summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Juvenile Residential Facility
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619
Primary Service: Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change
SPEP Review Period: 11/01/20-10/31/21
SPEP Review Conducted: 11/09/21
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 12/3/21
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 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 Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change intervention is being reviewed. The program
maintains all SPEP documentation in a tabbed binder separated into sections, then organized by
intervention. Clinical staff lead the groups and are trained by the Clinical Director before being
able to facilitate a group themselves. The Clinical Director reviews the Facilitator Guide as well as
the Youth's Guide with each Clinician and addresses the purpose of SPEP with them. During the
review period from 11/01/20-10/31/21, there were fifteen (15) staff formally trained in the
Pathways curriculum- one Clinical Director, three Assistant Clinical Directors, four Licensed
Therapists, two PRN Therapists, and five Unlicensed Therapists. Seven of these staff facilitated
during the review period- two Assistant Clinical Directors, two Licensed Therapists and three
Unlicensed Clinical Therapists.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the brand name manual Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change. The
reviewer looked over the manual during the review. There is a facilitator and Youth's Guide. The
manual provides a script and instructions for the lessons. The curriculum also includes
implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered and includes
detailed instructions for the delivery of each lesson.
The Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change group is held on Tuesdays and Thursdays from
2:20-3:20 p.m. for both mental health and substance abuse youth. All youth receive Pathways
prior to being released from the program.
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 Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change was observed on Tuesday 11/09/21 from
2:20 to 3:20 p.m. There was one staff member and seven youth present in the group. The
facilitator provided a copy of the the lesson, Backsliding to Drugs and Crime. The facilitator
followed the lesson plan according to the manual, did not read the lesson verbatim but rather
used her own words to convey the meaning of the discussed topic. She was very easy for the
youth to follow. The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan in every aspect.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of the program's documentation provided and an interview with the Clinical Director
confirmed the program has had turnover of facilitators for Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change
during the review period. The Clinical Director stated they lost one facilitator due to the company
losing their 65D License. An unlicensed clinician was running the group and the group
transitioned to a licensed group leader, continuing where they left off. The program's policy
regarding anticipated turnover is that if a facilitator is no longer able to finish the group, another
trained clinician will start the group from where the prior person left off. Clinicians are made aware
the group is 24 weeks long and they are expected to run the group for the full 24 weeks unless
they are out on PTO. If this occurs, then another trained facilitator will lead the group that day.
There were six cohorts of Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change completed during the review
period and there are two groups currently ongoing which started on 08/24/21 and 10/02/21.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 2 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 an in-house process to perform internal fidelity monitoring. The monitoring was
completed monthly for each facilitator by the Clinical Director and/or the Assistant Clinical Director
who are formally trained in the Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change curriculum. The program
uses internal fidelity monitoring checklists specific to Pathways to document the monitoring. The
program had completed checklists for all facilitators for each month they completed their
Pathways groups. All completed fidelity checklists are maintained in the SPEP binder under a tab
entitled "Fidelity Monitoring for Pathways". Each tab had a copy of the fidelity checklist completed
on the facilitator (s) who performed groups during the specific month.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process by which corrective action is acknowledged and demonstrated based
on the fidelity/monitoring of the primary service. The program uses internal fidelity
montoring/corrective action checklists specific to the Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change
curriculum. Each completed checklist includes feedback specifying either the facilitator did not
require any corrective action or, if the facilitator did require corrective action, it would include
recommendations for future improvement. The following month's checklist would then include
comments the previous month's recommendations were applied and demonstrated. However, an
interview with the Clinical Director and a review of the documentation provided verified the
program did not take any corrective action during the review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of employee records for the current trained facilitators found these staff had received an
evaluation within the last year. Two Therapists have 90-day evaluations as they have not been
employed for one year yet. The performance evaluations for these staff found entries of the staff's
proficiency in delivering Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change. These included comments on
any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 29 youth in the
sample, 69% (20 of 29) 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 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 29 youth in the
sample, 93% (27 of 29) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 93%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 7 youth
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 29 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 55%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 16 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 29 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, 93% (27 of 29) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 55% (16 of 29) 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 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 87 95 92%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change, an intervention delivered at
Tampa Juvenile Residential Facility.
30 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 29 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 29 total youth sampled, only
28 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 20
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 19
and 28 weeks of service, with an average of 25 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 29 total youth
sampled, only 28 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 27
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 32
and 48 hours of service, with an average of 45 hours.
The program was awarded 23 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Tampa Juvenile Residential Facility can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
Tampa Juvenile Residential Facility 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

file_name: FY2021-22 Tampa Pathways.pdf


state: FL

facility_name: Tampa Residential Facility

summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619-7715
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: 11/01/21-10/31/22
SPEP Review Conducted: 11/08/22
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/17/23
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The intervention being reviewed is Impact of Crime (IOC). The Department of Juvenile Justice
provides the formal training for the intervention.There were five staff formally trained in the IOC
curriculum during this annual review period- one Director of Case Management, one Transition
Service Manager, and three Case Managers. The DCM conducted fidelity monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program has manuals for the delivery of the Impact of Crime curriculum. The manual contains
worksheets for students and suggestions for facilitators. It includes a script, implementation
guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered, and includes detailed instructions
for each lesson.
Impact of Crime is a closed group and is held on Tuesday and Thursday. The program maintains
their records in a Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) binder. All youth at Tampa
Residential Facility receive Impact of Crime.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime was observed on Wednesday 11/08/22 from 11:20am to 12:15pm.
The facilitator provided a copy of the lesson plan from the manual prior to the observation. The
lesson for the day was Chapter Six: Managing Conflict. The facilitator followed the lesson
according to the manual, he did not read the lesson verbatim instead used his own words in
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
combination with the manual to convey the topic. The method used had the youth very engaged
and allowed him to keep control of the group. The facilitator adhered to the lesson plan in every
aspect.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation and an interview with the Director of Case Management confirmed one
Case Manager left the program and one Case Manager was promoted within the organization
during this annual review. However, this turnover did not adversely affect the services of Impact of
Crime. The program's policy regarding turnover is to ensure any potentially affected groups are
co-facilitated, if possible, at the outset and that all staff are trained in this curriculum. There were
no gaps in service during the review period.
There were three cohorts completed during the annual review period; one cohort was ongoing at
the time of this review. The first cohort was held 11/30/2021-03/24/2022, which started with ten
(10) youth and ended with eight youth. One youth was jailed on 12/24/22 and one youth left the
program prior to completing the curriculum.
The second cohort ran 02/01/2022-05/19/2022 and started and ended with nine youth.
The third cohort ran 05/17/2022-09/01/2022, it started with ten (10) youth and ended with nine
youth. One youth left the program prior to completing the service.
The fourth cohort started 08/16/2022 and was ongoing as of 11/08/2022.
Basic Score: 2 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 an internal process to conduct fidelity monitoring for facilitators of Impact of
Crime (IOC) by utilizing a fidelity checklist. The Director of Case Management performed all
internal fidelity monitoring for the annual review period. Fidelity monitoring for IOC was conducted
each month of the review period, without exception.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the Director of Case Management verified the program has a process for
corrective actions based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity
monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to Impact of Crime. Each fidelity monitoring
checklist includes a section for feedback specifying the facilitator did not require any corrective
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
action or included recommendations for future improvement. The following month's checklist
would include comments the previous month's recommendations were applied and demonstrated.
There were no corrective actions noted nor taken for facilitators of Impact of Crime.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of annual evaluations of facilitators for the Impact of Crime curriculum found an the
evaluation of staff’s performance in delivering Impact of Crime. These included comments on any
strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
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 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 97% (38 of 39) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 97% (38 of 39) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 87%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 5 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 24 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 62%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 24 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 87% (34 of 39) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 62% (24 of 39) 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 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 79 85 93%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Tampa Residential
Facility.
41 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 39 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 39 total youth sampled, only
38 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 38
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 16
and 36 weeks of service, with an average of 18 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 39 total youth
sampled, only 38 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 38
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 31
and 64 hours of service, with an average of 35 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage
of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2022-23 Tampa IOC.pdf

program_name_raw: Tampa Residential Facility

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
6508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619-7715
Primary Service: Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change
SPEP Review Period: 11/01/21-10/31/22
SPEP Review Conducted: 11/08/22
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/20/23
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 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 Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change .
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The intervention being reviewed is Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change (Pathways). There
were thirteen (13) therapists formally trained in the Pathways curriculum during this annual review
period- one Clinical Director, four Assistant Clinical Directors, and eight Therapists. Four Assistant
Clinical Directors and two Therapists delivered Pathways during the review period. The Clinical
Director and Assistant Clinical Director(s) conducted internal fidelity monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The manual in use is Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change. The manual contains a script for
the facilitator to follow. It provides lessons and includes implementation guidelines, identifies the
order the lessons should be delivered in, and includes detailed instructions for the delivery of each
lesson.
Pathways is an open group which address both the mental health and substance abuse aspects
of therapy and is held on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The program maintains their records in a
Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) binder. All youth at Tampa Residential Facility
receive Pathways.
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 Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change group was observed on Tuesday 11/08/22,
from 2:25pm to 3:28pm. The facilitator provided a copy of the lesson plan from the manual prior to
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
the observation. The lesson for the day was Chapter Thirty: Conflict Resolution. The facilitator
followed the lesson according to the manual, she did not read the lesson verbatim instead used
her own words in combination with the manual to convey the topic. There were three youth who
refused to participate, two chose to sleep and one was disruptive. The facilitator managed to get
the disruptive youth involved by having him assist with reading. The facilitator made sure the
participating youth grasped the concept before moving on.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation and an interview with the Clinical Director confirmed there was
turnover during this annual review. However, this turnover did not adversely affect the delivery of
Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change. The program's policy regarding turnover is to ensure
any potentially affected groups are co-facilitated, if possible, at the outset and that all therapists
are trained in the curriculum.
There were three substance abuse cohorts and one mental health cohort completed during the
annual review period. There are two substance abuse (SA) and two mental health (MH) cohorts
running as of this annual review. The dates of the cohorts were: (SA) 8/24/21-2/24/22, (MH)
10/2/21-3/22/22, (SA) 12/7/21-5/26/22, and (SA) 3/1/22-9/8/22. The current cohorts’ dates are:
(SA) 3/31/22- current (as of 11/8/22), (MH) 3/31/22- current (as of 11/8/22), (SA) 9/13/22-current
current (as of 11/8/22), and (MH) 9/13/22-current current (as of 11/8/22) during this review period
with no gaps in service.
Basic Score: 2 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 documentation for internal fidelity monitoring of Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change
facilitators was reviewed. The program completed internal fidelity monitoring for Pathways each
month during the review period for each facilitator, without exception. The monitoring was
completed by the Clinical Director and Assistant Clinical Director.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the Clinical Director verified the program has a process for corrective actions
based on fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring/corrective
action checklists specific to Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change.
There were no corrective actions noted nor taken during the review period.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of annual performance evaluations for facilitators of Pathways to Self-Discovery and
Change an evaluation of staff’s performance in delivering the service. These included comments
on any strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
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 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 97% (38 of 39) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 199%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 100% (39 of 39) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 87%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 5 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 24 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 62%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 24 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 87% (34 of 39) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 62% (24 of 39) 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 30 30 100%
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 23 25 92%
Totals 91 95 96%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change, an intervention delivered at
Tampa Residential Facility.
41 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 39 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 39 total youth sampled, all
39 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 38 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 22 and 28 weeks of
service, with an average of 26 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 39 total youth
sampled, all 39 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 39 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 41 and 52 hours of
service, with an average of 46 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage
of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2022-23 Tampa Pathways.pdf

service_type: Pathways to Self‐Discovery and Change


summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Tampa Residential Facility
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
9508 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, Florida 33619-7715
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Period: 11/01/21-10/31/22
SPEP Review Conducted: 11/08/22
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/20/23
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 Thinking for a Change.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 10 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The intervention being reviewed is Thinking for a Change (T4C). There were six staff formally
trained in the T4C curriculum during this annual review period- one Director of Case Management
(DCM), one Transition Service Manager, and four Case Managers. The DCM conducted internal
fidelity monitoring during this annual 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 has brand name manuals for the delivery of Thinking for a Change curriculum. The
manual contains worksheets for students and suggestions for facilitators. It includes a script,
implementation guidelines, identifies the order the lessons should be delivered, and includes
detailed instructions for each lesson.
Thinking for a Change is a closed group and is held on Mondays and Wednesdays. The program
maintains their records in a Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) binder. All youth at
Tampa Residential Facility receive Thinking for a Change.
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 Thinking for a Change was observedon Wednesday 11/09/22 from 11:25am to
12:20pm. The co-facilitator provided a copy of the lesson plan from the manual prior to the
observation. The lesson for the day was an aftercare session. The facilitators followed the lesson
according to the manual, they did not read the lesson verbatim instead used their own words in
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
combination with the manual to convey the topic. The method used had the youth very engaged
and allowed him to keep control of the group. The facilitators adhered to the lesson plan.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
A review of documentation and an interview with the Director of Case Management confirmed one
facilitator, a case manager, left during the review period. However, this turnover did not adversely
affect the services of Thinking for a Change. The program's policy regarding turnover is to ensure
any potentially affected groups are co-facilitated, if possible, at the outset and that all staff are
trained in the curriculum.
There were three cohorts completed during the annual review period. The first cohort ran
11/29/20/21-03/02/2022, which started with ten (10) youth and ended with nine youth. One youth
was arrested on 12/27/22.
The second cohort ran 01/31/2022-04/20/2022. It started with ten (10) youth and ended with nine
youth. One youth was dropped on 2/16/22 after refusing three sessions in a row.
The third cohort ran 05/16/2022-08/05/2022. This cohort started with ten (10) youth and ended
with nine youth. One youth was dropped from the group after refusing the group three times in a
row.
The fourth cohort started 08/15/2022 and was ongoing as of 11/08/2022.
The three completed cohorts all included aftercare sessions. There were no gaps in service
during the review period.
Basic Score: 2 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 an internal process to conduct fidelity monitoring for facilitators of Thinking for a
Change (T4C) by utilizing a fidelity checklist. The Director of Case Management performed all
internal fidelity monitoring for the annual review period. Fidelity monitoring was conducted each
month for each facilitator, without exception.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with the Director of Case Management verified the program has a process for
corrective actions based on internal fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal
fidelity monitoring/corrective action checklists specific to Thinking for a Change. Each fidelity
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
monitoring checklist includes a section for feedback specifying the facilitator did not require any
corrective action or would include recommendations for future improvement. The following
month's checklist included comments the previous month's recommendations were applied and
demonstrated.
There were no corrective actions noted nor taken during the review period.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of annual performance evaluations of facilitators for Thinking for a Change (T4C) found
entries of staff’s performance in delivering the service. These included comments on any
strengths or weaknesses of which the facilitator should be aware.
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 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 97% (38 of 39) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 39 youth in the
sample, 95% (37 of 39) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 87%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 5 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 24 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 62%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 24 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 39 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 87% (34 of 39) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 62% (24 of 39) 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 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 94 100 94%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Tampa
Residential Facility.
41 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 39 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 39 total youth sampled, all
39 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 38 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 12 and 29 weeks of
service, with an average of 18 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 39 total youth
sampled, all 39 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 37 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 41 and 90 hours of
service, with an average of 47 hours.
The program was awarded 23 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Tampa Residential Facility can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Tampa Residential Facility can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage
for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage
of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2022-23 Tampa T4C.pdf

service_type: Thinking for a Change