summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Thinking For A Change (T4C)
SPEP Review Date(s): February 28 ‐ March 3, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 6/13/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Polk Halfway House MQI Program Code: 1049
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2095
Location: Polk County / Circuit: 10 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): February 28 - March 3, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 152
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 3 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 1 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 1 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has a protocol for primary service facilitator training, which states the youth care
worker or therapist, who are facilitators of the primary service, will have conducted a formalized
training from a qualified trainer. Upon review of the primary service, the cohorts were delivered by
one facilitator during the SPEP review period. For this primary service, the facilitator completed
the minimum required training, 32-hour Thinking for a Change Facilitator Training, prior to
conducting the primary service; completed on February 25, 2011. The training documentation was
provided and documented through the Department’s Learning Management Systems (CORE).
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 3.1 curriculum for Thinking for a Change. The program utilizes the
brand-name facilitator manual for every group session, which was reviewed during the SPEP
review. The manual has three components which are: cognitive self-change, social skills, and
problem solving skills. There are 25 lessons in the manual addressing the above three
components. Each lesson is in a two-column format, in which the content (the material which must
be delivered) is in the wider left-hand column, and the group facilitator notes (which provide
directions for the facilitator) are in the narrow right-hand column. In addition, there are
supplemental examples in the manual, such as charts, handouts, and scripts, for each lesson.
The manual recommends the group include between 8-12 members to preserve program
integrity. During the SPEP review period, one cohort had eight youth, while the 2nd cohort had
seven youth. The manual recommends at least two sessions a week; however, states it is best
delivered two to three sessions a week. During the SPEP review period, the program delivered
this primary service three times a week; Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The program does not
utilize a student manual; however, does provide youth with homework, specifically for the youth,
from the T4C facilitator manual.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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.
During the SPEP review period, the primary service, Thinking for a Change, was observed by
Monitoring and Quality Improvement (MQI) staff. The facilitator provided the MQI staff, observing
the session, with a copy of the lesson being delivered. The facilitator reviewed lesson #19
homework while the youth completed lesson # 19 homework. The facilitator stated, prior to the
session, she usually only reviews the homework with the youth during the session; however, the
youth were having a difficult time with this lesson and the facilitator agreed to complete the
homework during the session. The facilitator also delivered lesson # 20 during the observed
session. The youth were engaged and all youth participated during the review of the homework
and lesson #20. The facilitator adhered to the manual for both the homework and the lesson.
Supplemental items (charts, white board, DVD, Power Point presentation) were not used during
the lesson. The youth did have their homework and handouts from a previous lesson and these
supplemental items were used during the lesson.
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 protocol for facilitator turnover, which states in the event of facilitator turnover,
the co-facilitator will assume the role of the facilitator for the group. The protocol further states, if
a co-facilitator is not present, a new qualified facilitator for the primary service will take over
conducting the service. A review of the sign-in sheets, during the twelve-month review period,
documented there was no facilitator turnover for the primary service Thinking for a Change. In
addition, there were no gaps in service during the last twelve months. At this time the program
only has one trained facilitator for the primary service Thinking for a Change.
BasicScore: 1Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a protocol for fidelity monitoring which, in part, states designated staff are
responsible for conducting fidelity monitoring of each facilitator of a primary service on a monthly
basis. The protocol further states, the staff conducting the monitoring has received formal training
by a qualified trainer in the primary service. The fidelity monitor is required, per their protocol, to
verify the facilitator adheres to the session plan, group size, population, frequency, needed
materials, duration and interventions. The fidelity monitor, clinical care manager, who completed
all fidelity monitoring for this primary service completed the required training, 32-hour Thinking for
a Change Facilitator Training, on April 13, 2012, as documented in the Department’s Learning
Management System (CORE). During the SPEP review period, Fidelity Adherence Checklists
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
were provided, documenting fidelity monitoring was completed monthly for the first cohort. The
fidelity monitoring for T4C was conducted on February 20, 2016, March 29, 2016, April 6, 2016
and May 3, 2016. However, during the second cohort, which is still ongoing, one out of the three
monthly fidelity monitorings was not conducted. The fidelity monitorings for the second cohort
were conducted on January 17, 2017 and March 2, 2017. Of the six above fidelity monitorings, the
monitor recommended the facilitator utilize visual aids on three separate fidelity monitorings;
February 20, 2016, March 29, 2016 and January 17, 2017. The Fidelity Adherence Checklist
noted all required documentation per the program protocol.
The program can earn 2 points if internal fidelity monitoring is conducted at least monthly.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
BasicScore: 0Point
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 protocol for corrective action planning which states in part, based on the
results of the monthly fidelity monitoring, correction action may be needed. The protocol further
states the first stage of addressing areas identified as needing improvement through fidelity
monitoring is providing coaching and supervision to the facilitator on that issue by a qualified
facilitator in the primary service. The protocol continues, by stating if during additional fidelity
monitoring the previously identified area addressed continues to be an issue, the next step is to
completing a written warning and placing facilitator on a Performance Improvement Plan. During
the SPEP review period there were no corrective action plans. However, during the SPEP review
period, the monitor recommended the facilitator utilize visual aids on three separate fidelity
monitoring’s; February 20, 2016, March 29, 2016 and January 17, 2017. For this recommendation
there was no correction action process, nor were there subsequent monitorings addressing the
issue being corrected. The program stated this was only a recommendation to the facilitator, not
an issue which needed corrective action. During observation of this primary service, during the
SPEP review, the facilitator did not use visual aids.
The program can earn 1 point if the corrective actions are applied and demonstrated and
documented in subsequent internal fidelity monitoring.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program has a protocol on Annual Evaluation of Service Delivery which states an annual
evaluation of performance will be conducted on all facilitators of each primary service. During the
performance evaluation, feedback from the fidelity monitoring tools and an assessment of the
facilitator’s skill delivering the primary service, is utilized. A review of the facilitator’s evaluation
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
documented it was conducted on September 12, 2016 and included the evaluation of the primary
service skills for Thinking for a Change.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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 2 youth in the
sample, 100% (2 of 2) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 2 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 2) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 2 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 2 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (2 of 2) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (1 of 2) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 90 100 90%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking For A Change (T4C), an intervention delivered at Polk
Halfway House.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized if internal
fidelity monitoring is conducted at least monthly and if the corrective actions are applied and
demonstrated and documented in subsequent internal fidelity monitoring.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 2 total youth sampled, all
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample both completed
approximately 17 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. Youth in the sample both completed
40.5 hours of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10
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):
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score if internal fidelity
monitoring is conducted at least monthly and if the corrective actions are applied and
demonstrated and documented in subsequent internal fidelity monitoring.
Polk Halfway House 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 11


state: FL

facility_name: Polk Halfway House

summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Young Men's Work
SPEP Review Date(s): February 28 ‐ March 3, 2017
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 6/13/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Polk Halfway House MQI Program Code: 1049
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: R2095
Location: Polk County / Circuit: 10 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): February 28 - March 3, 2017 Lead Reviewer Code: 152
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # 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 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Young Men's Work. The program was awarded 25 points
because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4 Service. The specific Sub-Component
Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary Service was identified as this type of
service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal problems or issues faced by an individual
and involves a group of youths interacting with each other
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program has a protocol for primary service facilitator training, which states the youth care
worker or therapist, who are facilitators of the primary service, will have conducted a formalized
training from a qualified trainer. Upon review of the primary service, the cohorts were delivered by
five facilitators during the SPEP review period. Three of the facilitators are program therapist, one
of whom is no longer employed with the program. The additional facilitators are the program’s
Regional Clinical Director and the provider’s Chief Clinical Officer. For this primary service, three
of the five facilitators completed the minimum required training, Young Men’s Work Facilitator
Training, prior to conducting the primary service; dates of training are September 27, 2013, July
24, 2015, and February 4, 2016, as documented in the Department’s Learning Management
System (CORE and SkillPro). The Regional Clinical Director facilitated the primary service, YMW,
during the SPEP review period and there is no supporting documentation of her YMW training.
The Chief Clinical Officer facilitated one YMW session on December 29, 2016; however, there is
no supporting documentation of YMW training for this facilitator. The program staff stated both the
Regional Clinical Director and Chief Clinical Officer are the trainer for this primary service and
conduct the train the trainer for YMW.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators are trained to deliver the intervention.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the brand-name facilitator manual for YMW, Young Men’s Work: Stopping
Violence and Building Community and the Young Men’s Work: Teen Handbook. The program
utilized the brand-name facilitator manual for every group session, which were reviewed during
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
the SPEP review period. The manual is divided into two parts. Part one of the facilitator manual
concentrates on the roots of violence and on how to curb violent behavior through allies and other
support systems. Part two focuses on self-empowerment and community connection. The manual
includes an agenda, a description of each exercise, further suggestions for facilitators, and a
guide to the use of the exercise. The Teen Handbook is meant to supplement the curriculum.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
During the SPEP review period, the primary service, Young Men’s Work (YMW), was observed by
Monitoring and Quality Improvement (MQI) staff. The facilitator provided the MQI staff, observing
the session, with a copy of the lesson being delivered. The facilitator reviewed session # 5 and
lesson # 8 with the youth during the observed session. The youth were engaged and all youth
participated during the lesson. The facilitator adhered to the manual for both session # 5 and
lesson #8 and utilized the white board as an aide when conducting the lesson.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program has a protocol for facilitator turnover, which states in the event of facilitator turnover,
the co-facilitator will assume the role of the facilitator for the group. The protocol further states, if a
co-facilitator is not present, a new qualified facilitator for the primary service will take over
conducting the service. A review of the sign-in sheets, during the SPEP review period,
documented there was facilitator turnover for the primary service Young Men’s Work. The primary
service continued weekly with no gap in service, despite the turnover. The group was facilitated
by five facilitators from February 25, 2016 – February 23, 2017. The facilitator, who conducted the
group on December 29, 2016, had not facilitated any additional groups during the SPEP review
period. There is no documentation this facilitator was able to establish a rapport with the youth of
this cohort.
The program can earn 2 points by minimizing facilitator turnover.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
BasicScore: 2Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a protocol for fidelity monitoring which, in part, states designated staff are
responsible for conducting fidelity monitoring of each facilitator of a primary service on a monthly
basis. The protocol further states, the staff conducting the monitoring has received formal training
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
by a qualified trainer in the primary service. The fidelity monitor is required, per their protocol, to
verify the facilitator adheres to the session plan, group size, population, frequency, needed
materials, duration and interventions. During the 12 month SPEP review period, the three fidelity
monitors, all program therapist, completed the required, Young Men’s Work Facilitator Training on
September 27 2013, July 24, 2015, and February 4, 2016, as documented in the Department’s
Learning Management System (CORE and SkillPro). During the 12 month SPEP review period,
Fidelity Checklists were provided, documenting fidelity monitoring was completed monthly for the
12 month SPEP review period. The fidelity monitoring’s were conducted on February 18, 2016,
March 10, 2016, April 28, 2016, May 12, 2016, June 9, 2016, July 21, 2016, August 18, 2016,
September 1, 2016, October 6, 2016, November 10, 2016, December 1, 2016, January 19, 2017,
and January 26, 2017. The Fidelity Checklist noted all required documentation per the program
protocol.
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.
The program has a protocol for corrective action planning which states in part, based on the
results of the monthly fidelity monitoring correction action may be needed. The protocol further
states the first stage of addressing areas identified as needing improvement through fidelity
monitoring is providing coaching and supervision to the facilitator on that issue by a qualified
facilitator in the primary service. The protocol continues, by stating if during additional fidelity
monitoring the previously identified area addressed continues to be an issue, the next step is to
completing a written warning and placing facilitator on a Performance Improvement Plan. During
the SPEP review period there were no corrective action plans and no identified issues on the
fidelity monitoring plans.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program has a protocol on Annual Evaluation of Service Delivery which states, an annual
evaluation of performance will be conducted on all facilitators of each primary service. During the
performance evaluation, feedback from the fidelity monitoring tools and an assessment of the
facilitator’s skill delivering the primary service, is utilized. A review of three of the five facilitator’s
evaluations documented they were conducted during the SPEP review period and included the
evaluation of the primary service skills for Young Men’s Work. The facilitator who left employment,
left during the month of December 2016; therefore, this facilitator’s evaluation was not completed
during the SPEP review period. A review of the Chief Clinical Officer’s evaluation documented it
was completed on January 7, 2016, which was prior to the SPEP review period.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 10 youth in the
sample, 90% (9 of 10) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 10 youth in the
sample, 40% (4 of 10) 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 = 3 youth
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 70%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 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% (10 of 10) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 70% (7 of 10) 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 25 25 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 87 95 92%
This SPEP report evaluates Young Men's Work, an intervention delivered at Polk Halfway House.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized if all
facilitators are trained to deliver the intervention, and if facilitator turnover is minimized.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 10 total youth sampled, all
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 9
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 16
and 36 weeks of service, with an average of 31 weeks.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 10 total youth
sampled, all included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 4 received
at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 18 and 40
hours of service, with an average of 36 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):
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score if all facilitators are
trained to deliver the intervention, and if facilitator turnover is minimized.
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Polk Halfway House

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Young Men's Work


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): March 20‐23, 2018
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): March 27, 2018
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: Polk Halfway House MQI Program Code: 7270
Provider Name: Truecore Behavioral Solutions, LLC Contract Number: 10359
Location: Polk County / Circuit: 10 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): March 20-23, 2018 Lead Reviewer Code: 121
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 6 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program had documentation to reflect three staff facilitated the Impact of Crime curriculum in
the last twelve months. The three staff members completed the training protocol; they completed
the twenty-eight-hour training facilitated by the Department of Juvenile Justice, which was
documented in SkillPro. One facilitator, who is the regional clinical director, received the training in
2014; another facilitator was trained in 2015, she is now the assistant facility administrator; and
the third facilitator, the former clinical director, was trained in 2016.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program has a Department manual for the Impact of Crime groups, which the program
provided as a reference during the review. The program does not currently provide the Impact of
Crime group. The manual has a facilitator and a student guide, both include a table of contents
and each chapter. Each chapter encompasses objectives, words to know, definitions, activities,
facilitator notes, teaching tips, scenarios, and discussion points.
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.
No groups are being currently conducted and the curriculum was not able to be observied;
therefore this indicatpr rates as non-applicable.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The facility had one mental health staff member turnover, who had provided the Impact of Crime
group. In the staff member's absence, another therapist and the regional clinical director had
provided the groups. The Impact of Crime group has not been conducted since December 2017.
The regional compliance manager stated, due to not having enough youth needing the group it
has not been conducted since. The program has a standardized program evaluation protocol
which states, in the event of facilitator turnover, the co-facilitator would assume the role of the
facilitator for the group. If a co-facilitator is not present, a new qualified facilitator for the primary
service would take over conducting the service.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 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 fidelity monitoring in their standardized program evaluation protocol. The
designated staff are responsible for conducting fidelity monitoring of each facilitator of a primary
service, once a month. The staff conducting the fidelity monitoring has received formal training by
qualified trainer in the primary service. Fidelity monitoring is documented on a fidelity monitoring
tool developed specifically for the primary service by the developer of the manual, or an internal
fidelity checklist created for manualized or non-manualized curriculum delivered in the program.
The staff performing the fidelity monitoring of the primary service is verifying the facilitator is
conducting the group in accordance with the manual/protocol. This includes verifying the facilitator
adheres to the session plan, group size, population, frequency, needed materials, duration, and
interventions. There were three staff who facilitated the groups in the last twelve months, and the
fidelity monitoring was provided per protocol, once a month for each facilitator; the Impact of
Crime group has not been conducted since December 2017. A need for corrective action was not
noted during any of the fidelity monitorings.
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.
The program has corrective action plan in their standardized program evaluation protocol. The
first stage of addressing areas identified as needing improvement through fidelity monitoring is
providing coaching and supervision to the facilitator on the specific issue by a qualified facilitator
in the primary service. The additional coaching and/or supervision will be documented by the
person conducting the fidelity monitoring on the fidelity tool and might be included as part of the
clinical supervision. If during additional fidelity monitoring the previously identified area addressed
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
continues to be an issue, the next stage is completing a written warning and placing the facilitator
on a performance improvement plan. The plan will state the issue identified, the tasks the
facilitator needs to complete to correct the issue, and a target date for completion. The plan will be
reviewed with the facilitator by the auditor conducting the monitoring, and the facilitator’s
supervisor. In the event an issue identified during the primary service is determinantal to the
youth’s safety and/or treatment, the matter will be taken up directly with the program’s human
resources manager and be addressed in accordance with the employee handbook.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of the mental health staff’s employee performance evaluations found there were two of
three evaluations conducted, which included an area to address the evaluation of skill in
delivering the intervention.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 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 13 youth in the
sample, 8% (1 of 13) 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 13 youth in the
sample, 100% (13 of 13) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 92%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 85%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 92% (12 of 13) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 85% (11 of 13) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 63 85 74%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Polk Halfway House.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 13 total youth sampled, all
13 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 1 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10 and 21 weeks of
service, with an average of 11 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 13 total youth
sampled, all 13 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 13 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 24 and 44 hours of
service, with an average of 25 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups, and by ensuring each facilitator’s performance
evaluation includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service.
Polk Halfway House 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: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Skillstreaming the Adolescent
SPEP Review Date(s): March 20‐23, 2018
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): March 27, 2018
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: Polk Halfway House MQI Program Code: 7270
Provider Name: Truecore Behavioral Solutions, LLC Contract Number: 10359
Location: Polk County / Circuit: 10 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): March 20-23, 2018 Lead Reviewer Code: 121
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Skillstreaming the Adolescent. The program was
awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3 Service. The specific
Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The Primary Service was
identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills required for an individual
to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 6 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program had documentation to reflect six staff facilitated the Skillstreaming curriculum in the
last twelve months, but could only provide training for four of them. The four individuals were the
regional clinical director, former clinical director, the assistant facility administrator and one
therapist. No training documentation was received for two therapists.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators receive formal training prior to delivering services to
youth.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program has a manual “Skillstreaming the adolescent, a guide for teaching prosocial skills”-
the Arnold P. Goldstein Approach, for their Skillstreaming groups, and provided a copy for the
team for reference during the review. The manual has the facilitator manual, which also includes a
CD with the student handouts for printing. The manual includes an introduction section and two
parts of the manual. The first part of the manual introduces and teaches the instructor on how to
deliver the different sessions. The second part of the manual has the different skills the instructor
will teach the youth. It includes, the skill, the skills steps, and suggested modeling displays, as
well as homework to be provided to the youth.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
A group session was observed. Prior to the session a copy of the lesson was provided to the
observer. The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan and encouraged the youth to share their low
and high points for the day. The facilitator asked youth to assist in the different steps involving the
skill concentrating on a task and wrote them on the board, one by one, as youth were stating
them. The facilitator modeled the skill and then asked youth to pair up to think of a skill to
demonstrate. All youth completed their skit and demonstrated the knowledge of the skill. The
facilitator gave each youth not participating in the skit the task to pay attention, if the youth doing
the skit where completing all steps of the skill.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The facility had one mental health staff member turnover, who had provided the Skillstreaming
group. The program has consistently provided the group since it commenced in October 2017;
every Thursday. In the event of facilitator turnover, the co-facilitator would assume the role of the
facilitator for the group. If a co-facilitator is not present, a new qualified facilitator for the primary
service would take over conducting the service.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has fidelity monitoring on their service training protocol for skillstreaming. A person
trained in the curriculum will conduct a fidelity monitoring on the curriculum for each facilitator
once a month. The fidelity tool will ensure the service delivery protocols are being followed. The
fidelity tool will be reviewed with the facilitator. There were six staff which facilitated the groups
since October 2017; when the group commenced. The program missed the fidelity monitoring for
two staff in October 2017, two staff in November 2017, one staff in December 2017 and one staff
in January 2017. None of the mental health staff required corrective action based on the findings
of the fidelity monitoring.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The skillstreaming training protocol includes a corrective action process. If a deficiency is noted
from the fidelity monitoring, the facilitator will be coached by the auditor and it’s documented on a
clinical supervision note. If the same deficiency continues, the next step will be a written warning
and placement on a performance improvement plan. The plan will state the issue identified, the
tasks the facilitator needs to complete to correct the issue, and a target date for completion. The
plan will be reviewed with the facilitator by the auditor and the facilitator’s supervisor. In the event
an issue identified during primary service delivery is detrimental to the youth’s safety and/or
treatment, the matter will be taken up directly with the program’s human resources manager and
be addressed in accordance with the employee handbook. The program had no corrective action
for the group.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of the mental health staff’s employee performance evaluations found there were three of
six evaluations conducted, which included an area to address the evaluation of skill in delivering
the intervention.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 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 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 1 youth in the
sample, 100% (1 of 1) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 1 youth in the
sample, 100% (1 of 1) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 48%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 1 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 1 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (1 of 1) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 1) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 12 25 48%
Totals 62 85 73%
This SPEP report evaluates Skillstreaming the Adolescent, an intervention delivered at Polk
Halfway House.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. The 1 youth sampled included
dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. That youth received at least the recommended weeks
of service, completing 24 weeks of service.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. The 1 youth sampled
included dosage in the EBS Module. That youth received at least the recommended hours of
service, completing 24 hours of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 12 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring all
facilitators receive formal training prior to delivering services to youth, and by ensuring facilitator
turnover does not impact groups. Additionaly, Quality of Service Delivery can be optimized by
ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, and by including
discussion of skill in delivering this primary service in each faciltiator's performance evaluation.
Polk Halfway House 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: Skillstreaming the Adolescent


summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Polk Halfway House
True Core Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2145 Bob Phillips Road
Bartow, Florida 33830
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): 4/2/19‐4/5/19
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/4/19
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 6 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program provided all training documentation for Impact of Crime (IOC). There were three staff
trained to facilitate IOC during the review period - two case managers and the transition services
manager. The case managers were trained in June, 2018; the transition services manager was
trained in October, 2015. One of the case managers left during the review period.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program provided the protocol for service delivery for review. The protocol stated each
primary service will be conducted as indicated in the manual/protocol; this includes adherence to
the session plan, group size, population, frequency, needed materials, duration, and interventions.
The faciltitator of the primary service will specify the topic covered, interventions utilized, duration
of service, youth present, and progress for each session on the sign-in sheet.
The program maintains the attendance sheets and internal fidelity monitoring forms in a binder
titled "PHH SPEP INFORMATION" . All sign-in sheets are submitted to the transition services
manager for review and then kept in the SPEP binder. Fidelity monitoring is competed monthly for
each facilitator. Internal fidelity monitoring forms are reviewed with the facilitator by the reviewer
and then submitted to the facility administrator or designee for review.
The treatment team determines youth appropriate for the Impact of Crime curriculum based on
the youth's needs, history, and their ability to participate in the whole curriculum based on their
current anticipated release date.
The program utilizes the updated Impact of Crime manual. The manual provides objectives for
each lesson and script for the facilitator. The manual includes the youth manual and all
worksheets associated with lessons.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
The program is not currently running Impact of Crime groups and was unable to be observed
during the review week; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program provided documentation of turnover during the review period. There were two
facilitators during the review period, but the previous case manager left in late December 2018.
The transition services manager remained at the program, but did not continue the group. This
reviewer spoke with the corporate compliance manager and clinical services director about the
group. It was discussed the group did not continue due to not having anyone else trained to
conduct internal fidelity monitoring. The decision was made the program would begin an Impact of
Crime group the week following this review. The program has held one cohort during the review
period from August 27, 2018 through December 21, 2018. The group is not currently being held at
the program.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a written protocol for internal fidelity monitoring and it was provided for review.
The protocol states the designated staffs (facility administrator, designated mental health clinical
authority, therapists, and regional clinical director) are responsible for conducting fidelity
monitoring of each facilitator of a primary service on a monthly basis. The staff conducting the
fidelity monitoring has received formal training by a qualified trainer in the primary service. Fidelity
monitoring is documented on a fidelity monitoring tool developed specifically for that primary
service. Internal fidelity monitoring is conducted randomly each month for each facilitator by other
trained staff.
The program provided four out of five months of internal fidelity monitoring for review. The
program utilized the Impact of Crime fidelity monitoring tool.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 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 provided the protocol for the corrective action process. When a deficiency is
identified, the supervisor will start with a coaching session with the employee to discuss the
deficiency noted. If necessary, due to the severity of the deficiency or a repeated pattern, the
supervisor will complete a corrective action, or the employee is placed on a performance
improvement plan which is reviewed to ensure the employee is making the necessary
adjustments.
Four out of five months of internal fidelity monitoring reviewed documented no need for corrective
action for the facilitators of Impact of Crime.
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 provided the protocol for yearly performance evaluation of service delivery for
review. The protocol stated the annual evaluation of performance will be conducted on all the
facilitators of each primary service. The performance evaluation is comprised of feedback from
the monthly fidelity monitoring tools and an assessment of the facilitator's skill in delivering the
primary service. The evaluation is completed by a qualified facilitator and reviewed by the
facilitator's supervisor.
One of two facilitators for Impact of Crime received a yearly performance evaluation. One
faciltator left before the yearly performance evaluation could be completed. The yearly
performance evaluations had a section for group facilitation and had all curricula the facilitator had
been trained in listed.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 100% (9 of 9) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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: 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 = 5 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 44%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (9 of 9) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 44% (4 of 9) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 85 88%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Polk Halfway House.
30 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 9 total youth sampled, all 9
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 9 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 16 and 17 weeks of
service, with an average of 17 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 9 total youth
sampled, all 9 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 9 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 24 and 34 hours of
service, with an average of 33 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups, and by ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every
month for each facilitator.
Polk Halfway House can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9