state: FL

facility_name: DOVE Academy

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Developing Opportunities through Vocation and Education
(DOVE) Academy
Twin Oaks Juvenile Development, Inc
(Contract Provider)
5270 Ezell Road
Graceville, Florida 32440
Primary Service: Moral Reconation Therapy
SPEP Review Period: December 1, 2022 - November 30, 2023
SPEP Review Conducted: July 31, 2024 - August 2, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: August 26, 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: 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 Moral Reconation Therapy.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 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 utilizes Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) as a primary service. The therapy staff are
formally trained to conduct MRT groups. The staff attend a thirty-two (32) hour training conducted
by Correctional Counseling Institute on-line. The program has a total five staff trained. One past
therapist, three current therapists, and one clinical director. All training records were provided for
review. Seven MRT sign-in sheets were provided with a therapist not certified in MRT listed as the
facilitator.
The clinical director conducts for fidelity monitoring for MRT.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators are trained in the primary service prior to facilitating
groups.
At the time of the review, the program 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 uses the "Juvenile MRT Facilitator's Handbook" by Gregory L. Little, Kenneth D.
Robinson, and Katherine Brunette. The manual is general with limited guidelines for facilitators.
There is no specific script for the facilitators. The manual includes each of the twelve steps with
general information on how to run each lesson.
Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) is an open group meaning it is continuously held and typically
two groups are held during each week for forty-five (45) minutes. All sign-in sheets for MRT
groups are maintained in the clinical director's office. There were no gaps in service per a review
of the sign-in sheets.
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.
A Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) group was not observed during this period.
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's policy in the event of facilitator turnover for Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT)
groups is for another trained staff to continue with group facilitation. There was one facilitator that
resigned, however the groups continued to be held consistently. The contract chart dictates there
are between two to ten (10) youth in a group, but groups of eleven (11) were reviewed throughout
the annual review period. The program has youth who leave the program to work with the
Department of Transportation (DOT), which requires the DOT youth to receive a make-up groups.
The program is consistent with getting those youth who miss group, a make-up group. Throughout
the months of October and November, nine examples were observed with groups shorter than the
forty-five minute requirement. One therapist at the program was not there long enough to get
certified as a MRT therapist. However, in October, seven MRT sign-in sheets were provided with
the therapist not certified in MRT listed as the facilitator.
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 clinical director conducts internal fidelity monitoring observations and is formally trained in the
curriculum. There were five facilitators that facilitated the MRT groups during the annual review
period. All fidelity monitoring observations were completed for the certified MRT therapists with no
missing monthly fideility monitorings.
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 clinical director addresses any significant issues or corrective actions for the facilitators of
Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT). Per a review of all fidelity forms, there were no significant
issues or corrective actions noted for this review period. The program reported no corrective
action was conducted during the annual review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The programs protocol for evaluating staff is that the staff get annual evaluations and the program
reported the Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) facilitators received their annual performance
evaluations, but did not provide them for review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 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 27 youth in the
sample, 100% (27 of 27) 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: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 96% (26 of 27) 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: 48%
Moderate to High Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 17%
Table 1
Moderate = 7 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
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 = 27 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, 48% (13 of 27) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 2 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 27) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 2 25 8%
Totals 75 100 75%
This SPEP report evaluates Moral Reconation Therapy, an intervention delivered at DOVE
Academy.
27 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 27 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 27 total youth sampled,
only 27 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
27 received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between
23 and 59 weeks of service, with an average of 32 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 27 total youth
sampled, only 27 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 26
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 35
and 179 hours of service, with an average of 89 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.
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 98%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
DOVE Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring all
facilitators are trained prior to facilitating groups and by ensuring the program provides the
primary service regularly throughout the year so it can be observed for adherence to the
manual/protocol.
DOVE 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 DOVE MRT.pdf

program_name_raw: Dove Academy

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Moral Reconation Therapy


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Developing Opportunities through Vocation and Education
(DOVE) Academy
Twin Oaks Juvenile Development, Inc
(Contract Provider)
5270 Ezell Road
Graceville, Florida 32440
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: December 1, 2022 - November 30, 2023
SPEP Review Conducted: July 31, 2024 - August 2, 2024
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: August 26, 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: 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): 7 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 uaes Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service. The case management staff are
trained to facilitate IOC groups. There have been three staff facilitating IOC at the program. The
trained staff are two case managers and one clinical director. Case Management are the primary
facilitators for the program. All training records were provided for review.
Any trained IOC facilitator can conduct internal fidelity monitoring for IOC groups.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum with all current lessons. The youth
receive separate workbooks. The curriculum also includes implementation guidelines, identifies
the order the lessons should be delivered, and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of
every lesson. The program schedule changes throughout the review period and held at different
times of the day, depending on the facilitator’s schedule. Groups are held twice a week. IOC
groups for one hour a session. The documentation for IOC groups is maintained in a binder kept
in the clinical director's office. Impact of Crime groups are closed groups meaning youth should
not be added to a cohort once the first lesson has been completed.
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.
An Impact of Crime group was not observed during this period.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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's policy in the event of Impact of Crime (IOC) facilitator turnover is for another
trained staff to continue with group facilitation. The program did not experience facilitator turnover
during this review period. All sign-in sheets were provided for review. There were a total of four
cohorts completed and one cohort in progress for the annual review period.
A cohort began on November 14, 2022 and ended on April 12, 2023. Four youth began the group
and four youth successfully completed.
A cohort began on February 23, 2023 and ended on June 21, 2023. Twelve (12) youth began the
group and eleven (11) youth successfully completed.
A cohort began on May 15, 2023 and ended on September 5, 2023. Twelve (12) youth began the
group and eleven (11) youth successfully completed.
A cohort began on July 20, 2023 and ended on November 15, 2023. Eleven (11) youth began the
group and nine youth successfully completed. One youth was arrested and one youth was
transferred to another program. There were five examples of groups being held on consecutive
days during September and October. There were four examples of the lessons not being marked
correctly on the sign-in sheets. On October 30, 2023, the group was held on the same date, at the
same time, and with the same facilitator as the make-up group. From October 26th to the 31st, one
youth received back to back groups to complete early due to her release from the program.
A cohort began on September 13, 2023 and went to the review period of November 30, 2023.
Twelve (12) youth began the group and ten youth were in the group at the time of the review
period ending. No documentation was observed for the reason two youth were dropped from the
group. There were two examples of groups being held on consecutive days. There were seven
examples of the lessons not marked correctly on the sign-in sheets.
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 transition case manager (TCM) and clinical director conduct internal fidelity monitoring for the
facilitators of Impact of Crime (IOC). There were two facilitators during the annual review period.
All internal fidelity monitoring forms were provided for review. There were two missing fidelity
observation forms for a newly trained facilitator. According to the clinical director, she normally sits
in with the new therapists to provide observation and oversight during the groups. One facilitator
was missing fidelity monitoring in November 2023.
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 clinical director addresses any significant issues or corrective actions for the facilitators of
Impact of Crime (IOC). The missing internal fidelity monitoring forms were discussed with the
clinical director. The program reported no corrective action was conducted during the annual
review period.
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.
The programs protocol for evaluating staff is that the staff get annual evaluations and the program
reported the Impact of Crime (IOC) facilitators received their annual performance evaluations, but
did not provide them for review.
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 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 85% (23 of 27) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 67% (18 of 27) 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: 48%
Moderate to High Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 17%
Table 1
Moderate = 7 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
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 = 27 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, 48% (13 of 27) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 2 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 27) 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 2 25 8%
Totals 46 85 54%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at DOVE Academy.
27 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 27 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 27 total youth sampled, only
24 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 23
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 13
and 40 weeks of service, with an average of 18 weeks.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 27 total youth
sampled, only 26 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 18
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 13
and 62 hours of service, with an average of 30 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.
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 81%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
DOVE Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, the program provides the primary service
regularly throughout the year so it can be observed for adherence to the manual/protocol, and
each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary
service.
DOVE 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 DOVE IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime