state: FL

facility_name: Crestview Youth Academy

summary: PREA - Year 1 Cycle 4

raw_content:
Program: Crestview Youth Academy
Report Type: PREA
Fiscal Year:
Status:
PDF URL: https://www.djj.state.fl.us/content/download/654445/file/Florida_Crestview Youth Academy_year1cycle4.pdf?version=1

source: DJJ

report_type: PREA

program_name_raw: Crestview Youth Academy

cycle: Year 1 Cycle 4


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Rd.
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Seven Challenges
SPEP Review Date(s): July 13-17, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 10/27/2015
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
2
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Program Name: Crestview Sex Offender Program QI Program Code: 1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services, Inc. Contract Number: R2073
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 15
Review Date(s): July 13-17, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 128
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 2 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 3 # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 4 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 3 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
3
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 Seven Challenges. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
4
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 two facilitators of Seven Challenges received formal training in the intervention. Both
facilitators were trained by qualified trainers.
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 facilitators use the Seven Challenges manual. The manual consists of detailed lesson plans
and worksheets. Each group session has an introduction, guided group discussion activity,
worksheets, and a conclusion/wrap-up.
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.
The facilitator was observed following the manual throughout the delivery of the session.
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.
5
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
The program has not had any turnovers in the facilitator of the Seven Challenges groups or gaps
in the service delivery for the period evaluated.
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 lead mental health therapist conducts the fidelity monitoring and received the required
training for Seven Challenges. Fidelity monitoring occurs every month.
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.
There was no corrective action required, however the facility has a process in place to address
issues if they arise.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The annual evaluation of the facilitators was specific to Seven Challenges and did not note any
issues regarding performance.
6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 2 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 5 youth in the
sample, 20% (1 of 5) 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 5 youth in the
sample, 80% (4 of 5) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 5 youth
7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 40%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 5 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, 100% (5 of 5) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 40% (2 of 5) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 2 10 20%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 85 95 89%
This SPEP report evaluates Seven Challenges, an intervention delivered at Crestview Sex
Offender Program.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can continue to be optimized
by maintaining the practices in place at the time of the review.
The program earned 2 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 5 total youth sampled, only
1 included dosage with an end date in the EBS Module. That youth received 35 weeks of service;
it was impossible to ascertain an end date for the remaining youths.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 5 total youth sampled,
4 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between
34 and 100 hours of service, with an average of 82 hours.
8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Program can maintain optimization of their SPEP Quality of Service
Delivery score by ensuring the practices in place at the time of the review continue.
Crestview Sex Offender Program 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.
9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report

report_type: SPEP

program_name_raw: Crestview Sex Offender Program

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Seven Challenges


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Anger Control
SPEP Review Date(s): July 14-17, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 10/27/2015
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
2
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Program Name: Crestview Sex Offender Program QI Program Code: 1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services Contract Number: R2073
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 15
Review Date(s): July 14-17, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 128
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 2 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 7 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 6 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 4 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 3 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
3
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 Anger Control. The program was awarded 30 points
because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5 Service. The specific Sub-Component
Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The Primary Service was identified as
this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty cognitions and perceptions and provides skills
individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
4
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The facilitator completed the facilitator training and a copy of his completion was obtained during
the annual compliance review. The facilitator was trained by a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 1 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 previously created general lesson plans for 'Anger Control' groups.
The program can earn 2 points if they use or create a manual or protocol that is detailed and
explains how each specific session is to be delivered.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 0 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 lesson was observed during the review, however, there did not appear to be a manual or
protocol. At the time of the review, the facilitator did not provide a manual or protocol to the review
team. The youth used the "Juvenile ART" workbook and took turns reading verbatim from the
book. The facilitator led some discussion based on the readings.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator adheres to a manual or protocol.
5
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There was no facilitator turnover within the past year for Anger Control and no documented 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 program does have an internal process for fidelity monitoring. The program has created their
own internal fidelity monitoring form. The clinical supervisor observes groups monthly and offers
assistance as needed.
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.
No corrective action has been required according to reviewed fidelity monitoring forms. The
program does have a process in place to address corrective action should corrections be required
based on fidelity monitoring.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program does address the facilitator skill in delivery of the primary service as a part of their
performance evaluation.
6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 100% (9 of 9) 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 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 100% (9 of 9) 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: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 67%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 22%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 38%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 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, 67% (6 of 9) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 22% (2 of 9) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 10 25 40%
Totals 85 100 85%
This SPEP report evaluates Anger Control, an intervention delivered at Crestview Sex Offender
Program.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by using a
more detailed manual or protocol for the delivery of the primary service that includes each topic,
the order in which they are covered, and detailed instructions on how each session is to be
delivered, as well as adhering to the manual during delivery of the service.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 9 total youth sampled, all
youth included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, all
9 received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between
43 and 51 weeks of service, with an average of 45 weeks.
8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 9 total youth
sampled, all 9 received at least the recommended hours of service. All youth in the sample
completed 52 hours of service.
The program was awarded 10 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (40% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Program can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
using a more detailed manual or protocol for the delivery of the primary service that includes each
topic, the order in which they are covered, and detailed instructions on how each session is to be
delivered, as well as adhering to the manual during delivery of the service.
Crestview Sex Offender Program 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.
9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report

service_type: Anger Control


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32536
Primary Service: ARISE
SPEP Review Date(s): July 14-17, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 10/27/2015
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
2
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Program Name: Crestview Sex Offender Program QI Program Code: 1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services Contract Number: R2073
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 15
Review Date(s): July 14-17, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 128
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 2 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 3 # Case Managers 7 # Youth
DHA or designee 4 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 3 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 7 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 7 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 7 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
3
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 ARISE. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
4
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
A review of staff training records revealed the staff member facilitating the group had the required
training. The staff member was trained to be an ARISE facilitator by a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 1 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 ARISE curriculum and was observed with the bound manual from the
publisher. The manual provides stories, interviews, discussion questions, and posters, but is not
detailed to the extent that it explains how each specific session is delivered.
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 groups session of ARISE was observed. The facilitator followed the outline of the ARISE
instructor manual to deliver the services to the youth. The youth were observed using a worksheet
in conjuction with the lesson from the curriculum.
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.
5
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
There has been no facilitator turnover within the past 12 months. There have been no gaps in
service according to the provided documentation.
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 monitoring process for fidelity. The Licensed Mental Health
Counselor/ Clinical Supervisor observes groups monthly throughout the year. The clinical
coordinator offers assistance as needed and guidance when necessary.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process in place should corrective action be required. There was no
documentation to support corrective action was needed.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The facilitator received an annual evaluation in which she was specifically evaluated on the
groups she facilitated with no issues noted in her performance of group facilitation.
6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 9) 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 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 100% (9 of 9) 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: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 67%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 22%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 39%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 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, 67% (6 of 9) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 22% (2 of 9) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 10 25 40%
Totals 70 95 74%
This SPEP report evaluates ARISE, an intervention delivered at Crestview Sex Offender Program.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can continue to be optimized
by continuing to delivery services in accordance with the model and while adhering to SPEP
guidelines.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 9 total youth sampled, none
included end dates in EBS, therefore, it was impossible to ascertain the correct number of weeks
youth completed.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 9 total youth
sampled, all 9 received at least the recommended hours of service. All youth completed 52 hours
of service.
8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
The program was awarded 10 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (40% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Program can continue to optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery
score by continuing group delivery in the same manner.
Crestview Sex Offender Program can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring
that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS.
9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report

service_type: ARISE


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Program
Gulf Coast Youth Service, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Moral Reconation Therapy
SPEP Review Date(s): July 14-17, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 10/27/2015
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
2
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Program Name: Crestview Sex Offender Program QI Program Code: 1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services Contract Number: R2073
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 15
Review Date(s): July 14-17, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 128
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 2 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 7 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 6 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 4 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 3 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
3
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 (MRT). The program was
awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5 Service. The specific
Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The Primary Service
was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty cognitions and perceptions
and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
4
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 facilitator completed the facilitator training and a copy of his completion was obtained during
the annual compliance review. The facilitator was trained by a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program has the MRT facilitator's guide. The guide is detailed to the extent that it explains
how each specific session is delivered and there is a script or outline for each session.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
The official MRT workbook was observed in the possession of each youth during the group
session. The group members were taking turns reading verbatim from workbook and the facilitator
of the group led the discussion based upon the readings. The lesson did not appear to be a
following the manual, other than the youth workbooks.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator adheres to the lesson in the MRT facilitator guide to
lead the group sessions.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
5
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There was no facilitator turnover within the past year for MRT and no documented 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 program does have an internal monitoring process for fidelity. The Licensed Mental Health
Counselor/ Clinical Supervisor observes groups monthly. The clinical coordinator offers
assistance as needed and guidance when necessary.
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.
No corrective action has been required according to reviewed documentation. The program does
have a process in place to address corrective action should corrections be required based on
fidelity monitoring.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The provider does evaluate each facilitator annually specifically regarding their ability to deliver
the primary service.
6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 3 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 3) 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 3 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 3) 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: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 48%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 100%
Moderate to High Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 3 youth
7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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 = 3 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, 100% (3 of 3) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 3) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 12 25 48%
Totals 67 100 67%
This SPEP report evaluates Moral Reconation Therapy, an intervention delivered at Crestview
Sex Offender Program.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
ensuring the facilitator adheres to the facilitator guide during group sessions.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 3 total youth sampled, none
included end dates in EBS, therefore, an accurate calculation of weeks was impossible.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 3 total youth sampled,
none reached the targeted number of hours. All youth completed exactly 16 hours of service.
The program was awarded 12 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (48% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Program can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring the facilitator adheres to the facilitator guide during group sessions.
Crestview Sex Offender Program 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.
9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report

service_type: Moral Reconation Therapy


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Pathways
SPEP Review Date(s): July 14-17, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 10/27/2015
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
2
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Program Name: Crestview Sex Offender Program QI Program Code: 1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services Contract Number: R2073
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 15
Review Date(s): July 14-17, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 128
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 2 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 7 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 6 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 4 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 3 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
3
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
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. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
4
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 8 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The facilitator completed the facilitator training and a copy of her completion was obtained during
the review. The facilitator was trained by a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program's facilitators use the Pathways and Roadmaps to Recovery manuals. The manuals
are detailed and include the varied pace and levels of delivery for youth.
Basic Score: 0 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 group was observed. The facilitator did not appear to use a manual or protocol for the session.
The Pathways/Roadmaps component workbook was observed in the possession of each youth
during the group session. The group members took turns reading from the workbook and the
facilitator of the group led the discussion based upon the readings by the youth from the
workbook.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
5
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There was no facilitator turnover within the past year for Pathways/ Roadmaps and there were no
documented 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 program does have an internal monitoring process for fidelity. The Licensed Mental Health
Counselor/ Clinical Supervisor observes groups monthly and throughout the year as needed.
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.
No corrective action was required according to the reviewed documentation. The provider does
have a process in place to address corrective action should corrections be required based on
fidelity monitoring.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The facilitator was specifically evaluated in performing the facilitation of the primary service with
no issues noted.
6
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 11% (1 of 9) 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 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 9 youth in the
sample, 100% (9 of 9) 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: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 67%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 youth
7
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 22%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 38%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 9 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, 67% (6 of 9) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 22% (2 of 9) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 10 25 40%
Totals 70 95 74%
This SPEP report evaluates Pathways, an intervention delivered at Crestview Sex Offender
Program.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
ensuring the facilitator is using the facilitator manual during all sessions.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 9 total youth sampled, only
1 included dosage with an end date in the EBS Module. That lone youth received 35 weeks of
service, but it is impossible to ascertain the number of weeks received by the other youth in the
sample.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 9 total youth
sampled, all 9 received at least the targeted dosage. All 9 youth received 52 hours of service.
8
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report
The program was awarded 10 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (40% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Program can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring the facilitator is using the facilitator manual during all sessions.
Crestview Sex Offender Program 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.
9
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report

service_type: Pathways/Roadmaps to Recovery


summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Treatment Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services, Inc..
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: Seven Challenges
SPEP Review Date(s): July 19‐22, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 5/16/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Crestview Sex Offender Program MQI Program Code: 1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services Contract Number: R2073
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 15
Review Date(s): July 19-22, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 127
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 2 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 5 # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 4 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 3 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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 Seven Challenges. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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.
Five staff are designated counselors to facilitate the Seven Challenges groups. The facilitators of
Seven Challenges received formal training in the intervention. All facilitators were trained by
qualified trainers.
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 facilitators use the Seven Challenges manual. The manual consists of detailed lesson plans
and worksheets. Each group session has an introduction, guided group discussion activity,
worksheets, and a conclusion/wrap-up.
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.
The facilitator was observed following the manual throughout the delivery of the session.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program has not had any turnovers in facilitators of the Seven Challenges groups or gaps in
the service delivery for the period evaluated.
BasicScore: 2Point(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 Clinical Coordinator conducts the fidelity monitoring and received the required training for
Seven Challenges. Fidelity monitoring occurs every month.
BasicScore: 1Point
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.
There was no corrective action required; however, the facility has a process in place to address
issues if they arise.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
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 the annual performance evaluations contained in the facilitator's personal files
indicated that the results of facilitator's performance on presenting the curriculum as prescribed
was also integral component of their job description and responsibilities of their position with the
provider. The annual evaluation of the facilitators was specific to Seven Challenges and did not
note any issues regarding performance.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 4 youth in the
sample, 100% (4 of 4) 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 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 4 youth in the
sample, 100% (4 of 4) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 15 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 75%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 1 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 4 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 25%
High Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 62%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 4 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, 75% (3 of 4) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 25% (1 of 4) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 8 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 15 25 60%
Totals 85 95 89%
This SPEP report evaluates Seven Challenges, an intervention delivered at Crestview Sex
Offender Treatment Program.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 4 total youth sampled, all 4
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 39
and 49 weeks of service, with an average of 43 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 4 total youth
sampled, all 4 received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample
completed between 54 and 100 hours of service, with an average of 76 hours.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program was awarded 15 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (60% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9


summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Crestview Sex Offender Treatment Program
Gulf Coast Youth Services, Inc..
(Contract Provider)
4445 Straightline Road
Crestview, Florida 32539
Primary Service: ARISE
SPEP Review Date(s): July 19‐22, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 5/16/2017
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is an assessment tool derived from
meta-analytic research on the effectiveness of juvenile justice interventions. The tool is
designed to compare existing intervention services, as implemented in the field, to the
characteristics of the most effective intervention services found in the research.
The SPEP scoring system allows service providers to identify specific areas in which program
improvements can be made to their existing Primary Services. These improvements can be
expected to increase the effectiveness of those Primary Services in the reduction of recidivism
for youth receiving the Primary Service. A separate SPEP evaluation is conducted, at the time
of the program’s Quality Improvement Review, for each Primary Service provided by the
program.
This report provides two types of SPEP scores: a Basic Score, equivalent to the number of
points received, and a Program Optimization Score (POS) that is equivalent to the maximum
number of possible points that could be received based on the SPEP domains under the control
of the program. The Basic Score compares the Primary Service being evaluated to other
intervention services found in the research to be effective, regardless of service type. It is meant
as a reference to the expected overall recidivism reduction when compared to other Primary
Services of any Type.
A Program Optimization Percentage (POP) rate is derived from the Basic Score and Program
Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage score that indicates where the rate of
effectiveness of the Primary Service is when compared to its potential effectiveness if optimized
to match the characteristics of similar Primary Services found to be most effective in the
research. The POP rate is likely more meaningful to service providers as it represents how
close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary Service Type. For
example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary Service is operating at
55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction that has been found for a similar
Primary Service Type with research evidence of effectiveness.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Program Name: Crestview Sex Offender Program MQI Program Code: 1161
Provider Name: Gulf Coast Youth Services Contract Number: R2073
Location: Okaloosa County / Circuit: 1 Number of Beds: 15
Review Date(s): July 19-22, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 127
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 2 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 5 # Case Managers 5 # Youth
DHA or designee 4 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee 2 # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 5 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 3 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports 5 # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services 5 # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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 ARISE. 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 by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
A review of staff training records revealed the staff member facilitating the group had the required
training. The staff member was trained to be an ARISE facilitator by a qualified trainer.
Basic Score: 1 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 ARISE curriculum and was observed with the bound manual from the
publisher. The manual provides stories, interviews, discussion questions, and posters, but is not
detailed to the extent that it explains how each specific session is delivered
The program can earn 2 points by developing a protocol by which the delivery of the service is
clearly outlined.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet 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.
A group session of ARISE was observed. The facilitator followed the outline of the ARISE
instructor manual to deliver the services to the youth. The youth were observed using a worksheet
in conjunction with the lesson from the curriculum.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
There has been no facilitator turnover within the past 12 months. There have been no gaps in
service according to the provided documentation.
BasicScore: 2Point(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 does have an internal monitoring process for fidelity. The Clinical Coordinator and
Licensed Social Worker supervises the facilitators and observe groups monthly.
BasicScore: 1Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process in place should corrective action be required. There was no
documentation to support corrective action was needed.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The facilitator received an annual evaluation in which she was specifically evaluated on the
groups she facilitated with no issues noted in her performance of group facilitation.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 6 youth in the
sample, 100% (6 of 6) 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 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 6 youth in the
sample, 100% (6 of 6) 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: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 32%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 67%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 2 youth
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 6 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 17%
High Score: 3 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 23%
Table 2
High = 1 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 6 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 67% (4 of 6) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 17% (1 of 6) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 3 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 8 25 32%
Totals 78 95 82%
This SPEP report evaluates ARISE, an intervention delivered at Crestview Sex Offender
Treatment Program.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
developing a protocol by which the delivery of the service is clearly outlined.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 6 total youth sampled, all
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 25
and 37 weeks of service, with an average of 30 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 6 total youth
sampled, all received at least the recommended hours of service. All youth completed 52 hours
of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program was awarded 8 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
Based on the risk level of the youth placed at the program (32% Program Optimization
Percentage), the Department should work to ensure a larger proportion of higher risk youth are
recommended. As the program serves youth with a history of sexual behavior problems, this
includes a multitier strategy of working with stakeholders to achieve that practice, as well as
ensuring appropriate treatment services are available in the community to reduce the reliance on
residential commitment for lower risk youth presenting with sexually-related offenses.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Crestview Sex Offender Treatment Program can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery
score by developing a protocol by which the delivery of the service is clearly outlined.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9