state: FL

summary: PREA

raw_content:
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S SUMMARY
REPORT JUVENILE FACILITIES
Name of Facility: Jacksonville Youth Academy
Physical Address: 4501 Lannie Road, Jacksonville, FL 32218
Date report submitted: April 25, 2015
Auditor information: Shirley L. Turner
Address: 3199 Kings Bay Circle, Decatur, GA 30034
Email: shirleyturner3199@comcast.net
Telephone number: 678-895-2829
Date of facility visit: March 31, 2015
Facility Information
Facility Mailing Address: 4501 Lannie Road, Jacksonville, FL 32218
Telephone Number: 904-374-1733
The Facility is: Military County Federal
X Private for profit Municipal State
Private not for profit
Facility Type: Detention Corrections X Other: Residential
Name of PREA Compliance Manager: Joseph Shuler Title: Facility
Administrator
Email Address: Joseph Shuler@us.g4s.com Telephone Number:
904-374-1733
Agency Information
Name of Agency: G4S Youth Services, LLC
Governing Authority or
Parent Agency: G4S plc
Physical Address: 6302 Benjamin Road, Suite 400, Tampa, FL 33634
Mailing Address: Same as Physical Address
Telephone Number: 813-514-6275
Agency Chief Executive Officer
Name: James C. Hill, Jr. Title: President
Email Address: jim.hill@us.g4s.com Telephone Number: 8 1 3 - 5 1 4 - 6 2 7 5 , e x t . 2 0 2
Agency Wide PREA Coordinator
Name: Bobbi Pohlman-Rogers Title: PREA Coordinator
954-818-5131
Email Address: bobbi.pohlman@us.g4s.com Telephone Number:
1
AUDIT FINDINGS
NARRATIVE:
The Jacksonville Youth Academy is operated by G4S Youth Services, LLC through a contract with the
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ). The facility serves low-moderate risk male juvenile
offenders that range from 13 to 18 years of age. Residents receive individual and group mental health
and behavioral health treatment services. They participate in family therapy and in group sessions that
focus on pro-social character building. The program also assists residents in the development of social
and independent living skills. The length of stay in the facility is three to nine months.
The mental health staff includes the Clinical Director, two Therapists and a contract psychiatrist who
visits the facility every other week. Also located in this unit are two Case Managers and a Transition
Services Manager. Medical staff consists of a Health Services Administrator, two Registered Nurses
and the contract physician who is on-site at the facility once a week. Education and vocational services
are provided by the Duval County School District and the school program includes all course
requirements for a standard high school diploma.
Residents may complete Court ordered sanctions during their stay in the Jacksonville Youth Academy.
Some of these sanctions may include community service hours, apology letters/essays, or restitution.
All Court ordered sanctions are incorporated in the resident’s performance plan. A quarterly progress
summary is provided by the facility to residents’ parents or legal guardians and Court officers. The
report provides a review of the residents’ status in school, therapy, recreation activities, and general
interactions with staff and peers. The concept of restorative justice is practiced in the facility through
individual sessions and group meetings with the residents. The restorative justice activities focus on the
residents taking responsibility for their actions.
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS:
The main building includes administrative offices, kitchen, dining room, conference room, and the
housing unit. Contained in the housing unit are four single rooms; four rooms that house three residents
each; and four rooms that house two residents each. Located outside of the main building is the
maintenance building and three mobile units used for the school. The outside grounds also contain a
covered pavilion and ample space for sports and other recreational activities. The designed facility
capacity is 24 and the population during the on-site audit was 22 residents.
A behavior management system exists that provides incentives for residents to demonstrate positive
behavior and encourages them to fulfill the program’s expectations. Residents are rewarded points for
positive behavior throughout each day. There are four levels of the behavior management system,
including an orientation period. As the resident progresses to each level, the incentives increase along
with increased responsibilities.
2
SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS:
An introductory conference call was held prior to the site visit and the audit process was discussed with
the Facility Administrator/PREA Compliance Manager and other G4S staff and the FDJJ PREA
Coordinator. The notifications of the on-site audit were posted in the facility prior to the site visit and
pictures of the postings were forwarded to the Auditor. The Pre-Audit Questionnaire was uploaded to a
flash drive with policies and supporting documentation and was received by the Auditor prior to the site
visit. Follow-up communication was maintained with the Facility Administrator and additional
information was provided and information was clarified as needed. Corrective actions were also
implemented as needed.
The on-site audit was conducted March 31, 2015. Upon arrival to the facility, an interview was
conducted with staff from the overnight shift, followed by a tour of the facility conducted by the Facility
Administrator. During the tour, staff members were observed directly supervising and interacting with
residents. Randomly selected staff, specialized staff, residents, and a contractor were interviewed. Staff
members were interviewed from all shifts. During the on-site audit, additional documentation was
provided as requested and in a timely manner. At the conclusion of the audit, a close-out meeting was
held with the Facility Administrator, providing him with a summary of the findings.
Number of standards exceeded: 0
Number of standards met: 37
Number of standards not met: 0
Number of standards not applicable: 4
3
Standard 115.311 Zero Tolerance of Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harassment.
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), provides guidelines for implementing the
agency/facility’s approach to complying with the requirements of the PREA standards and
zero-tolerance of all forms of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. The Policy contains
definitions of prohibited behaviors regarding sexual abuse and sexual harassment. The
facility’s PREA Policy is aligned with the over-arching Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
PREA Policy (FDJJ 1919).The Facility Administrator has been identified as the PREA
Compliance Manager.
Standard 115.312 Contract With Other Entities for the Confinement of Residents.
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Standard Not Applicable
This standard is not applicable. The facility does not contract with other facilities for the
confinement of residents.
Standard 115.313 Supervision and Monitoring
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 requires a periodic internal review of the staffing plan to ensure adequate levels
of staffing. A review of documents showed that a Staffing Plan Assessment had been
conducted by the PREA Coordinator based on the staffing requirements of the contract. The
facility reports that there have not been any deviations from the staffing ratios. The facility
uses staff holdovers, when needed, to maintain compliance with the required ratios. The
Policy requires supervisory level staff to conduct unannounced rounds. Interviews and
documentation confirm that the unannounced rounds are conducted by the appropriate staff.
4
Standard 115.315 Limits to Cross Gender Viewing and Searches
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-3 and staff and resident interviews revealed that cross-gender strip searches and
cross-gender frisk searches are not conducted. Policy 10-3 addresses staff conducting searches
of transgender and intersex residents. Facility policy and resident and staff interviews
supported that residents are able to shower, perform bodily functions, and change clothing
without being viewed by the opposite gender. Policy 10-25 states and staff interviews support
that transgender or intersex residents shall not be searched or physically examined for the sole
purpose of determining their genital status.
Standard 115.316 Residents with Disabilities and Residents Who are Limited English
Proficient
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
According to Policy 10-25, residents may not be used as interpreters unless an extended delay
in obtaining an interpreter could compromise the resident’s safety, the performance of the first
responder duties, or the investigation of the resident’s allegation. The facility practice is to use
bilingual staff members as interpreters and the assistance of education and mental health staff,
as needed. Interviews with staff and residents confirmed that staff members are used as
interpreters and for other assistance to ensure residents’ understanding of the information
provided. The PREA pamphlets are provided in other dominant languages of the facility
population. There are lists of interpreters, including one for internal interpreter services and the
other list of external interpreters.
Standard 115.317 Hiring and Promotion Decisions
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 3-16, Employee Recruitment and Selection, and FDJJ Policy address this standard.
The Policies prohibit hiring, promoting or contracting with anyone who has been convicted of
5
engaging in any activity prohibited by the standard and provides directions regarding
background checks and screenings. Interviews with staff and a review of a sample of
documentation revealed that background checks are conducted.
Standard 115.318 Upgrades to Facilities and Technology
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Standard is Not Applicable
This standard is not applicable since there has not been substantial expansion or modification
to the facility nor has the monitoring system been installed or updated since August 20, 2012.
Standard 115.321 Evidence Protocol and Forensic Medical Examinations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 provides that the facility is not responsible for conducting administrative or
criminal investigations. According to the Policy and FDJJ 1919, the FDJJ Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for conducting administrative investigations; the
Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) is responsible for conducting allegations
of child abuse; and local law enforcement is responsible for conducting criminal
investigations. The facility has written information, provided by FDJJ, to share with
investigators from the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, as needed.
Documentation has been reviewed that shows the on-going collaboration, including a draft
MOU, for advocacy services with a victim advocacy agency. Forensic exams will be
provided at no cost to the victim by a qualified medical practitioner through the local
hospital, University of Florida Shands Jacksonville.
Standard 115.322 Policies to Ensure Referrals of Allegations for Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 and FDJJ 1919 identify who is responsible for conducting the criminal and
6
administrative investigations and instructs staff to cooperate with investigations. Related
policies are published on the DJJ website. The facility has not been opened a full year and
during the past months of operation, there have been no allegations of sexual abuse or sexual
harassment reported.
Standard 115.331 Employee Training
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 refers to G4S FOP Chapter 5 regarding staff training. The facility maintains
documentation of the receipt of PREA training. The initial staff training occurred and staff
has since been provided with refresher training. FDJJ has on-line training and in-house
training is conducted regarding specific areas of the standards.
Standard 115.332 Volunteer and Contractor Training
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 and facility policy provide that volunteers and contractors be trained on their
responsibilities regarding the zero-tolerance of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
Interviews and a review of documentation support that training is received by volunteers and
contractors.
Standard 115.333 Resident Education
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 states that all residents are provided PREA information during the intake
process. Staff and resident interviews and a review of documentation confirm that residents
are provided PREA education. Staff members in the education and treatment units and direct
care staff may assist with the PREA education for residents that are limited English
proficient, visually impaired, otherwise disabled, or have limited reading skills. The
document review included lists of internal and external interpreters and a Registry of
7
Certified Court Interpreters and other support services. The PREA information is posted
within the facility and there are pamphlets that are accessible and available to all residents.
Pamphlets are available in languages of youths that are admitted to the facility.
Standard 115.334 Specialized Training: Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 state that staff in the OIG will be trained on the related policies and procedures
regarding the handling of sexual misconduct incidents and reports. Appropriate training is
provided to investigative staff regarding conducting investigations in the DJJ settings.
Standard 115.335 Specialized Training: Medical and Mental Health Care
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 addresses staff training, including training for medical and mental health staffs.
The medical and mental health staff members have received the training developed for those
units. The medical staff will not conduct forensic medical examinations.
Standard 115.341 Screening for Risk of Victimization and Abusiveness
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policies 9-1 and FDJJ 1919 provides information regarding classification and risk screening.
It is required that all residents are screened for risk of victimization and abusiveness within
24 hours of intake. The screening is conducted using the DJJ objective instrument, Screening
for Vulnerability to Victimization and Sexuality Aggressive Behavior (VSAB). The VSAB is
used to obtain the information outlined in the standard. Interviews and documentation
confirm that screening instruments are used to assess risk and that the resident’s risk is re-
assessed periodically.
8
Standard 115.342 Use of Screening Information
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policies 8-14, 9-1 and FDJJ 1919 address this standard. The Policies reference the
information from the VSAB and outlines how it is used to help determine housing and
program assignments with the goal of keeping all residents safe. Policy prohibits placing gay,
bisexual, transgender or intersex residents in specific housing or other assignments solely
based on how they self-identify or their status. There was no indication of any resident held in
isolation or segregated housing because they were at risk for sexual victimization.
Standard 115.351 Resident Reporting
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policies 8-3, 10-25 and FDJJ 1919 address this standard. Resident and staff interviews
support that a process is in place that provide for residents to report allegations through the
abuse hotline. There are also additional internal ways a resident may report allegations of
sexual abuse; sexual harassment; retaliation for reporting; and staff neglect or other
violation(s) that lead to abuse. A resident may file a grievance; complete a form requesting to
speak to specific staff; talk to any staff member; and third parties may report allegations.
Standard 115.352 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 8-4 provides the details of how an emergency grievance should be handled. When an
emergency grievance is received alleging sexual abuse, it is reported according to the
procedures for reporting allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. The completed
grievance forms are to be placed in a locked box and are collected by the designated staff.
Policy 8-4 also allows for the receipt of reports from third parties and that third parties may
assist residents in filing grievances. Policy 10-25 provides staff with the required
information for reporting sexual abuse and sexual harassment of residents.
9
Standard 115.353 Resident Access to Outside Confidential Support Services
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 addresses this standard. There is documentation of collaboration between the
Facility Administrator and a representative from a local victim advocacy agency, including a
draft MOU. The facility provides residents with reasonable and confidential access to their
attorneys or other legal representation and reasonable access to their parents or legal
guardians.
Standard 115.354 Third-Party Reporting
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policies 8-3 and 10-25 address third-party reporting. Information is provided through posters
that are located in areas of the facility, visible to the public. The FDJJ website contains
information for third-party reporting regarding juvenile facilities.
Standard 115.361 Staff and Agency Reporting Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policies 8-3, 10-25 and FDJJ 1919 support the requirement that all staff report any knowledge,
suspicion, or information regarding an incident of sexual abuse, sexual harassment or incidents
of retaliation. Staff interviews revealed that they are aware of the requirement regarding their
reporting duties and understand that they are mandated reporters.
Standard 115.362 Agency Protection Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
10
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 instructs staff to take immediate action to keep residents safe when they learn
that there is substantial risk of imminent threat of sexual abuse. Interviews with staff
confirmed their knowledge of this policy and they were able to verbalize measures they would
take to protect residents who are at substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse.
Standard 115.363 Reporting to Other Confinement Facilities
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 19-25 and FDJJ 1919 address this standard and identifies the contacts to be made and
the process. It was reported that, during the past months of operation, the facility has not
received any reports from a resident about an incident of abuse occurring while they were
confined in another facility.
Standard 115.364 Staff First Responder Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 provides the requirements for the first responder. Interviews with staff revealed
their awareness of their responsibilities in responding to allegations of sexual abuse. During
the facility’s months of operation, there has not been an incident that involved first responder
duties of secure or non-secure staff.
Standard 115.365 Coordinated Response
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policies 7-30 and 10-25 address this standard. The facility has an institutional plan, Sexual
Abuse Incident Coordinated Response Plan, which outlines the coordinated actions of the
various identified staff and is aligned with FDJJ 1919.
11
Standard 115.366 Preservation of Ability to Protect Residents From Contact With Abusers.
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Standard Not Applicable
This standard is not applicable. The Jacksonville Youth Academy does not maintain any
collective bargaining agreements.
Standard 115.367 Agency Protection Against Retaliation
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 and FDJJ 1919 address the facility’s efforts to provide protection to residents and
staff from retaliation. The retaliation monitor has been identified and charged with the
responsibility of observing for whether or not retaliation occurs after a resident or staff reports
allegations of sexual abuse or cooperates with an investigation. The Policies direct staff to
report any neglect or violations of responsibilities by other staff members which may have
contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or retaliation. There have been no reports of
allegations of sexual abuse at this facility during tits months of operation.
Standard 115.368 Post Allegation Protective Custody
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Standard Not Applicable
This standard is not applicable. Segregated housing is not used at Jacksonville Youth
Academy to house residents who allege sexual abuse.
Standard 115.371 Criminal and Administrative Agency Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
12
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 and FDJJ 1919 address this standard. According to Policy 10-25, administrative
investigations are conducted by the OIG and criminal investigations are conducted by local
law enforcement. The Florida Department of Children and Families are also called when
there is an allegation of sexual abuse. The Policies direct facility staff to cooperate with
investigations.
Standard 115.372 Evidentiary Standards for Administrative Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 provides that the OIG, responsible for administrative investigations, imposes a
standard of a preponderance of the evidence for determining whether allegations are
substantiated.
Standard 115.373 Reporting to Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 and FDJJ 1919 allows for the victim to be informed that the investigation has
been concluded. At the conclusion of an investigation, the victim or the victim’s parents or
legal guardian will be notified when the investigation has been completed.
Standard 115.376 Disciplinary Sanctions for Staff
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 3-3, Employee Standards of Conduct and Performance, addresses disciplinary
sanctions, up to and including termination for those staff that violate the facility’s sexual abuse
and sexual harassment zero-tolerance policy. Policy 3-5 and the Employee Handbook support
this standard.
13
Standard 115.377 Corrective Action for Contractors and Volunteers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 requires that any contractor or volunteer who engages in sexual abuse be
prohibited from contact with residents. It also provides for contractors and volunteers who
engage in sexual abuse to be reported to law enforcement agencies and to relevant licensing
bodies.
Standard 115.378 Disciplinary Sanctions for Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 8-1, supported by the Resident Handbook, outlines the administrative process and the
measures to be taken regarding major rule violations. A resident may also be referred to law
enforcement for charges and possible removal from the facility. There are no reports of
resident-on-resident sexual abuse during the months of operation.
Standard 115.381 Medical and Mental Health Screenings; History of Sexual Abuse
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 requires a follow-up meeting with a medical or mental health practitioner within 14
days when the resident discloses any prior incidents of sexual victimization. Policy states that
information related to sexual victimization or abusiveness that occurred in an institutional
setting is limited to medical and mental health practitioners. Medical and mental health staff
members maintain documentation of the services they provide to the residents.
Standard 115.382 Access to Emergency Medical and Mental Health Services
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
14
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
DJJ 1919 provides for access to emergency services. Staff interviews and review of records
revealed that documentation regarding crisis intervention services will be maintained by
medical and mental health staff. Staff interviews also revealed that the documentation would
include the timelines of services and the other requirements of the standard.
Standard 115.383 Ongoing Medical and Mental Health Care for Sexual Abuse Victims and
Abusers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
This standard is addressed in Policy 10-25. Interviews with medical and mental health staff
confirmed their awareness of the policy and how the policy would be implemented. Staff and
resident interviews and document review revealed the medical and mental health services are
consistent with the community level of care and that appropriate ongoing medical and mental
health services can be provided at the facility.
Standard 115.386 Sexual Abuse Incident Reviews
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Policy 10-25 and FDJJ 1919 provide for and identify an incident review team to review all
incidents within 30 days of the conclusion of an investigation. The Policies outline the
requirements of the standard for discussion and review by the team. A team member was
interviewed.
Standard 115.387 Data Collection
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919, review of documentation and interviews with staff confirmed that FDJJ collects
incident-based, uniform and aggregated data regarding allegations of sexual abuse at facilities
under its direct control using a standardized instrument. The agency provides DOJ with data
as requested.
15
Standard 115.388 Data Review for Corrective Action
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 addresses this standard on a statewide basis. The collected and aggregated data
will be reviewed to assess and improve the effectiveness of the PREA related efforts and
initiatives. The Policy also states that an annual report will be prepared that will provide an
assessment of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual misconduct.
Standard 115.389 Data Storage, Publication and Destruction
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
FDJJ 1919 provide that all data collected will be maintained for at least 10 years after the
initial collection date. According to the Policy, the report will be approved and posted on the
agency’s website, accessible to the public, as required by the standard.
AUDITOR CERTIFICATION:
The auditor certifies that the contents of the report are accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and
no conflict of interest exists with respect to his or her ability to conduct an audit of the agency under
review.
April 25, 2015
Auditor Signature Date
16

source: DJJ

program_name_raw: jacksonville youth academy


facility_name: Jacksonville Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Jacksonville Youth Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
4501 Lannie Road
Jacksonville, Florida 32218
Primary Service: Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT)
SPEP Review Date(s): February 16‐19, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/6/2017
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: Jacksonville Youth Academy MQI Program Code: 1293
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: 10138
Location: Duval County / Circuit: 4 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): February 16-19, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 143
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 0 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 0 # Case Managers 1 # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff 0 # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 1 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 0 # 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 0 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 0 # 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 Cannabis Youth Treatment. 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): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program’s documentation reflected that the three therapists had received formal training in
the delivery of the primary service of Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT). All staff were trained in
October 2014. Two of the three therapists have facilitated groups in the last twelve months.
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 the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT)
Volume 1 and 2 facilitator’s guide. The guide is detailed in the extent it explains how each specific
session is delivered and there is a script or outline for each session.
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 reviewer observed a session of CYT during the review. The facilitator followed the lesson
according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim, used her 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 but did not complete the lesson by the end of the session.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 interview with the clinical director confirmed there has been no
turnover that adversely affected the youth during the past twelve months. The trained facilitators
have been in their positions longer than twelve months. There has been no gap in service. In the
past twelve months, the program has completed three cycles of CYT. A fourth cycle started
January 6, 2016 and is currently on lesson seven.
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.
Twelve months of internal fidelity monitoring reports. The program had an internal process to
conduct internal fidelity monitoring specific to CYT. The program uses an internal fidelity
monitoring checklist with coaching notes. One of the trained therapists conducted the internal
fidelity monitoring. Fidelity monitoring was conducted for all 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.
The program uses an internal fidelity monitoring checklist with coaching notes. Each fidelity
monitoring checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator
improvement. Each completed checklist included feedback or included recommendations for
future improvement. Fidelity monitoring reports did not identify a need for corrective action related
to the delivery of Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT).
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.
All three therapists were applicable for a performance evaluation. Each staff received an annual
evaluation with the last twelve months. Each therapist was evaluated on the appropriate level of
skill when delivering the primary service, Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT).
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 14 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 14) 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 14 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 14) 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 = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 14 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 14 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% (14 of 14) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (7 of 14) 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 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 80 100 80%
This SPEP report evaluates Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT), an intervention delivered at
Jacksonville Youth Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 14 total youth sampled,
none received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 10 and 11 weeks of service.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 14 total youth
sampled, none received at least the recommended hours of service. All youth completed 12 hours
of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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):
Jacksonville 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 9

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Jacksonville Youth Academy - TrueCore

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Cannabis Youth Treatment


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Jacksonville Youth Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
4501 Lannie Road
Jacksonville, Florida 32218
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): February 16‐19, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/6/2017
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: Jacksonville Youth Academy MQI Program Code: 1293
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: 10138
Location: Duval County / Circuit: 4 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): February 16-19, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 143
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 1 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 0 # Case Managers 1 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 0 # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 0 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 0 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 0 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 0 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook 0 # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 0 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 0 # 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): 8 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 that two case management staff had received formal
training in the delivery of the primary service of Impact of Crime in October 2014.
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 Impact of Crime Manual Version 2.0 to facilitate groups. The Impact of
Crime curriculum has lesson plans and handouts. The curriculum includes the implementation
guidelines, identifies the order the lessons are to be delivered, and detailed instructions for 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.
This curriculum was not able to be observed; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The reviewed documentation and interview with the case management supervisor confirmed there
has been no turnover that which adversely affected the youth during the past twelve months. The
trained facilitators have been in their positions longer than twelve months. Documentation shows
the program completed three cycles in the last twelve months and started the current cycle on
December 30, 2015.
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.
Twelve months of internal fidelity monitoring reports. The program had an internal process to
conduct internal fidelity monitoring specific Impact of Crime. The program utilizes the
Department’s fidelity monitoring checklist. The other trained case management staff conducted
the internal fidelity monitoring. Fidelity monitoring was conducted for all applicable months with
two exceptions. There was no fidelity monitoring conducted in July and August 2015.
The program can earn 2 points by ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is conducted at least
monthly for all facilitators.
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.
The program has a process for identifying deficiencies with the delivery of the primary service. A
review of fidelity monitoring checklists found the facilitator had adhered to the written protocol.
Fidelity monitoring reports did not identify a need for corrective action related to the delivery of
Impact of Crime.
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.
The case management staff actively facilitating groups was applicable for a performance
evaluation. The staff received an annual evaluation with the last twelve months. The case
management staff was evaluated on the appropriate level of skill when delivering the primary
service, Impact of Crime.
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 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 13 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 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: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 13 youth in the
sample, 92% (12 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 = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 4 youth
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 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 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 73 85 86
%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Jacksonville Youth
Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by ensuring
that internal fidelity monitoring is conducted at least monthly for all facilitators.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 13 total youth sampled,
none received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 11 and 12 weeks of service.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 13 total youth
sampled, 12 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 16 and 24 hours of service, with an average of 24 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
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):
Jacksonville Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is conducted at least monthly for all facilitators.
Jacksonville 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 9

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Jacksonville Youth Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
4501 Lannie Road
Jacksonville, Florida 32218
Primary Service: LifeSkills Training (LST)
SPEP Review Date(s): February 16‐19, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/6/2017
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: Jacksonville Youth Academy MQI Program Code: 1293
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: 10138
Location: Duval County / Circuit: 4 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): February 16-19, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 143
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 1 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 0 # Case Managers 1 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 0 # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 0 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 0 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 0 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 0 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook 0 # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 0 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 0 # 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 LifeSkills Training (LST). 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): 8 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 that five case management staff had received formal
training in the delivery of the primary service of Life Skills Training (LST) in July 2014. One staff is
no longer with the program and two of the four remaining staff facilitate LST groups.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the Life Skills Training (Middle School) Promoting Health and Personal
Growth by Gilbert Botvin Teacher’s Manual. The manual contains the order the lessons are to be
delivered, lesson plans for each session, implementation guidelines, and a script to follow. The
teacher’s manual has lesson plans with instructions for conducting each group session.
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.
This curriculum was not observed; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The reviewed documentation and interview with the case management supervisor confirmed there
has been no turnover that adversely affected the youth during the past twelve months. The trained
facilitators have been in their positions longer than twelve months. Documentation shows the
program completed three cycles in the last twelve months and started the current cycle on
February 16, 2016. Prior to the current cycle, the last cycle ended on November 24, 2015. There
was a gap in service due to the primary facilitator being on extended medical leave. The program
delayed the start of a new group pending the return of the primary facilitator.
The program can earn 2 points by minimizing any gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
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 Life Skills Training. The program
uses an internal fidelity monitoring checklist with coaching notes. One of the trained case
management staff conducted the internal fidelity monitoring. Fidelity monitoring was conducted for
all applicable months with no exceptions.
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.
The program uses an internal fidelity monitoring checklist with coaching notes. Each fidelity
monitoring checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator
improvement. Each completed checklist included feedback or included recommendations for
future improvement. Fidelity monitoring reports did not identify a need for corrective action related
to the delivery of Life Skills Training.
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.
Both case management staff facilitating actively facilitating groups were applicable for a
performance evaluation. Each staff received an annual evaluation with within the last twelve
months. Each case management staff was evaluated on the appropriate level of skill when
delivering the primary service, Life Skills Training.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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 9 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 9) 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 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 9) 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 = 2 youth
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 56%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 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% (9 of 9) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 56% (5 of 9) 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 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 65 85 76%
This SPEP report evaluates LifeSkills Training (LST), an intervention delivered at Jacksonville
Youth Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
minimizing any gaps in service.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 9 total youth sampled, none
received at least the recommended weeks of service. All youth in the sample completed between
8 and 9 weeks of service.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 9 total youth sampled,
none received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 10 and 15 hours of service, with an average of 14 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):
Jacksonville Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
minimizing any gaps in service.
Jacksonville 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: LifeSkills Training


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Jacksonville Youth Academy
G4S Youth Services, LLC
(Contract Provider)
4501 Lannie Road
Jacksonville, , Florida 32218
32218
Primary Service: Young Men's Work
SPEP Review Date(s): February 16‐19, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/6/2017
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: Jacksonville Youth Academy MQI Program Code: 1293
Provider Name: G4S Youth Services, LLC Contract Number: 10138
Location: Duval County / Circuit: 4 Number of Beds: 24
Review Date(s): February 16-19, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 143
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 1 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 0 # Case Managers 0 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 0 # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 0 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 0 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 0 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 0 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook 0 # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 0 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 0 # 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 Young Men's Work (YMW). 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): 8 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.
All three therapists received training on conducting Young Men’s Work (YMW) groups. This was
accomplished through pre-service training and Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP)
Service Training Protocol specifically for YMW. All three therapists have been in their positions at
the program greater than twelve months. The program has a corporate clinical training manual
used in the training of therapists.
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 Young Men’s Work: Stopping Violence and Building Community manual.
The manual contains the order the lessons are to be delivered, lesson plans for each session,
implementation guidelines, and a script to follow. The facilitator’s guide has lesson plans with
instructions for conducting each group session.
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.
This curriculum was not able to be observed; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 interview with the clinical director confirmed there has been no
turnover which adversely affected the youth during the past twelve months. The trained facilitators
have been in their positions longer than twelve months. There has been no gap in service. In the
past twelve months, the program has completed one cycle on March 27, 2015 and started the
current cycle on April 3, 2015.
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.
Twelve months of internal fidelity monitoring reports. The program had an internal process to
conduct internal fidelity monitoring specific to Young Men’s Work. The program uses an internal
fidelity monitoring checklist with coaching notes. One of the trained therapists conducted the
internal fidelity monitoring. Fidelity monitoring was conducted for all applicable months with one
exception. There was no fidelity monitoring conducted in July 2015.
The program can earn 2 points by ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is conducted at least
monthly for all facilitators.
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.
The program uses an internal fidelity monitoring checklist with coaching notes. Each fidelity
monitoring checklist includes a section for feedback and recommendations for facilitator
improvement. Each completed checklist included feedback or included recommendations for
future improvement. Fidelity monitoring reports did not identify a need for corrective action related
to the delivery of Young Men’s Work.
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.
All three therapists were applicable for a performance evaluation. Each staff received an annual
evaluation with the last twelve months. Two of the three therapists were evaluated on the
appropriate level of skill when delivering the primary service, Young Men’s Work. One therapist
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
was not evaluated on this primary service due to that therapist only facilitating the groups for
holidays and when the primary facilitator is on leave.
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 19 youth in the
sample, 11% (2 of 19) 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 19 youth in the
sample, 16% (3 of 19) 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 = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 10%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 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% (19 of 19) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 53% (10 of 19) 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 Young Men's Work (YMW), an intervention delivered at Jacksonville
Youth Academy.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is conducted at least monthly for all facilitators.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 19 total youth sampled, only
16 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 2
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 8
and 25 weeks of service, with an average of 15 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 19 total youth
sampled, 3 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between 21 and 54 hours of service, with an average of 33 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):
Jacksonville Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is conducted at least monthly for all facilitators.
Jacksonville 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: Young Men's Work