facility_name: youth environmental services

summary: PREA

raw_content:
PREA AUDIT: Auditor’s Summary Report
JUVENILE FACILITIES
Name of Facility: AMIKIDS- YOUTH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (YES)
Physical Address: 4337 SAFFOLD ROAD, WIMAUMA, FLORIDA 33598
Date report submitted
Auditor information: Tracy S. Maxwell
Address: 1761 REDWOOD LANE, MIDDLEBURG 32068
Email: TORCHLIGHT4CHANGE@GMAIL.COM
Telephone number: 904-349-0045
Date of facility visit July 24-25
Facility Information
Facility Mailing Address:
(if different from above)
Telephone Number: 813-671-5213
The Facility is: Military County Federal
X Private for profit Municipal State
X Private not for profit
Facility Type: Detention Correction Other:
Name of PREA Compliance Manager: DERWIN JAMES Title: Executive
Director: Joseph CHESTNUT
813-671-5213
Email Address: Yes- Ed@ AMIkids,org Telephone Number:
Agency Information
Name of Agency: AMIKIDS
Governing Authority or
Parent Agency: (if
applicable)
Physical Address: 5915 BENJAMIN CENTER DRIVE, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33634 Drive | Tampa, FL 33634
Mailing Address: (if
different from above)
630
Telephone Number: 813-887-3300
Agency Chief Executive Officer
Name: O. B STANDER Title: PRESIDENT & CEO
Email Address: CSSTAFFORD@AMIKIDS.ORG
Telephone: 813-887-3300
Agency Wide PREA Coordinator:
N a m e : W e n d e l l W a ts o n T i t l e : P R E A C o
N
o
u
r
m
di
b
n
e
a
r
t
:
o r
1
Email Address: W IW@amikids.org
Telephone X 8
Number: 813-887-3300
AUDIT FINDINGS
NARRATIVE:
AMIkids YES operates by the values and standards of AMIkids, Inc. and creates an environment in which
students of all types can learn and thrive. With a strong belief in positive reinforcement and individualized
attention, we consistently hold true to the following principles:
 Bonding (Social Development Model)
 Family atmosphere
 Productive discipline
 Positive learning environment
 Gender responsiveness
 Cultural relevance
 High expectation for success
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS:
AMIkids YES program was established in January 6, 1994. The facility is comprised of one general
administration building, two open-bay resident housing units, four resident classrooms, one large
community group room and one resident dining facility area. The age range of the population is 14 to 18.
The design capacity is 30 male residents. The total number of residents admitted to the facility during the
past 12 months was 39.
SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS:
The notification of the on-site audit was posted on May 26, 2014, six weeks prior to the first date of the on-
site audit. The posting of the notices was verified by photographs received electronically from the PREA
Coordinators. The photographs indicated notices were posted in various locations throughout the facility
including the housing unit and administrative areas. The Pre-Audit Questionnaire, policies and supporting
documentation were received on June 9, 2014. The documents were uploaded to a UBS flash drive.
The on-site audit was conducted July 24-25, 2014. A brief meeting was conducted with the Facility
Administrator and PREA Compliance Manager. At the conclusion of the meeting, a complete tour of the facility
was conducted including the resident’s sleeping, showering areas and all areas where residents primarily
spend their time.
My initial assessment of the facility was that the youth were under direct supervision of the staff at all times
and were engaged in various activities and programming. The Facility Administrator and Executive Staff
acknowledged where the blind spots were located in the facility but noted that residents are never left
without supervision. There are 42 surveillance cameras located throughout the facility. The surveillance
system does not capture youth in showers or in their rooms. It is noted in the facility assessment document
and validated during the audit walk through additional surveillance cameras are needed and recommended
for the kitchen area and large classroom.
During the two-day on-site visit, 12 staff including those from all three shifts were randomly selected and
interviewed. All interviews validated staff knowledge of PREA standards and their responsibilities as first
responders. Thirteen residents were also randomly selected and interviewed. Residents were well informed of
their right to be free from sexual abuse and harassment, how to report sexual abuse and harassment, and
the community based victim advocate service providers.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 2
There were no reported allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment noted during the past 12 months.
Number of standards exceeded: 0
Number of standards met: 37
Number of standards not met: 0
Number of standards Not Applicable: 4
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 3
Standard 115.311- Zero Tolerance of Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harassment; PREA
Coordinator
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
The agency has one dedicated PREA Compliance Manager, who is also performing duties as the
Assistant Facility Administrator. In my interview with the PREA Compliance Manager, he validated
his responsibilities and confirmed sufficient time to oversee the facility’s PREA compliance efforts
of preventing, detecting and responding to sexual abuse and harassment in the facility. In
addition to the facility PREA Compliance Manager, the agency has two dedicated upper-level,
agency wide PREA Coordinators. The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and AMIKIDS-YES
PREA Coordinators confirmed during interviews there was sufficient time and authority to develop,
implement and oversee efforts for all facilities.
The AMIKIDS-YES Facility policy 6.11 and The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice PREA Policy
1919 included definitions of prohibited behaviors and sanctions for prohibited behaviors. The
agencies PREA Coordinator and the facility PREA Coordinator/ Facility Administrator both
conveyed the agency’s zero-tolerance environment towards all forms of sexual abuse and
harassment with the facility.
Standard 115.312- Contracting with Other Entities for the Confinement of Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Non- Applicable Standard
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES is a stand-alone facility contracted and governed by The Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice and does not contract for confinement of its residents.
Standard 115.313- Supervision and Monitoring
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 4
Auditor comments:
An assessment was conducted on April 28, 2014. The assessment included physical plant layout
and blind-spot areas. The facility deploys 32 surveillance cameras throughout the facility which
covers blind-spots. All unannounced upper-level supervisors’ rounds were also included on the
assessment. There were no documented occurrences of exigent needs for deviations from the
facility staffing plan. The facility’s PREA Policy 6.11 requires intermediate-level or higher-level
staff unannounced rounds to monitor, deter sexual harassment and sexual abuse.
In reviewing the facility’s policy 6.13 and documentation submitted, the staffing plan assessment,
considerations were documented and validated for staffing ratios of 1.6 during awake hours and
1.10 during non-wake hours.
Standard 115.315- Limits to Cross-Gender Viewing and Searches
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES Facility Policy 6.15 prohibits cross-gender searches except in exigent circumstances
and must document reasoning for the opposite gender search. The policy additionally prohibits
staff from examining a transgender or intersex youth for the sole purpose of determining the
resident’s genital status. Body cavity searches require the Director’s authorization and must be
conducted by licensed medical personnel in a medical establishment. The Search Log indicated
there were no cross-gender strip searches or body cavity searches of residents in the past 12
months. This standard was validated compliant during resident and staff interviews.
The policy limits pat-down searches to male staff absent exigent circumstances. This was
validated during interviews with both residents and staff.
Policy requires female staff, volunteers and contractors entering the housing unit to announce
themselves upon entering the areas where the likelihood of residents performing bodily functions
occur and shower except in exigent circumstances or when viewing is incidental to routine room
checks. It is noted that female staff do not enter into the housing area of residents. There was no
documented deviation from this policy.
Staff and Contractor training records along with staff interviews validated 100% compliance
training on cross-gender pat searches, searches of transgender and intersex residents and Zero
tolerance policy concerning sexual harassment and sexual abuse of Residents and Staff.
Standard 115.316- Residents with Disabilities and Residents Who are Limited English
Proficient
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 5
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES has entered into an interagency agreement between The Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice, The Department of Children and Families-Sun Coast Region and Hillsborough
Kids Inc to provide interpreter services, a hearing impaired specialist, a vision impaired specialist,
an audiologist, an English as a second language specialist, equipment and technology for
residents, as needed. AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.16 requires the facility to take steps to ensure
residents with disabilities or who are limited English proficient are provided meaningful access
to all aspects of the facility’s efforts to prevent, protect and respond to sexual abuse and
harassment. PREA posters in various languages were posted throughout the facility for
residents.
Policy 6.16 also states the facility will not rely on resident interpreters, resident readers or any
kind of resident assistants except when a delay in obtaining interpreters services could
jeopardize resident’s safety. Staff interviews validates compliance the facility does not use
resident assistants and there were no instances of resident interpreter or readers being used in
the past 12 months.
Standard 115.317- Hiring and Promotion Decisions
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES Facility Policy 6.17 specifically addresses all elements as required by this
standard. A review of 12 full-time employees and 4 volunteers/ contractors files and interviews
revealed that all hired during the past 12 months had documented criminal background checks.
Questions regarding past conduct were asked during the interview process. Additionally, signed
acknowledgement forms concerning zero-tolerance of sexual harassment and sexual abuse
were present in the files.
The policy also validated compliance based on the requirement to conduct background checks
every five years.
Standard 115.318- Upgrades to Facilities and Technology
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS- YES has not acquired any new facilities since August 20, 2012. Additionally, the facility
upgraded its surveillance system with additional cameras and video monitoring system upgrades
on May 30 2013. The enhancement increases the facility’s ability to protect residents from sexual
abuse.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 6
Standard 115.321- Evidence Protocol and Forensic Medical Examinations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.21 and The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 requires
the Facility Director contact The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and The Department of
Children and Families who will conduct administrative investigations of abuse allegations;
however, criminal investigations are conducted by the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. The
Office of the Inspector General will also conduct an administrative investigation apart from any
criminal investigation to identify staff misconduct.
AMIKIDS-YES has a Memorandum of Understanding with Tampa General Hospital who will
provide SAFE and SANE services and a signed agreement with Crisis Center of Tampa who will
provide victim advocate services. Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office acknowledged in writing
that a uniform evidence protocol would be followed to maximize the potential for obtaining
usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions.
Standard 115.322- Policies to Ensure Referrals of Allegations for
Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.22 requires referrals of sexual abuse allegations to be submitted to the
Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Florida Department of Children and Families and the Office
of the Inspector General. In the past 12 months, AMIKIDS-YES has had no allegations of sexual
abuse or sexual harassment noted during a 12 month period. The Florida Department of Juvenile
Justice (FDJJ) Division of Youth Services’ website describes the investigative responsibilities for
conducting investigations for the facilities it operates and funds. AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.22
describing how referral investigative responsibilities are handled for allegations of sexual abuse
was verified compliant.
Standard 115.331- Employees Training
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 7
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.31 and The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 documents
training requirements for PREA. The training curriculums, documented staff training records and
staff interviews validates compliance. The PREA training covered requirements for direct care
workers, medical personnel and contractors during initial training and annual refresher training.
Specific topics covered during PREA training are consistent with this standard’s requirements and
is tailored to the facility’s male resident population. All employees are trained as new hires
regardless of their previous experience. Employees sign training rosters and are required to score
70% on a final exam verifying comprehension of PREA training.
Standard 115.332- Volunteer and Contractor Training
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES and The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 require volunteers and
contractors who have contact with residents to receive PREA training. This training is provided
online. Employees sign training rosters and are required to score 70% on a final exam verifying
comprehension of PREA training. Acknowledged completion Certificates were reviewed for
volunteers and contractors. Interviews with volunteers and contractors revealed they are
knowledgeable concerning their responsibilities relative to PREA and the agency’s zero tolerance
policy regarding sexual abuse and harassment.
Standard 115.333- Resident Education
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS requires residents to receive information during intake within 24-hours regarding the
facility’s zero tolerance policy and how to report sexual abuse and harassment. Additionally, The
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice requires residents participate in comprehensive training
that is conducted within 10-days of arrival. Residents are provided a handout entitled “What
You Should Know about Sexual Abuse/Assault/Harassment” which includes information on
prevention/intervention, self-protection, reporting and treatment/counseling. Intake staff or
case management staff reviews the handout with the residents and residents sign verifying
receipt of the information. Documentation of residents’ signatures were reviewed and confirmed
during resident interviews. All residents interviewed stated they received this information the
same day they arrived at the facility and periodically thereafter. Case management staff
presents the PREA information in a manner that is accessible to all residents. During the facility
tour PREA posters and reporting instructions were posted throughout the facility. If needed, the
facility has facility staff and an agreement to provide translation services, hearing and visual
impairment services for residents with disabilities or who may be limited English deficient.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 8
Standard 115.334- Specialized Training: Investigation
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Non-Applicable Standard
Auditor comments:
There are no facility investigators. All criminal and administrative investigations are referred to
outside agencies.
Standard 115.335- Specialized Training: Medical and Mental Health Care
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy# 1919 requires that all AMIKIDS-YES full-time,
part-time medical and mental health care practitioners receive specialized training. The training
documentation reviewed validated that all staff received this training from the National
Institution of Corrections. While conducting interviews with the Health Services Administrator, it
was validated that medical staff do-not conduct forensic examinations.
Standard 115.341- Obtaining information from Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS Policy 6.41 addresses the screening process for vulnerability to victimization and
sexual aggressive behavior by using the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Form RC 8050-2.
All facility residents are screened within twenty-four hours upon arrival at the facility. Those
residents who score vulnerable to victim or sexually aggressive are included into the alert
system, as well as receiving further assessments, as identified. Residents who are identified or
report as prior sexual victims are referred to the medical and mental health professionals within
14 days or arrival. The screening documentation instrument met the tenets of the standard.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 9
Standard 115.342- Placement of Residents in housing, bed, program, education and work
Assignments.
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES has open-bay dorms for residents. Victimization screening information may be
used to determine a resident’s dorm assignment and its proximity to direct care staff in the
housing unit to ensure resident’s safety.
AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.42 and Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 preclude gay,
bi-sexual, transgender and intersex residents being placed in a particular housing unit. Isolation
rooms are prohibited by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. Facility staff and residents
interviews validated compliance.
Standard 115. 351- Resident Reporting
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.51 provides ways for residents to report sexual abuse and harassment
including; a pre-programmed telephone line to an outside agency; the facility provides the
addresses in resident’s handbooks and posters throughout the facility. Instructions for reporting
are provided to all residents during the intake process. Instructions include the Victims
Assistance Program so they or their family members can write to an outside agency; and they
may report to any staff member or family member. The policy also references reporting
mechanisms for staff to privately report. Resident and staff interviews validated compliance with
this standard.
Standard 115. 352- Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Non- Applicable
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 10
Auditor comments:
It is AMIKIDS-YES policy that a resident grievance regarding sexual abuse is an allegation of
sexual abuse. Therefore reporting and investigation policy and procedures will be initiated.
YES does not have administrative procedures to address resident grievances regarding sexual
abuse due to them being considered an allegation of sexual abuse. Allegations of sexual
harassment grievances will be addressed through the facility’s grievance process.
There have been no grievances relating to sexual abuse filed in the past 12 months. Staff and
resident interviews validate their knowledge of how the grievance process is used to report
sexual abuse or harassment.
Standard 115. 353- Resident Access to Outside Support Services and Legal Representation
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES staff are mandated reporters and are required by AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.53 and
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 to immediately report any knowledge,
suspicion or information they receive regarding sexual abuse and harassment, retaliation against
residents or staff who report any incidents or any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that
may have contributed to an incident or retaliation. Random staff and resident interviews
validated the facility’s compliance with this standard.
Iinterviews with the case management staff and health service professional validated their
responsibility to inform residents 18 years old of their duty to report and limitations of
confidentiality.
Standard 115. 354- Third Party Reporting
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES through The Florida Department of Juvenile website informs the public with
information regarding third-party reporting of sexual abuse or sexual harassment on behalf of
any facility resident. Also, parents receive information regarding third party reporting. Resident
interviews revealed their awareness of reporting sexual abuse or harassment to others outside
of the facility.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 11
Standard 115. 361- Staff and Agency Reporting Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
Under Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 all AMIKIDS-YES staff are mandated
reporters. Staff is required to immediately report any knowledge, suspicion or information they
receive regarding sexual abuse and harassment, retaliation against residents or staff who report
any incidents or any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an
incident or retaliation. Random staff and health professional interviews validated their technical
knowledge and compliance with this standard.
Standard 115. 362- Agency Protection Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.62 requires residents identified as being at risk for sexual victimization to
be monitored and to receive ongoing counseling from mental health or other qualified staff.
Residents are provided services consistent with the community of care. There were no residents
identified as being at risk for sexual abuse in the past 12 months, as indicated on a log
maintained by the facility and as revealed in interviews with the Facility Director, PREA
Compliance Manager and other random staff.
Standard 115. 363- Reporting to other Confinement Facilities
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES received no allegations of sexual abuse from other facilities during the past 12
months. Upon receiving an allegation that a resident was sexually abused while confined at
another facility, AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.63 and Florida Department of Juvenile (FDJJ) Justice
Policy 1919 requires facility leadership immediately notify the Florida Department of Juvenile
Justice Central Communications Center. The FDJJ will in turn notify the facility and the facility
management overseeing the facility where the alleged abuse occurred.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 12
Standard 115. 364- Staff First Responder Duties
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
There were no allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment during the past 12 months.
AMIKIDS Policy 6.64 and The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 requires staff to
take specific steps to respond to a report of sexual abuse including; separating the alleged victim
from the abuser; preserving any crime scene within a period that still allows for the collection of
physical evidence; request that the alleged victim not take any action that could destroy physical
evidence; and ensure that the alleged abuser does not take any action to destroy physical
evidence, if the abuse took place within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical
evidence. Random staff and first responder interviews validated their technical knowledge of
actions to be taken upon learning that a resident was sexually abused.
Standard 115. 365- Coordinated Response
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
Interviews with the Facility Administrator, PREA Compliance Manager and other professional staff
validated their technical knowledgeable of their duties in response to a sexual assault. AMIKIDS-
YES Policy 6.65, and The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 gives technical
directions concerning coordinated actions taken in response to an incident of sexual assault
among staff first responders, medical, and facility leadership.
Standard 115 . 366- Preservation of Ability to Protect Residents from Contact with Abusers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
X Non-Applicable Standard
Auditor comments:
AMIKIDS-YES is not in a Collective bargaining Agreement.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 13
Standard 115. 367- Agency Protection against Retaliation
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
All AMIKIDS-YES staff are charged with monitoring for possible retaliation. There were no
incidents of retaliation in the past 12 months reported. This was validated during my interview
with the PREA Compliance Manager and Facility Administrator. AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.67 and The
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 requires the monitoring of residents and staff
who have reported sexual abuse or harassment or who have cooperated in a sexual abuse or
harassment investigation. The monitoring will take place for a period of 90 days or longer, as
needed.
Standard 115. 368- Post-Allegation Protective Custody
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
There are no isolation rooms or segregation housing rooms used at AMIKIDS-YES to protect
residents who alleged to have suffered sexual abuse. Random staff interviewed validated
resident(s) are monitored constantly by staff. The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy
1919 provide guidelines for the use of room restriction as a last measure to keep residents who
alleged sexual abuse safe only until an alternative means for keeping the resident safe can be
arranged.
Standard 115. 371- Criminal and Administrative Agency Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
There were no reported investigations of alleged resident sexual abuse in the facility in the past
12 months. AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.71 and The Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919
establishes investigation guidelines for reporting allegations of sexual abuse to the Hillsborough
County Sheriff’s Office, The Office of The Inspector General and The Florida Department of
Children Services for investigations.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 14
Standard 115. 372- Evidentiary Standards for Administrative Investigations
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 states the outside investigative entities,
the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s office and the Florida Department of Children Services, shall
impose a standard of preponderance of evidence or lower standards of proof for determining if
allegations are substantiated.
Standard 115. 373- Reporting to Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
There was no criminal and administrative investigation during the past 12 months. AMIKIDS-
YES Policy 6.73 and The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 establishes
processes to notify residents should the need arise and an allegation proves substantiated,
unsubstantiated or unfounded. The Agencies PREA Coordinators and facility PREA Coordinator
validated their technical knowledge of the process during their interviews.
Standard 115. 376- Disciplinary for Staff
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
There were no employees terminated or disciplined in the past 12 months for violation of the
facility’s sexual abuse or harassment policies. AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.11 requires staff disciplinary
sanctions up to and including termination for violating facility’s sexual abuse or harassment
policies. The policy also mandates that the violation be reported to law enforcement.
Standard 115. 377- Corrective Action for Contractors and volunteers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 15
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 and AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.77 requires
volunteers and contractors in violation of the facility’s policies and procedures regarding sexual
abuse and harassment of residents be reported to local law enforcement and relevant licensing
bodies unless the activity was clearly not criminal. During the interview with the Facility
Administrator/PREA Coordinator, it was reported that their have been no volunteers or
contractors reported in the past 12 months.
The policy also requires the facility staff to take remedial measures and prohibit future contact
with residents in the case of any violation of the facility’s sexual abuse and harassment policies
by contractors or volunteers.
Standard 115. 378- Disciplinary sanctions for Residents
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
There has been no reported case of resident-on-resident sexual abuse cases in the past 12
months. AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.78 establishes disciplinary sanctions for residents engaged in
resident-on-resident sexual abuse.
Standard 115. 381- Medical and Mental screening; History of Sexual Abuse
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
There were no residents who disclosed prior victimization during their initial screening process.
During the interview with the Health Services Administrator, she validated that although there
were no disclosures all residents were offered follow-up meetings with medical and mental
health providers. AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.81 and The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy
1919 requires mental health and medical staff to monitor and provide counseling on an on-
going basis for residents who disclose a history of sexual abuse or who disclose previously
perpetrating sexual abuse.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 16
Standard 115. 382- Access to Emergency Medical and Mental Health Services
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
There has been no reported case of sexual abuse in the past 12 months. The Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 and AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.82 mandates residents
receive timely, unimpeded care on-site and off-site emergency care and crisis intervention
services.
Standard 115. 383- Ongoing Medical and Mental Health Care for Sexual Abuse Victims and
Abusers
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
There have been no allegations of sexual assault or sexual harassment victims in the past 12
months. AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.83 references medical and mental health evaluation and,
appropriate, treatment to all residents who have been victimized or have been an abuser in
any jail, lockup, or juvenile facility.
Standard 115. 386- Sexual Abuse Incident Reviews
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 and AMIKIDS-YES Policy 6.86 requires an
incident review team of every sexual abuse allegation at the conclusion of the investigation
within 30 days. The review team includes the PREA Manager/ Facility Administrator, Department
program staff mental and medical health providers with input from line supervisors. The facility
has a specific review form to capture all aspects of the incident.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 17
Standard 115. 387- Data Collection
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 requires the collection of accurate,
uniform data for every allegation of sexual assault. The agency’s PREA Coordinator and PREA
Manager collect all data relating to PREA and forward to The Florida Department of Juvenile
Justice.
Standard 115. 388- Data Review for Corrective Action
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
There has been no allegations of sexual abuse during the past 12 months. The Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 requires the review of data for corrective action to
improve the effectiveness of its prevention, protection and response policies, practices and
training.
Standard 115. 389- Data Storage, Publication, and Destruction
Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement of standard)
X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard
for the relevant review period)
Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective action)
Auditor comments:
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Policy 1919 directs that data from every allegation of
sexual misconduct at its facilities shall be collected at Central Communications Center. The
PREA Coordinator will review data collected in order to assess and improve the effectiveness of
the Department’s sexual misconduct prevention, detection and response polices, practices and
training. The policy established that aggregated sexual abuse data be reviewed annually and
placed on the facility’s website after all personal identifiers are removed. All data collected will
be maintained for at least 10 years after the date of the initial collection.
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 18
AUDITOR CERTIFICATION:
The auditor certifies that the contents of the report are accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and
no conflict of interest exists with respect to his or her ability to conduct an audit of the agency under
review.
Auditor’s Signature Date: August 22, 2014
PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR’S FINAL REPORT 19

program_name_raw: youth environmental services


state: FL

summary: PREA - Year 1 Cycle 4

raw_content:
Program: Youth Environmental Services
Report Type: PREA
Fiscal Year:
Status:
PDF URL: https://www.djj.state.fl.us/content/download/839718/file/Florida_Youth Environmental Services_year1cycle4.pdf?version=1

source: DJJ

report_type: PREA

program_name_raw: Youth Environmental Services

cycle: Year 1 Cycle 4


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Youth Environmental Services
AMIkids, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4337 Saffold Road
Wimauma, Florida 33598
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training
SPEP Review Date(s): October 13‐15 and November 19‐20, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/12/2016
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: Youth Environmental Services QI Program Code: 388
Provider Name: AMIkids, Inc. Contract Number: 10172
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 146
Review Date(s): October 13-15 and November 19-20, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 146
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 3 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 10 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 2 # Other (listed by title): Advisory
DMHCA or designee 1 # Healthcare Staff Board Members
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 28 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook 3 # Other: Fidelity Checklists
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: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Aggression Replacement Training (ART). The program
was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5 Service. The
specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty cognitions and
perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and correct
behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 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.
At the time of the annual compliance review, the program had four staff and one designated
mental health clinician authority (DMHCA) trained to facilitate the Aggression Replacement
Training (ART) curriculum. A review of the staff’s training files indicated all five facilitators have
received the required training on this curriculum by a qualified trainer. Four staff were trained
between 2013 and 2014. The DMHCA was trained in January of 2015. All staff members have
facilitated groups during the last twelve months. One facilitator gave notice of her resignation to
the program and will be leaving the program prior to the end of October 2015.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes a written manual for the provision of this primary service. The manual’s
lessons and activities are divided up over a ten week period. There is an accompanying disk that
provides printable program forms, skill posters and youth handouts.
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.
This curriculum was delivered to ten youth at the time of the annual compliance review and
observation of the group verified the facilitator and co-facilitator followed the week 1 lesson plan
for the Introduction of Anger Control. The facilitator and co-facilitator kept the youth engaged in
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
the lesson plan delivered and kept the examples relevant to the youth’s experiences and
interests.
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.
This program has not had any staff turnover of facilitators for this specific intervention/service
since the last annual compliance review period. There were no gaps in service.
BasicScore: 1Point(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 implemented the electronic fidelity monitoring checklist in June of 2015. There was
no documented fidelity monitoring prior to this implementation. The team reviewed six months of
internal fidelity monitoring reports. The program had an internal process to conduct internal fidelity
monitoring specific to Aggression Replacement Training (ART); their process was that the
designated mental health clinician authority (DMHCA) performed all fidelity monitoring. The
DMHCA was also training in ART. Fidelity monitoring was conducted for five months for each
facilitator of the primary service.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is conducted at least monthly for all
facilitators.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
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 designated mental health clinician authority (DMHCA) for this program has conducted
monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service each month. The DMHCA is trained to facilitate
and monitor the fidelity of this service. The fidelity monitor completes an electronic observation
checklist for the session they observe. Each fidelity monitoring checklist includes a section for
feedback and recommendations for facilitator improvement. Each checklist completed did not
indicate corrective action was recommended.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program conducts annual evaluations on the facilitator’s overall performance which
addressed an assessment of a facilitator’s skills in group delivery, however the evaluation did not
include specific information about their delivery of specific interventions, including Aggression
Replacement Training (ART).
The program can earn 1 point if facilitators' performance evaluations include an assessment of
their delivery of the Primary Service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates the target duration of 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 18 youth in the
sample, 67% (12 of 18) 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: 6 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 60%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 18 youth in the
sample, 67% (12 of 18) 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: 22 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 88%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 94%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 7 youth
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 18 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 33%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 6 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 18 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, 94% (17 of 18) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 33% (6 of 18) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 6 10 60%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 88%
Totals 87 100 87%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training (ART), an intervention delivered at
Youth Environmental Services.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is completed every month for every facilitator and by
ensuring that the facilitators' performance evaluations include an assessment of their delivery of
ART.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 18 total youth sampled, only
13 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 12
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9
and 13 weeks of service, with an average of 10 weeks. The targeted number of weeks for this
specific intervention is 10 weeks. In previous SPEP review years, ART was held to the same
standard as other Group 5 Services (15 weeks); however, according to Dr. Lipsey's SPEP
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
research, ART meets criteria for an exception to the standard SPEP 15-week dosage target.
Youth are considered to have met the target if they achieve 80% of the dosage specified in the
ART manual.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 18 total youth
sampled, only 13 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 12
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 21
and 32 hours of service, with an average of 30 hours. The targeted number of hours for this type
of intervention is 30 hours. In previous SPEP review years, ART was held to the same standard
as other Group 5 Services (45 hours); however, according to Dr. Lipsey's SPEP research, ART
meets criteria for an exception to the standard SPEP 45-hour dosage target. Youth are
considered to have met the target if they achieve 80% of the dosage specified in the ART manual.
The program was awarded 20 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Youth Environmental Services can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is completed every month for every facilitator and by
ensuring that the facilitators' performance evaluations include an assessment of their delivery of
ART.
Youth Environmental Services can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

report_type: SPEP

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY15-16

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Youth Environmental Services
AMIkids, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4337 Saffold Road
Wimauma, Florida 33598
Primary Service: Cannabis Youth Treatment
SPEP Review Date(s): October 13-15 and November 19-20, 2015
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 4/12/2016
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: Youth Environmental Services QI Program Code: 388
Provider Name: AMIkids, Inc. Contract Number: 10172
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 30
Review Date(s): October 13-15 and November 19-20, 2015 Lead Reviewer Code: 146
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff 3 # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor 1 # Case Managers 10 # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff 2 # Other (listed by title): Advisory
DMHCA or designee 1 # Healthcare Staff Board Members
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 28 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 5 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts 5 # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization 5 # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook 3 # Other: Fidelity Checklists
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: 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 Cannabis Youth Treatment. The program was awarded
30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5 Service. The specific Sub-
Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The Primary Service was
identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty cognitions and perceptions and
provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 7 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
At the time of the annual compliance review, the program had three staff and one designated
mental health clinician authority (DMHCA) director trained to facilitate the Cannabis Youth
Treatment (CYT) curriculum. A review of the staff’s training files indicated all four facilitators have
received the required two day formal training on this curriculum by a qualified trainer. Three staff
were trained between 2013 and 2014. The DMHCA received training in March of 2015. All staff
members have facilitated groups during the last twelve months. One facilitator gave notice of her
resignation to the program and will be leaving the program prior to the end of October 2015.
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 is using the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) curriculum for all youth admitted to
the program. The program maintains a guide for both facilitators and students. Lesson plans are
detailed with instructions for conducting each group.
Basic Score: N/A Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
This curriculum was not currently being delivered by the program as the last group ended October
1, 2015; therefore, this indicator rates as non-applicable.
d. Facilitator Turnover Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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.
This program has not had any staff turnover of facilitators for this specific intervention/service
since the last annual compliance review period. One facilitator gave notice of her resignation to
the program and will be leaving the program prior to the end of October 2015; however there is
not currently a CYT group being conducted so there will be no group interruption.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program implemented the electronic fidelity monitoring checklist in June of 2015. There was
no documented fidelity monitoring prior to this implementation. The team reviewed six months
services for internal fidelity monitoring.. The designated mental health clinician authority (DMHCA)
for this program has conducted monthly fidelity monitoring for this primary service each applicable
month. The DMHCA received training in this curriculum in March of 2015. The fidelity monitor
completes an electronic observation checklist for the session they observe. This checklist includes
an evaluation of the session and any corrective action required based on that observation. Fidelity
monitoring was conducted for five months for each facilitator of the primary service.
The program can earn 2 points if they ensure that fidelity monitoring is conducted monthly for
each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
An interview with designated mental health clinician authority (DMHCA) and program director
verified that the program as a process for corrective actions based on fidelity monitoring
conducted. The program uses an internal fidelity monitoring checklist specific to Cannabis Youth
Treatment (CYT). Each fidelity monitoring checklist includes a section for feedback and
recommendations for facilitator improvement. Each checklist completed did not indicate that
corrective action was recommended.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
The program conducts annual evaluations on the facilitator’s overall performance which
addressed an assessment of a facilitator’s skills in group delivery, however the evaluation did not
include specific information about their delivery of specific interventions.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitators' performance evaluation includes an assessment
of their delivery of the Primary Service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
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 13 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 13) 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 13 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 13) 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 = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 54%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 100% (13 of 13) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 54% (7 of 13) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 70 100 70%
This SPEP report evaluates Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT), an intervention delivered at Youth
Environmental Services.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is completed every month for every facilitator and by
ensuring that the facilitators' performance evaluations include an assessment of their delivery of
CYT. It should be noted that the program scored 7 points in the Quality of Service Delivery
category; if a well-managed group had been able to be observed, the program may have earned a
High Quality of Service Delivery score.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 13 total youth sampled, only
8 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 3
and 11 weeks of service, with an average of 10 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 13 total youth
sampled, only 8 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 5
and 14.5 hours of service, with an average of 13 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Youth Environmental Services can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by
ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is completed every month for every facilitator and by
ensuring that the facilitators' performance evaluations include an assessment of their delivery of
CYT.
Youth Environmental Services can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

service_type: Cannabis Youth Treatment


summary: SPEP - FY16-17

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Youth Environmental Services (YES)
AMIkids, Inc.
(Contract Provider)
4337 Saffold Road
Wimauma, Florida 33598
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training (ART)
SPEP Review Date(s): November 1‐4, 2016
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date(s): 6/9/2017
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: Youth Environmental Services MQI Program Code: 388
Provider Name: AMIkids, Inc. Contract Number: 10172
Location: Hillsborough County / Circuit: 13 Number of Beds: 30
Review Date(s): November 1-4, 2016 Lead Reviewer Code: 146
Persons Interviewed
Program Director Corporate QI/QA staff # Program Supervisors
DJJ Monitor # Case Managers # Youth
DHA or designee 1 # Clinical Staff # Other (listed by title):
DMHCA or designee # Healthcare Staff
Documents Reviewed
Written Protocol/Manual Logbooks 4 # Personnel Records
Fidelity Monitoring Documents Program Schedules 4 # Training Records/CORE
Internal Corrective Action Reports Supplemental Contracts # Youth Records (Closed)
Staff Evaluations Table of Organization # Youth Records (Open)
Accreditation Reports Youth Handbook # Other:
Contract Monitoring Reports # Health Records
Contract Scope of Services # MH/SA Records
Observations During Review
Group/Session of Primary Service(s)
Program Activities
Recreation
Social Skill Modeling by Staff
Staff Interactions with Youth
Staff Supervision of Youth
Transition/Exit Conferences
Treatment Team Meetings
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Aggression Replacement Training (ART). The program
was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5 Service. The
specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty cognitions and
perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and correct
behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated by the Bureau of Monitoring and Quality Improvement while
on-site during the annual compliance review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The review of staff training files found the program has four staff, three are non-licensed clinical
staff and the programs compliance specialist have received formal training by a qualified trainer to
facilitate the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) curriculum; however, only two staff
members have facilitated ART this review period.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the Aggression Replacement Training curriculum and has the brand-name
manual. The manual contains lesson plans and an accompanying compact disk which enables
the program to have access to printable forms, and youth handouts.
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 delivery of the Aggression Replacement Training group was observed during the annual
compliance review. The group had a facilitator and co-facilitator and followed the lesson plan
provided to the reviewer for the session delivered the day of observation. The youth started the
session with a quick review of the last session and then started on the current session (Anger
Control Training – Hassel Log); which, included discussion and various role play scenarios the
youth played out. During the observation, it was noted the facilitator and co-facilitator kept the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
youth engaged and focused on the subject covered for the session being covered and would bring
those youths back on task who started to waver off subject.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program had two staff deliver the Aggression Replacement Training curriculum since the last
annual compliance review. The groups within each cycle were facilitated by the same two
facilitators throughout the cycle. There have been no gaps in service and there has not been any
facilitator turnover during this review period.
BasicScore: 1Point(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 review of program ‘s internal fidelity monitoring found that monthly monitoring was
documented for two of the three cycles in their entirety as there was only documentation for the
month of March 2016 for the cycle conducted March 14, 2016 through May 17, 2016. The process
consists of the previous designated mental health clinician authority (DMHCA) trained in the ART
curriculum or other ART trained facilitator completing an electronic observation checklist for each
session they observe. The checklist includes an evaluation of the session observed and any
corrective action required based on the observation. A review of the internal fidelity monitoring
documentation provided found no evidence corrective action was applicable.
The program can earn 2 points by ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is conducted at least
monthly.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
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 corrective action plan based on their internal fidelity monitoring; however, a
review of the internal fidelity monitoring documentation provided found no evidence corrective
action was applicable. The process covers if a facilitator is found to be non-proficient they would
receive coaching on the identified deficiency in an attempt to get them proficient. If the issue is not
resolved after coaching the facilitator would then be scheduled to attend the next scheduled
training for that specific curriculum. If the facilitator is found to still be non-proficient, they would be
placed on a corporate corrective action plan for job performance. In addition, the facilitator would
be suspended from delivering the identified curriculum. Further non-proficiency may result in
disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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 program conducts ninety-day and annual evaluations on each trained facilitators’ ability to
deliver the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) curriculum. One of the trained facilitators just
recently completed the required training and was not due for an evaluation on their delivery of the
ART curriculum as they have not delivered the service. The evaluations of the remaining three
trained facilitators found two of three included an assessment of the facilitator’s skill in delivering
the ART curriculum. The third facilitator’s evaluation did not identify the specific curriculum,
however; the third trained facilitator has not conducted any ART groups this review.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
3. Amount of Service ‐ Duration
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 10 weeks for this type of service. Of the 11 youth in the
sample, 100% (11 of 11) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 11 youth in the
sample, 100% (11 of 11) 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 = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 11 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 36%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 11 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% (11 of 11) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a
score of 12 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 36% (4 of 11) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) prior to the placement
date was used in the derivation of the risk level score. This C-PACT provides the best indication
of the risk to re-offend level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 25 25 100%
Totals 100 100 100%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training (ART), an intervention delivered at
Youth Environmental Services (YES).
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery. This score can be optimized by
ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is conducted at least monthly.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 11 total youth sampled, all
included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, all 11
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10
and 14 weeks of service, with an average of 12 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 11 total youth
sampled, all included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, all 11
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 30
and 32 hours of service, with an average of 31 hours.
The program was awarded 25 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community - Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT) assessment. This
score reflects youths' most recent C-PACT score prior to placement at the program. The program
itself has no control over youths' C-PACT risk level because the scored assessment was
administered prior to the youths' admission.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Youth Environmental Services (YES) can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score
by ensuring that internal fidelity monitoring is conducted at least monthly.
Youth Environmental Services (YES) can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by
ensuring that dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth
receive the full targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10