state: FL

facility_name: Escambia Boys Base

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Escambia Boys Base
AMIkids, Inc
(Contract Provider)
640 Roberts Avenue
Building 3780
Pensacola, Florida 32511
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training
SPEP Review Period: February 1, 2023 - January 31, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: August 28 - 29, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/16/2025
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
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 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 Aggression Replacement Training.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 20%
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 utilizes Aggression Replacement Training (ART) as a primary service. Staff receive
ART facilitator training from a qualified trainer employed by AMIkids. There are six ART trained
staff at the program: director of treatment, director of operations, two therapists, transition
cordinator, and case manager. All training documentation has been provided for review.
The therapists usually facilitate groups and the director of treatment conducts internal fidelity
monitoring.
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 Aggression Replacement Training. There are no separate student manuals;
the facilitator copies blank worksheets for youth to complete. Groups are held Mondays,
Wednesdays, and Fridays at 7:30am.
Documentation is maintained in one binder, located in the Clinical Director’s office. Included are
all sign-in sheets, internal fidelity monitoring, and any group notes. All youth are to participate in
ART groups during their stay at the program.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Aggression Replacement Training (ART) group observations could not be conducted during the
annual review.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program did not experience any turnover during this review period. Should the program
experience turnover, another trained facilitator would continue conducting the groups. This will
negate disruption to the youth and any gaps in service. There were no gaps in service during the
review period. The program completed two cohorts of ART during this quarterly review period.
A cohort began on January 30, 2023 and ended April 14, 2023. Ten (10) youth began and
successfully completed the group. One youth left the group at lesson five and another youth was
added at lesson six after receiving makeup sessions.
A cohort began on April 24, 2023 and ended July 14, 2023. Ten (10) youth began and
successfully completed the group. Documentation shows there were make-up sessions when
youths missed groups. A review of the sign in sheets were reviewed and shows this group was
held consistently three days a week for an hour each session.
A cohort began on August 14, 2023 and ended October 19, 2023. Ten (10) youth began the
group and eight youth successfully completed the group.
A cohort began on October 30, 2023 and was ongoing at the time of the review period January
31, 2024. Ten (10) youth began the group and six youth were in the group at the time of the
annual review ending.
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 director of treatment conducts internal fidelity monitoring for Aggression Replacement
Training (ART) groups. Internal fidelity monitoring is to be conducted three times a month, per
facilitator for ART. There was only one facilitator during this review period.
A review of the internal fidelity monitoring forms confirmed thirty-seven (37) out of thirty-seven
(37) required reviews were completed during this review period.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The program's policy to address corrective actions resulting from monthly internal fidelity
monitoring is for the director of treatment or the executive director to address any issues or
corrective actions for the facilitators of Aggression Replacement Training (ART).
There were no corrective actions or issues noted during this review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program has a process to ensure facilitators of Aggression Replacement Training are
evaluated on their skill in delivering the service
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 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 23 youth in the
sample, 100% (23 of 23) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 23 youth in the
sample, 100% (23 of 23) 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: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 52%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 23 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 13%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 23 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, 52% (12 of 23) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (3 of 23) 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 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 80 100 80%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at
Escambia Boys Base.
24 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 23 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 23 total youth sampled,
only 23 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
23 received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between
10 and 12 weeks of service, with an average of 11 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 23 total youth
sampled, only 23 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 23
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 30
and 30 hours of service, with an average of 30 hours.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 10 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 30 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 100%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Escambia Boys Base can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by oensuring the
program provides the primary service regularly throughout the year so it can be observed for
adherence to the manual/protocol.
Escambia Boys Base can maintain their SPEP Amount of Service score by continuing to ensure
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by continuing to ensure 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: FY2023-24 Escambia Boys Base ART .pdf

program_name_raw: Escambia Boys Base

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Escambia Boys Base
AMIkids, Inc
(Contract Provider)
640 Roberts Avenue
Building 3780
Pensacola, Florida 32511
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: February 1, 2023 - January 31, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: August 28 - 29, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/16/2025
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): 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 uses Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service for all youth. All facilitators and
fidelity monitors were trained in Impact of Crime (IOC) by a qualified trainer. IOC training is
conducted by the Department of Juvenile Justice.
There were five staff trained to facilitate Impact of Crime: two youth care specialists, director of
operations, executive director, and transition coodinator. One youth care specialist left the
program during the review period. Two youth care specialists facilitated groups during the first
part of the review period and the transition coordinator currently facilitates IOC groups. The
director of operations conducted internal fidelity monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the current Impact of Crime (IOC) manual, developed by the Department of
Juvenile Justice. There are four sections to the manual, which includes a separate workbook for
the youth. The manual includes all worksheets and facilitator forms to conduct IOC.
Impact of Crime groups are held two days a week for one hour. The days of the week vary based
upon the work schedule of the facilitator, but are currently Tuesday and Thursday mornings. The
program maintains binders to include the separate cohorts conducted, internal fidelity forms, and
all training documentation. The IOC groups are closed, meaning no youth may be added to the
group once the first chapter has been completed. All youth participate in Impact of Crime during
their stay at the program.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime was observed on August 15, 2023 at 3pm. The group lasted
approximately one hour. Present were six youth and one direct care staff. The group was working
on Chapter 6, Managing conflict: Hate Crimes. The youth participated in an icebreaker before
recapping the ripple effect and definitions. The facilitator followed the script without reading
verbatim and used real-life examples to make the lesson more relatable. The facilitator used
appropriate affirmations and encouraged engagement of all 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 program has a process in place to reduce the impacts of facilitator turnover. Another trained
facilitator will step in and resume the group without a gap in service. There has been facilitator
turnover during the review period. Two facilitators left during two differenty cohorts. The group
was transitioned to a new facilitator after a thirty-six (36) day gap in services. One group ended on
October 8, 2023 and another IOC group did not start until November 4, 2023. Two cohorts were
completed and one cohort was taking place during the review period.
A cohort began on February 4, 2023 and ended on July 8, 2023. Thirteen (13) youth began the
group and eight youth successfully completed. Two youth were transferred after chapter two; one
youth was discharged after chapter four. Two youth were discharged before receiving the final
lesson. Groups were held inconsistently throughout the review period. From February through
April, groups were held once per week at best. Beginning May, the facilitator held groups twice
per week, often running more than one group a day keeping the youth in the classroom for two
hours. All groups May through the end of the cohort were held on Saturday and Sunday, which is
out of compliance of having a day between groups. There were several gaps less than fourteen
(14) days; there were two gaps over two weeks, one for nineteen (19) days and one for thirty-six
(36 days), as a result of staff.
A cohort began on May 20, 2023 and ended on October 8, 2023. Ten (10) youth began the group
and six youth successfully completed. Groups were being held twice per week, but on
consecutive days. There was a two-hour group held July 17, 2023; a three-hour group was held
July 23, 203. The Technical Assistance Specialist met with the facilitator and director of treatment
to discuss the inconsistent/inaccurate group schedule and incomplete sign-in sheet completion.
Both explained the facilitator was the back-up and ran groups when his schedule would allow. The
facilitator advised he would be available to run groups more consistently moving forward and
would ensure to complete the sign in sheets in their entirety.
A cohort began on November 4, 2023 and went to the review period of January 31, 2024. The
group started with the youth care worker as the facilitator and the transation coordinator took over
the group as the facilitator twenty (20) days later. Twelve (12) youth began the group and ten
youth (10) youth were in the group at the time of the review period ended.
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.
Internal fidelity monitoring is conducted by the director of operations monthly for each Impact of
Crime (IOC) facilitator. The director of treatment meets with facilitators monthly to review the
internal fidelity monitoring.
Ten (10) instances of fidelity monitoring for facilitators of IOC occurred during the review period.
One facilitator was monitored twice during the month of July. On December 12, 2023, fidelity
monitoring was completed for the month by the director of operations for the transition
coordinator, but no IOC group sign in sheet was reviewed with that date.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process to address corrective actions discovered during monthly internal
fidelity monitoring of Impact of Crime (IOC). Oversight is provided by both the director of
operations and the director of treatment. The staff will receive the information on what occurred
and ways to resolve the issue moving forward.
There was one corrective action identified during the review period; however, the facilitator left
employment before the corrective action process loop could be closed.
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 program has a process to ensure facilitators of Impact of Crime (IOC) are evaluated on their
skill in delivering the service.
The programs protocol for evaluating staff is that the staff get annual evaluations and the program
reported the Impact of Crime (IOC) facilitators received their annual performance evaluations, but
did not provide them for review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 24 youth in the
sample, 71% (17 of 24) 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 24 youth in the
sample, 67% (16 of 24) 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: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 50%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 24 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 13%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 24 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, 50% (12 of 24) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 13% (3 of 24) 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 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 57 85 67%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Escambia Boys Base.
24 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 24 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 24 total youth sampled, only
21 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 17
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9
and 23 weeks of service, with an average of 18 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 24 total youth
sampled, only 23 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 16
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4
and 24 hours of service, with an average of 20 hours.
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 91%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Escambia Boys Base can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Escambia Boys Base can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for
all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2023-24 Escambia Boys Base IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime