state: FL

facility_name: Les Peters Academy

summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Les Peters Academy
Rite of Passage
(Contract Provider)
3930 West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Tampa , Florida 33614
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: 8/1/2024 - 7/31/2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 8/12/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 12/12/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 7 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program uses the Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm v 4.0 as the manual. There were
four staff trained in the primary service during this review period: one facility administrator, one
director of case management, and two case managers. During this review period the director of
case management and two case managers conducted IOC groups.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators of the primary service have been trained.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
A review of the documentation for the annual review period of August 1, 2024, through July 31,
2025, shows the program utilizes the Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm v 4.0 as the manual.
The facilitator’s manual is divided into seven chapters, an appendix with handouts, and the
student guide section (which includes the student exercises). The manual addresses the order in
which to deliver the content and gives the facilitators an outline to follow. The facility does not
have separate student workbooks to give out. The facilitators make copies of the exercises before
each session to hand out to the youth. The group is a closed group with no more than twelve
youth in each cohort. The curriculum is to be delivered to the youth over a minimum of sixteen
(16) weeks for thirty-two (32) hours. The program runs the primary service on Tuesdays and
Thursdays. The program keeps all documentation in a binder labeled IOC SPEP in the case
manager’s office. All youth who are admitted to the program receive the primary service. The
primary service is run as a closed group.
The program can earn 2 points if there is a manual or written protocol outlining the provision of the
primary service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
An observation of Impact of Crime was conducted in person on February 6, 2025. The session
started at 12:10 pm and ended at 1:11 pm. There were 10 youth and one facilitator in attendance.
The lesson covered Chapter Four: Decision making. The facilitator had the youth separate into
three groups for the group activity. All youth were attentive and seemed eager to participate. The
facilitator was knowledgeable about the material and used her own words to convey the key
points of the lesson. She also made sure all youth understood what was being covered before
moving on to the next topic.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator adheres to the protocol outlined in the manual for
provision of the primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 0 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 has experienced facilitator turnover during the annual review period. This turnover
had a negative effect on the delivery of the primary service to the youth, as the second cohort was
paused on 10/3/24 and resumed 11/4/24. This interruption was due to a lack of trained facilitators
which led to a gap in service of thirty-three (33) days. In the event of facilitator turnover, the co-
facilitator or another trained facilitator will be assigned to continue the cohort. There were four (4)
cohorts completed and one (1) ongoing cohort during this review period.
The first cohort ran 6/6/24 -10/31/24, it started and ended with six youth.
The second cohort ran 7/24/24 – 12/9/24, it started with ten (10) youth and ended with five youth.
One youth was arrested on 8/12/24, one youth was arrested on 9/11/24, and three youth were
discharged from the program.
The third cohort ran 12/24/24 – 4/9/25 started and ended with ten (10) youth.
The fourth cohort ran 3/3/25 – 6/8/25 started and ended with nine youth.
The fifth cohort started on 7/29/25 and is currently ongoing as of 7/31/25.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not result in service delivery
interruptions.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
A review of the documentation for the review period from August 1, 2024, through January 31,
2025, showed internal fidelity monitoring checks were completed for the facilitators of Impact of
Crime. The documentation shows that the director of case management and the facility
administrator conducted the monthly internal fidelity monitoring checks for this primary service
during this review period. Internal fidelity monitoring took place on the following dates: 8/12/24,
8/13/24, 9/17/24, 9/18/24, and 1/2/25. There were no internal fidelity monitoring conducted for the
months of October 2024, November 2024, or December 2024 due to there being only one trained
facilitator.
The program can earn 2 points if all required fidelity monitoring events are completed and
documented.
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.
An interview with the facility administrator and a review of the documentation provided verified
that the program has a process for corrective actions based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The
program uses internal fidelity monitoring/corrective action checklists that are specific to Impact of
Crime. Each checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator
improvement. There were no corrective actions needed during this annual review period.
The program can earn 1 point if the program has a process in place to apply corrective actions if
needed.
At the time of the review, the program met the 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.
A review of the facilitators of Impact of Crime found there was one annual evaluation for the
facility administraiter and three 90-day evaluations completed for three case managers within the
last twelve (12) months. These evaluations include comments on any strengths or weaknesses for
which the facilitator should be made aware.
The program can earn 1 point if there are performance evaluations addressing the skills in
delivery of the service for each facilitator
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
At the time of the review, the program met the 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 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 26 youth in the
sample, 4% (1 of 26) 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: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 26 youth in the
sample, 42% (11 of 24) 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: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 58%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 6 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 26 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 4%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 26 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, 58% (15 of 26) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 4% (1 of 26) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 39 85 46%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Les Peters Academy.
30 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 26 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 26 total youth sampled, only
18 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 1
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10
and 16 weeks of service, with an average of 14.17 weeks.
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 26 total youth
sampled, only 18 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 11
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 23
and 34 hours of service, with an average of 27.94 hours.
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 69%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Les Peters Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring there
are no unnecessary gaps in service, facilitator turnover does not impact groups, and fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Les Peters Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2025-26 Les Peters IOC.pdf

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Les Peters Academy
Rite of Passage
(Contract Provider)
3930 West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Tampa , Florida 33614
Primary Service: Moral Reconation Therapy
SPEP Review Period: 8/1/24 - 7/31/25
SPEP Review Conducted: 8/12/25
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 12/12/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Moral Reconation Therapy.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 uses Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) as a primary service. The clinical staff are
trained to facilitate MRT groups. The documentation showed there were five (5) therapists trained
in the primary service during this review period: one clinical director, one assistant clinical director
and three therapists. During this review period the clinical director conducted MRT groups.
The program can earn 1 point if all faciliators are trained in the primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program used the Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) Facilitator’s Handbook. The MRT
Facilitator’s Handbook contains information on the group process, specific objective criteria and
guidelines for all exercises and tasks in Moral Reconation Therapy, and specific “how to”
instructions. There are separate student manuals which the facilitator makes copies of and are
placed in a folder for each youth. MRT is designed to be an open group with group facilitation
year-round.
The program can earn 2 points if there is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of
the primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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 Moral Reconation Therapy was conducted via Microsoft Teams on August 28,
2024. The session started at 3:15 pm and ended at 4:09 pm. There were ten (10) youth and one
facilitator in attendance. The session started with the youth checking in. The facilitator had the
youth share advice the youth would give to their six-year-old self. The facilitator made sure all
youth had a clear understanding of subject covered before moving on to the next subject. The
facilitator used role-play exercises to engage the youth.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator adheres to the protocol outlined in the manual.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
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.
According to the documentation for the annual review period of August 1, 2024, through July 31,
2025, the program has experienced facilitator turnover. One clinical director and three therapists
left the program. However, this turnover did not have a negative effect on the delivery of the
primary service to the youth. The current clinical director conducts the two groups.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not adversely impact provision of the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the 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.
A review of the documentation for the annual review period of August 1, 2024, through July 31,
2025, shows there was no internal fidelity monitoring conducted for the months of August 2024
and September 2024. This was due to the program having only one therapist trained in the MRT
curriculum. Fidelity monitoring was conducted by a trained therapist from a different program for
the months of 10/31/24, 11/6/24, 12/10/24, 1/16/25, 2/11/25, 3/25/25, 4/29/25, 5/14/25, 6/10/25,
and 7/16/25.
The program can earn 2 points if all internal fidelity monitoring events are completed and
documented.
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 5
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 facility administrator and a review of the documentation provided verified the
program has a process for corrective actions based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program
uses internal fidelity monitoring/corrective action checklists that are specific to Moral Reconation
Therapy (MRT). Each checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for
facilitator improvement. There were no corrective action plans initiated during this annual review
period.
The program can earn 1 point if there is a process in place to implement corrective actions as
needed based on internal fidelity monitoring.
At the time of the review, the program met the 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.
There was one 90-day evaluation completed for the clinical director.
The program can earn 1 point if there are documented performance evalutions which
substantively address facilitator skill and areas for improvement.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 26 youth in the
sample, 4% (1 of 26) 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 26 youth in the
sample, 4% (1 of 26) 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: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 58%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 6 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 26 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 4%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 26 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, 58% (15 of 26) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 4% (1 of 26) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 60 100 60%
This SPEP report evaluates Moral Reconation Therapy, an intervention delivered at Les Peters
Academy.
30 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 26 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 26 total youth sampled, only
18 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 1
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 1
and 16 weeks of service, with an average of 6.33 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 26 total youth
sampled, only 18 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 1
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 3
and 46 hours of service, with an average of 15.78 hours.
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 80%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Les Peters Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Les Peters Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2025-26 Les Peters MRT.pdf

program_name_raw: Les Peters Academy

service_type: Moral Reconation Therapy