summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Lake Academy (Non-Secure)
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions
(Contract Provider)
9504 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: 3/15/2023-3/14/2024
SPEP Review Conducted: 12/5/2023 and 12/6/2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/22/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilizes Impact of Crime as a primary service for the non-secure side of the program.
During the annual review period of March 15, 2023, to March 14, 2024, there were eight staff
trained to facilitate IOC groups: one director of case management (DCM), four case managers
(CM), one clinical director (CD), two transition service managers (TSM) and one delinquency
coordinator (DC). Three case managers, two transition service managers, and one delinquency
coordinator facilitated Impact of Crime, and the clinical director conducted internal fidelity
monitoring during 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 current Impact of Crime (IOC) manual and student and workbooks.
These were reviewed during the annual review period. The manual includes a script, facilitator
notes, facilitator guidelines, and lesson plans. Impact of crime groups are held Tuesdays and
Thursdays. All documentation for IOC groups is in a binder kept in the clinical director’s office. All
youth are eligible to attend IOC groups. Impact of Crime groups are closed and held on a constant
basis.
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 Impact of Crime was conducted in person on March 21, 2023, which started at
5 pm and ended at 6 pm. The subject was Chapter 5: Ripple Effect of Crime. A copy of the lesson
was provided to this TAS to follow along with the group. There were eight youth and two
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
facilitators in attendance. The facilitators made sure that all youth understood all concepts before
moving to the next section. The youth participated in the group by reading, answering questions,
and participating in roll play.
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.
An interview with the clinical director confirmed there was no facilitator turnover. In the event of
turnover, the co-facilitator or other trained IOC facilitator employed by the program that could
assist in the delivery of Impact of Crime to their youth.
According to the program's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, Lake Academy utilizes a
probationary review status process designed for effective management of risk though
individualized coaching, training, and verification activities of all new employees during their first
ninety days. The process encourages personal growth and development, recognizes areas of
improvement, thus reducing staff turnover. In addition, the program provides positive incentives,
which in our experience has shown to improve employee motivation and dedication and thus
leads to better employee retention. Through this policy, employees receive credit for years of
service, employment referrals, and for contributing to the positive culture, teamwork environment
and for going above and beyond normal job expectations. Each employee that receives credit for
doing these things is entered in a monthly drawing at each facility. In the event of facilitator
turnover, the co-facilitator will assume the role of the facilitator for the group. If a co-facilitator is
not present, a new qualified facilitator for the primary service will take over conducting the service.
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.
A review of internal fidelity monitoring reports for Impact of Crime was conducted for the annual
review period of March 15, 2023, to March 14, 2024. The program has an internal process to
conduct fidelity monitoring by utilizing a fidelity check list. The clinical director performed all fidelity
monitoring for the review period.
According to the program's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, designated staff are
responsible for conducting fidelity monitoring of each facilitator of a primary service monthly. The
staff conducting the fidelity monitoring has received formal training by a qualified trainer in the
primary service. Fidelity monitoring is documented on fidelity monitoring tool developed
specifically for that primary service by the developer of the manual, or internal fidelity checklist
created for manualized or non-manualized curriculum delivered in the program. The staff
performing the fidelity monitoring of the primary services 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.
For the primary service of individual counseling, fidelity monitoring is conducted by licensed
clinicians in the review of therapy notes to verify provision of effective and appropriate intervention
in line with the treatment plan and review of trackers to ensure compliance with frequency and
duration.
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 has a process for corrective actions based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. The
program uses internal fidelity monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to Impact of Crime. A
review of documentation provided and an interview with the Clinical Director verified that there
was no corrective action taken during the review period.
According to the program's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, based on the results of
the monthly fidelity monitoring, corrective action may be needed. The first stage of addressing
areas identified as needing improvement through fidelity monitoring is by providing coaching and
supervision to the facilitator on that 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 in a note and placed in the clinical supervision file. If during additional fidelity
monitoring the previously identified are addressed continue to be an issue, the next stage is
completing a written warning and placing the facilitator on a performance improvement plan. The
performance improvement plan will state the issue identified, the tasks the facilitator needs to
complete to correct the issues, and a target date for completion. The plan will then be reviewed
with the facilitator by the qualified facilitator conducting the monitoring and facilitator’s supervisor.
In the event that an issue identified during the primary service is detrimental to the youth’s safety
and /or treatment, the matter will be taken up directly with the program’s Human Resource
Manager and be addressed in accordance with the employee handbook.
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 annual performance evaluation the program utilizes a section to document what curricula the
employees are trained in and evaluates the facilitation. There were eight facilitators for Impact of
Crime during the annual review period. The annual performance evaluations were provided for
review.
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 38 youth in the
sample, 92% (35 of 38) 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 38 youth in the
sample, 100% (38 of 38) 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: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 28%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 76%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 8 youth
Moderate-High = 17 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 38 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 11%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 38 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, 67% (4 of 6) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 17% (1 of 6) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 3 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 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 7 25 28%
Totals 65 85 76%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Lake Academy.
40 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 38 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 38 total youth sampled, only
38 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 35
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12
and 32 weeks of service, with an average of 17 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 38 total youth
sampled, only 38 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 38
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 32
and 64 hours of service, with an average of 33 hours.
The program was awarded 7 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. 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):
Lake Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing the
practices in place at the time of this review.
Lake Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2023-24 Lake Academy Non-Secure IOC.pdf

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


state: FL

facility_name: Lake Academy

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Lake Academy (Non-Secure)
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions
(Contract Provider)
9504 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Moral Reconation Therapy
SPEP Review Period: 3/15/2023-3/14/2024
SPEP Review Conducted: 12/5/2023 and 12/6/2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/22/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 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): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The intervention being reviewed is Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) for the annual review period
of March 15, 2023, through March 14, 2024. The program utilizes Moral Reconation Therapy
(MRT) as their primary service and is held on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Moral
Reconation Therapy training is conducted by a qualified trainer. The documentation reviewed
showed there were seven staff members who were trained in the primary service: six therapists
and one clinical director.
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 current Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) manual and student and
workbooks. These were reviewed during the annual review period. The manual includes a script,
facilitator notes, facilitator guidelines, and lesson plans. Moral Reconation Therapy groups are
held Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. All documentation for MRT groups is in a binder kept in
the clinical director’s office. All youth with a mental health diagnosis are eligible to attend MRT
groups. Moral Reconation Therapy groups are open and held on a constant basis.
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.
Moral Recognition Therapy (MRT) group was observed in person by Technical Assistance
Specialist Jerry Dasher II on July 20, 2023. The session started at 2:30pm and ended at 3:30pm.
In attendance were the facilitator two staff and ten (10) youth. The lessons covered were Step 4:
Raising Awareness (which was continued from the previous session) and Step 5: Freedom
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Ladder. Each of the youth participated by taking turns reading and sharing their thoughts and
perspectives on the different subjects. The facilitator both read from the script and used her own
words to ensure the group understood the concepts prior to moving to the next topic. A copy of
the lesson was provided for review which was followed in order of the curriculum. There was a
disturbance outside of the classroom; however the youth and the facilitator were able to stay on
topic and did not allow it to distract the 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.
A review of documentation and an interview with the clinical director confirmed there was no
facilitator turnover during the review period. The primary service is an open group ran year round.
All youth receive the primary service. The facilitator is assigned based on whether the youth
participates in the primary service for clinical needs or criminogenic needs as identified by the
Community Assessment Tool and the treatment plan.
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 for the MRT groups. There was one main
facilitator for MRT during the annual review period. The internal fidelity forms were provided for
review.
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 issues or corrective actions for the facilitators of Moral
Reconation Therapy (MRT). The internal fidelity forms include a section to document any
corrective actions for the facilitators. Internal fidelity forms were provided for review and there
were no significant issues or corrective actions noted for the annual review period.
According to the facility's Standard Program Evaluation Protocol, based on the results of the
monthly fidelity monitoring corrective action may be needed. The first stage of addressing areas
identified as needing improvement through fidelity monitoring is by providing coaching and
supervision to the facilitator on that 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 in a note and placed in the clinical supervision file. If during additional fidelity
monitoring the previously identified area addressed continues to be an issue, the next stage is
completing a written warning and placing the facilitator on a Performance Improvement Plan. The
Performance Improvement 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 then be reviewed
with the facilitator by the qualified facilitator conducting the monitoring, and the facilitator’s
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
supervisor. In the event that an issue identified during the primary service is detrimental to the
youth’s safety and/or treatment, the matter will be taken up directly with the program’s Human
Resource Manager and be addressed in accordance with the employee handbook.
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 annual performance evaluation the program utilizes a section to document what curricula the
employees are trained in and evaluates the facilitation. There were six facilitators for Moral
Reconation Therapy during the annual review period. The annual performance evaluations were
provided for review.
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 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 97% (38 of 39) 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 39 youth in the
sample, 97% (38 of 39) 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: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 28%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 77%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 8 youth
Moderate-High = 18 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 10%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 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, 77% (30 of 39) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 10% (4 of 39) 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 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 7 25 28%
Totals 78 100 78%
This SPEP report evaluates Moral Reconation Therapy, an intervention delivered at Lake
Academy.
40 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 39 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 39 total youth sampled, only
39 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 38
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9
and 31 weeks of service, with an average of 16 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 39 total youth
sampled, only 39 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 38
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 26
and 90 hours of service, with an average of 46 hours.
The program was awarded 7 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. 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 96%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Lake Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing the
practices in place at the time of this review.
Lake Academyoptimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring 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

source: DJJ

file_name: FY2023-24 Lake Academy Non-Secure MRT.pdf

program_name_raw: Lake Academy

service_type: Moral Reconation Therapy


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Lake Academy (Secure)
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions
(Contract Provider)
9504 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Individual Counseling
SPEP Review Period: 3/15/2023-3/14/2024
SPEP Review Conducted: 12/5/2023 and 12/6/2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/22/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 10 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 10 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 Individual Counseling.
The program was awarded 5 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 1
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Individual Counseling. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it includes any range of treatment
techniques that focus on psychological or interpersonal problems or issues faced by an individual
that involves a one-on-one relationship with a therapist or counselor.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The intervention being reviewed is Individual Counseling. There were twelve (12) trained
facilitators: four therapists, two assistant clinical directors, one licensed clinical psychologist, two
recreational therapists, one transition service manager, one delinquency coordinator, and one
clinical director. The therapists provide Individual Counseling to the youth in the program and the
clinical director provides monitoring of those clinicians. All clinicians provided counseling during
the review period. The program maintains all information regarding Individual Counseling in the
youth's mental health/substance abuse record. There was documentation supporting that each
Therapist had the education and experience to provide counseling sessions. This primary service
does not have a formalized curriculum. The facilitators receive additional training as needed,
which is documented during their clinical supervision.
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.
There is no written curriculum/manual for Individual Counseling. The program has a written
protocol for this intervention. The dosage is stated on the youth’s individualized treatment plan.
The plan is then reviewed and signed by a licensed clinician.
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.
There was no observation completed during the review due to the confidential nature of Individual
Counseling; therefore, this indicator was rated as non-applicable.
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.
A review of the documentation and an interview with the clinical director confirmed there was no
facilitator turnover. In the event of turnover, the facility has other therapists employed by the
program that could assist in the delivery of Individual Counseling to their youth.
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 documents fidelity monitoring through weekly supervisions and reviewing weekly
progress notes. The clinical director reviews and ensures compliance with dosage. There was
documentation of the clinical director conducting this review. The fidelity monitoring was
completed each month. The program documents fidelity monitoring through weekly supervisions
and reviewing weekly progress notes. The clinical director reviews and ensures compliance with
dosage. The fidelity monitoring was completed each month and the primary service was provided
for this review period. A review of the documentation showed that the program completed internal
fidelity 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 program has a process for corrective actions based on the fidelity monitoring conducted. A
review of documentation provided and an interview with the Clinical Director verified that there
was no corrective action taken during the review period.
According to the program's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, based on the results of
the monthly fidelity monitoring, corrective action may be needed. The first stage of addressing
areas identified as needing improvement through fidelity monitoring is by providing coaching and
supervision to the facilitator on that 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 in a note and placed in the clinical supervision file. If during additional fidelity
monitoring the previously identified are addressed continue to be an issue, the next stage is
completing a written warning and placing the facilitator on a performance improvement plan. The
performance improvement plan will state the issue identified, the tasks the facilitator needs to
complete to correct the issues, and a target date for completion. The plan will then be reviewed
with the facilitator by the qualified facilitator conducting the monitoring and facilitator’s supervisor.
If an issue identified during the primary service is detrimental to the youth’s safety and /or
treatment, the matter will be taken up directly with the program’s Human Resource Manager and
be addressed in accordance with the employee handbook.
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.
The annual performance evaluation the program utilizes has a section to document what curricula
the employees are trained in and evaluates the facilitation. There were twelve (12) facilitators for
Individual Counseling during the annual review period. Twelve (12) facilitator's annual
performance evaluations were provided for review.
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 25 weeks for this type of service. Of the 6 youth in the
sample, 83% (5 of 6) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 6 youth in the
sample, 100% (6 of 6) 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: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 32%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 67%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 2 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 6 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 17%
High Score: 3 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 23%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 6 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, 67% (4 of 6) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 17% (1 of 6) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 3 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 10 10 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 8 25 32%
Totals 56 75 75%
This SPEP report evaluates Individual Counseling, an intervention delivered at Lake Academy .
6 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 6 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 6 total youth sampled, only
5 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 5
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 29
and 39 weeks of service, with an average of 35 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 6 total youth
sampled, only 6 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 6
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
33.5 and 43 hours of service, with an average of 37 hours.
The program was awarded 8 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. 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 97%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Lake Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing the
practices in place at the time of this review.
Lake Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2023-24 Lake Secure Individual.pdf

service_type: Individual Counseling