summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress
Creek Treatment Center
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2855 Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461‐7872
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training
SPEP Review Date(s): April 18, 2018
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/20/18
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center MQI Program Code:
1055
Provider Name: TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LCC Contract Number: 10207
Location: Citrus County / Circuit: 5 Number of Beds: 96
Review Date(s): April 17-April 20, 2018 Lead Reviewer Code: 144
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
Seven staff members, including mental health therapists and the clinical director are trained
facilitators for the primary service of Aggression Replacement Training (ART). A review of training
documentation reflected all the facilitators completed the formal three-day training to deliver the
primary service. In the last twelve months, seven of the facilitators conducted a group session.
The majority of the groups were co-facilitated and three full cycles of the ten-week intervention
were completed in the last twelve months. The current cycle of ART began on January 17, 2018.
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 Aggression Replacement Training (ART) curriculum. The manual being
used contains ten lessons and the program provides handouts to the youth. Each lesson is
scripted and includes role playing and homework. The program conducts the ART intervention
three days a week and works on one of the following areas in each session: Skill Streaming,
Anger Control, and Moral Reasoning.
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.
One group session was observed during the review period. The session was facilitated by the
clinical director and a mental health therapist. Six youth attended group and each youth actively
participated in the role-playing activity. The lesson being delivered to the youth was provided to
the reviewer prior to the session. The facilitators adhered to the lesson plan and utilized posters to
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
assist the youth with the lesson being taught. The session included student reflections and self-
evaluations.
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.
There has not been any facilitator turnover since the last review period. One staff member was
out due to an unexpected circumstance and the co-facilitator and/or the clinical director conducted
the group to ensure service delivery. In the event there is staff turnover, the program’s protocol is
for the co-facilitator to assume the role of facilitator. If the co-facilitator is not available, another
trained facilitator will conduct the primary service.
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 protocol to conduct monthly fidelity checks of each facilitator. A review of the
program’s documentation reflected no fidelity checks were conducted in July 2017. Out of the
remaining eleven months, there was one month which revealed a fidelity check was conducted for
each facilitator. Six of the eleven months were missing a fidelity check for one staff member, and
three of the eleven months were missing a fidelity check for two staff members. Internal fidelity
checks were conducted by a trained Aggression Replacement Training (ART) facilitator.
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.
For areas identified as needing corrective action, the program has a process which includes an
initial response of providing coaching and supervision of the facilitator for the identified issue. If
the identified issue is not corrected, the program completes a written warning and places the
facilitator on a Performance Improvement Plan. The plan includes the issue identified, tasks
needed to correct the issue, and a target date for completion. The internal fidelity checks did not
indicate any corrective action was needed.
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.
Documentation reflected each of the facilitators had a performance evaluation, which included an
assessment of the facilitator’s delivery of Aggression Replacement Training (ART).
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 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 26% (5 of 19) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 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 19 youth in the
sample, 84% (16 of 19) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 95%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 58%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 95% (18 of 19) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 58% (11 of 19) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 90 100 90%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 19 total youth sampled, all
19 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 5 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 7 and 19 weeks of
service, with an average of 9 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 19 total youth
sampled, all 19 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 16
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 20
and 60 hours of service, with an average of 30 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing the practices in place at the
time of this review.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center 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: Cypress Creek

summary: SPEP - FY17-18

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress
Creek Treatment Center
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2855 Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461‐7872
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): April 19, 2018
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/20/18
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center MQI Program Code:
1055
Provider Name: TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LCC Contract Number: 10207
Location: Citrus County / Circuit: 5 Number of Beds: 96
Review Date(s): April 17-April 20, 2018 Lead Reviewer Code: 144
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 10 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 10 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime. The program was awarded 15 points
because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3 Service. The specific Sub-Component
Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The Primary Service was identified as this type of
service as it focuses on developing social skills required for an individual to interact in a positive
way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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.
Ten staff members, including an assistant facility administrator, six case managers, two transition
service managers, and an intake specialist are trained facilitators for the primary service of Impact
of Crime (IOC). A review of training documentation reflected all the facilitators completed the IOC
curriculum facilitator training for twenty-eight hours to deliver the primary service. In the last
twelve months, all ten facilitators conducted a group session. The majority of the groups were co-
facilitated and multiple cycles were being conducted simultaneously in different dorms in the last
twelve months, with a total of ten cycles. The next cycle of IOC is scheduled to start after the
review period.
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 (IOC) curriculum. The manual being used has seven
chapters with two to three objectives per chapter and student exercises. There are thirty-two
sessions delivered to the youth over sixteen weeks. Each lesson is scripted and includes an
outline for each session. The program conducts the IOC intervention two days a week.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
The program was between cohorts during the on-site review.
This curriculum was not able to be observed during the review week; therefore, this indicator rates
as non-applicable.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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.
There has not been any facilitator turnover since the last review period. In the event there is staff
turnover, the program’s protocol is for the co-facilitator to assume the role of facilitator. If the co-
facilitator is not available, another trained facilitator will conduct the primary service.
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 protocol to conduct monthly fidelity checks of each facilitator. A review of the
program’s documentation reflected no fidelity checks were conducted in June 2017. Out of twelve
months, there were six months which revealed a fidelity check was conducted for each facilitator.
Two of the twelve months were missing a fidelity check for one staff member, two of the twelve
months were missing a fidelity check for two staff members, and two of the twelve months were
missing a fidelity check for three staff members. The internal fidelity checks were conducted by a
trained facilitator of IOC.
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.
For areas identified as needing corrective action, the program has a process which includes an
initial response of providing coaching and supervision of the facilitator for the identified issue. If
the identified issue is not corrected, the program completes a written warning and places the
facilitator on a Performance Improvement Plan. The plan includes the issue identified, tasks
needed to correct the issue, and a target date for completion. The internal fidelity checks did not
indicate any corrective action was needed.
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.
Documentation reflected each of the facilitators had a performance evaluation in September or
December 2017. Eight annual evaluations included an assessment of the facilitator’s delivery of
Impact of Crime (IOC). One annual evaluation did not include specific information about the
delivery of IOC, and one evaluation cited the delivery of IOC, but the staff member was not given
a score for the delivery of the primary service on the evaluation.
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 24 youth in the
sample, 38% (9 of 24) 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 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 24 youth in the
sample, 100% (24 of 24) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 96%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 13 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 24 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 54%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 13 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 24 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, 96% (23 of 24) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 54% (13 of 24) 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 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 77 85 91%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Cypress Creek Juvenile
Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 24 total youth sampled, all
24 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 9 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 11 and 17 weeks of
service, with an average of 13 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 24 total youth
sampled, all 24 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, all 24 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 24 and 48 hours of
service, with an average of 25 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered just prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by continuing the processes in place at the
time of this review.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center 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: Cypress Creek Treatment Center - TrueCore

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY19-20

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress
Creek Treatment Center
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2855 West Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training
SPEP Review Date(s): 6/5/2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 6/5/2020
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): 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.
A review of documentation for the annual review period of April 2019 through April 2020 shows
there are seven staff members trained to facilitate Aggression Replacement Training. There were
six staff facilitating groups during the review period. The training is provided by a qualified trainer
over a three-day period.
There is a letter dated April 16th, 2018 which states two of the current staff were trained on July
10th through 12th, 2017, by Mark Amendola, an ART master trainer. The other staff have either a
certificate of completion for the training or the training sign-in sheets to prove they participated in
the training.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, the facilitator for
each primary service will have completed a formalized training for the primary service from a
qualified trainer. To enhance the continuity of the service due to unexpected facilitator absence
and provide more individualized instruction as needed during the service, when possible, Cypress
Creek will make all efforts to have a co-facilitator for the primary service. The co-facilitator will
have completed a formalized training for the primary service from a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the Aggression Replacement Training manual. The manual is broken down
into six sections. The first section covers Skillstreaming. The second section deals with anger
control. The third section covers moral reasoning. Each of the first three sections has a script for
the facilitator to use for each lesson. Sections four through six are for the facilitator's use. It
includes training step guides, fidelity forms and hassle logs, and the program materials.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Pursuant to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, each primary
service will be facilitated in accordance to its manual. The primary service will be conducted as
indicated in the manual/protocol; this includes adherence to the session plan, group size,
population, frequency, needed materials, duration, and interventions. The facilitator of the primary
service will specify the topic covered, interventions utilized, duration of the service, youth present,
and progress for each session on the sign-in sheet.
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.
A session of Aggression Replacement Training was unable to be conducted due to the COVID-19
pandemic; therefore, this indicator is rated as non-applicable.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program experienced facilitator turnover during the annual review period; however, the
turnover did not adversely affect the delivery of Aggression Replacement Training. The program
was able to maintain running cohorts during the review period. There was one gap in service
during the review period, between 9/20/2019 and 11/5/2019. The clinical director stated the
program was between cohorts during that time, as the program census was down and they had to
wait to ensure the cohorts had enough youth in each group.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, TrueCore utilizes
a Probationary Review Status Process designed for effective management of risk through
individualized coaching, training, and verification activities of all new employees during their first
90 days. The process encourages personal development and recognizes areas of improvement
tin an effort to reduce staff turnover. In addition, the program provides positive incentives.
Through this policy, employees receive credit for years of service, employment referrals, and for
contributing to the positive culture, teamwork environment and for going above and beyond
normal job expectations. Each employee who receives credit for doing these things is entered in a
monthly drawing at each facility.
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 for the annual review period showed the program completed a total of
thirty-eight internal fidelity monitorings. During the quarterly review in February 2020, it was noted
the program did conduct fidelity monitoring each month for each component of Aggression
Replacement Training for each facilitator per month. The Technical Assistance Specialist
discussed this fidelity requirement with the Clinical Director. That equates to three fidelity
monitoring per person per month. The clinical director stated the master trainer, Mark Amendola,
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
informed them the program only needs one fidelity monitoring per month per facilitator, but the
program will comply with the three per month per facilitator. Since the quarterly review in February
2020, the program has completed one review per facilitator per component per month. There
have been twenty-five fidelity monitoring completed since February 2020.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, designated staff
are responsible for conducting fidelity monitoring of each facilitator of a primary service on a
monthly basis. The staff conducting the fidelity monitoring has received formal training by a
qualified trainer in the primary service. Fidelity monitoring is documented on a fidelity monitoring
tool developed specifically for that primary service by the developer of the manual, or an internal
fidelity checklist created for manualized or non-manualized curriculum delivered in the program.
The staff performing the fidelity monitoring of the primary service is verifying the facilitator is
conducting the group in accordance with the manual/protocol. This includes verifying the facilitator
adheres to the session plan, group size, population, frequency, needed materials, duration, and
interventions.
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.
A review of the documentation for the review period showed there were no corrective actions
noted on the fidelity monitoring. According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol procedure, based on the results of the monthly fidelity monitoring corrective action may
be needed. The first stage of addressing areas identified as needing improvement through fidelity
monitoring is by providing coaching and supervision to the facilitator on that issue by a qualified
facilitator in the primary service. The additional coaching and/or supervision will be documented
by the person conducting the fidelity monitoring in a note and placed in the clinical supervision file.
If during additional fidelity monitoring the previously identified area addressed continues to be an
issue, the next stage is completing a written warning and placing the facilitator on a Performance
Improvement Plan (PIP). The PIP will state the issue identified, the tasks the facilitator needs to
complete to correct the issue, and a target date for completion. The plan will then be reviewed
with the facilitator by the qualified facilitator conducting the monitoring, and the facilitator’s
supervisor. In the event an issue identified during the primary service is detrimental to the youth’s
safety and/or treatment, the matter will be taken up directly with the program’s Human Resource
Manager and be addressed in accordance with the employee handbook.
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.
According to the documentation reviewed for the twelve-month review period, the evaluations
have an area where they list the primary services and provide feedback for the facilitator. The
facility's Standard Program Evaluation Protocol states, an annual evaluation of performance will
be conducted on all the facilitators of each primary service. The performance evaluation is
comprised of feedback from the fidelity monitoring tools as well as an assessment of the
facilitator’s skill in delivering the primary service.
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 20 weeks for this type of service. Of the 23 youth in the
sample, 87% (20 of 23) 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 23 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 23 youth in the
sample, 100% (23 of 23) 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: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
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 = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 7 youth
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 23 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 48%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 83% (19 of 23) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 48% (11 of 23) 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 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 93 100 93%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center.
23 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 23 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 23 total youth sampled, all
23 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 20 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 8 and 26 weeks of
service, with an average of 12 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 23 total youth
sampled, all 23 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 23 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 30 and 60 hours of
service, with an average of 35 hours.
The program was awarded 20 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.
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 98%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring fidelity monitoring is completed
every month for each facilitator.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center 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
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress
Creek Treatment Center
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC.
(Contract Provider)
2855 West Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Date(s): 6/4/2020
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 6/4/2020
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): 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.
A review of documentation for the annual review period of April 2019 through April 2020 shows
there are sixteen staff who are trained to facilitate Impact of Crime (IOC). There were eleven staff
who facilitated a cohort of IOC during the annual review period. The training is a twenty-eight
hour, in-person training, conducted over four days by a qualified trainer.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, the facilitator for
each primary service will have completed a formalized training for the primary service from a
qualified trainer. To enhance the continuity of the service due to unexpected facilitator absence
and provide more individualized instruction as needed during the service, when possible, Cypress
Creek will make all efforts to have a co-facilitator for the primary service. The co-facilitator will
have completed a formalized training for the primary service from a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm manual. The manual opens with
an introduction to the Impact of Crime curriculum. Then the manual goes over all seven chapters
of the group and provides a script for the facilitator to follow. The manual also has an appendix
and a student guide with all the student exercises.
Pursuant the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, each primary service
will be facilitated in accordance to its manual. The primary service will be conducted as indicated
in the manual/protocol; this includes adherence to the session plan, group size, population,
frequency, needed materials, duration, and interventions. The facilitator of the primary service will
specify the topic covered, interventions utilized, duration of the service, youth present, and
progress for each session on the sign-in sheet.
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 within the final sixty (60) days of the review period, on
2/3/2020. The session began at 2:32p and ended at 3:35p. The facilitator began with a review of
chapter three which covered the four major impacts of crime. The facilitator then transitioned into
the ice breaker activity. There was one youth who did not want to participate in group. The youth
was not disruptive but sat in the corner without participating. The group then began working on
their community service project, making manatees and pizzas from craft kits. The director of case
management stated they were going to give some of the manatees to the youth’s families during
family day and the rest will go to an assisted living facility in the area. After the project, the group
was broken into two different groups and asked to list emotions and feelings which affect good
decision making.
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 experienced facilitator turnover during the annual review period of April 2019-April
2020; however, the turnover did not adversely affect the delivery of Impact of Crime. The
facilitators assigned to a cohort completed each cohort prior to terminating their employment.
There were ten cohorts completed during the annual review period. There were several cohorts
which added youth to the cohort after they began. There were also several cohorts which had
youth drop from the cohort. The director of case management stated the youth are moved from
one dorm to a different dorm during their stay. Each dorm has a different facilitator running the
group, but they are all on the same lesson.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, TrueCore utilizes
a Probationary Review Status Process designed for effective management of risk through
individualized coaching, training, and verification activities of all new employees during their first
90 days. The process encourages personal development and recognizes areas of improvement
tin an effort to reduce staff turnover. In addition, the program provides positive incentives.
Through this policy, employees receive credit for years of service, employment referrals, and for
contributing to the positive culture, teamwork environment and for going above and beyond
normal job expectations. Each employee who receives credit for doing these things is entered in a
monthly drawing at each facility.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
A review of the documentation for the annual review period showed the program completed thirty-
eight internal fidelity monitorings of Impact of Crime. There was no fidelity monitoring completed in
November or June 2019. The cohorts' last session happened to be at the very beginning of June
and November. The director of case management stated she did not conduct a fidelity monitoring
because it was the last session for the cohort. The Technical Assistance Specialist informed the
director of case management and the facility administrator there must be at least one fidelity
monitoring completed for each facilitator each month even if the cohort’s last session fell into
another month.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, designated staff
are responsible for conducting fidelity monitoring of each facilitator of a primary service on a
monthly basis. The staff conducting the fidelity monitoring has received formal training by a
qualified trainer in the primary service. Fidelity monitoring is documented on a fidelity monitoring
tool developed specifically for that primary service by the developer of the manual, or an internal
fidelity checklist created for manualized or non-manualized curriculum delivered in the program.
The staff performing the fidelity monitoring of the primary service is verifying the facilitator is
conducting the group in accordance with the manual/protocol. This includes verifying the facilitator
adheres to the session plan, group size, population, frequency, needed materials, duration, and
interventions.
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.
A review of documentation for the review period showed there were no corrective actions noted
nor taken on the fidelity monitoring of Impact of Crime.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, based on the
results of the monthly fidelity monitoring corrective action may be needed. The first stage of
addressing areas identified as needing improvement through fidelity monitoring is by providing
coaching and supervision to the facilitator on that issue by a qualified facilitator in the primary
service. The additional coaching and/or supervision will be documented by the person conducting
the fidelity monitoring in a note and placed in the clinical supervision file. If during additional
fidelity monitoring the previously identified area addressed continues to be an issue, the next
stage is completing a written warning and placing the facilitator on a Performance Improvement
Plan (PIP). The PIP will state the issue identified, the tasks the facilitator needs to complete to
correct the issue, and a target date for completion. The plan will then be reviewed with the
facilitator by the qualified facilitator conducting the monitoring, and the facilitator’s supervisor. In
the event an issue identified during the primary service is detrimental to the youth’s safety and/or
treatment, the matter will be taken up directly with the program’s Human Resource Manager and
be addressed in accordance with the employee handbook.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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.
According to the documentation reviewed for the twelve-month review period, the evaluations
have an area where they list the primary services and provide feedback for the facilitator.
The facility's Standard Program Evaluation Protocol states, an annual evaluation of performance
will be conducted on all the facilitators of each primary service. The performance evaluation is
comprised of feedback from the fidelity monitoring tools as well as an assessment of the
facilitator’s skill in delivering the primary service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 23 youth in the
sample, 100% (23 of 23) 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 23 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 23 youth in the
sample, 100% (23 of 23) 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: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
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 = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 7 youth
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 23 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 48%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 11 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 83% (19 of 23) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 48% (11 of 23) 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 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 80 85 94%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Cypress Creek Juvenile
Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center.
23 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 23 total youth sampled, all
23 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, all 10 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 18 and 19 weeks of
service, with an average of 18 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 23 total youth
sampled, all 23 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, all 10 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 24 hours of service.
The program was awarded 20 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.
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 100%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by fidelity monitoring is completed every
month for each facilitator.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded
accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10


summary: SPEP - FY20-21

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress
Creek Treatment Center
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
2855 West Woodland Ridge Drive
Lecanto, Florida 34461
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training
SPEP Review Period: 4/15/2020-4/14/2021
SPEP Review Conducted: 5/19/2021-5/20/2021
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 7/28/2021
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): 6 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.
A review of documentation for the annual review period of April 15, 2020 through April 14, 2021
shows the program utilizes Aggression Replacement Training (ART) as their primary service.
There are five staff who are trained to facilitate the primary service. The trained staff are the
clinical director and four therapists. ART is provided by a qualified trainer over a three-day period.
The clinical director conducts the monthly internal fidelity checks.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, the facilitator for
each primary service will have completed a formalized training for that primary service from a
qualified trainer. To enhance the continuity of the service due to unexpected facilitator absence
and provide more individualized instruction as needed during the service, when possible, Cypress
Creek will make all efforts to have a co-facilitator for the primary service. The co-facilitator will
have completed a formalized training for the primary service from a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The documentation was reviewed for the annual review period of April 15, 2020 through April 14,
2021. The program utilizes the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) manual. The manual is
broken down into six sections. The first section covers Skillstreaming. The second section deals
with anger control. The third section covers moral reasoning. Each of the first three sections has a
script for the facilitator to use for each lesson. Sections four through six are for the facilitator's
use. It includes training step guides, fidelity forms and hassle logs, and the program materials.
The program does not have separate student workbooks to give out. The facilitators make copies
of the exercises before each session to pass out to the youth.
The group is a closed group, to be delivered to the youth over a minimum of ten weeks for thirty
hours. The program keeps all SPEP documents in a binder labeled "Aggression Replacement
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Training". The program provides the service on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays for one hour
each. All youth receive ART. The clinical director stated a tracker is maintained based on the
youth’s arrival and anticipated release date. The clinical director schedules the youth to complete
ART prior to their discharge date.
Per the facility's Standard Program Evaluation Protocol, each primary service will be facilitated in
accordance to its manual. The primary service will be conducted as indicated in the
manual/protocol; this includes adherence to the session plan, group size, population, frequency,
needed materials, duration, and interventions. The facilitator of the primary service will specify the
topic covered, interventions utilized, duration of the service, youth present, and progress for each
session on the sign-in sheet.
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 5/20/2021. There were six youth
present for the group along with one staff and the facilitator. The group began at 2:29p. The group
was held in the dorm’s classroom. The was knowledgeable of the material and followed the
lesson plan. All six youth participated in group and provided good group discussion. The youth
were not disruptive. The facilitator stated one youth who is generally reserved even answered
questions posed to the group. The facilitator used a video of master trainers, Mark Amendola and
Dr. Bob Oliver, presenting the same topic. The facilitator stopped the video and asked the youth
similar questions that were posed in the video, but also added additional probing questions. The
group ended at 3:22p.
The technical assistance specialist noted the lesson covered the week’s Moral Reasoning
problem. The appropriate lesson for the day should have covered the Anger Control portion and
Moral Reasoning should have been conducted on Friday. The therapist stated he did jump
lessons, but knew the order they were supposed to follow. The facilitator stated he will cover the
Anger Control portion of the lesson on Friday and then follow the order beginning the following
week.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The documentation reviewed for the annual review period of April 15, 2020 through April 14, 2021
showed the program experienced facilitator turnover for Aggression Replacement Training;
however, this turnover did not adversely affect service delivery. The program’s clinical director left
in October 2020 and the assistant clinical director was promoted to clinical director. There were
eight cohorts completed during the annual review period. The dates of the cohorts are: 2/9/2021-
4/15/2021, 11/17/2020-1/21/2021, 11/17/2020-1/21/2021, 8/11/2020-10/16/2020, 5/5/2020-
7/10/2020, 2/11/2020-4/17/2020, 2/11/2020-4/17/2020, and 2/11/2020-4/17/2020. There was a
gap in service of just over two weeks (eighteen days) between the cohort which ended on
1/21/2021 and the cohort which began on 2/9/2021. The clinical director stated she was informed
by the former clinical director there could be a gap of no longer than three weeks between
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
cohorts. There was a one-month gap between the cohort which ended on 10/16/2020 and the
cohort which began on 11/17/2020. The clinical director stated the program was in the process of
transitioning to a new clinical director as well as completing all necessary trainings in order to
provide the service. There was a one-month gap between the cohort which ended on 7/10/2020
and the cohort which began on 8/11/2020. There was an eighteen-day gap between the cohort
which ended on 4/17/2020 and the cohort which began on 5/5/2020. Technical assistance
specialist informed the clinical director there could be no more than two weeks between cohorts.
There were three cohorts which began on 2/11/2020. These cohorts ended on 4/17/2020. One
cohort began with seven youth and ended with five youth. One cohort began with nine youth and
ended with nine youth. The third cohort began with seven youth and ended with six youth.
The cohorts beginning on 5/5/2020 and 8/11/2020 both began with six youth and ended with six
youth.
There were two cohorts which began on 11/17/2020. One cohort began with seven youth and
ended with five youth. The other cohort began with eight youth and ended with nine. One youth
was transferred between groups due to security issues.
The cohort which began on 2/9/2021 began with seven youth and ended with six youth.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, TrueCore utilizes
a Probationary Review Status Process designed for effective management of risk through
individualized coaching, training and verification activities of all new employees during their first
90 days. The process encourages personal development and recognizes areas of improvement in
an effort to reduce staff turnover. In addition, the program provides positive incentives which, in
their experience, has shown to improve employee motivation and dedication, leading to better
employee retention. Through this policy employees receive credit for years of service,
employment referrals, and for contributing to the positive culture, teamwork environment and for
going above and beyond normal job expectations. Each employee who receives credit for doing
these things is entered in a monthly drawing at each facility. In the event of facilitator turnover, the
co-facilitator will assume the role of the facilitator for the group. If a co-facilitator is not present, a
new qualified facilitator for the primary service will take over conducting the service.
The program can earn 2 points if there are no unnecessary gaps in service.
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 for the annual review period of April 15, 2020 through April 14, 2021
showed the program completed thirty fidelity monitorings of Aggression Replacement Training
(ART). The former clinical director and the new clinical director conduct the monthly internal
fidelity checks. The clinical director stated the new facilitators conduct “self-fidelity” checks
monthly.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The fidelity checks completed for the months of January, February, March, and April 2021 were
conducted as “self-fidelity” checks which did not count for this annual review. The technical
assistance specialist informed the clinical director all monthly internal fidelity checks must be
completed by a staff member trained in the primary service and each facilitator must have one
fidelity check per section of ART per month. This is in compliance with the developer’s
requirement of twenty percent fidelity checks for Skillstreaming, twenty percent fidelity checks for
anger control, and twenty percent fidelity checks for moral reasoning for each ten-week cohort.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, designated staff
are responsible for conducting fidelity monitoring of each facilitator of a primary service monthly.
The staff conducting the fidelity monitoring has received formal training by a qualified trainer in the
primary service. Fidelity monitoring is documented on a fidelity monitoring tool developed
specifically for that primary service by the developer of the manual, or an internal fidelity checklist
created for manualized or non-manualized curriculum delivered in the program. The staff
performing the fidelity monitoring of the primary service is verifying the facilitator is conducting the
group in accordance with the manual/protocol. This includes verifying the facilitator adheres to the
session plan, group size, population, frequency, needed materials, duration, and interventions.
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.
A review of the documentation for the review period showed that there were no corrective actions
noted on the fidelity monitoring of Aggression Replacement Training.
According to the facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure, based on the
results of the monthly fidelity monitoring corrective action may be needed. The first stage of
addressing areas identified as needing improvement through fidelity monitoring is by providing
coaching and supervision to the facilitator on that issue by a qualified facilitator in the primary
service. The additional coaching and/or supervision will be documented by the person conducting
the fidelity monitoring in a note and placed in the clinical supervision file. If during additional
fidelity monitoring the previously identified area addressed continues to be an issue, the next
stage is completing a written warning and placing the facilitator on a Performance Improvement
Plan. The Performance Improvement Plan will state the issue identified, the tasks the facilitator
needs to complete to correct the issue, and a target date for completion. The plan will then be
reviewed with the facilitator by the qualified facilitator conducting the monitoring, and the
facilitator’s supervisor. In the event that an issue identified during the primary service is
detrimental to the youth’s safety and/or treatment, the matter will be taken up directly with the
program’s Human Resource Manager and be addressed in accordance with the employee
handbook.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
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 documentation reviewed for the annual review period of April 15, 2020 through April 14, 2021
showed the evaluations have an area where they list the primary services and provide feedback
for the facilitator. Five annual performance evaluations were reviewed. All five annual
performance evaluations only listed the primary services and/or the numerical rating. There was
no specific information documenting the facilitator’s skill delivering Aggression Replacement
Training. The clinical director was informed there needed to be specific information relating to the
facilitator’s skill delivering the primary service on the annual performance evaluations.
The facility's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol procedure states, an annual evaluation of
performance will be conducted on all the facilitators of each primary service. The performance
evaluation is comprised of feedback from the fidelity monitoring tools as well as an assessment of
the facilitator’s skill in delivering the primary service.
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 8
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 47 youth in the
sample, 94% (44 of 47) 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 47 youth in the
sample, 94% (44 of 47) 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: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 79%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 15 youth
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 47 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 38%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 18 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 47 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, 79% (37 of 47) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 38% (18 of 47) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 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 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 81 100 81%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center.
47 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 47 were included in
the sample.
The program scored Medium 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 10
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 47 total youth sampled, only
44 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 44
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10
and 11 weeks of service, with an average of 10 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 47 total youth
sampled, only 44 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 44
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 30 hours of
service.
The program was awarded 20 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. 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 86%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center can
optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring there are no unnecessary gaps
in service, fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, and each facilitator’s
performance evaluation includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service.
Cypress Creek Juvenile Offender Correctional Center / Cypress Creek Treatment Center 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 11