summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy Secure
Youth Opportunity Investments, LLC
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straightline Road
Crestivew, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: February 15, 2022 - February 14, 2023
SPEP Review Conducted: February 23, 2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date:
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilizes Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service for all youth in the program.
Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm is an integrated, cognitive behavioral approach designed
to use with adjudicated youth in residential treatment programs. This curriculum uses cognitive
restructuring, social skills development, and development of peaceful conflict resolution skills.
The case management staff are formally trained to facilitate IOC groups. During the annual review
year, six staff were trained to facilitate IOC groups: five case managers and one director of case
management. Three of the six staff facilitated IOC groups for the program. The director of case
management conducts internal fidelity monitoring observations.
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 at the program. The manual
includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered, includes
detailed instructions for lesson delivery, and all needed worksheets for the youth. The curriculum
includes separate youth workbooks.
The IOC groups are held on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 5:00pm to 6:00pm. The
documentation for IOC is kept in a binder maintained in the case management director's office.
The binder includes sign-in sheets and internal fidelity monitoring documentation. Impact of Crime
groups are closed, meaning youth cannot be added to the cohort once the first lesson has been
completed. All youth in the program are eligible to receive the IOC curriculum.
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 Impact of Crime group was observed on Wednesday, November 16, 2022. In attendance were
eleven (11) youth, one staff, and the facilitator. The lesson for the day was a review of chapters
one through seven. The reviewer was provided a copy of the review packet. The last session of
this cohort is scheduled for November 23, 2022. The group will conduct their restorative justice
project during the week of November 21, 2022. The group project is washing and cleaning cars of
the employees and the program vans.
The facilitator created a review packet for the youth to complete. The group went through it
together to prepare for their final lesson. All the youth participated and they all got their answers
correct. The youth were engaged during the whole process.
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 process in the event of facilitator turnover for Impact of Crime (IOC) is for another
trained staff to continue with the cohort. The program experienced turnover during the annual
review period. Two case managers and two case management director's left employment. The
staff left between cohorts and this did not adversely affect the youth or cohorts.
All sign-in sheets were provided for review. There were no gaps in service for the annual review
period. The program completed three cohorts during the annual review period. The first cohort
started November 9, 2022 and ended on March 3, 2022. Twelve (12) youth started the cohort and
twelve (12) youth successfully completed.
The second cohort started on March 15, 2022 and ended on July 7, 2022. Ten (10) youth started
the group and ten (10) youth sucessfully completed.
The third cohort started on August 2, 2022 and ended on November 23, 2022. Eleven (11) youth
started the group and eleven (11) youth successfully completed the group.
There are two cohorts ongoing at the time of this review.
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 case management director conducts internal fidelity monitoring for Impact of Crime (IOC)
groups. Three case management staff faciliated IOC groups during the annual review program.
There were three missing fidelity observations: one in March 2022, two in August 2022, and one
in October 2022. The case management director position has had turnover throughout the annual
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
review year. The current case management director is working with the clinical director to create a
tracking system for internal fidelity monitoring.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The case management director addresses any significant issues or corrective actions for the
facilitators of Impact of Crime (IOC).
A review of the internal fidelity forms comfirmed there were no signficant issues or corrective
actions for the IOC facilitators during the annual review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
An annual performance evaluation was provided for review. One Impact of Crime faciltiator has
been at the program for a year or longer. The annual performance evaluation included what
curricula the facilitator is trained in and is evaluated on group facilitation.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 33 youth in the
sample, 100% (33 of 33) 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 33 youth in the
sample, 100% (33 of 33) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 91%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 5 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 20 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 33 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 61%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 20 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 33 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, 91% (30 of 33) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 61% (20 of 33) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 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 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 83 85 98%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Crestview Youth
Academy Secure.
34 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 33 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 33 total youth sampled, all
33 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 33 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed 17 weeks of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 33 total youth
sampled, all 33 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 33 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 32 hours of service.
The program was awarded 23 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy Secure can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Crestview Youth Academy Secure 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: FY2022-23 CYA-S IOC.pdf


state: FL

facility_name: Crestview Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Youth Academy Secure
Youth Opportunity Investments, LLC
(Contract Provider)
4449 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Male Healthy Relationships
SPEP Review Period: February 15, 2022 - February 14, 2023
SPEP Review Conducted: February 23, 2023
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 08/01/2023
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 Male Healthy Relationships.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: %
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): 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 Male Healthy Relationships (MHR) as a primary service for all the youth in
the program. Male Healthy Relationships is a combined curriculum of Teen Relationships and
Young Men's Work. The therapy staff conduct MHR groups.
During the annual review period, fourteen (14) staff were trained to facilitate MHR groups: two
clinical directors, one assistant clinical director, and twelve (12) therapists. Ten (10) of the
fourteen (14) staff facilitated groups: five therapists, the clinical director, and the assistant clinical
director. The clinical director and/or the assistant clinical director conducts internal fidelity
monitoring for MHR 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.
For Male Healthy Relationships, the program maintains two manuals the therapists work from;
Young Men's Work and Teen Relationships. The Young Men's Work manual is maintained in a
binder in the clinical director's office. It is approximately ten (10) sessions and includes videos and
handouts. The manual is broken into individual sessions which include the objective, agenda,
session outline, and all handouts. The lessons also include a script to follow. The manual for Teen
Relationships is maintained in a binder in the clinical director's office. It is five main topics broken
down into individual lessons. All lessons and handouts are included. Facilitator guidelines are also
included, but no script is provided.
Teen Relationships is held on Tuesdays from 2:00pm to 3:00pm and Young Men's Work is held
on Fridays from 3:00pm to 4:00pm. The program maintains documentation in three different
binders kept in the clinical director's office. The first binder includes sign-in sheets for all groups
separated between Teen Relationships and Young Men's Work. The second binder includes all
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
internal fidelity monitoring for each facilitator separated by month. The third binder includes all
training documentation for the facilitators.
All youth are eligible to attend MHR groups in the program. The groups are open, meaning the
youth can join the groups upon admission to the program.
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.
A session of Teen Relationships was observed on-site on Wednesday, November 30, 2022 from
3:30pm to 4:30pm. There were eight youth, one facilitator, and one staff member in attendance.
The lesson for the group was The Relationship Bill of Rights. The youth were all engaged in the
discussion throughout the entire session. The facilitator was comfortable facilitating the lesson
and guiding the discussion. The facilitator asked thought-provoking questions for the youth and
was engaging for the full hour. The facilitator provided appropriate feedback to the youth.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program's process in the event of facilitator turnover for Male Healthy Relationships (MHR) is
for another trained staff to facilitate the group. The therapy staff at the program rotate facilitation
so the youth are familiar with the facilitators.
The program experienced turnover for MHR groups during the annual review period. Nine
therapists left employment during the review period. The program has been able to quickly hire
new therapy staff and the turnover did not affect the MHR groups.
All sign-in sheets were provided for review. There were no gaps in service during the annual
review period. All groups had no more than eight youth in each group. The program holds two to
three groups each scheduled day based upon the number of youth in the program.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program's process is for the clinical director and/or assistant clinical director to conduct
internal fidelity observations for the facilitators of Male Healthy Relationships (MHR). Each
facilitator is monitored two times a month, once for Teen Relationships and once for Young Men's
Work. Twelve (12) of the fourteen (14) trained staff facilitated groups during the annual review
period.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
All internal fidelity monitoring forms were provided for review. There were some missing
observations during the annual review period: four in February 2022, seven in March 2022, seven
in April 2022, and one in May 2022.
The clinical director and assistant clinical conduct internal fidelity monitoring and are both trained
the each curriculum.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program's process for corrective actions is for the clinical director and/or the assistant clinical
director address any significant issues or corrective actions for the facilitators of Male Healthy
Relationships (MHR).
The internal fidelity forms include a section to document any corrective actions. All forms included
feedback for each facilitator. A review of the fidelity forms confirmed no corrective actions were
given during the annual review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: N/A 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 blank annual performance evaluation was provided for review. The evaluations include a
section to document what curriculum the facilitator provides and is evaluted for their proficiency.
No facilitators for Male Healthy Relationships have been at the program for the full year to receive
an annual performance evaluation, therefore this indicator is rated as non-applicable.
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 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 33 youth in the
sample, 100% (33 of 33) 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 33 youth in the
sample, 100% (33 of 33) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 91%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 5 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 20 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 33 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 61%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 20 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 33 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, 91% (30 of 33) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 61% (20 of 33) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 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 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 93 95 98%
This SPEP report evaluates Male Healthy Relationships, an intervention delivered at Crestview
Youth Academy Secure.
34 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 33 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 33 total youth sampled, all
33 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 33 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 27 and 46 weeks of
service, with an average of 38 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 33 total youth
sampled, all 33 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 33 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 45 and 78 hours of
service, with an average of 71 hours.
The program was awarded 23 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Youth Academy Secure can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Crestview Youth Academy Secure 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: FY2022-23 CYA-S MHR.pdf

program_name_raw: Crestview Youth Academy Secure

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Male Healthy Relationships