state: FL

facility_name: Redwood Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Redwood Youth Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
14692 NE County Road 199
Raiford, Florida 32083
Primary Service: Aggression Replacement Training (ART)
SPEP Review Period: December 1, 2024-November 30, 2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 12/2/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/12/2026
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Aggression Replacement Training.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 10 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 50%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 5 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program uses Aggression Replacement Training (ART) as a primary service. ART is provided
by a qualified trainer over three-days. There are six staff members trained in the primary service:
the former regional clinical director, the clinical director, three former therapists, and one therapist.
Four staff facilitated the primary service during the annual review period, and the former regional
clinical director stepped in occasionally to provide coverage. The former regional clinical director
and clinical director conducted a few monthly internal fidelity monitorings during the annual review
period.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator completed formal training in the primary service and
if co-facilitators (if any) have completed formal training in the primary service as well.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) manual. The manual is available
for staff to review.
The manual is broken down into six sections. The first section covers Skillstreaming. The second
section deals with anger control. The third section covers moral reasoning. Each of the first three
sections has a script for the facilitator to use for each lesson. Sections four through six are for the
facilitator's use. It includes training step guides, fidelity forms and hassle logs, and the program
materials. The program provides the students with copies of handouts for each lesson.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
During the annual review period, the program provided the primary service on varied rotations:
Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays; Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays; and Tuesdays,
Wednesdays, Thursdays for forty-five (45) minutes each session.
The program keeps their documentation for the primary service in a SPEP binder labeled "ART."
The binder contains attendance sheets, internal fidelity monitoring checklists, and training
certificates. All youth who are admitted to the program receive ART. The primary service is held
as a closed group.
The program can earn 2 points if the manual/protocol explains how each session is delivered and
if there is an outline for each session.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
The session lasted from 12:23 p.m. to 1:20 p.m. Seven youth and one staff member attended.
At 12:23 p.m., the facilitator opened the session by reviewing established group rules. A youth
volunteer led the check-in process, which concluded at 12:38 p.m. The facilitator then distributed
handouts to the group, including one provided to the FSS. The facilitator reviewed "Anger Control
Chain" and revisited the prior week's focus on "triggers." Transitioning to the day's focus, the
facilitator pointed to the handout and introduced the topic of "cues." Youth were asked, "Why do
you think it's important to know your cues?" Multiple participants actively contributed answers.
The facilitator maintained an interactive atmosphere. Desks were arranged in a circle, and the
facilitator stood throughout the session, moving around the room while engaging youth. The youth
participated openly in the discussion. At 12:55 p.m., the facilitator engaged youth in an interactive
exercise using poster paper. Volunteers practiced deep breathing, counting backwards, and
imagery as anger-reduction techniques.
The facilitator used the ART manual as a guide and transitioned the group into role-play practice
around 1 p.m. Expectations for the role plays were clearly explained, and youth actively
participated. At 1:16 p.m., the facilitator passed around the sign-in sheet and began collecting the
completed handouts. She emphasized the importance of recognizing anger cues and using
reducers as strategies. The session concluded with youth lining up at 1:20 p.m.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator adhered to the manual/protocol.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The gap in providing ART services occurred from April through May 2025. To be noted, the new
therapist and clinical director, were not trained in ART until 5/25/2025. Two therapists left the
program in April and July 2025. Another therapist was terminated in July 2025. The clinical
director stepped in to complete the cohort and the former regional clinical director substituted
twice in the month of July 2025.
There were three completed cohorts and one ongoing cohort during the annual review period. The
cohorts are the following: 1/13/2025-3/27/2025, 6/10/2025-8/14/2025, 8/19/2025-10/24/2025, and
11/11/2025-current (as of 11/30/2025).
The first cohort which began on 1/13/2025 started with ten (10) youth and ended with nine youth.
A youth transferred out of the program on 2/25/2025. Attendance sheet documentation errors
included: 1) missing youth signatures on 1/14/2025, 1/31/2025, 2/4/2025, 2/5/2025, 2/6/2025,
2/11/2025, 2/12/2025, and 2/13/2025, 2) no make-ups were given for youth absent on 1/13/2025,
1/30/2025, 1/31/2025, 2/19/2025, and 2/21/2025, and 3) wrong attendance sheets used for the
session's specific ART component. For the first week in March 2025, only one attendance sheet
was provided suggesting two group sessions were not conducted. Attendance sheets dated
3/4/2025, 3/14/2025, 3/19/2025 reported youth were absent. No make-up sessions for the youth
were conducted.
The second cohort began on 6/10/2025 and started with ten (10) youth and ended with nine
youth. The attendance sheets indicated one youth refused ART class repeatedly on the following
dates: 6/10/2025, 6/11/2025, 6/17/2025, 6/18/2025, 6/19/2025, 6/24/2025 (youth was late),
6/25/2025, 6/26/2025, 7/1/2025, 7/2/2025, and 7/17/2025. This same youth refused scheduled
make-ups on 6/27/2025 (three times), 7/9/2025 (two times), and 7/18/2025. Another youth was
removed from class due to behavior issues on 6/18/2025, 6/25/2025, and "opted not to come to
group" on 6/24/2025. On 7/3/2025, this same youth was removed from the cohort. Attendance
sheet dated 6/26/2025 indicate one youth missed class due to attending the "gun class;" however,
this youth attended a make-up class on 6/27/2025. Attendance sheet dated 7/15/2025 indicate
one youth missed class due to testing; however, this youth refused a make-up scheduled for
7/18/2025. Attendance sheet dated 7/31/2025 indicate one youth left class to go to the restroom
and didn't return. This same youth refused a make-up class scheduled for 7/31/2025.
The third cohort which began on 8/19/2025 started with eight youth and ended with seven youth.
The attendance sheets indicated one youth refused ART classes on 8/19/2025, 8/20/2025, and
8/21/2025. This same youth refused three make-up sessions dated 8/22/2025. One youth was
discharged on 8/26/2025. The attendance sheet indicated one youth refused ART classes on
9/4/2025. The attendance sheet dated 9/10/2025 indicated one youth was absent due to state
testing. The attendance sheet dated 9/24/2025 indicated one youth was absent because the
youth was in the NCC construction class. The attendance sheet dated 10/8/2025 indicated one
youth was absent for a medical appointment and one youth did not participate with his head down
and eyes closed. The attendance sheet dated 10/15/2025 indicated one youth walked out of the
classroom fourteen (14) minutes after the session began. The attendance sheet dated 10/22/2025
indicated two youth were twelve (12) minutes late for the session. All youth who were absent in
this cohort did not participate in a make-up session.
The fourth cohort which began on 11/11/2025 started with ten (10) youth and currently has nine
youth (as of 11/30/2025). The attendance sheet dated 11/11/2025 indicates one youth was
removed for a medical appointment. The attendance sheets dated 11/18/2025, 11/19/2025, and
11/21/2025 indicate one youth demonstrated disruptive behavior and refused to attend group.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
Attendance sheet dated 11/26/2025 indicates same youth will be dropped from the ART cohort
due to his disruptive behavior in class.
The program can earn 2 points if there has been no gap in service delivery and no turnover of
facilitator. There was a gap in services of ART during the review period. The facilitator turnover
did negatively affect the program.
At the time of the review, the program has not met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 0 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.
There were four internal fidelity monitorings during the annual review period.
The program did not conduct monthly internal fidelity monitorings for the therapist in January 2025
and February 2025. The program did conduct one monthly internal fidelity monitoring for the
therapist in March 2025. However, the other two components of the ART fidelity monitoring were
not completed for the same therapist. A documentation error indicated that the state clinical
director conducted the fidelity check with the observation dated as 3/18/2025. However, the
facilitator signed and dated the form on 4/2/2025.
The program conducted two monthly internal fidelity monitorings for the therapist on 6/24/2025
and 6/26/2025. However, the "anger control" component of ART is missing a fidelity check for the
same therapist in June. Additionally, there are missing fidelity monitorings for the therapist in July;
however, he left the program on 7/9/2025. The clinical director had one completed fidelity
monitoring dated 7/15/2025; however, there are two missing fidelity monitorings for the "anger
control" and the "moral reasoning" component of ART in July. For the month of August, all fidelity
monitorings are missing. Lastly, the program did not conduct any internal fidelity monitorings from
September to November 2025.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program has not met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
There were three corrective actions needed for the annual review period, as a result of three
fidelity monitoring sessions.The therapist received feedback on fidelity monitoring forms dated
6/24/2025 and 6/25/2025 which indicate areas needing improvement. The therapist refused to
sign the fidelity monitoring form dated 6/26/2025. The fidelity monitoring form dated 7/15/2025,
provided feedback that the facilitator should implement more role plays.
At the time of the review, the program has met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program did not provide documentation of a performance evaluation for two trained staff who
had been employed for at least ninety (90) days. The missing evaluations were for one former
therapist and the clinical director.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program has not met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 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 13 youth in the
sample, 100% (13 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: 4 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Research indicates a target of 30 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 13 youth in the
sample, 46% (6 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: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 69%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 3 youth
High = 3 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 13 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 23%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 38%
Table 2
High = 3 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, 69% (9 of 13) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 23% (3 of 13) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 10 25 40%
Totals 69 100 69%
This SPEP report evaluates Aggression Replacement Training, an intervention delivered at
Redwood Youth Academy.
21 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 13 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 13 total youth sampled, all
13 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 13
received at least the recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10
and 10 weeks of service, with an average of 10 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 13 total youth
sampled, all 13 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 6
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 23
and 31 hours of service, with an average of 28.23 hours.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 10 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 30 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program was awarded 10 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 84%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Redwood Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
each group has a co-facilitator assigned, facilitator turnover does not impact groups, fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, and each facilitator’s performance
evaluation includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service.
Redwood Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 11

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2025-26 Redwood Youth Academy ART.pdf

program_name_raw: Redwood Academy

program_status_note: Open

service_type: Aggression Replacement Training


summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Redwood Youth Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
14692 NE County Road 199
Raiford, Florida 32083
Primary Service: Cannabis Youth Treatment
SPEP Review Period: December 1, 2024-November 30, 2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 12/2/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/12/2026
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 35 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 35 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is 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 during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 5 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 20%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 3 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The program uses Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) as a primary service for youth with a
substance abuse diagnosis. CYT training is an in-service training provided by the clinical director
or other qualified trainer. The documentation reviewed shows there were three staff trained in the
primary service. The trained staff were a former clinical director, former regional clinical director,
and the current clinical director.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator completed formal training in the primary service and
if co-facilitators (if any) have completed formal training in the primary service as well.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Series Volumes One and Two. The
manuals provide procedures for implementing the program. There are no student manuals. The
facilitators make copies of the worksheets and pass them out to the youth. The first two lessons of
CYT are individual sessions. These sessions are an hour. Lessons three through twelve (12) are
conducted as a group. The program maintains all documentation located in the clinical director’s
office. The binder contains all attendance sheets, internal fidelity checklists, and training
certificates.
The program can earn 2 points if the manual/protocol is detailed to the extent it explains how each
specific session is delivered and if there is a script or outline for each session.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
The fidelity support specialist did not have the opportunity to observe any Cannabis Youth
Treatment (CYT) sessions, as the only CYT group conducted during the annual review period
ended on 3/31/2025.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator adhered to the manual/protocol.
At the time of the review, the program did not met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program experienced facilitator turnover during the annual review period. This turnover
resulted in a gap in service of approximately eight months.
The former clinical director left the program in February 2025. The former regional clinical director
temporarily stepped in and conducted two CYT sessions on 3/3/2025 and 3/31/2025. Shortly
thereafter, the CYT cohort ended. Due to staffing issues and the fact that the new clinical director
was not certified in CYT until 3/26/2025, youth did not receive CYT services at this program for
the remainder of the annual review period.
The program can earn 2 points if there has been no gap in service delivery and no turnover of
facilitator. There was a gap in services and facilitator turnover during the annual review period.
At the time of the review, the program has not met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The documentation reviewed for the annual review period of December 1, 2024 through
November 30, 2025 shows the program did not conduct the one monthly internal fidelity
monitoring for February 2025. Furthermore, the primary service abruptly ended in March 2025.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program has not met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 0 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
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 documentation reviewed for Cannabis Youth Treatment for the annual review period of
December 1, 2024 through November 30, 2025 shows no internal fidelity monitorings were
conducted to determine if corrective action was required.
At the time of the review, the program has not met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
The program did not provide documentation of a performance evaluation for one trained staff who
had been employed for more than ninety (90) days. The missing evaluation was for the new
clinical director.
The program can earn 1 point if each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of
their skill in delivering this primary service.
At the time of the review, the program has not met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates the target duration of 12 weeks for this type of service. Of the 4 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 4) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 12 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 4 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 4) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 20 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 75%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 1 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 4 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 50%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 2 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 4 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 75% (3 of 4) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of
7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 50% (2 of 4) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 13 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 35 35 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 5 20 20%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 60 100 60%
This SPEP report evaluates Cannabis Youth Treatment, an intervention delivered at Redwood
Youth Academy.
21 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 4 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Low for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 4 total youth sampled, all 4
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 2
and 2 weeks of service, with an average of 2 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 4 total youth sampled,
all 4 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 2 and 2 hours of
service, with an average of 2 hours.
The targeted number of weeks for this specific intervention is 12 weeks; the targeted number of
hours for this specific intervention is 12 hours. After additional review and discussion with the
Peabody Research Institute at Vanderbilt University, the Department determined it was within
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program was awarded 20 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 65%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Redwood Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
there are no unnecessary gaps in service, facilitator turnover does not impact groups, fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, each group has a co-facilitator assigned,
any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and demonstrated, ensuring the program
provides the primary service regularly throughout the year so it can be observed for adherence to
the manual/protocol, and each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes discussion of their skill
in delivering this primary service.
Redwood Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring that
dosage for all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring that youth receive the full
targeted dosage of service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2025-26 Redwood Youth Academy CYT.pdf

service_type: Cannabis Youth Treatment


summary: SPEP - FY25-26

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Redwood Youth Academy
Wayne Halfway House
(Contract Provider)
14692 NE County Road 199
Raiford, Florida 32083
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: December 1, 2024-November 30, 2025
SPEP Review Conducted: 12/2/2025
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/12/2026
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 20 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Impact of Crime.
The program was awarded 15 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 3
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Social Skills Training. The
Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on developing social skills
required for an individual to interact in a positive way with others.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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): 4 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 annual review period for the program was December 1, 2024 through November 30, 2025.
The program used Imapct of Crime (IOC) as one of its primary services. IOC training is a three-
day, 24-hour training currently conducted through Microsoft Teams or in person by a qualified
trainer. All youth are required to complete IOC. The primary service is a closed group conducted
twice a week for sixteen (16) weeks with at least thirty-two (32) hours of total completion.
The documentation shows there were five staff members trained in the primary service during this
review period: two former case managers, one former regional clinical director, one transition
services manager, and one policy and compliance manager. The two former case managers
facilitated the primary service during this annual review period. The policy and compliance
manager co-facilitated three group sessions in September 2025.
All trained staff can conduct the monthly internal fidelity checks. However, only the former regional
clinical director completed a fidelity check in the month of March 2025.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator completed formal training in the primary service and
if co-facilitators (if any) have completed formal training in the primary service as well.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program uses the Impact of Crime (IOC): Addressing the Harm manual. The manual includes
seven chapters and provides a script for the facilitator to follow. The curriculum includes a student
guide with exercises for the participants to complete to reinforce the material presented during
group sessions. The program makes copies of the student exercises and passes them out to the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
youth during each lesson. The program keeps a copy of the IoC facilitator manual and materials
and staff have access to it.
The program can earn 2 points if the manual/protocol is detailed to the extent it explains how each
specific session is delivered and if there is a script or outline for each session.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
The fidelity support specialist (FSS) observed a session of Impact of Crime (IOC), in person, on
September 5, 2025 from 12:32 p.m. to 1:32 p.m. The session had seven youth, along with the
facilitator and one floor staff member present.
Youth entered after lunch, with some bringing food and drinks. The facilitator began at 12:32 p.m.
by reviewing group expectations. The facilitator distributed paper for an icebreaker activity,
instructing youth to write or draw their current feelings. A youth volunteered to conduct check-ins
as part of the exercise. At 12:46 p.m., the facilitator introduced the lesson objectives and reviewed
“words to know” using prepared visuals posted on the wall: (1) expectations, (2) vocabulary with
definitions, and (3) the day’s activity. Youth actively engaged, with one volunteering to read
vocabulary aloud.
The facilitator used the manual to guide the lesson and asking questions. Follow-up prompts
encouraged youth to reflect on how their families and communities were affected by their actions.
The discussion emphasized the concept of community, including residential placement as a form
of community governed by rules. The facilitator affirmed youth responses and provided real-life
examples to deepen understanding.
At 1:04 p.m., the facilitator introduced an activity centered on the concept of justice, recording
youth responses on poster paper. She encouraged youth to consider victims’ perspectives. The
facilitator demonstrated skill in redirecting off-topic comments, clarifying material when needed,
and maintaining focus on the lesson. At 1:24 p.m., the facilitator began wrapping up by asking
youth what they had learned. She affirmed their contributions and linked them back to the day’s
objectives.
Overall Assessment:
The facilitator demonstrated strong preparation, effective use of visuals, and consistent redirection
strategies. She fostered meaningful discussions while affirming youth input and maintaining
structure throughout the session.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator adhered to the manual/protocol.
At the time of the review, the program met the criteria to earn a score of 1 as the group was
observed and the facilitator did adhere to the lesson plan.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 0 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
The program experienced facilitator turnover during the annual review period. This turnover did
result in service disruption.
The program experienced multiple staffing changes. One case manager left the program in May
2025, followed by the regional clinical director's departure in August 2025. Another case manager
resigned in October 2025. This level of turnover presents challenges to maintaining consistent
program operations and fidelity to service delivery expectations.
One cohort was completed and one cohort abruptly stopped during the annual review period. The
dates of the cohorts are: 12/30/2024-4/15/2025 and 9/2/2025-9/24/2025. After the first cohort
ended, the program experienced an interruption in IOC service delivery for approximately four and
a half months. After the second cohort abruptly ended, a gap in IOC service delivery occurred for
approximately three months.
The first cohort began on 12/30/2024 with nine youth and ended with eight youth. The attendance
sheet documentation errors include the following: The attendance sheets dated 3/26/2025,
3/28/2025, and 4/17/2025 did not show any youth signatures; therefore, no documentation or
proof was given that IOC group sessions were held on those dates and the attendance sheets are
inadmissible. The attendance sheet dated 3/19/2025 indicates three lesson objectives checked
and that the session lasted from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. This attendance sheet did not provide a reason
for the group session lasting for six hours. The atendance sheet dated 4/12/2025 indicates the
session lasted from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. This attendance sheet did not provide a reason for the
group session lasting for five hours. The attendance sheets dated 3/22/2025 and 4/1/2025
indicate group session times lasting one hour and forty-five (45) minutes and one hour and thirty
(30) minutes, respectively.
Other attendance sheet errors include: 1) multiple objective boxes were checked on 1/6/2025,
1/8/2025, and 1/31/2025, 2) missing youth signature(s) on 2/11/2025, 2/22/2025, 2/25/2025, and
4/12/2025, 3) pretyping in the cohort end date on all attendance sheets, 4) no lesson objectives
checked on attendance sheets dated 3/12/2025 and 3/14/2025, and 5) an incomplete section on
the final attendance sheet to indicate who had successfully completed IOC services. Additionally,
on 2/7/2025, the attendance sheet noted a guest speaker, a correctional officer, with the session
lasting one hour and thirty (30) minutes. On 2/22/2025, the attendance sheet noted a guest
speaker from "Prisoners of Christ" with the session lasting two hours. Additionally, no make-up
sessions were provided for youth who were absent on 1/24/2025, 2/5/2025, 2/7/2025, and
2/27/2025.
The program did not conduct IOC on a consistent weekly schedule. IOC sessions were held on
varying days, rather than following the recommended structured routine of twice-weekly sessions
(e.g. Monday/Wednesday or Tuesday/Thursday).
The program can earn 2 points when there is no gap in service delivery and no turnover of the
facilitator. However, there were gaps in services and facilitator turnovers; all of which negatively
affected the program.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
At the time of the review, the program has not met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 0 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.
There was only one documented internal fidelity monitoring during the review period.
While IOC was actively running, most internal fidelity monitorings were not conducted. The
months of missing fidelity checks for this annual review period include: December 2024, January
2025, February 2025, April 2025, and September 2025.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program has not met the criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 0 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.
Due to missing several internal fidelity monitorings during the annual review period, no corrective
actions were noted.
At the time of the review, the program has not met the criteria to earn a score of 1.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 0 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
During the annual review period from December 1, 2024 through November 30, 2025, the
program did not provide documentation of performance evaluations for two trained staff who had
been employed for more than ninety (90) days. The missing evaluations were for one former case
manager and the transition services manager.
At the time of the review, the program has not met the 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 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 19) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 19 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 19) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed in
the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 40%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 63%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 3 youth
Moderate-High = 5 youth
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 21%
High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 38%
Table 2
High = 4 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 19 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 63% (12 of 19) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 21% (4 of 19) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 5 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 0 10 0%
Risk Level of Youth Served 10 25 40%
Totals 40 85 47%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Redwood Youth
Academy.
21 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, 19 were included in the
sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 19 total youth sampled, only
6 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 5
and 5 weeks of service, with an average of 5 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 19 total youth
sampled, only 6 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth with correct dosage, 0
received at least the recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 9
and 9 hours of service, with an average of 9 hours.
The program was awarded 10 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT) assessment. This score reflects youths'
most recent CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over
youths' CAT risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths'
admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 65%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Redwood Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups, there are no unnecessary gaps in service, fidelity
monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator, any corrective action needed is
identified, applied, and demonstrated, and each facilitator’s performance evaluation includes
discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service.
Redwood Youth Academy 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

file_name: FY2025-26 Redwood Youth Academy IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime