state: FL

facility_name: Columbus Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Columbus Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9502 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: February 1, 2023 - January 31, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: March 30, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: September 12, 2024
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.
A review of documentation for the annual review period of February 1, 2023, to January 31, 2024,
shows the program utilizes Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service. Facilitator training
consists of a three day, twenty-four (24)-hour training provided by the Department of Juvenile
Justice. This training is available to new facilitators both in-person and via Microsoft Teams. There
were eleven (11) staff members formally trained in the IOC curriculum- one director of case
management, two transitional managers, one youth care worker, one youth advocate, one
community liaison, and five case managers. Any IOC trained facilitator may conduct internal
fidelity monitoring. The documentation shows the director of case management conducted fidelity
monitoring for this annual 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 utilizes the manual Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm. The manual includes
seven chapters and provides a script for the facilitator to follow. The curriculum includes a student
guide with exercises for the participants to complete that are aimed at reinforcing the material
presented during group sessions. The program does not assign a student guide to each individual
participant, rather the facilitator makes copies of the exercises and provides one to each youth
during the lesson. The program conducts Impact of Crime on Tuesdays and Thursdays from
1:15pm to 2:15pm. The program maintains all SPEP documentation (attendance sheets and
internal fidelity checks) in a separate binder labeled "Impact of Crime". All youth admitted to the
program are required to participate in this service. Impact of Crime is a closed group with no more
than twelve (12) youth assigned to a cohort.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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.
An observation of the Impact of Crime group was conducted in person on Thursday, August 17,
2023, from 3:30pm-4:28pm. There were two facilitators and ten (10) youth in the group The
facilitator and co-facilitator followed the lesson plan and did not read verbatim from the manual.
The lesson covered was “Chapter 2: Lesson 2 Personal Accountability (Challenging Stinking
Thinking)”. The delivery of the lesson was easy for the youth to understand and follow along. Both
facilitators insured all youth had a clear understanding of the concept prior to moving forward. The
facilitators adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation for the annual review period of February 1, 2023, through January 31,
2024, showed the program has experienced facilitator turnover. The turnover did not directly
affect the delivery of Impact of Crime. There was a gap of eighteen (18) days from 1/4/2024 to
1/23/2024. During that time, the facilitator had scheduled days off and was involved in assisting
with transportation to medical appointments which ran into his scheduled group times. At this
time, there was no additional facilitator on site to cover the group.
Two cohorts started prior to the annual review period. Both started on October 25, 2022 and
completed on March 3, 2023. One cohort started and ended with six (6) youth; the other started
with ten (10) youth and ended with eight (8) youth, two youth completed the program prior to the
end of the cohort.
A third cohort ran from March 23, 2023, to July 20, 2023. The cohort started with ten (10) youth
and ended with nine (9) youth. One youth was discharged from the program.
The fourth cohort ran from April 4, 2023, to August 8, 2023. The cohort started and ended with ten
(10) youth.
The fifth cohort ran from August 8, 2023, to November 24, 2023. The cohort started with ten (10)
and ended with nine (9) youth. One youth was discharged from the program.
The sixth cohort started on October 26,2023, to current as of January 31, 2024, with ten (10)
youth.
An informal interview with the director of case management confirmed that best practice is to have
a co-facilitator. If a co-facilitator is not available, the program will replace one facilitator with
another qualified facilitator should there be any staff turnover in the middle of a cohort.
The program can earn 2 points if there are no unnecessary gaps in service.
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: 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 uses internal fidelity monitoring checklists specific to Impact of Crime (IOC). A
review of documentation provided shows internal fidelity monitoring was conducted each month
for each facilitator, without exception. All internal fidelity monitoring was completed.
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.
A review of documentation and an informal interview with the director of case management
showed there were corrective actions taken for facilitators of Impact of Crime (IOC). The
December 21, 2023 sign in sheet had no group times listed. Also, there were several sheets
which had objectives marked which were not a part of the curriculum. For instance, there were
objectives three and four marked for chapter five. Chapter five only has two objectives. The
director of case management provided additional training to the facilitator and followed up the on
next monitoring to ensure compliance. According to the director of case management on the next
fidelity monitoring the facilitator did adhere to the corrective action. The director of case
management explained if a need for corrective action is found, the facilitator will receive
progressive discipline to include coaching, retraining, and formal write-up(s).
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of documentation for the annual review period showed the program has a policy in place
for annual staff performance evaluations. The program’s policy states an annual evaluation of
performance will be conducted on all the facilitators of each primary service. The performance
evaluation is comprised of feedback from the fidelity monitoring tools as well as an assessment of
the facilitator’s skill in delivering Impact of Crime.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 7 youth in the
sample, 57% (4 of 7) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 7 youth in the
sample, 100% (7 of 7) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 8%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 43%
Moderate to High Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 17%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 14%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 43% (3 of 7) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
2 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 14% (1 of 7) 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 4 10 40%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 2 25 8%
Totals 56 85 66%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Columbus Youth
Academy.
8 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 7 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 7 total youth sampled, all 7
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 4 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 5 and 18 weeks of
service, with an average of 12 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 7 total youth
sampled, all 7 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 7 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 32 and 36 hours of
service, with an average of 33 hours.
The program was awarded 2 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.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (8% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
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 93%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Columbus Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
there are no unnecessary gaps in service
Columbus Youth Academy 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

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2023-24 Columbus IOC.pdf

program_name_raw: Columbus Youth Academy - TrueCore

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Columbus Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9502 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Pathways-A Guided Workbook for Youth Beginning
Treatment
SPEP Review Period: February 1, 2023 - January 31, 2024
SPEP Review Conducted: March 30, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: September 12, 2024
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: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Pathways-A Guided Workbook for Youth Beginning
Treatment.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group
<---Select from Drop-Down---> 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 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): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
A review of documentation for the annual review period of February 1, 2023, to January 1, 2024,
shows the program utilizes Pathways-A Guided Workbook for Youth Beginning Treatment as a
primary service. Facilitators receive an in-service training provided by the clinical director or other
qualified trainer. There were ten (10) clinical staff members formally trained in the Pathways
curriculum: one clinical director, one assistant clinical director, six therapists, and two PRN (as
needed) therapist. Five therapists and the assistant clinical director facilitated Pathways; the
clinical director conducted all fidelity monitorings for this review.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the Pathways-A Guided Workbook for Youth Beginning Treatment 4th ed.
manual. The program also has curriculum titled Footprints and Roadmaps to Recovery if the
youth is not on a high school level. There is not a separate manual for facilitators and youth as the
manual is the same for both the facilitator and the youth. The manual is broken down into fourteen
(14) chapters. Each chapter covers a specific topic and there are activities for each topic in each
chapter. Pathways is run as an open group and individually. Groups are moved through each
chapter in order from one through fourteen (14) and then back to chapter one. All youth receive
this service, which is held on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
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 4
This Pathways group was observed in person on Wednesday, April 19, 2023, from 2:15pm -
3:20pm. There was one staff and ten (10) youth in the group. All youth were engaged in the
group. The facilitator had good control of the group and was knowledgeable of the material. The
group covered Chapter 3: Victim Empathy Presentations. Two youth presented and the other
youth gave great and positive feedback. There were no concerns with the facilitation of this group.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Documentation for the annual review period of February 1, 2023, through January 31, 2024,
showed the program has experienced facilitator turnover. The turnover did not directly affect the
delivery of Pathways- A Guided Workbook for Youth Beginning Treatment to the youth. There
were no gaps in the delivery of this service. There were five cohorts of Pathways conducted
during this review period.
Cohort one began on 2/1/23- and is currently on going (Another therapist took over on 7/18/23).
Cohort two began on 2/1/23- and is currently on going (There was a change in facilitator on
9/27/23 because the facilitator went on a leave of absence).
Cohort three began on 2/1/23- and is currently on going.
Cohort four began on 2/1/23- and is currently on going.
Cohort five began on 2/1/23- and is currently on going.
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 a process in place to monitor the delivery of Pathways- A Guided Workbook for
Youth Beginning Treatment to ensure fidelity. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring
checklists specific to Pathways to document the monitoring. The program provided completed
checklists for all facilitators for each month they conducted a Pathways group. The clinical director
conducted all internal fidelity monitoring during the 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.
A review of documentation for the annual review period of February 1, 2023, through January 31,
2024 and an informal interview with the clinical director showed there were no corrective actions
identified for the facilitators of Pathways-A Guided Workbook for Youth Beginning Treatment.
During the informal interview with the clinical director, it was explained if a need for corrective
action is found, the facilitator will receive progressive discipline to include coaching, retraining,
and formal write-up(s).
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of documentation for the annual review period showed the program has a policy in place
for annual staff performance evaluations. The program’s policy states an annual evaluation of
performance will be conducted on all the facilitators of each primary service. The performance
evaluation is comprised of feedback from the fidelity monitoring tools as well as an assessment of
the facilitator’s skill in delivering Pathways- A Guided Workbook for Youth Beginning Treatment.
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 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 7 youth in the
sample, 71% (5 of 7) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 7 youth in the
sample, 100% (7 of 7) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 8%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 43%
Moderate to High Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 17%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 14%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 7 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 43% (3 of 7) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
2 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 14% (1 of 7) 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 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 2 25 8%
Totals 68 95 72%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways-A Guided Workbook for Youth Beginning Treatment, an
intervention delivered at Columbus Youth Academy.
8 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 7 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 7 total youth sampled, all 7
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 5 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 17 and 49 weeks of
service, with an average of 32 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 7 total youth
sampled, all 7 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 7 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 85 and 144 hours of
service, with an average of 111 hours.
The program was awarded 2 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.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (8% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
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 96%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Columbus Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Columbus Youth Academy 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 Columbus Pathways SO.pdf

service_type: Pathways to Self‐Discovery and Change