summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Pathways To Self‐Discovery and Change
SPEP Review Date(s): August 16‐19, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 5/30/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Miami Youth Academy MQI Program Code: 1289
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: 10000
Location: Miami-Dade County / Circuit: 11 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): August 16-19, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 149
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 3 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 2 # Case Managers 10 # Youth
DHA or designee 3 # Clinical Staff 8 # Other (listed by title): Youth
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff Care Specialist
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 8 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 8 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Pathways to Self-Discovery & Change. The program was
awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4 Service. The specific
Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary Service was identified
as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal problems or issues faced by
an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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’s documentation reflected the program had a training protocol and three staff
members received formal training from a qualified trainer to become a group facilitator in
Pathways. All three staff were trained in March, 2014; these staff were the clinical director and two
mental health counselors. Only two staff members have facilitated groups during the last twelve
months. An interview with the clinical director confirmed, by means of their policy, each new
facilitator must successfully conduct two cycles with a co-facilitator before they can facilitate a
group session on their own.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program has a manual for the delivery of services and provided a copy for the annual
compliance review team for reference during the review. The program currently uses Pathways to
Self-Discovery & Change. The curriculum provides a script and instructions for thirty-two lessons.
The curriculum also includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be
delivered, and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
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.
The annual compliance review team observed a session of Pathways during the review. The
facilitator provided a copy of the lesson plan for the observer from the program manual. The
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
facilitator followed the lesson according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim, used his
own words to convey the meaning of the discussed topic, and did so in an easy to follow manner.
The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
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 reviewed documentation and interviews with the clinical director and corporate clinical
services director confirmed there has been no turnover adversely affecting the youth during the
past twelve months. The program’s policy and procedures regarding turnover is the anticipated
turnover is addressed by ensuring any potentially affected groups are co-facilitated at the outset.
BasicScore: 2Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The team reviewed twelve months of internal fidelity monitoring reports. The program had an
internal process to conduct internal fidelity monitoring specific to Pathways; their process was one
of the trained therapist performed all Pathways fidelity monitoring. The clinical director was also
trained in Pathways. One staff member did not receive internal fidelity monitoring in the month of
October, 2015. Fidelity monitoring was conducted all other applicable months for each facilitator
of the primary service.
BasicScore: 1Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the clinical director and corporate clinical services director verified the program
has a process for corrective actions based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses
internal fidelity monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to Pathways. Each fidelity
monitoring checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator
improvement. Each completed checklist included feedback indicating the facilitator did not require
any corrective action, or included recommendations for future improvement. The following
month’s checklist included comments the previous months’ recommendations were applied and
demonstrated.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0Point
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
A review of three facilitator’s performance evaluations did not find an entry for evaluation of the
staff’s performance in delivering Pathways. These included comments on any strengths or
weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
The program can earn 1 point if performance evaluations include an assessment of their skill in
the delivery of Pathways.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 16 youth in the
sample, 13% (2 of 16) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 16 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 16) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 16 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 63%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 16 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (16 of 16) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 63% (10 of 16) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 75 95 79%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways to Self-Discovery & Change, an intervention delivered at
Miami Youth Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
ensuring that performance evaluations include an assessment of facilitators' skill in the delivery of
Pathways.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 16 total youth sampled, 2
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9
and 23 weeks of service, with an average of 16 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 16 total youth
sampled, none received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample
completed between 19 and 34 hours of service, with an average of 28 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring that
performance evaluations include an assessment of facilitators' skill in the delivery of Pathways.
Miami Youth 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 10


state: FL

facility_name: Miami Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Thinking For A Change
SPEP Review Date(s): August 16‐19, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 5/30/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Miami Youth Academy MQI Program Code: 1289
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: 10000
Location: Miami-Dade County / Circuit: 11 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): August 16-19, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 149
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 3 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 2 # Case Managers 10 # Youth
DHA or designee 3 # Clinical Staff 8 # Other (listed by title): Youth
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff Care Specialist
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 8 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 8 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Thinking For A Change (T4C). The program was
awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5 Service. The specific
Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The Primary Service
was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty cognitions and perceptions
and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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’s documentation reflected the program had a training protocol and four staff
members received formal training from a qualified trainer to become a group facilitator in Thinking
for a Change (T4C). The clinical director and a case manager were trained in January, 2016.
Another case manager and the assistant facility administrator (AFA) were trained in April, 2014.
Two staff members have facilitated groups during the last twelve months. An interview with the
clinical director confirmed, by means of their policy, each new facilitator must successfully conduct
two cycles with a co-facilitator before they can facilitate a group session on their own. However,
an interview with the facilitators and the fidelity monitoring reports revealed the facilitators did not
have a co-facilitator during any of their cycles.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program has a manual for the delivery of services and provided a copy for the team for
reference during the review. The program currently uses Thinking for a Change (T4C) 3.2. The
curriculum provides a script and instructions for twenty-five lessons. The curriculum also includes
implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered, and includes
detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The annual compliance review team observed a session of T4C during the review. The facilitator
provided a copy of the lesson plan for the observer from the program manual. The facilitator
followed the lesson according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim, used his own
words to convey the meaning of the discussed topic, and did so in an easy to follow manner. The
facilitator adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
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 reviewed documentation and interviews with the clinical director and corporate clinical
services director confirmed there has been no turnover adversely affecting the youth during the
past twelve months. The program’s policy and procedures regarding turnover is the anticipated
turnover is addressed by ensuring any potentially affected groups are co-facilitated at the outset.
BasicScore: 1Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The team reviewed twelve months of internal fidelity monitoring reports. The program had an
internal process to conduct internal fidelity monitoring specific to Thinking for a Change (T4C);
their process was that the clinical director or one of the other trained staff performed all T4C
fidelity monitoring. The clinical director was also trained in T4C. Two staff members received
internal fidelity monitoring during the months of November, 2015, through July, 2016, and one
staff member did not receive internal fidelity monitoring in September or October, 2015. Fidelity
monitoring was conducted all other applicable months for each facilitator of the primary service.
The program can earn 2 points by ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is completed at least
monthly for all facilitators of T4C.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
BasicScore: 1Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the clinical director and corporate clinical services director verified the program
has a process for corrective actions based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses
internal fidelity monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to Thinking for a Change (T4C).
Each fidelity monitoring checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for
facilitator improvement. Each completed checklist included feedback, which the facilitator did not
require any corrective action, or included recommendations for future improvement. The following
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
month’s checklist included comments the previous months’ recommendations were applied and
demonstrated.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of three facilitator’s performance evaluations found an entry for evaluation of the staff’s
performance in delivering T4C. These included comments on any strengths or weaknesses of
which the facilitator should be aware. The fourth facilitator is not yet due for an annual evaluation.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 8 youth in the
sample, 63% (5 of 8) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 8 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 8) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 2 youth
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 8 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 63%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 8 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (8 of 8) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 63% (5 of 8) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 86 100 86%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking For A Change (T4C), an intervention delivered at Miami
Youth Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is completed at least monthly for all facilitators of T4C.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 8 total youth sampled, only
7 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 8
and 17 weeks of service, with an average of 15 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 8 total youth sampled,
none received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 16 and 32 hours of service, with an average of 28 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring that
internal fidelity monitoring is completed at least monthly for all facilitators of T4C.
Miami Youth 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 10

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Miami Youth Academy - TrueCore

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Thinking for a Change


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th St
Miami, Florida 33173
Primary Service: The Council for Boys and Young Men (Boys Council)
SPEP Review Date(s): February 27- March 2, 2018
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): March 5, 2018
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Miami Youth Academy MQI Program Code:
Provider Name: TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC. Contract Number:
Location: Miami County / Circuit: 11 Number of Beds:
Review Date(s): February 27- March 2, 2018 Lead Reviewer Code:
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 2 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is The Council for Boys and Young Ment. The program was
awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4 Service. The specific
Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary Service was identified
as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal problems or issues faced by
an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 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 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
SPEP records. The program is currently utilizing the Council for Boys and Young Men (Boys
Council) curriculum.The program identified two staff which were trained to facilitate and/or provide
internal fidelity monitoring at the time of the review. A mental health therapist and the director of
clinical services were trained on March 29, 2017 by a certified trainer.
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 The Council for Boys and Young Men (Boys Council) manual for delivery
of the service and a copy of the manual was provided to the MQI team during the review. The
boys council is a strengths-based group approach to promote boys' and young men's safe and
healthy passage through pre-teen and adolescent years. The boys council meets a core
developmental need in boys for strong, positive relationships. In this structured environment, boys
and young men gain the vital opportunity to address masculine definitions and behaviors and
build their capacities to find their innate value and create good lives.
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.
Observed a Council for Boys and Young Men (Boys Council) session on February 28, 2018. The
facilitator was well prepared for the group. The facilitator reviewed the class rules and started
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
group with a fun ice breaker. All youth participated in the lesson discussion and activities. The
youth seemed to enjoy the group and respected the facilitator. The facilitator used affirmations
and motivational interviewing techniques throughout the lesson. There were no behavior issues
during 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.
The SPEP review included records for the last twelve months. The program completed five cycles
of The Council for Boys and Young Men (Boys Council) during the review period. The first cycle of
Boys Council started on September 16, 2016 and ended on April 28, 2017. The second cycle
started on December 16, 2016 and was completed on May 12, 2017. The third cycle started on
February 10, 2017 and was completed on May 12, 2017. The fourth group started on May 26,
2017 and was completed on August 11, 2017. Sign in sheets for this group were not available, but
the information was entered in the evidence based services (EBS) system in JJIS. The fifth group
started on August 18, 2017 and completed on November 3, 2017. There were only three sign-in
sheets available, but the information was entered in EBS system. At the time of the review, the
program was conducting one cycle of Boys Council which started on January 24, 2018. Sessions
occur once a week for one hour. The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) Youth
Missing Dosage Form was completed, and reflects one youth with missing dosages of the primary
service Boys Council. The youth was at the program for approximately two months but was
transferred to a different program. Youth are chosen to participate in The Council for Boys and
Young Men based on their needs as assessed by the Residential Positive Achievement Change
Tool (RPACT) and a Mental Health/Substance Abuse evaluation.
The reviewed documentation and an interview with the regional clinical director confirmed there
has not been a gap in service which adversely affected Boys Council group during the last twelve
months. In the event of facilitator turnover, another trained staff will assume the role of the
facilitator for the group.
Basic Score: 0 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.
Reviewed twelve months of internal fidelity monitoring reports. Documentation validated staff
members who performed internal fidelity monitoring were trained by a qualified trainer. The
internal fidelity monitoring reports indicated one facilitator was monitored once on April 7, 2017,
one facilitator was monitored on May 31, 2017, and one facilitator was monitored twice on July 7,
2017 and July 21, 2017. No other fidelity monitoring was conducted during the review period.
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 6
Basic Score: 0 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.
Reviewed documentation and verified the program has a policy for the application of corrective
actions based on the results of the fidelity monitoring conducted. The available internal fidelity
monitoring forms record the observer’s feedback and recommendations, and ideas for
improvement in the delivery of the primary service of Boys Council. However, the program did not
conduct internal fidelity monitoring on a regular basis to be able to provide feedback and
corrective action.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 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.
Reviewed of one semi-annual and one ninety-day performance evaluation of the two identified
staff trained to facilitate and/or fidelity monitor Boys Council groups. The mental health therapist
was not acknowledged on the semi-annual evaluation for delivering the Boys Council curriculum.
An interview with the regional compliance manager indicated staff were still new and not
facilitating groups at the time of the evaluation and therefore were not acknowledged on the semi-
annual evaluation. The director of clinical services which conducts fidelity monitoring for Boys
Council groups was acknowledged on the 90-day evaluation for having effective motivational
interviewing skills and exemplary skills supervising others. The program conducts standardized
program evaluation protocol (SPEP) review monthly meetings which started November 2, 2017.
The meeting covers attendance, review of the SPEP tracker, data entry into the evidence based
services (EBS) system in JJIS, internal fidelity checks, identifying facilitator training needs,
coverage planning for services, announcements, questions or concerns.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 12 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 12) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 12 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 12) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 0 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 12 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 58%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 12 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (12 of 12) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 58% (7 of 12) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 65 95 68%
This SPEP report evaluates The Council for Boys and Young Men, an intervention delivered at
Miami Youth Academy.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 12 total youth sampled, all
12 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 0 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 11 and 13 weeks of
service, with an average of 11 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 12 total youth
sampled, all 12 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10
and 12 hours of service, with an average of 10 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, and by ensuring any corrective
action needed is identified, applied, and demonstrated.
Miami Youth 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 10

service_type: The Council for Boys and Young Men


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th St
Miami, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): February 27-March 2, 2018
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): March 5, 2018
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Miami Youth Academy MQI Program Code:
Provider Name: TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC Contract Number:
Location: Miami County / Circuit: 11 Number of Beds:
Review Date(s): February 27-March 2, 2018 Lead Reviewer Code:
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime. The program was awarded 15 points
because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3 Service. The specific Sub-Component
Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The Primary Service was identified as this type of
service as it focuses on developing social skills required for an individual to interact in a positive
way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 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): 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 SPEP review encompasses twelve months of records and examinations. The program’s
documentation reflected the program had a training protocol and there were five staff who
received formal training from a qualified trainer to become a group facilitator in Impact of Crime
(IOC) during the review period. Two staff members facilitated groups, and three provided internal
fidelity monitoring.
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’s facilitator utilized the Impact of Crime (IOC), Addressing the Harm curriculum. The
program has a manual for the delivery of services and a workbook for the students to use. A copy
of the manual and workbook were provided for the team to reference during the review. The
curriculum provides a script and instructions for seven chapters which requires a minimum of
thirty-two contact hours to facilitate. The curriculum includes implementation guidelines, identifies
the order the lessons are to be delivered, and provides detailed instructions for the delivery of
each lesson.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
The curriculum was not able to be observed; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable. the
last group was completed on February 13, 2018. The facility will start a new cycle of Impact of
Crime (IOC) within a few weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
*The observation did not occur by any fault of the program; therefore, this unavailable point will
not be counted against the program's overall score.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The SPEP review included records for the last twelve months and confirmed there has been
significant turnover which has adversely affected the youth. The program ran three cycles of
Impact of Crime (IOC) during the review period. The first cycle of IOC started on January 31, 2017
and ended on May 4, 2017 but it was not completed. Ten youth started the group but it abruptly
ended on chapter five because the facilitator obtained a new position at a different program. The
second cycle for IOC started on June 23, 2017 and was completed on November 13, 2017. Nine
youth started in the group, three youth successfully completed and six youth were successfully
discharged from the program before completing group. The third cycle started on August 15, 2017
and was completed on February 13, 2018. The group started with ten youth, one successfully
completed, the other nine youth were discharged from the program successfully. Sessions occur
twice a week for one hour each day. The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP)
Youth Missing Dosage Form was completed, and reflects one youth with missing dosages of the
primary service IOC. The youth was in the facility for approximately two months before
transferring to another program. Youth are chosen to participate in IOC based on their needs as
assessed by the Residential Positive Achievement Change Tool (RPACT) and a Mental
Health/Substance Abuse evaluation. It should be noted that many youth are not completing the
full dose of the curriculum because they are being released before the cohort has ended.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
This writer reviewed twelve months of internal fidelity monitoring reports. Documentation validated
staff members who performed internal fidelity monitoring were trained by a qualified trainer. The
internal fidelity monitoring reports indicated one facilitator was monitored monthly starting on May
23, 2017 with the exception on December 2017 and January 2018. A second facilitator was
monitored on April 11, 2017 and May 26, 2017, then left the program which ended the group.
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
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
This reviewer reviewed documentation for the last twelve months, and verified the program has a
process for the application of corrective actions based on the results of the fidelity monitoring
conducted. An interview with the regional compliance manager confirmed the program has not
had any applicable issues requiring corrective actions. The completed internal fidelity monitoring
forms recorded the observer’s feedback and recommendations, and ideas for improvement in the
delivery of the primary service of Impact of Crime.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
This reviewer reviewed two semi-annual and one ninety-day performance evaluation of the three
identified staff trained to facilitate and/or fidelity monitor Impact of Crime groups. The youth
specialist I and youth specialist II were not acknowledged on the semi-annual evaluation for
delivering the Impact of Crime curriculum. An interview with the regional compliance manager
indicated staff were still new and not facilitating groups at the time of the evaluation and therefore
were not acknowledged on the semi-annual evaluation. The director of clinical services which
conducts fidelity monitoring for IOC groups was acknowledged on the 90-day evaluation for
having effective motivational interviewing skills and exemplary skills supervising others.
The program conducts standardized program evaluation protocol (SPEP) review monthly
meetings which started November 2, 2017. The meeting covers attendance, review of the SPEP
tracker, data entry into the evidence based services (EBS) system in JJIS, internal fidelity checks,
identifying facilitator training needs, coverage planning for services, announcements, questions or
concerns.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 13 youth in the
sample, 62% (8 of 13) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 13 youth in the
sample, 31% (4 of 13) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 54%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (13 of 13) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 54% (7 of 13) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 73 85 86%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Miami Youth Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
While the sum score for this program was only 7 out of 10 available points, the overal quality was
not deemed appropriate to be reduced. The reduced point for Observed Adherence to the
Manual/Protocol will not be counted against the program as the observation did not occur by any
fault of the program.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 13 total youth sampled, only
9 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 8
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12
and 25 weeks of service, with an average of 19 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 13 total youth
sampled, all 13 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 4 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12 and 38 hours of
service, with an average of 22 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups, and by ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every
month for each facilitator.
Miami Youth 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 10

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th St
Miami, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change
SPEP Review Date(s): February 27- March 2, 2018
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): March 2, 2018
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Miami Youth Academy MQI Program Code:
Provider Name: TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC. Contract Number:
Location: Miami County / Circuit: 11 Number of Beds:
Review Date(s): February 27- March 2, 2018 Lead Reviewer Code:
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Pathways for Self-Discovery and Change. The program
was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4 Service. The
specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary Service was
identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal problems or issues
faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records. The program is currently utilizing the Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change curriculum.
The program has identified seven staff that have been trained to facilitate and/or conduct internal
fidelity monitoring during through out the twelve months. At the time of the review, two staff were
conducting groups and three staff were providing fidelity monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change manual for delivery of the
service and a copy of the manual was provided to the MQI team during the review. The manual
provides the specific tools necessary for improving evaluation and treatment of at-risk youth, a
particularly vulnerable patient population in the justice system. Using an adolescent-focused
format, this protocol identifies psychological, biological, and social factors that contribute to the
onset of adolescent deviance, and establishes guidelines for delivery of a 32-session treatment
curriculum designed to rehabilitate both male and female adolescents with co-occurring
substance abuse and criminal conduct.
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 a Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change group was made on March 1, 2018.
The facilitator had knowledge of the material presented. Lesson was well planned and handouts
were given to the youth. Class rules were displayed on the whiteboard and were reviewed before
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
group started. All youth participated in the discussion and activities as outlined in the manual.
Facilitator had great classroom management skills and was about to redirect youth back on topic
when needed. The room was comfortable to present the group. The facilitator used affirmations
and motivational interviewing skills throughout the lesson.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The SPEP review included records for the last twelve months. The program completed four cycles
of Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change during the review period. The first cycle of Pathways
started on December 1, 2016 and ended on May 18, 2017. Ten youth started in the group but two
youth were successfully completed, eight youth were discharged from the program before group
ended. The second cycle started on February 9, 2017 and was completed on May 18, 2017.
Twelve youth started the group, five youth successfully completed. The third cycle started on July
13, 2017 and was completed on February 3, 2018. Ten youth started the group, but group ended
at lesson twelve because youth were successfully discharged from the program. The fourth group
started on August 19, 2017 and was completed on February 22, 2018. Fifteen youth started the
group, but group ended at lesson twelve because youth were successfully discharged from the
program. At the time of the review, the program was conducting two cycles of Pathways to Self-
Discovery and Change. Sessions occur twice a week for one hour each day. The Standardized
Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) Youth Missing Dosage Form was completed, and reflects
one youth with missing dosages of the primary service Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change.
The youth was at the program for approximately two months but was transferred to a different
program. Youth are chosen to participate in Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change based on
their needs as assessed by the Residential Positive Achievement Change Tool (RPACT) and a
Mental Health/Substance Abuse evaluation.
The reviewed documentation and an interview with the regional clinical director confirmed there
has not been a gap in service which adversely affected Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change
group during the last twelve months. In the event of facilitator turnover, another trained staff will
assume the role of the facilitator for the group.
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.
Reviewed twelve months of internal fidelity monitoring reports. Documentation validated staff
members who performed internal fidelity monitoring were trained by a qualified trainer. The
internal fidelity monitoring reports provided by the program indicated the facilitators were
monitored once a month starting on April 27, 2017.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Reviewed documentation and verified the program has a process for the application of corrective
actions based on the results of the fidelity monitoring conducted. An interview with the regional
compliance manager confirmed the program has not had any applicable issues requiring
corrective actions. The completed internal fidelity monitoring forms recorded the observer’s
feedback and recommendations, and ideas for improvement in the delivery of the primary service
of Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of annual performance evaluations for the two staff providing the primary service
revealed the evaluations documented the staff as facilitators. Additionally, the evaluations rated
the staff in their skill as facilitators in the primary service. The director of clinical services which
conducts fidelity monitoring for Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change groups was
acknowledged on the 90-day evaluation for having effective motivational interviewing skills and
exemplary skills supervising others.
The program conducts standardized program evaluation protocol (SPEP) review monthly
meetings which started November 2, 2017. The meeting covers attendance, review of the SPEP
tracker, data entry into the evidence based services (EBS) system in JJIS, internal fidelity checks,
identifying facilitator training needs, coverage planning for services, announcements, questions or
concerns.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 15 youth in the
sample, 33% (5 of 15) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 15 youth in the
sample, 13% (2 of 15) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 9 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 15 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 60%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 9 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 15 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (15 of 15) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 60% (9 of 15) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 77 95 81%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change, an intervention delivered at
Miami Youth Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 15 total youth sampled, only
13 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 7
and 30 weeks of service, with an average of 22 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 15 total youth
sampled, all 15 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 2
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4
and 53 hours of service, with an average of 15 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing
the practices in place at the time of this review.
Miami Youth 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 10

service_type: Pathways to Self‐Discovery and Change