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Hillsborough Girls Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9506 E. Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Impact of Crime (IOC)
SPEP Review Date(s): September 29 - October 2, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 3/7/2016
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
2
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Program Name: Hillsborough Girls Academy QI Program Code: 1224
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2111
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 20
Review Date(s): September 29 - October 2, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 3 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 3 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
3
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 (IOC). The program was awarded 15
points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3 Service. The specific Sub-
Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The Primary Service was identified
as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills required for an individual to interact
in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
4
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has two trained facilitators for the delivery of the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum,
which was verified by reviewing staff’s training files and the Department’s Learning Management
System, SkillPro. There is documentation to reflect the identified staff have been trained to
facilitate groups and were trained by a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the Department’s Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum by using the IOC
facilitator and student guide. Each chapter has five objectives with twenty-four lessons in total.
The curriculum includes an implementation guideline for facilitators and identifies the order in
which lessons are to be delivered with detailed instructions for the facilitator and youth
participants on the delivery of each lesson. The manual also provides suggested and varied
activities from which the facilitator may choose based on the group dynamics.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This curriculum was not able to be observed during the annual compliance review.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
5
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There were no gaps in the provision of IOC and each session maintained the integrity of the
facilitators delivering the curriculum from start to end. There are two less facilitators from the
previous year providing the IOC curriculum.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has conducted monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service as identified in the
program’s Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol. There are corporate and program level
managers who conduct fidelity reviews, and who have been trained in this primary service
intervention.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
There is a procedure in place which includes monthly observation of each primary service. The
fidelity monitor utilizes the facility observation checklist as a tool to assist in providing an
evaluation of the group/session. This includes any recommendations, feedback, and identified
corrective action. The checklist is reviewed, discussed, and signed by the fidelity monitor and the
facilitator delivering the group/session.
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.
There is a procedure/protocol in place which outlines the evaluations of each trained facilitator for
this primary service. There are two staff identified to deliver IOC. Each facilitator who delivered
the curriculum during this annual compliance review period was provided an evaluation of their
delivery and group facilitation skills.
6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 9 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 9) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 9 youth in the
sample, 100% (9 of 9) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 17 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 68%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 78%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 3 youth
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 33%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 78% (7 of 9) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 33% (3 of 9) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 17 25 68%
Totals 67 85 79%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Hillsborough Girls
Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 9 total youth sampled, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 11
and 12 weeks of service, with an average of 11.8 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 9 total youth
sampled, all received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 24 and 26 hours of service, with an average of 24.8 hours.
8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
The program was awarded 17 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Hillsborough Girls Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Hillsborough Girls Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted weeks of service.
9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Hillsborough Girls Academy

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Hillsborough Girls Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9506 E. Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Thinking For A Change (T4C)
SPEP Review Date(s): September 29 - October 2, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 3/7/2016
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
2
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Program Name: Hillsborough Girls Academy QI Program Code: 1224
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2111
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 20
Review Date(s): September 29 - October 2, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
3
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Thinking For A Change (T4C). The program was
awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5 Service. The specific
Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The Primary Service
was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty cognitions and perceptions
and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
4
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has two trained facilitators for the delivery of the Thinking For A Change (T4C)
curriculum, which was verified by reviewing staff’s training files and the Department’s Learning
Management System (SkillPro). There is documentation to reflect the identified staff have been
trained to facilitate groups and were trained by a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the Thinking for a Change (T4C) 3.1 curriculum and will begin utilizing T4C
Aftercare in future groups. The program utilizes the T4C facilitator and student guides. The
facilitator’s guide has detailed lesson plans for conducting each group session.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This curriculum was not able to be observed during the week of the annual compliance review.
The Programming and Technical Assistance Unit last conducted fidelity monitoring in July 2015.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
5
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There were no gaps in the provision of T4C and each session maintained the integrity of the
facilitators delivering the curriculum from start to end. There are two staff facilitating groups and
there have been two cohort groups run since the last annual compliance review. The program
rotates Impact of Crime and T4C due to average length of stay and total number of youth
admitted to the program.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program conducted monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service as identified in the
program’s Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol. There are corporate and program level
managers who conduct fidelity reviews and who have been trained in this primary service
intervention.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
There is a procedure in place which includes monthly observation for each primary service
identified for Hillsborough Girls Academy. The fidelity monitor utilizes the facility observation
checklist as a tool to assist in providing an evaluation of the group/session. This includes
recommendations, feedback, and identified corrective action based on the observation, if
applicable. The checklist is reviewed, discussed, and signed by the fidelity monitor and the
facilitator delivering the group/session.
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.
There is a procedure and protocol in place which outlines the evaluations of each trained
facilitator for this primary service, Thinking for a Change (T4C). There are two staff identified to
deliver the T4C curriculum. Each facilitator who delivered the curriculum during this annual
compliance review period was provided an evaluation of their delivery and group facilitation skills.
6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 11 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 11) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 11 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 11) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 82%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 11 youth
7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 36%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 11 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, 82% (9 of 11) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 36% (4 of 11) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 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 20 25 80%
Totals 75 100 75%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Hillsborough Girls
Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 11 total youth sampled, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6
and 14 weeks of service, with an average of 11.6 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 11 total youth
sampled, 0 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 10 and 33 hours of service, with an average of 25.8 hours.
8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
The program was awarded 20 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Hillsborough Girls Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Hillsborough Girls Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report

service_type: Thinking for a Change


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Hillsborough Girls Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9506 E. Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: VOICES
SPEP Review Date(s): Septmber 29 - October 2, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 3/7/2016
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
2
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Program Name: Hillsborough Girls Academy QI Program Code: 1224
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2111
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 20
Review Date(s): September 29 - October 2,2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 3 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 3 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
3
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is VOICES. The program was awarded 25 points because
the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4 Service. The specific Sub-Component Service
Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as
it focuses on psychological or interpersonal problems or issues faced by an individual and
involves a group of youths interacting with each other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
4
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has two therapeutic staff identified and trained as facilitators for the delivery of the
VOICES curriculum. The lead therapist, who is the clinical director, has the primary function of
conducting fidelity monitoring but is also able to facilitate groups in the absence of one of the
therapeutic staff facilitators. There is documentation to reflect the identified staff have been
trained to facilitate groups and were trained by a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the gender responsive VOICES curriculum using the facilitator and student
guide. The curriculum includes an implementation guideline for facilitators and identifies the order
in which lessons are to be delivered with detailed instructions for the facilitator and youth
participants on the delivery of each lesson. The manual also provides suggested and varied
activities from which the facilitator may choose based on the group dynamics.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This curriculum was not able to be observed during the week of the review.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
5
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There were no gaps in the provision of the VOICES curriculum. There have been three cohorts of
this curriculum since the last annual compliance review with no disruption of services.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has conducted monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service as identified in the
program’s protocol by trained facilitators. There are corporate and program level managers who
also conduct fidelity reviews, and who are trained in the primary service. The assigned fidelity
monitors completed the observation checklist during the observed session.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
There is a procedure in place which includes monthly observation for each primary service. The
fidelity monitor utilizes the facility observation checklist as a tool to assist in providing an
evaluation of the group/session. This includes any recommendations, feedback, and identified
corrective action based on that observation. The checklist is reviewed, discussed, and signed by
the fidelity monitor and the facilitator delivering the group/session.
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.
There is a procedure and protocol in place, which outlines the evaluations of each trained
facilitator for this primary service. There are three therapeutic staff identified to deliver the
VOICES curriculum, one of which is the Clinical Director whose primary function is to conduct
monthly fidelity monitoring. Each facilitator who delivered the curriculum during this annual
compliance review period was provided an evaluation of their delivery and group facilitation skills.
6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 12 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 12) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 12 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 12) 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: 17 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 68%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 75%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 12 youth
7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 33%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 12 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, 75% (9 of 12) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 33% (4 of 12) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 17 25 68%
Totals 67 95 71%
This SPEP report evaluates VOICES, an intervention delivered at Hillsborough Girls Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 12 total youth sampled,0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 8
and 10 weeks of service, with an average of 9 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 12 total youth
sampled, 0 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 25 and 27 hours of service, with an average of 26.8 hours.
Hillsborough Girls Academy, a G4S-operated facility, acknowledged the SPEP dosage targets,
but respectfully declined to adjust the VOICES curriculum specifications to accommodate
8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
increased SPEP targeted dosage levels over those dosage levels specified in the VOICES
curriculum.
The program was awarded 17 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Hillsborough Girls Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Hillsborough Girls Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report

service_type: VOICES: A Program of Self-Exploration and Empowerment


summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Hillsborough Girls Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9502 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Female Healthy Relationships
SPEP Review Date(s): January 10‐13, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 6/19/17
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Hillsborough Girls Academy QI Program Code: 1224
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2111
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 20
Review Date(s): 1/10/17-1/13/17 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 2 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 1 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Female Healthy Relationships (bundled service). The
program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4 Service.
The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary Service
was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal problems or
issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
At the time of the review the program had three facilitators trained in the Female Healthy
Relationships curriculum (bundle of VOICES and Teen Relationships). Four facilitators conducted
group in the last twelve-month period, two are no longer employed with G4S. A review of all
facilitator training files contained documentation that all received formal training in Female Healthy
Relationships. A qualified trainer trained all facilitators in the primary service.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
All youth admitted at Hillsborough Girls Academy are assessed by staff as to need for evidence
based services. Based on various criteria, they are placed into program services. The program is
utilizing both the VOICES and Teen Relationships curriculum to facilitate this class. The manuals
detail the primary services and explain how each specific session is to be delivered for each
program. Both include a script, outlines for each group session, and specific details on the
delivery of each of the lessons.
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.
This primary service is usually held on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays from 2:30 pm to 3:30
pm. A group session was observed on Thursday, 01/12/17. The facilitator provided a copy of the
lesson to this observer. The lesson was on how to develop a safety plan to protect yourself from
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
domestic violence and abuse in a relationship. The facilitator adhered to the written protocol, did
not read from the script verbatim and explained the lesson in her own words which was
understandable to the youth.
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 reviewed documentation and the Clinical Social Worker confirmed there was staff turnover in
the last twelve months, however, that turnover did not adversely affect the youth. Turnover
occurred between cohorts. There were no gaps in service. The program has a policy for facilitator
turnover. If a facilitator is going to be leaving the program or will be on leave, they explain to the
youth why another facilitator will be taking over the class. Another qualified facilitator would
conduct that class.
BasicScore: 2Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
Internal fidelity monitoring reports were reviewed. The program has an internal process to conduct
internal fidelity monitoring specific to Female Healthy Relationships. The Clinical Director
performs all monitoring. She is the only staff member who performs the monitoring of this class.
The fidelity monitor has received training in the primary service and in fidelity monitoring. The
program utilizes fidelity adherence checklists to document monitoring. Fidelity monitoring has
been conducted monthly on the staff members who facilitated the Female Healthy Relationships
class within the last twelve months. Monitoring has not been completed on the current facilitators
as the current group just began on 12/22/16. The Clinical Director advised fidelity monitoring for
the current month will be completed by the end of January 2017.
BasicScore: 1Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the Clinical Social Worker verified that the program has a process for corrective
actions based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring/correction action checklists specific to Female Healthy Relationships. Each monitoring
checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator improvement. There
were no corrective actions pertaining to the Female Health Relationships service in the last 12
months.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
Performance evaluations were completed on the staff who facilitated the Female Health
Relationships intervention in the past twelve months. The evaluations were reviewed and were
found to include entries specific to Female Healthy Relationships.
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 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 2 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 2) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 2 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 2) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 2 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 100%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 2 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (2 of 2) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (2 of 2) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 95 79%
This SPEP report evaluates Female Healthy Relationships, an intervention delivered at
Hillsborough Girls Academy. Female Healthy Relationships is a bundled service that combines
the curricula of VOICES with Teen Relationships and overlays an additional training and
monitoring framework in order to create the intervention called Female Healthy Relationships.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 2 total youth sampled,
neither received at least the recommended weeks of service. One youth completed approximately
16 weeks of service and the other completed approximately 9 weeks of service.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 2 total youth sampled,
neither received at least the recommended hours of service. One youth completed 12 hours of
service and the other completed 7 hours of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Hillsborough Girls Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the processes in place at the time of this review.
Hillsborough Girls Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

service_type: Female Healthy Relationships


summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Hillsborough Girls Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9502 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Impact of Crime (IOC)
SPEP Review Date(s): January 10‐13, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 6/19/17
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Hillsborough Girls Academy QI Program Code: 1224
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2111
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 20
Review Date(s): 1/10/17-1/13/17 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 2 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 1 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime. The program was awarded 15 points
because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3 Service. The specific Sub-Component
Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The Primary Service was identified as this type of
service as it focuses on developing social skills required for an individual to interact in a positive
way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has two facilitators trained in the Impact of Crime curriculum. One facilitator
conducted group in the last twelve-month period. The current group started on 10/11/16. A review
of both facilitator training files contained documentation that both received formal training in the
curriculum. A qualified trainer trained both facilitators in the primary service.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
All youth admitted at Hillsborough Girls Academy are assessed by staff as to need for evidence
based services. Based on various criteria, they are placed into program services. The program is
utilizing the DJJ Impact of Crime curriculum. The manual details the primary service and explains
how each specific session is to be delivered. It includes a script, outlines for each group session,
and specific details on the delivery of the lessons.
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.
This primary service is held each Tuesday and Thursday from 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm and was
observed on Tuesday, 01/10/17. The topic covered was Section 6, Managing Conflict, Lesson 3.
The facilitator provided the reviewer with a copy of the lesson, adhered to the written protocol, did
not read from the script verbatim and explained the lesson in her own words which was
understandable to the youth.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The reviewed documentation and the Clinical Director confirmed there was staff turnover in the
last twelve months, however, that turnover did not adversely affect the youth. There were no gaps
in service beyond those necessary to accommodate new enrollments in the program. The
program has a policy for handling facilitator turnover. If a facilitator is going to be leaving the
program or will be on leave, they explain to the youth why another facilitator will be taking over the
class. Another qualified facilitator from the staff would conduct that class.
BasicScore: 2Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
Internal fidelity monitoring reports were reviewed. The program has an internal process to conduct
internal fidelity monitoring specific to Impact of Crime. The Clinical Director performs all
monitoring. She is also trained in the Impact of Crime curriculum and is the only staff member who
performs monitoring for the Impact of Crime group. The program utilizes fidelity adherence
checklists to document the monitoring. Fidelity monitoring has been conducted monthly on the
staff member conducting the Impact of Crime class within the last twelve months.
BasicScore: 1Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the Clinical Director verified that the program has a process for corrective
actions based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring/correction action checklists specific to Impact of Crime. Each monitoring checklist
includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator improvement. There were no
corrective actions pertaining to Impact of Crime in the last 12 months.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
Performance evaluations were completed on the facilitator who is currently facilitating the Impact
of Crime intervention in the past twelve months as well as the back-up facilitator. The evaluations
were reviewed and were found to include entries specific to Impact of Crime.
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 0 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 0) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 0 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 0) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 0%
Moderate to High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 0 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 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 = 0 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 0) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0
points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 0) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
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 40 85 47%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime (IOC), an intervention delivered at Hillsborough Girls
Academy. The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration, Amount of Service: Contact Hours,
and Risk Level of Youth Served due to a lack of youth in the sample. There were no youth
included in this sample because none of the youth completing the program during the reviewed
time period received Impact of Crime as a scheduled intervention during their stay at the program.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9


summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Hillsborough Girls Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9502 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change (T4C)
SPEP Review Date(s): January 10‐13, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 6/19/17
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Hillsborough Girls Academy QI Program Code: 1224
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2111
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 20
Review Date(s): 1/10/17-1/13/17 Lead Reviewer Code: 136
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 2 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 1 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Thinking for a Change (T4C). The program was awarded
30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5 Service. The specific Sub-
Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The Primary Service was
identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty cognitions and perceptions and
provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has three facilitators trained in the Thinking for a Change curriculum. One facilitator
conducted group in the last twelve-month period. A review of all three facilitator’s training files
contained documentation that all received formal training in the Thinking for a Change curriculum.
A qualified trainer trained all three facilitators in the primary service.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
All youth admitted at Hillsborough Girls Academy are assessed by staff as to need for evidence
based services. Based on various criteria, they are placed into program services. The program is
utilizing the Thinking for a Change curriculum, Version 3.1. The manual details the primary service
and explains how each specific session is to be delivered. It includes a script, outlines for each
group session, and specific details on the delivery of each of the 25 lessons.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This primary service is usually held each Tuesday and Thursday from 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm,
however the group is not currently running. The facility is running an Impact of Crime group at this
time instead. The last class of Thinking for a Change completed in April 2016 with the Aftercare
portion completing in September 2016. This curriculum was not able to be observed during this
review due to the group not being in session; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
During previous fidelity monitoring conducted by Technical Assistance, the facilitator adhered to
the written protocol, did not read from the script verbatim and explained the lesson in her own
words which was understandable to the youth.
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 reviewed documentation and the Clinical Director confirmed there was staff turnover in the
last twelve months, however, that turnover did not adversely affect the youth. Turnover occurred
between cohorts. There were no gaps in service. The program has a policy for facilitator turnover.
If a facilitator is going to be leaving the program or will be on leave, they explain to the youth why
another facilitator will be taking over the class. Another qualified facilitator would conduct that
class.
BasicScore: 2Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
Internal fidelity monitoring reports were reviewed. The program has an internal process to conduct
internal fidelity monitoring specific to Thinking for a Change. The Clinical Director performs all
Fidelity Monitoring. She is also trained in the Thinking for a Change curriculum and is the only
staff member who performs fidelity monitoring for this class. The fidelity monitor has received
certification in the primary service and in fidelity monitoring. The program utilizes fidelity
adherence checklists to document fidelity monitoring. Fidelity monitoring has been conducted
monthly on the staff members who facilitated the Thinking for a Change class within the last
twelve months.
BasicScore: 1Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with Clinical Director verified that the program has a process for corrective action
based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring/correction
action checklists specific to Thinking for a Change. Each monitoring checklist includes a section
for feedback and recommendations for facilitator improvement. There were no corrective actions
pertaining to Thinking for a Change in the last 12 months.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
Performance evaluations were completed on the staff who facilitated the Thinking for a Change
intervention in the past twelve months as well as the back-up facilitator. The evaluations were
reviewed and were found to include entries specific to Thinking for a Change.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 3 youth in the
sample, 100% (3 of 3) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 3 youth in the
sample, 67% (2 of 3) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 3 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 100%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 3 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% (3 of 3) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (3 of 3) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 96 100 96%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change (T4C), an intervention delivered at
Hillsborough Girls Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 3 total youth sampled, only
all included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, all
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 18
and 30 weeks of service, with an average of 26 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 3 total youth sampled,
all included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 2 received at least
the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 43 and 45 hours of
service, with an average of 44 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Hillsborough Girls Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10