state: FL

facility_name: Britt Technical Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Britt Technical Youth Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
3001 26th Avenue South
St. Petersburg , Florida 33712
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: 9/1/24 - 8/31/25
SPEP Review Conducted: 10/23/25
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 12/12/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: `00%
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 program uses Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service. Facilitator training consists of a
three-day, twenty-four (24) hour training course provided by the Department of Juvenile Justice.
This training is available to new facilitators in person. The documentation showed there were five
staff trained in the primary service during this review period: one designated mental health
clinician authority (DMHCA), two transitional service managers (TSM), and two case managers
(CM). During this review period, two transitional service managers conducted IOC groups.
The program can earn 1 point if all the facilitators of the primary service are trained to do so.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
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 manual titled Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm. The manual includes
seven chapters and provides a script for the facilitator to follow. The curriculum includes a student
guide with exercises for the participants to complete that are aimed at reinforcing the material
presented during group sessions. The program does not assign a student guide to each individual
participant; rather the facilitator makes copies of the exercises and provides one to each youth
during the lesson. The program maintains all SPEP documentation (attendance sheets and
internal fidelity checks) in a separate binder labeled Impact of Crime. All youth admitted to the
program are required to participate in this primary service. Impact of Crime is a closed group with
no more than twelve (12) youth assigned to a cohort.
The program can earn 2 points if there is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of
the primary service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
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.
An observation of Impact of Crime was conducted via TEAMS on April 1, 2025. The session
started at 5:00 p.m. and ended at 5:56 p.m. There were nine youth, two staff, and one facilitator in
attendance. The lesson covered Chapter Three Property Crimes. All youth were attentive and
seemed eager to participate. The facilitator was knowledgeable of the material and used his own
words to convey the key points of the lesson. He also made sure that all youth understood what
was being covered before moving on to the next topic.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator adheres to the service protocol.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
An informal interview with the DMHC and documentation reviewed for the period of September 1,
2024 through August 31, 2025 showed the program did experience facilitator turnover. However,
this turnover did not negatively affect the delivery of the primary service. In the event of facilitator
turnover, the co-facilitator or another trained facilitator will be assigned to continue the cohort.
During this review period there were three completed cohorts and one ongoing cohorts of Impact
of Crime.
The first cohort ran from September 3, 2024-November 29, 2024 which started with ten (10) youth
and ended with eight (8) youth, as two youth were transferred to another program.
The second cohort ran from February 15, 2025-June 10, 2025 which started with ten (10) youth
(on 4/19/25 two youth were arrested), and ended with eight (8) youth.
The third cohort ran from April 8, 2025-July 31,2025 which started with ten (10) youth (one youth
was arrested on 4/19/25, and one youth was discharged on 7/1/25) and ended with seven (7)
youth.
The fourth cohort started on June 24, 2025- currently on-going as of August 31, 2025, with ten
(10) youth.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not adversely impact consistent service
delivery.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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.
A review of the documentation and an informal interview with the DMHC for Impact of Crime (IOC)
showed all required fidelity monitoring checks were completed.
The program can earn 2 points if the program staff conduct all required internal fidelity
monitorings.
At the time of the review, the program met the 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.
An interview with the designated mental health counselor (DMHC) and review of the
documentation provided verified that the program has a process for corrective actions based on
fidelity monitoring conducted. The program uses internal fidelity monitoring/corrective action
checklists that are specific to Impact of Crime (IOC). Each checklist includes a section for
feedback and recommendations for facilitator improvement.
The program can earn 1 point if there is a process in place to provide corrective actions if needed.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
An interview with the designated mental health counselor (DMHC) and review of the
documentation provided for the review period of September 1, 2024, through August 31, 2025,
verified that there were two annual evaluations conducted for the two TSM facilitating Impact of
Crime.
The program can earn 1 point if there are performance evaluations for facilitators which
meaningfully address the facilitators' skill in delivering the service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
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 10 youth in the
sample, 20% (2 of 10) 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 10 youth in the
sample, 100% (10 of 10) 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: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 50%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 3 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 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, 50% (5 of 10) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 10) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 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 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 57 85 67%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Britt Technical Youth
Academy.
12 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 10 were included in the
sample.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 10 total youth sampled, all
10 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 2
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 13
and 17 weeks of service, with an average of 14.20 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 10 total youth
sampled, all 10 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 10
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 24
and 33 hours of service, with an average of 27 hours.
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 91%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Britt Technical Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Britt Technical Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2025-26 Britt TYA IOC.pdf

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Britt Technical Youth Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
3001 26th Avenue South
St. Petersburg , Florida 33712
Primary Service: Moral Reconation Therapy
SPEP Review Period: 9/1/24 - 8/31/25
SPEP Review Conducted: 10/23/25
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 12/12/2025
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Moral Reconation Therapy.
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: 20%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program uses Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) as a primary service. The clinical staff are
trained to facilitate MRT groups. The documentation showed there were three therapists trained in
the primary service during this review period: one designated mental health counselor (DMHC)
and two therapists. During this review period all trained facilitators conducted MRT groups.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators are trained in the primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
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 for the annual review period, shows program utilized the Moral Reconation
Therapy (MRT) Facilitator’s Handbook. The MRT Facilitator’s Handbook contains information on
the group process, specific objective criteria and guidelines for all exercises and tasks in Moral
Reconation Therapy, and specific “how to” instructions. There are separate student manuals
which the facilitator makes copies of and are placed in a folder for each youth. MRT is designed to
be an open group with group facilitation year-round.
The program can earn 2 points if there is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of
the primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
An observation of Moral Recognition Therapy (MRT) was conducted in person on April 7, 2025.
The session started at 3:02 pm and ended at 3:58 pm. There were ten (10) youth, two staff, and
one facilitator in attendance. At the start of the group, the youth worked in their workbooks.
Several of the youth conducted mock interviews. All youth seemed to be eager to participate. The
facilitator made sure that all youth understood what was being covered in the lesson prior to
advancing to the next topic. The facilitator used her own words to convey the main points of the
lesson.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator adheres to the protocol/manual.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
An informal interview and documentation reviewed for the review period of September 1, 2024,
through August 31, 2025 shows the program has experienced facilitator turnover. The DMHC
facilitated the first few sessions while the two clinicians were in training. Both clinicians were able
to observe the group and once their training was completed, they took over the group. This
turnover did not have a negative effect on the delivery of this primary service to the youth. There
were two cohorts conducted during this review period.
The first group started September 4, 2024-ongoing.
The second group started 3/3/35-ongoing.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not adversely impact providion of the
primary service.
At the time of the review, the program met the 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 the documentation and an informal interview with the designated mental health
counselor for Moral Recognition Training (MRT) showed there were fidelity monitoring checks
completed on 9/26/24, 10/23/24, 11/7/24, 12/4/24, 1/29/25, 2/24/25, 3/17/25, 3/17/25, 4/2/25,
4/2/25, 5/21/25, 5/22/25, 6/9/25, 6/9/25, 6/23/25, 7/28/25,7/30/25, 7/30/25, 8/20/25, 8/27/25, and
8/27/25 by the DMHC.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program can earn 2 points if all required fidelity monitoring events are completed and
documented.
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 showed there were no corrective actions identified for the facilitator
of Impact of Crime given during the review period. During an informal interview with the therapist
(former regional clinical director) standing in for the clinical director and the director of case
management, it was explained if a need for corrective action is found, the facilitator will receive
progressive discipline to include coaching, retraining, and formal write-up(s).
The program can earn 1 point if the program has a process for corrective actions and document
any corrective actions during the review period.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
An interview with the designated mental health counselor (DMHC) and review of the
documentation provided for the review period of September 1, 2024, through August 31, 2025,
verified that there were two annual evaluations conducted for the two-therapist facilitating Moral
Recognition Therapy.
The program can earn 1 point if all facilitators receive reviews which substantively address their
skills facilitating the primary service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 10 youth in the
sample, 60% (6 of 10) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 10 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 10) 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: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 50%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 3 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 10 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, 50% (5 of 10) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 10) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 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 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 66 100 66%
This SPEP report evaluates Moral Reconation Therapy, an intervention delivered at Britt
Technical Youth Academy.
12 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 10 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 10 total youth sampled, only
6 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 6
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 15
and 19 weeks of service, with an average of 17.17 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 10 total youth
sampled, only 6 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 29
and 35 hours of service, with an average of 32.17 hours.
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 86%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Britt Technical Youth Academy can maintain their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
continuing the practices in place at the time of this review.
Britt Technical Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted
dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2025-26 Britt TYA MRT.pdf

program_name_raw: Britt Technical Youth Academy

service_type: Moral Reconation Therapy