state: FL

facility_name: Wimauma Academy

summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Wimauma Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
4337 Saffold Road
Wimauma, Florida 33598
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training
SPEP Review Period: 09/01/23-09/01/24
SPEP Review Conducted: 11/19/24
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/24/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Aggression Replacement Training.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 7 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilizes Aggression Replacement Training as a primary service (ART). The
intervention is being reviewed at Wimauma Academy for the dates of 09/01/23-09/01/24. The
program has a formal training protocol for this intervention that is provided by licensed clinical
staff members or the clinical director. During the period from 09/01/23-09/01/24, there were four
staff staff trained in the ART curriculum, the previous clinical director and three therapists. All four
of these staff have since resigned. A new clinical director was hired, however has since stepped
back into the roll as a therapist. The corporate clinical director is the acting clinical director and
two new therapists have since been hired and trained. During the last twelve months, the previous
clinical director who resigned, three of the previous therapists and the three current therapists
facilitated the group.The previous clinical director was to provide fidelity monitoring for this
intervention. At this time, the corporate clinical director is providing the monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the brand-name manual "Aggression Replacement Training-A
Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth, 3rd Edition" curriculum. This reviewer looked
over the manual on 11/19/24. There is a facilitator manual only. The ART manual provides a
script, is detailed and explains how each specific session is to be delivered and includes an
outline for each group session. The facilitators maintain a copy of their group's sign in sheets and
have their own manual. The prior groups were held on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays
from 2:30 p.m-3:30 p.m.
The documentation for ART groups is maintained in tabbed SPEP binders kept in the clinical
director's office. One binder includes sign-in sheets. The SPEP binder includes internal fidelity
monitoring documentation, as well as staff training and evaluations and all other SPEP related
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
documentation. Aggression Replacement Training is an open group meaning that youth should
can be added to a cohort once the first lesson has been completed.
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.
Aggression Replacement Training could not be observed as the group was not running at the time
of the review. The last group ended on 10/18/24. A new group will start in November once the
program receives enough youth to begin a new cohort.
The program can earn 1 point if the program follows the manual/protocol when delivering the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program's protocol in the event of facilitator turnover for Aggression Replacement Training
(ART) is for either the clinical director or his/her trained designee to facilitate the cohort. The
program had some facilitator turnover during the review period. The previous clinical director
(T.Perhealth) left the program in 08/24, however, she was not facilitating the group at that time.
She was providing fidelity monitoring for the therapists. There were also three therapists that left
the program as well that were facilitating the cohort. A new clinical director was hired and trained
(S. Toussaint) however, she has since stepped back into the role as a therapist. The corporate
clinical cirector stepped in to assist with fidelity monitoring and two new therapists were hired
during the review period who were also trained to facilitate the group. There were no gaps in
services over thirty days until the recent group completed on 10/11/24. Another group will start as
soon as the program receives enough new youth to start a new cohort.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program's protocol has been for the clinical director or her trained designee to conduct fidelity
monitoring. There were five facilitators who facilitated ART groups during the review period. Three
of those therapists and the previous clinical director have since left the program. A new clinical
director was hired and trained (S.Toussaint), however, she has since stepped back into the role of
a therapist. The corporate clinical director stepped in during the month of September to complete
a fidelity monitoring session. During the review period, overall, there were only three fidelity
monitoring sessions completed. No monitoring took place for the months of 09/23, 10/23, 11/23,
12/23, 01/24, 02/24, 04/24, 06/24, 07/24, and 08/24. (One monitoring session completed on
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
09/10/24, however, this occurred after the end date of the review period so it will not count for the
annual review, but rather will be added to the next quarterly review).
Basic Score: 0 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The clinical director would have addressed any signficant issues or corrective actions with the
facilitators of Aggression Replacement Training. Depending on the severity of the issues, the
facilitator could complete staff development sessions, further retraining, or receive a staff write-up.
The prior Clinical Direcor left the program in 08/24.The new Clinical director has since stepped
back down to the role of Therapist.
The corporate clinical director on site for the review reported no corrective actions for the
facilitators during the review period. She did, however, take an in-house correction to address the
completion of Internal fidelity monitoring which must occur monthly for each facilitator in order for
points to be awarded for this indicator. The action will be that a trained facilitator will complete
fidelity monitoring monthly for each Cannabis Youth Treatment facilitator. This action will be
documented on the provided fidelity monitoring forms and the Corporate Clinical director will
monitor this process.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The programs protocol for evaluating staff is that each staff are to receive annual evaluations
around their date of hire each year. The three current therapists have not been at the program
long enough to have an annual review yet. The corporate clinical director is the current acting
clinical director for Wimauma Academy.The previous clinical director and two therapists are no
longer with the program.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
Basic Score: <---Select from Drop-Down---> Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: %
Research indicates the target duration of weeks for this type of service. Of the
youth in the sample, % ( of ) 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
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
Basic Score: <---Select from Drop-Down---> Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: %
Research indicates a target of contact hours for this type of service. Of the youth in
the sample, % ( of ) 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: 17 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 68%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 83%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 6 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 33%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 6 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 83% (5 of 6) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 33% (2 of 6) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 %
Amount of Service: Duration 10 %
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 %
Risk Level of Youth Served 17 25 68%
Totals %
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at
Wimauma Academy.
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
23 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 6 youth were included
from the sample to determine risk level of youth served for the population.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned XXXX points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the XXXX total youth
sampled, only XXXX included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
correct dosage, XXXX received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample
completed between XXXX and XXXX weeks of service, with an average of XXXX weeks.
The program earned XXXX points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the XXXX total youth
sampled, only XXXX included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
XXXX received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between XXXX and XXXX hours of service, with an average of XXXX hours.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 10 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 30 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration and Amount of Service: Contact
Hours. There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information system (JJIS) Evidence-
Based Services (EBS) module for any youths. With no JJIS data to review, the SPEP score was
reduced. The program must enter dosage data into JJIS in order to receive any score in this
area.
The program was awarded 17 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to %. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, each facilitator’s performance evaluation
includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service, and any corrective action
needed is identified, applied, and demonstrated.
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2023-24 Wimauma Academy ART.pdf

program_name_raw: Wimauma Academy

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Wimauma Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
4337 Saffold Road
Wimauma, Florida 33598
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: 09/01/23-09/01/24
SPEP Review Conducted: 11/19/24
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/23/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 7 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilizes Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service. Impact of Crime: Addressing the
Harm is an integrated, cognitive behavioral approach curriculum designed to use with adjudicated
youth in residential treatment programs. This curriculum uses cognitive restructuring, social skills
development, and development of peaceful conflict resolution skills. The case management and
direct care staff are formally trained to facilitate IOC groups. Training is received from the
Department of Juvenile Justice either in person or online and encompasses three days. There
were three staff trained to facilitate IOC during the annual review period: two case managers and
one transition services manager. The two case managers facilitated the groups during the review
period. All training records were provided for the review.
The staff trained in the curriculum conducted internal fidelity monitoring for IOC 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 brand-name manual for the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum with all
current lessons. The youth receive separate workbooks, which are copied from the back of the
IOC manual. The curriculum also includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the
lessons should be delivered, and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of every lesson.
IOC groups are completed twice a week on varied schedules.
The documentation for IOC groups is maintained in tabbed SPEP binders kept in the director of
case management's office. The binder includes sign-in sheets and internal fidelity monitoring
documentation. Impact of Crime groups are closed groups meaning youth should not be added to
a cohort once the first lesson has been completed.
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime was observed on Tuesday 11/20/24 from 7:30-8:35 a.m. by the
Technical Assistance Specialist. There were ten (10) youth, one staff, and one facilitator present.
A copy of the lesson plan was provided to the reviewer prior to the group. The facilitator began
group with youth check-in. The facilitator then went through definitions of the lesson. The lesson
was reviewed and discussed in detail. The facilitator was very knowledgeable of the materials and
ensured that the youth grasped the concepts before she moved on in the lesson. She did not read
the script verbatim, rather she used her own words to convey the points of the lesson and
facilitate discussion with the youth. The group ended at 8:35 a.m.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program's protocol in the event of facilitator turnover for Impact of Crime (IOC) is for either
the director of case management to facilitate the cohort, or if not available, another trained
facilitator to continue with group. The program had no facilitator turnover during the review period.
The clinical director did leave the program in 08/24; however, she was not facilitating a cohort.
She was to provide fidelity monitoring as the program does not have a director of case
management. There were six cohorts completed during the review period. The groups ran from
10/04/23-01/25/24 (9 youth, 2 staff), 12/21/23-04/16/24 (10 youth, 2 staff), 02/15/24-06/06/24 (10
youth, 2 staff), 05/07/24-08/27/24 (10 youth, 2 staff), 07/19/24-11/01/24 (10 youth, 1 staff), and
07/09/24-11/01/24 (10 youth, 1 staff). There is one group ongoing that began on 09/18/24 (10
youth, 2 staff. There were no gaps in serivces of Impact of Crime. The progam overlaps the
groups to prevent gaps.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
Without a director of case management, the program's protocol has been for the clinical director
or her trained designee to conduct fidelity monitoring. There were two facilitators who facilitated
IOC groups during the review period. During the review period, overall, there were only three
fidelity monitoring sessions completed. No monitoring took place for the months of 09/23, 10/23,
11/23, 12/23, 01/24, 02/24, 04/24, 06/24, 07/24, and 08/24. (There has been one monitoring that
was completed on 09/10/24, however, this occurred after the end date of the review period so it
will not count for the annual review, but rather the next quarterly review).
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 0 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The clinical director addresses any signficant issues or corrective actions with the facilitators of
Impact of Crime (IOC). Depending on the severity of the issues, the facilitator could complete staff
development sessions, further retraining, or receive a staff write-up. The clinical director left the
program in 08/24.
The corporate clinical director on site for the review reported no corrective actions for the
facilitators during the review period. She did, however, take in-house correction to address the
completion of Internal fidelity monitoring which must occur monthly for each facilitator in order for
points to be awarded for this indicator. The action will be that a trained facilitator will complete
fidelity monitoring monthly for each Impact of Crime facilitator. This action will be documented on
the provided fidelity monitoring forms. The corporate clinical director will monitor this process. She
also took in house correction to ensure that all staff receive an annual evaluation each year and
will monitor and document that process as well.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The programs protocol for evaluating staff is that the staff get annual evaluations around their
date of hire each year. However out of the two trained IOC facilitators providing Impact of Crime
cohorts, neither was provided an annual review during the dates of 09/01/23-09/01/24.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
Basic Score: <---Select from Drop-Down---> Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: %
Research indicates the target duration of weeks for this type of service. Of the
youth in the sample, % ( of ) 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
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
Basic Score: <---Select from Drop-Down---> Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: %
Research indicates a target of contact hours for this type of service. Of the youth in
the sample, % ( of ) 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: Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: %
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: %
Moderate to High Score: <---Select from Drop-Down---> Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: %
Table 1
Moderate = youth
Moderate-High = youth
High = youth
Total Youth in Sample = youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: %
High Score: <---Select from Drop-Down---> Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: %
Table 2
High = youth
Total Youth in Sample = 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, % ( of ) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend,
for a score of <---Select Points---> points.
Of the SPEP sample, % ( of ) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
<---Select Points---> points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 %
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 %
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 %
Totals %
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Wimauma Academy.
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
23 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 8 youth were included
from the sample to determine risk level of youth served for the population.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned XXXX points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the XXXX total youth
sampled, only XXXX included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
correct dosage, XXXX received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample
completed between XXXX and XXXX weeks of service, with an average of XXXX weeks.
The program earned XXXX points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the XXXX total youth
sampled, only XXXX included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
XXXX received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between XXXX and XXXX hours of service, with an average of XXXX hours.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration and Amount of Service: Contact
Hours. There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information system (JJIS) Evidence-
Based Services (EBS) module for any youths. With no JJIS data to review, the SPEP score was
reduced. The program must enter dosage data into JJIS in order to receive any score in this
area.
The program was awarded XXXX available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is
calculated using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, each facilitator’s performance evaluation
includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service, and any corrective action
needed is identified, applied, and demonstrated.
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2023-24 Wimauma Academy IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY23-24

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Wimauma Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
4337 Saffold Road
Wimauma, Florida 33598
Primary Service: Cannabis Youth Treatment
SPEP Review Period: 09/01/23-09/01/24
SPEP Review Conducted: 11/19/24
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 9/24/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is 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 during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 7 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program utilizes Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) as a primary service. This intervention is
being reviewed at Wimauma Academy for the dates of 09/01/23-09/01/24. The program has a
formal training protocol for CYT that is provided by licensed clinical staff members or the clinical
director at the program. During the review period there were eight staff trained in the CYT
curriculum, the prior clinical director T. Perhealth and seven Therapists. The prior clinical director
and five therapists have since resigned. A new clinical director was hired (S. Toussaint) and
trained, however she is now a therapist at the program.The corporate clinical director is the acting
clinical director and two new therapists were hired during the review period. At this time, the
corporate clinical director is providing the fidelity monitoring for the 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 brand-name manual "Cannabis Youth Treatment Series Volume I" for the
curriculum. There is a formal facilitator’s manual. The manual was reviewed by the TAS on
11/19/24. The manual includes the lessons, script and instructions for the facilitator, the order the
lessons are to be delivered in, implementation guidelines, and provides detailed instructions for
the delivery of each lesson. All SAOS youth participate in CYT. Any MHOS youth with co-
occurring Cannabis Use Disorder Diagnosis may also participate. The intervention was previously
held on Mondays, however, that cohort began on 01/24/24 and was completed on 10/11/24. The
program will begin a new cohort as soon as they have enough youth to start a new group. The
program maintains the attendance sheets in a SPEP binder labeled “Cannabis Youth Treatment ”.
Documentation of internal fidelity monitoring, staff training, staff evaluations and all other SPEP
related documentation is maintained in a tabbed separate binder labeled “SPEP Binder.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This curriculum was not able to be observed: therefore this indicator rates as non-applicable.
Cannabis Youth Treatment could not be observed as the group was not running at the time of the
review. The last group ended on 10/11/24. A new group will start once the program receives
enough new youth to begin a new cohort.
The program can earn 1 point if the program follows the manual/protocol when delivering the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program's protocol in the event of facilitator turnover for Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) is
for either the clinical director or his/her trained designee to facilitate the cohort. The program had
some facilitator turnover during the review period. The prior clinical director T. Perhealth left the
program in 08/24, however, she was not facilitating the group at that time. She was providing
fidelity monitoring for the therapists. A new clinical director was hired (S. Toussaint), trained and
began providing support to the therapists. However, she has since stepped back down to the role
as therapist. There were also five therapists that left the program as well that were facilitating the
cohort. The corporate clinical director stepped in to assist with fidelity monitoring and two new
therapists were hired during the review period who were also trained to facilitate the group. There
were no gaps in services over thirty days during the review period. Another CYT group will start
as soon as the program receives enough new youth to do so.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program's protocol has been for the clinical director or her trained designee to conduct fidelity
monitoring. There were seven facilitators who facilitated CYT groups during the review period.
Five of those therapists and the previous clinical director have since left the program. The
corporate clinical director stepped in during the month of September to complete a fidelity
monitoring session. During the review period there were only three fidelity monitoring sessions
completed. No monitoring took place for the months of 09/23, 10/23, 11/23, 12/23, 01/24, 02/24,
04/24, 06/24, 07/24, and 08/24. (There was one monitoring session that was completed on
09/10/24, however, this occurred after the end date of the review period so it will not count for this
annual review, but rather will be included on the next quarterly review).
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 0 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The clinical director would have addressed any signficant issues or corrective actions with the
facilitators of Cannabis Youth Treatment. Depending on the severity of the issues, the facilitator
could complete staff development sessions, further retraining, or receive a staff write-up. The prior
Clinical Direcor left the program in 08/24.The new Clinical director has since stepped back down
to the role of Therapist.
The corporate clinical director on site for the review reported no corrective actions for the
facilitators during the review period. She did, however, take an in-house correction to address the
completion of Internal fidelity monitoring which must occur monthly for each facilitator in order for
points to be awarded for this indicator. The action will be that a trained facilitator will complete
fidelity monitoring monthly for each Cannabis Youth Treatment facilitator. This action will be
documented on the provided fidelity monitoring forms and the Corporate Clinical director will
monitor this process.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The programs protocol for evaluating staff is that the each staff are to receive annual evaluations
around their date of hire each year. The three current therapists have not been at the program
long enough to have an annual review yet. The corporate clinical director is the current acting
clinical director for Wimauma Academy.The previous clinical director and five therapists are no
longer with the program.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
Basic Score: <---Select from Drop-Down---> Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: %
Research indicates the target duration of weeks for this type of service. Of the
youth in the sample, % ( of ) 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
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
Basic Score: <---Select from Drop-Down---> Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: %
Research indicates a target of contact hours for this type of service. Of the youth in
the sample, % ( of ) 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: 15 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 75%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 8 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 25%
High Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 62%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 8 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, % ( of ) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend,
for a score of <---Select Points---> points.
Of the SPEP sample, % ( of ) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
<---Select Points---> points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 %
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 %
Risk Level of Youth Served 15 25 60%
Totals %
This SPEP report evaluates Cannabis Youth Treatment, an intervention delivered at Wimauma
Academy.
There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS) Evidence Based
Module (EBS) for the primary service for the annual review period. There was no data available to
enter into the report.
23 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 8 youth were included
from the sample to determine risk level of youth served for the population.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned XXXX points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the XXXX total youth
sampled, only XXXX included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with
correct dosage, XXXX received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample
completed between XXXX and XXXX weeks of service, with an average of XXXX weeks.
The program earned XXXX points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the XXXX total youth
sampled, only XXXX included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage,
XXXX received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed
between XXXX and XXXX hours of service, with an average of XXXX hours.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 12 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 12 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration and Amount of Service: Contact
Hours. There was no data entered into the Juvenile Justice Information system (JJIS) Evidence-
Based Services (EBS) module for any youths. With no JJIS data to review, the SPEP score was
reduced. The program must enter dosage data into JJIS in order to receive any score in this
area.
The program was awarded 15 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to %. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, the program provides the primary
service regularly throughout the year so it can be observed for adherence to the manual/protocol,
and any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and demonstrated.
Wimauma Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2023-24 Wimauma Academy CYT.pdf

service_type: Cannabis Youth Treatment