summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
JoAnn Bridges Academy
Rite of Passage, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
950 SW Greenville Hills Road
Greenville, Florida 32331
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training
SPEP Review Date(s): April 2 ‐ April 5, 2019
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): August 5, 2019
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records examinations. During the review period, there were six staff who had been trained by a
qualified trainer in the primary service, Aggression Replacement Training; three staff facilitated
groups during the review period. A review of documentation confirmed each facilitator was
trained in the curriculum before facilitating 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 provided the Aggression Replacement Training (ART), 3rd edition, manual for
review. The manual was organized by each lesson: skill streaming, moral reasoning, and anger
control. Each lesson is divided by weeks, for a total of ten weeks and thirty hours. All youth at
the facility receive this intervention, which is scheduled on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays
from 3:20 until 4:20. The program maintains all ART related documents in a binder, which
includes sign in sheets, program schedule and internal fidelity monitoring forms.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Aggression Replacement Training was observed on April 3. This was the first
meeting of the current cohort and they were covering Session 1, Introduction. The group
discussed Rite of Passage (ROP) norms and established additional group norms. Homework was
given to review and write out the ROP norms and turn them in to the facilitator by the next group.
The youth took a pre-test, then group began with an opener, introductions and a youth check in.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
The staff was knowledgeable of the material, encouraged youth participation and used
affirmations throughout the lesson. Some youth were hesitant to participate, and the facilitator
used her understanding of individual youth to help them feel more comfortable and willing to
share.
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.
A review of documentation provided concluded there was no facilitator turnover nor gaps in
service during the review period. Five cohorts were completed during the review period, and all
youth who began the intervention successfully completed it prior to their release from the
program.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
A review of documentation provided and a discussion with the Program Director revealed fidelity
monitoring was only conducted three of the twelve (12) months of the review period: May, August,
and November 2018. The Program Director indicated this was a result of turnover in the Clinical
Director during the review period, and a plan to correct the issue had been enacted prior to this
review. A new Clinical Director has been hired and future fidelity monitoring will be conducted,
without exception.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 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.
Rite of Passage has a continuous quality improvement process, which includes tracking
monitorings at an internal and corporate level. Weekly discussions with administration and
facilitators. Any corrective actions identified will result in additional one on one meetings with staff
and be followed up on, and documented, during the following fidelity monitoring. Additionally, the
program is looking for a second licensed staff to help provide oversight for facilitators.
Corrective action was noted in May monitoring, but follow-up was not conducted.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of evaluations of the facilitators of Aggression Replacement Training revealed each were
evaluated on their skill in delivering the intervention.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 96% (26 of 27) 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 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 96% (26 of 27) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 85%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 7 youth
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 44%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 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, 85% (23 of 27) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 44% (12 of 27) 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 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 94 100 94%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at JoAnn
Bridges Academy.
27 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 27 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
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).
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 27 total youth sampled, only
26 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 26
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 11
and 25 weeks of service, with an average of 14 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 27 total youth
sampled, only 26 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 26
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 30
and 60 hours of service, with an average of 32 hours.
The program was awarded 23 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):
JoAnn Bridges Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, and by ensuring any corrective
action needed is identified, applied, and demonstrated.
JoAnn Bridges 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


state: FL

facility_name: JoAnn Bridges Academy

summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
JoAnn Bridges Academy
Rite of Passage, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
950 SW Greenville Hills Road
Greenville, Florida 32331
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): April 2 ‐ April 5, 2019
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): August 5, 2019
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
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 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records examinations. The program’s documentation reflected the program has a training protocol
for the Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum. During the review period, three staff at the facility were
eligible to facilitate IOC groups, two Coach Counselors and one Shift Supervisor. Documentation
indicated each staff was trained by a qualified trainer prior to facilitating 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 Impact of Crime; Addressing the Harm curriculum, version 2.0, updated
September 2011. The program has a manual detailing how Impact of Crime should be delivered,
and a workbook for the students. The curriculum provides a script and instructions or seven
chapters which requires a minimum of thirty-two contact hours to facilitate. The curriculum
includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons are to be delivered, and
provides detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
Documentation for this service is maintained in a binder specific to this intervention. Included in
this binder are sign in sheets and fidelity monitoring checklists. All documentation is kept in an
orderly and easy to locate manner. Groups are held Sundays and Tuesdays, 6:30-7:30. All youth
at the program are placed in Impact of Crime.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
An observation was conducted on Sunday, April 7th. This was the first meeting of a new cohort of
eight youth, and they were covering Lesson 1, Introduction. The group discussed the Rite of
Passage (ROP) norms and established additional group norms. Youth were given homework to
complete by the next session. The facilitator was knowledgeable of the material, engaged and
encouraging to the youth. Some youth were hesitant to share, and the facilitator remained
patient, understanding, and respectful of youth’s boundaries.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There was facilitator turnover, which adversely affected the delivery of services to the youth. Two
cohorts were completed during the review period; one cohort was started and ended abruptly
when the facilitator left employment at the program. The first cohort ran from May 1, 2018
through September 11, 2018, with eight youth completing the intervention. The second cohort
began September 2, 2018 and ended on Chapter 4, Objective 3, on November 18, 2018; those
eight youths were merged into the following group at the same lesson. The final cohort began
November 4, and ended Mary 24, 2109, with ten youth successfully completing the intervention.
Informal discussion with the program director indicated the decision to add youth was made to
make sure they finished the intervention.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
A review of documentation revealed fidelity monitoring was conducted six of twelve (12) months –
September, November, and December 2018, and January, February, and March 2019. Missing
were the months of April through August, and October 2018. A discussion with the program
director indicated the lack of fidelity monitoring was due to a breakdown in clinical oversight,
which was addressed and remedied in November 2018.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
Rite of Passage has a continuous quality improvement process, which includes tracking
monitorings at an internal and corporate level. Weekly discussions with administration and
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
facilitators. Any corrective actions identified will result in additional one on one meetings with staff
and be followed up on, and documented, during the following fidelity monitoring. Additionally, the
program is looking for a second licensed staff to help provide oversight for facilitators. A review of
documentation provided indicated there were no corrective actions were noted nor taken.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of evaluations of the facilitators of Impact of Crime revealed both were evaluated on their
skill in delivering the intervention.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 30% (8 of 27) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 30% (8 of 27) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 85%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 7 youth
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 44%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 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, 85% (23 of 27) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 44% (12 of 27) 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 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 57 85 67%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at JoAnn Bridges
Academy.
27 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 27 were included in
the sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 27 total youth sampled, only
8 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 8
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed 20 weeks of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 27 total youth
sampled, only 8 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 8
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 26
and 30 hours of service, with an average of 28 hours.
The program was awarded 23 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):
JoAnn Bridges Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups, and by ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every
month for each facilitator.
JoAnn Bridges 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

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: JoAnn Bridges Academy

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY18-19

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
JoAnn Bridges Academy
Rite of Passage, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
950 SW Greenville Hills Road
Greenville, Florida 32331
Primary Service: Seeking Safety
SPEP Review Date(s): April 2 ‐ April 5, 2019
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): August 5, 2019
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
 Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
 Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
 Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
 Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. 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 Seeking Safety.
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records examinations. The program provided training records for all staff who facilitated or
monitored Seeking Safety during the review period. Four Therapeutic Managers, one Compliance
Manager and the former Clinical Director had all been trained in the curriculum, by a qualified
trainer, prior to delivering services. The program has a training protocol in place for facilitators of
the Seeking Safety curriculum.
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 Seeking Safety manual, and all associated documentation, is maintained in an organized
binder. This binder includes an overview of the curriculum, how lessons should be facilitated,
topics for discussions, guidelines and tips for the facilitator. There is not a separate manual for
youth, but rather a section in the facilitator binder for handouts to be copied and given to the
youth. The curriculum is 25 sessions that may be delivered in any order.
Seeking Safety was designated as a primary service effective August 1, 2018. This treatment
service is held as a closed group, meaning once the group has begun no new youth may be
added. All youth at the facility receive this intervention, which is held Sundays at 10:00.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
A session of Seeking Safety was observed during lunch, in the cafeteria, due to the review team
being in the group room. The lesson began with a review of the previous lesson, followed by an
icebreaker to help hesitant youth become engaged with the group. Youth were engaged with the
lesson; the facilitator made the material into a game where all youth could provide input. The
facilitator was knowledgeable of the material and delivered the information in a manner such that
all youth were able to grasp the topic at hand. The facilitator was able to effectively redirect a
youth who became disruptive during the lesson, without foregoing valuable group time or losing
the focus of the other youth present.
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.
A review of documentation showed the program completed six cohorts of Seeking Safety during
the review period. There was no facilitator turnover. There was a three-month gap in service
during the review period; however, this was due to all youth having received the intervention.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
A review of documentation provided and a discussion with the Program Director revealed fidelity
monitoring was only conducted four of the twelve (12) months of the review period: October and
November 2018, and January and March 2019. The Program Director indicated this was a result
of turnover in the Clinical Director during the review period, and a plan to correct the issue had
been enacted prior to this review. A new Clinical Director has been hired and future fidelity
monitoring will be conducted, without exception.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
Rite of Passage has a continuous quality improvement process, which includes tracking
monitorings at an internal and corporate level. Weekly discussions with administration and
facilitators. Any corrective actions identified will result in additional one on one meetings with staff
and be followed up on, and documented, during the following fidelity monitoring. Additionally, the
program is looking for a second licensed staff to help provide oversight for facilitators. A review of
documentation concluded no corrective actions were noted nor taken during the review period.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of evaluations of the facilitators of Seeking Safety revealed each were evaluated on their
skill in delivering the intervention.
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 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 27) 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 27 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 27) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 85%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 7 youth
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 44%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 12 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 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, 85% (23 of 27) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 44% (12 of 27) 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 23 25 92%
Totals 73 95 77%
This SPEP report evaluates Seeking Safety, an intervention delivered at JoAnn Bridges Academy.
27 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 27 were included in
the sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 27 total youth sampled, only
25 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4
and 15 weeks of service, with an average of 13 weeks.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 27 total youth
sampled, only 25 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 7
and 25 hours of service, with an average of 22 hours.
The program was awarded 23 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):
JoAnn Bridges Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
JoAnn Bridges 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: Seeking Safety


summary: SPEP - FY19-20

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
JoAnn Bridges Academy
Rite of Passage, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
950 SW Greenville Hills Road
Greenville, Florida 32331
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training
SPEP Review Date(s): June 23, 2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): July 17, 2020
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records. During the review period, there were four staff who had been trained by a qualified trainer
in the primary service, Aggression Replacement Training; two staff facilitated groups during the
review period. A review of documentation confirmed each facilitator was trained in the curriculum
before facilitating groups or conducting internal fidelity monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program provided the Aggression Replacement Training (ART), 3rd edition, manual for
review. The manual was organized by each lesson: skill streaming, moral reasoning, and anger
control. Each lesson is divided by weeks, for a total of ten weeks and thirty hours. All youth at the
facility receive this intervention, which is scheduled on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from
9:30AM until 10:30AM. The program maintains all ART related documents in a binder, which
includes sign in sheets, program schedule, facilitator training records, and internal fidelity
monitoring forms.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Aggression Replacement Training was observed. Present in group were the
facilitator, the Clinical Director, and two youth. The current group size is smaller than typical
groups due to the current COVID-19 pandemic; all efforts are being made to ensure the youths’
health and maintain proper social distance. Group began with a review of norms and
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
introductions, followed by a review of the previous class. The group discussion was on Alonzo’s
Problem Situation, wherein the facilitator successfully used real-life scenarios to tie the material
together to make sure the youth were grasping the concepts. The facilitator was knowledgeable
of the material and followed the lesson plan.
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.
A review of documentation provided concluded there was no facilitator turnover nor gaps in
service during the review period. Four cohorts were completed during the review period and one
additional cohort was ongoing at the time of the review. All youth who began the intervention
successfully completed it prior to their release from the program. As a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, one completed cohort and the ongoing cohort were split into two separate groups to
ensure proper social distancing.
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 has a process in place to conduct internal fidelity monitoring of facilitators of
Aggression Replacement Training. A review of documentation provided and a discussion with the
Clinical Director revealed fidelity monitoring was only conducted six of the twelve (12) months of
the review period. Internal fidelity monitoring was missing for April-August and November-
December 2019. The Clinical Director position was vacant until September 2019 and the program
had no one trained to conduct fidelity monitoring.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions resulting from internal fidelity
monitoring. Rite of Passage has a continuous quality improvement process, which includes
tracking monitorings at an internal and corporate level as well as weekly discussions with
administration and facilitators. Any corrective actions identified will result in additional one on one
meetings with staff and be followed up on, and documented, during the following fidelity
monitoring. A review of documentation concluded no corrective actions were noted nor taken
during the review period.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of evaluations of the two facilitators of Aggression Replacement Training revealed each
were evaluated on their skill in delivering the intervention.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 100% (39 of 39) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 100% (39 of 39) 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: 95%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 16 youth
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 46%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 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, 95% (37 of 39) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 46% (18 of 39) 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 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 100 100 100%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at JoAnn
Bridges Academy.
39 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 39 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
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).
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 39 total youth sampled, all
39 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 39 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 11 and 14 weeks of
service, with an average of 12 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 39 total youth
sampled, all 39 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 39 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 30 hours of service.
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):
JoAnn Bridges Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
JoAnn Bridges 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: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY19-20

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
JoAnn Bridges Academy
Rite of Passage, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
950 SW Greenville Hills Road
Greenville, Florida 32331
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): June 23, 2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): July 17, 2020
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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 Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records. The program’s documentation reflected the program has a training protocol for the
Impact of Crime (IOC) curriculum. During the review period, three staff at the facility were eligible
to facilitate IOC groups, two Coach Counselors and one Shift Supervisor. Documentation
indicated each staff was trained by a qualified trainer prior to facilitating 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 Impact of Crime; Addressing the Harm curriculum, version 2.0, updated
September 2011. The program has a manual detailing how Impact of Crime should be delivered,
and a workbook for the students. The curriculum provides a script and instructions or seven
chapters which requires a minimum of thirty-two contact hours to facilitate. The curriculum
includes implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons are to be delivered, and
provides detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
Documentation for this service is maintained in a binder specific to this intervention. Included in
this binder are sign in sheets, fidelity monitoring checklists, and staff training records. All
documentation is kept in an orderly and easy to locate manner. Groups are held Sundays and
Tuesdays, 6:30-7:30. All youth at the program are placed in Impact of Crime.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime was observed. The group was split into two separate groups to
ensure safe social distancing, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Group one was help 6:30-
7:00PM and included 5 youth. Group discussion was adjusted to ensure safe social distancing
was maintained for the duration of the lesson. The facilitator was knowledgeable of the material,
followed the lesson plan, and took time to make sure all youth understood the concepts. The
second group was held 7:00-7:30PM and included three youth. Youth were engaged with the
lesson and the facilitator ensured youth understood the concepts before moving on. Overall, the
facilitator was knowledgeable of the material, followed the lesson plan and did not read the script
verbatim.
One direct care staff entered group at 6:45 and left after approximately five minutes. This was
discussed with the Shift Supervisor who indicated the other staff on the mod had gone home sick
just as group was starting and the remaining direct care staff was redirected to maintain ratio for
the youth who were not present in group.
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.
Three cohorts of Impact of Crime were completed during the review period; one cohort was
ongoing. There was no facilitator turnover during the review period; however, the Shift Supervisor
took over facilitation of one group when a facilitator went out on maternity leave. There were no
gaps in service during the review period.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to conduct internal fidelity monitoring of facilitators of Impact
of Crime. A review of documentation revealed five missing fidelity monitorings during the review
period. One Coach Counselor was not monitored in November or December; the Shift Supervisor
was not monitored November through January.
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: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions resulting from internal fidelity
monitoring. Rite of Passage has a continuous quality improvement process, which includes
tracking monitorings at an internal and corporate level as well as weekly discussions with
administration and facilitators. Any corrective actions identified will result in additional one on one
meetings with staff and be followed up on, and documented, during the following fidelity
monitoring. A review of documentation concluded no corrective actions were noted nor taken
during the review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of evaluations of the facilitators of Impact of Crime revealed both were evaluated on their
skill in delivering the intervention.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 38 youth in the
sample, 61% (23 of 38) 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 38 youth in the
sample, 82% (31 of 38) 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: 95%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 16 youth
High = 17 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 38 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 45%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 17 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 38 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, 95% (36 of 38) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 45% (17 of 38) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 79 85 93%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at JoAnn Bridges
Academy.
39 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 38 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 38 total youth sampled, only
32 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 23
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9
and 24 weeks of service, with an average of 17 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 38 total youth
sampled, only 32 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 31
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 17
and 33 hours of service, with an average of 27 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
JoAnn Bridges Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups, and by ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed every
month for each facilitator.
JoAnn Bridges 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


summary: SPEP - FY19-20

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
JoAnn Bridges Academy
Rite of Passage, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
950 SW Greenville Hills Road
Greenville, Florida 32331
Primary Service: Seeking Safety
SPEP Review Date(s): June 23, 2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): July 17, 2020
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 200%
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 Seeking Safety.
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 while on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 20%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records. The program provided training records for all staff who facilitated or monitored Seeking
Safety during the review period. Two Therapeutic Managers, one Compliance Manager and the
Clinical Director had all been trained in the curriculum, by a qualified trainer, prior to delivering
services. The two Therapeutic Managers facilitated groups during the review period; the Clinical
Director conducted internal fidelity monitoring. The program has a training protocol in place for
facilitators of the Seeking Safety curriculum.
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 Seeking Safety manual, and all associated documentation, is maintained in an organized
binder. This binder includes an overview of the curriculum, how lessons should be facilitated,
topics for discussions, guidelines and tips for the facilitator. There is not a separate manual for
youth, but rather a section in the facilitator binder for handouts to be copied and given to the
youth. The curriculum is 25 sessions that may be delivered in any order. All youth at the facility
receive this intervention, which is held Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9:30AM.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Seeking Safety was observed. Present for group were six youth, three staff, and the
facilitator. The facilitator encouraged group participation, with good use of motivational
interviewing skills and affirmations. Youth were engaged and took turns reading the material. The
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
group was appropriately socially distanced, with staff wearing masks. Staff was knowledgeable of
the material and followed the lesson plan.
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.
A review of documentation showed the program ran Seeking Safety groups on an ongoing basis
throughout the year, with the exception of 4/22/19-8/11/19 and 11/25/19-1/28/20, after all youth
had completed the intervention. There was no facilitator turnover.
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 has a process in place to conduct internal fidelity monitoring of facilitators of Seeking
Safety. A review of documentation provided and a discussion with the Clinical Director revealed
fidelity monitoring was conducted six of the seven months groups were held during the review
period; fidelity monitoring was missing for the month of September 2019. The current Clinical
Director was hired in September 2019; during the vacancy of this position, fidelity monitoring was
not taking place.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions resulting from internal fidelity
monitoring. Rite of Passage has a continuous quality improvement process, which includes
tracking monitorings at an internal and corporate level as well as weekly discussions with
administration and facilitators. Any corrective actions identified will result in additional one on one
meetings with staff and be followed up on, and documented, during the following fidelity
monitoring. A review of documentation concluded no corrective actions were noted nor taken
during the review period.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of evaluations of the two facilitators of Seeking Safety revealed each were evaluated on
their skill in delivering the intervention.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 21% (8 of 39) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 31% (12 of 39) 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 = 16 youth
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 46%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 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, 95% (37 of 39) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 46% (18 of 39) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 2 10 20%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 79 95 83%
This SPEP report evaluates Seeking Safety, an intervention delivered at JoAnn Bridges Academy.
39 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 39 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 39 total youth sampled, only
33 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 8
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 4
and 27 weeks of service, with an average of 15 weeks.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 39 total youth
sampled, only 34 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 12
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6
and 55 hours of service, with an average of 34 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
JoAnn Bridges Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
JoAnn Bridges 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