summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Alachua Academy
Sequel Youth and Family Services
(Contract Provider)
3430 NE 39th Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32609
Primary Service: Living In Balance
SPEP Review Period: December 15, 2021-December 14, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: December 20, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: April 10, 2023
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Living in Balance.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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 program utilized Living in Balance (LIB) as a primary service for the annual review period of
December 15, 2021 through December 14, 2022. A review of documentation for the annual
review period showed nine staff were trained in LIB- the former clinical director, the current clinical
director, the regional clinical director, and six therapists. The training is a two-hour in-service
training delivered by the clinical director or the regional clinical director. The program has a written
protocol for the in-service training which documents the schedule for the training.
The documentation showed there were six therapists and the current clinical director who
conducted groups during the annual review period. There were two trained therapists, the regional
clinical director, the current clinical director, and the former clinical director who conducted the
monthly internal fidelity monitoring. Any trained staff member may conduct the monthly fidelity
monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the Living in Balance: Moving from a Life of Addiction to a Life of Recovery
manual. The manual addresses the order in which to deliver the content and gives the facilitators
an outline to follow. The program does not have separate student workbooks to give out. The
facilitators make copies of the exercises before each session to pass out to the youth. The service
is an open group run year-round and is held on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The program keeps all
documentation in a binder labeled "LIB SPEP" in the clinical director’s office. All youth who are
admitted to the program receive the primary service.
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.
A session of Living in Balance was observed on 12/20/2022 via Microsoft Teams. The group
began at 3:59p with seven youth, one therapist, and the clinical director present. The therapist
was facilitating the group. The clinical director was conducting the monthly internal fidelity for the
month of December 2022 for the facilitator. The group was held in one of the program’s
classrooms. The facilitator provided the technical assistance specialist with a copy of the lesson.
The facilitator did not bring the manual to group. The facilitator brought a copy of the student
exercise and had the youth read parts of the assignment. The youth took turns answering the
questions. The youth were finished with the exercise at 4:30p. The facilitator allowed the youth to
have an open discussion after completing the exercise. The youth got very loud and a few of the
youth controlled the conversation. The conversation did not pertain to the content of the lesson.
The open conversation was used to fill the remaining thirty minutes left in group.
The technical assistance specialist (TAS) held a debriefing session with the clinical director and
the facilitator. The TAS affirmed the group should run for the full hour. The facilitator could have
used the open discussion as apart of the group lesson if she would have directed the
conversation. The TAS stated this group only ran for a half hour and should not be counted for a
full hour in EBS even though the youth were in the room for the full hour. The clinical director later
stated she would speak with the therapist during their supervision meeting to come up with a plan
to ensure groups are ran for the full hour.
The program can earn 1 point if the facilitator adheres to the manual.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet 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.
Documentation reviewed for the annual review period of December 15, 2021 through December
14, 2022 shows the program experienced turnover of Living in Balance (LIB) facilitators. The
former clinical director and three therapists left the program. Three therapists were facilitating
groups at the time they left. The program ensured another trained staff took over facilitating LIB.
The program only provided two attendance sheets for February 2022. The attendance sheets
were dated for 2/1/2022 and 2/15/2022. There were two gaps in service in February 2022. The
gaps were 2/2/2022-2/14/2022 and 2/16/2022-2/28/2022. There were no other attendance sheets
provided for the month of February 2022. There are no more than fifteen (15) youth in each cohort
as evidenced by the sign in sheets.
According to the clinical director, the program’s practice guidelines in the event of turnover is one
of the other trained facilitators on staff will continue with the group cohort.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
A review of documentation for the annual review period of December 15, 2021 through December
14, 2022 shows there were eleven (11) fidelity monitorings completed for facilitators of Living in
Balance. The program was missing fidelity monitorings for the months of January 2022, May
2022, and August 2022 for one therapist; October 2022 and December 2022 for the current
clinical director; October 2022, November 2022, and December 2022 for a second therapist;
October 2022 and December 2022 for a third therapist. The fidelity monitorings were completed
by two trained therapists, the regional clinical director, the current clinical director, and the former
clinical director. The clinical director or regional clinical director discusses the fidelity check with
the facilitator upon completion.
The regional clinical director stated there was a fidelity check completed for May 2022 by a
therapist, but the therapist did not provide the program the completed form.
According to the clinical director, the clinical director monitors each group monthly and provides
SPEP fidelity checklist and status report for documentation. The clinical director or regional
clinical director discusses the fidelity check with the facilitator upon completion.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet 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.
Documentation reviewed for the annual review period of December 15, 2021 through December
14, 2022 showed the program did identify corrective actions on their monthly internal fidelity
monitorings for facilitators of Living in Balance. The clinical director or regional clinical director will
discuss any identified corrective actions with the facilitator and will re-evaluate during the next
month’s fidelity check.
The fidelity monitoring completed on 7/26/2022 stated a corrective action was needed to review
group layout and structure. The fidelity monitoring stated this was completed and discussed on
7/26/2022 during the fidelity monitoring review with the facilitator. The facilitator stated the training
protocol was not provided to the facilitator prior to 7/26/2022. The facilitator was trained in the
primary service on 5/17/2019. The regional clinical director stated she recently changed the
primary service training to include the group layout and structure. The facilitator was trained
based on the previous training protocol that did not have the group layout and structure included
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
in the training. The fidelity monitoring dated for 6/30/2022 noted a corrective action. The regional
clinical director will review the group format for curricula with therapist. The therapist signed the
fidelity form on 7/7/2022.
The program can earn 1 point if any corrective action needed is identified, applied, and
demonstrated.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet 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 provided two staff evaluations to review for the annual review period of December
15, 2021 through December 14, 2022. There was one ninety (90)-day evaluation and one annual
staff evaluation. The ninety (90)-day evaluation was completed for the clinical director. The annual
evaluation was completed for a therapist. The evaluations have an area to document the
facilitator’s skill delivering Living in Balance, but both evaluations did not contain any information
about the facilitator’s skill delivering the service. The ratings for the section were checked, but
lacked specific information for the facilitator’s skill delivering the primary service.
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 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: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates the target duration of 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 100% (20 of 20) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 95% (19 of 20) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 65%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 7 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 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, 65% (13 of 20) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 20) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 10 10 100%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 63 95 66%
This SPEP report evaluates Living in Balance, an intervention delivered at Alachua Academy.
20 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 20 total youth sampled, all
20 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 20 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 27 and 49 weeks of
service, with an average of 31 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 20 total youth
sampled, all 20 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 19 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 39 and 67 hours of
service, with an average of 49 hours.
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 87%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Alachua Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring the
facilitator adheres to the manual, 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.
Alachua Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

file_name: FY2022-23 Alachua LIB.pdf


state: FL

facility_name: Alachua Academy

summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Alachua Academy
Sequel Youth and Family Services
(Contract Provider)
3430 NE 39th Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32609
Primary Service: Female Healthy Relationships
SPEP Review Period: December 15, 2021-December 14, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: December 20, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: April 10, 2023
Introduction
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) is data-driven rating system for
evaluating program effectiveness. The SPEP was developed by relying on hundreds of studies
that have examined key characteristics of programs that demonstrated their ability to reduce
recidivism. To determine a SPEP score, the program’s services are compared to characteristics
of effective programs in the research of a similar type.
The SPEP score is composed of four principle characteristics that have been shown to predict
reductions in youth recidivism; service type, quality of service, dosage (amount of service), and
youth level of risk.
• Service Type: service type points are awarded based on the group category that the
service falls within
• Quality of Service: quality points are awarded by determining the extent to which the
program is delivered in what research suggests is a high-quality manner
• Amount of Service: or “dosage” refers to the amount and duration of services that were
received
• Risk Level: refers to the level of criminogenic risk for youth involved in the intervention.
The final output of the SPEP review is the Program Optimization Percentage (POP). This rate is
derived from the Basic Score and Program Optimization Score. The POP rate is a percentage
score that indicates how the service rates in effectiveness when compared to the potential
effectiveness if optimized to match the most effective services in the research. This means the
POP rate represents how close the program’s Primary Service is to its potential for that Primary
Service Type. For example, a POP rate of 55% would indicate that the program’s Primary
Service is operating at 55% of its potential effectiveness for recidivism reduction based on the
SPEP research.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 2
Basic Score: 30 Points
1. Primary Service and Supplemental Service Types POS: 30 Points
POP: 100%
There are five Primary Service Types that have been classified into Groups with a maximum
number of points possible for rating purposes. Some Primary Service Types may also have
qualifying Supplemental Service Types that could earn a program an additional 5 points.
The Primary Service for this program is Female Healthy Relationships.
The program was awarded 25 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 4
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Group Counseling. The Primary
Service was identified as this type of service as it focuses on psychological or interpersonal
problems or issues faced by an individual and involves a group of youths interacting with each
other.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 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): 6 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 utilized the Female Healthy Relationships bundle as a primary service for the review
period of December 15, 2021 through December 14, 2022. The Female Healthy Relationships
bundle comprises the VOICES curriculum and the Teen Relationships Workbook curricula. A
review of the documentation for the annual review period showed there were nine staff members
trained in both VOICES and Teen Relationships- the former clinical director, the current clinical
director, the regional clinical director, and six therapists.
An email from the developer of VOICES states there is no formal training needed to conduct the
curriculum; however, most staff appreciate the training. The training for VOICES and Teen
Relationships is completed as an in-service training. The training for VOICES is sixteen (16)
hours; the training for Teen Relationships is four hours. The program has a written protocol for
both services they follow for training facilitators. The clinical director or regional clinical director
conducts the training.
The documentation showed there were five therapists and the current clinical director who
conducted groups during the annual review period for the VOICES service. The documentation for
the Teen Relationships service showed there were four therapists and the clinical director who
facilitated the service. There were six trained staff (regional clinical director, the current clinical
director, and four therapists) who conducted the monthly internal fidelity monitoring for the
VOICES service and six trained staff (three therapists, the regional clinical director, the current
clinical director, and the former clinical director) who conducted the monthly internal fidelity
monitoring for the Teen Relationships service. Any trained staff member may conduct monthly
fidelity monitoring.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
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 VOICES: A program of Self-Discovery and Empowerment for Girls, 2nd
edition, as the manual. The manual is divided into two parts. The first part gives the facilitator
background information about girls and about the formation of the program. It includes the reality
of girl's lives: socialization and identity, culture and class, sexuality, violence, and aggressiveness.
It addresses expressions of risk. The second part includes four modules. The recommended
dosage is eighteen (18) ninety (90)-minute sessions and may be delivered in a variety of ways.
The curriculum is laid out in the suggested sequence. Groups are suggested to be between six
and ten (10) girls and the groups may be closed or open. The program is running the service as
an open group. The youth have their own separate workbook. The program keeps all
documentation in a binder labeled VOICES SPEP in the clinical director’s office. All youth who are
admitted to the program receive the service.
The program also utilizes the Teen Relationships Workbook in conjunction with VOICES. The
Teen Relationships Workbook is broken down into six sections. The first section is evaluating your
relationship. Section two is understanding abuse. Section three is social influences. Section four
is building healthy relationships. Section five is making good decisions. Section six is the review.
There are sixty-eight (68) reproducible worksheets given to the youth during the sessions. Each
lesson has information on how the facilitator should present the material. There are no separate
student workbooks. The facilitators make copies of the current lessons to hand out to the youth.
Teen Relationships is an open group run year-round. The program keeps all documentation in a
binder labeled Teen Relationships SPEP in the clinical director’s office. All youth who are
admitted to the program receive the service. The Teen Relationships service is bundled with
VOICES to ensure the youth receive the correct dosage for the level of service.
Teen Relationships Workbook is conducted on Saturdays and VOICES is conducted on
Wednesdays.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Female Healthy Relationships, specifically the Teen Relationships Workbook
section, was observed on 12/16/2022. The group began at 2:55p in a classroom with eight youth.
Also present were the clinical director and the facilitator, a therapist. The facilitator provided the
technical assistance specialist with a copy of the lesson. The facilitator followed the lesson, but
did not read the lesson verbatim. The facilitator used her own words and ensured the youth
understood the lesson concepts. The facilitator was knowledgeable of the material. The youth
held a productive discussion about the content presented for the session. The group ended at 4p.
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 documentation reviewed for the annual review period of December 15, 2021 through
December 14, 2022 shows the program experienced facilitator turnover. The former clinical
director and three therapists left the program. The two of the three therapists who left were
facilitating the VOICES group and one therapist was facilitating the Teen Relationships group at
the time they left.
The VOICES service did not have any gaps in service. The Teen Relationships service is run as
an open group year-round. There was a gap in service from 5/26/2022-6/13/2022 and 6/15/2022-
6/29/2022 for the Teen Relationships service. The program director and regional clinical director
stated the youth were on quarantine due to COVID for the week of 6/19/2022. No services were
provided that week. There were no attendance sheets provided for Teen Relationships for
1/26/2022-3/29/2022.
According to the clinical director, the program’s practice guidelines in the event of turnover is one
of the other trained facilitators on staff will continue with the group cohort.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups and there are no
unnecessary gaps in service.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
A review of documentation for the annual review period of December 15, 2021 through December
14, 2022 shows there were fourteen (14) fidelity monitorings completed during the review period
for VOICES. The fidelity monitoring for VOICES were completed by regional clinical director, four
therapists, and the current clinical director. The program was missing a fidelity monitoring for one
therapist for the months of December 2021, February 2022, and September 2022; and a second
therapist for the month of November 2022. There were two fidelity checks completed on
3/23/2022. The first fidelity listed the group time as 3:20p-4:45p. That fidelity was conducted by a
therapist on another therapist who was facilitating the group. The second fidelity completed on
3/23/2022 listed the group time as 4p to 5p. The second fidelity listed the therapist who was
facilitating during the first group at 3:20p-4:45p as the observer for the second fidelity and the
facilitator of the 4p group was the observer listed for the 3:20p group.
There were ten (10) fidelity monitorings completed for the Teen Relationships Workbook
component. The fidelity monitoring for the Teen Relationships Workbook were completed by three
therapists, the regional clinical director, the current clinical director, and the former clinical
director. The program was missing a fidelity monitoring for one therapist for the month of July
2022. The fidelity form dated for 8/24/2022 shows the group ran from 2:53p-3p, but the
attendance sheet dated for the same day shows the group was ran from 2:42p-3:42p. The fidelity
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
form dated 9/21/2022 was signed on 9/22/2022, but the attendance sheets show the group was
ran on 9/20/2022.
According to the clinical director, the clinical director monitors each group monthly and provides
SPEP fidelity checklist and status report for documentation. The clinical director or regional
clinical director discusses the fidelity check with the facilitator upon completion.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month 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.
The documentation reviewed for the annual review period of December 15, 2021 through
December 14, 2022 shows the program did not identify any corrective actions on their monthly
internal fidelity monitorings for facilitators of Female Healthy Relationships. The clinical director or
regional clinical director will discuss any identified corrective actions with the facilitator and will re-
evaluate during the next month’s fidelity check.
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 provided two staff evaluations to review for the annual review period of December
15, 2021 through December 14, 2022. There was one ninety (90)-day evaluation and one annual
staff evaluation. The ninety (90)-day evaluation was completed for the clinical director. The annual
evaluation was completed for a therapist. The evaluations have an area to document the
facilitator’s skill delivering Female Healthy Relationships, but neither evaluation contained any
information about the facilitator’s skill delivering the service. The ratings for the section were
checked, but lacked specific information for the facilitator’s skill delivering the primary service.
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 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 24 weeks for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 75% (15 of 20) 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 40 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 55% (11 of 20) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 65%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 7 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 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, 65% (13 of 20) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 20) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 30 30 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 4 10 40%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 55 95 58%
This SPEP report evaluates Female Healthy Relationships, an intervention delivered at Alachua
Academy.
20 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 20 were included in
the sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 20 total youth sampled, all
20 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 15 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 7 and 52 weeks of
service, with an average of 31 weeks.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
The program earned 4 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 20 total youth
sampled, all 20 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 11 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 29 and 77 hours of
service, with an average of 49 hours.
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 79%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Alachua 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, and each facilitator’s performance
evaluation includes discussion of their skill in delivering this primary service.
Alachua Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2022-23 Alachua FHR.pdf

program_name_raw: Alachua Academy - Sequel

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Female Healthy Relationships


summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Alachua Academy
Sequel Youth and Family Services
(Contract Provider)
3430 NE 39th Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32609
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: December 15, 2021-December 14, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: December 20, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: April 10, 2023
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): 6 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 utilized Impact of Crime (IOC) as a primary service for the annual review period of
December 15, 2021 through December 14, 2022. A review of documentation for the annual
review period showed eight staff were trained in IOC- five case managers, the recreation
therapist, a therapist, and the assistant facility administrator. The training is a three-day, tweny-
four (24)-hour training currently being provided online via Microsoft Teams. The documentation
showed there were five case managers who conducted groups during the annual review period.
There were two trained staff who conducted the monthly internal fidelity monitoring. The trained
staff members who conducted the monthly internal fidelity monitoring were a case manager and a
therapist. Any trained staff member may conduct monthly fidelity monitoring.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
b. Treatment Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
There is a specific written manual/protocol detailing delivery of the Primary Service.
The program utilizes the Impact of Crime: Addressing the Harm v 4.0 as the manual. The
facilitator’s manual is divided into seven chapters, an appendix with handouts, and the student
guide section which includes the student exercises. The manual addresses the order in which to
deliver the content and gives the facilitators an outline to follow. The facility does not have
separate student workbooks to give out. The facilitators make copies of the exercises before each
session to pass out to the youth. The group is a closed group with no more than twelve (12) youth
in each cohort. The curriculum is to be delivered to the youth over a minimum of sixteen (16)
weeks for thirty-two (32) sessions. The program runs the service on Tuesdays and Thursdays. All
documentation is kept in a binder labeled "IOC SPEP" in the clinical director’s office. All youth
who are admitted to the program receive IOC.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
c. Observed Adherence to the Manual/Protocol
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Upon observation of the Primary Service by the Quality Improvement reviewer, the facilitator of
that service adhered to the written protocol/manual.
A session of Impact of Crime (IOC) was observed on 12/20/2022. The group began at 5:20p.
There were five youth, the facilitator, and the clinical director present during the group. The group
was held in one of the program’s classrooms. The facilitator provided the technical assistance
specialist with a copy of the lesson. The facilitator followed the lesson but did not read the lesson
verbatim. The facilitator used her own words and ensured the youth understood the lesson
concepts. The facilitator was knowledgeable of the material. The youth demonstrated their
understanding of IOC concepts during their group discussion. The youth were able to identify
when someone was using irrational thinking. The group ended at 6:35p.
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.
Documentation reviewed for the annual review period of December 15, 2021 through December
14, 2022 shows the program experienced turnover of Impact of Crime (IOC) facilitators. One case
manager and one therapist left the program during the annual review period. The program also
had one case manager who passed away and one case manager who transitioned to PRN (as
needed) staff.
Four cohorts were conducted during the annual review period. The dates of the cohorts were
10/4/2021-1/14/2022, 2/14/2022-6/14/2022, 6/28/2022-11/1/2022, and 9/7/2022-current.
The 10/4/2021 cohort began and ended with ten (10) youth. The attendance sheets were not filled
out properly. All attendance sheets had the end of cohort section filled out with the current lesson
date. This cohort began during the previous review period.
The 2/14/2022 cohort began with eight youth and ended with eight youth. One youth was added
to the cohort on 2/18/2022. Three youth were added to the cohort on 2/25/2022. Two youth were
removed from the cohort on 3/4/2022. The note on 3/4/2022 stated the youth will be added to the
next IOC cohort. The attendance sheet dated 3/22/2022 states three youth need make up session
due to not feeling well. There was no attendance sheet provided which showed the make up
session. One youth was removed from the cohort on 4/26/2022 with no reason given. The
facilitator ran the group on back-to-back days on 6/2/2022 and 6/3/2022. The last attendance
sheet had seven youth signatures, but showed eight youth completing the service.
The 6/28/2022 cohort began with seven youth and ended with six youth. One youth was on
temporary release at the beginning of the cohort. The youth came back to the program on
7/5/2022. One youth was removed from the group on 7/7/2022 due to new charges. A new
facilitator took over the cohort on 7/19/2022. The facilitator who began the cohort stopped
facilitating after 7/14/2022.
The 9/7/2022 cohort began with five youth and has five youth at the time of this review. The
attendance sheets dated 11/24/2022, 11/30/2022, 12/2/2022, 12/6/2022, and 12/8/2022 did not
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
have the chapter and objective marked for the sessions. The technical assistance specialist
informed the clinical director on 12/16/2022. The clinical director spoke with the facilitator who
stated she remembered which lessons were completed on those dates. On 12/16/2022, the
facilitator marked each attendance sheet with the chapter and objective the group discussed.
According to the clinical director, the program’s practice guidelines in the event of turnover is one
of the other trained facilitators on staff will continue with the group cohort.
The program can earn 2 points if facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
At the time of the review, the program did not meet criteria to earn a score of 2.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
A review of documentation for the annual review period of December 15, 2021 through December
14, 2022 shows there were seven fidelity monitorings completed for facilitators of Impact of Crime.
The program was missing fidelity monitorings for the month of January 2022 for one case
manager and the month of July 2022 for another case manager. The program was also missing
fidelity monitoring checklists for the months of August 2022, September 2022, October 2022, and
November 2022. The fidelity monitoring was completed by a therapist and a case manager. The
clinical director or regional clinical director discusses the fidelity check with the facilitator upon
completion.
According to the former regional clinical director, the clinical director monitors each group monthly
and provides SPEP fidelity checklist and status report for documentation. The team also has
monthly SPEP meetings with the regional team. The clinical director or regional clinical director
discusses the fidelity check with the facilitator upon completion.
The program can earn 2 points if fidelity monitoring is completed every month 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.
According to documentation reviewed for the annual review period of December 15, 2021 through
December 14, 2022, the program did not identify any corrective actions on their monthly internal
fidelity monitorings for facilitators of Impact of Crime. The clinical director or regional clinical
director will discuss any identified corrective actions with the facilitator and will re-evaluate during
the next month’s fidelity check.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
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 provided two staff evaluations to review for the annual review period of December
15, 2021 through December 14, 2022. There was one ninety (90)-day evaluation and one annual
staff evaluation. The ninety(90)-day evaluation was completed for the recreation therapist (who is
now a case manager). The annual evaluation was completed for a case manager. The
evaluations have an area to document the facilitator’s skill delivering Impact of Crime. The case
manager’s annual evaluation contained detailed information about the staff’s delivery of the
primary service. The recreation therapist’s ninety-day evaluation did not contain any information
about the facilitator’s skill in delivering the primary service.
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 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 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 70% (14 of 20) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates a target of 24 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 20 youth in the
sample, 90% (18 of 20) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 20%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 65%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 7 youth
Moderate-High = 6 youth
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 0%
High Score: 0 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 0%
Table 2
High = 0 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 20 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, 65% (13 of 20) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 0% (0 of 20) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 0 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 10 20 50%
Amount of Service: Duration 6 10 60%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 5 25 20%
Totals 49 85 58%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Alachua Academy.
20 youth completed the program during the review period. Of those youth, all 20 were included in
the sample.
The program scored Medium for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 6 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 20 total youth sampled, all
20 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 14 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 5 and 20 weeks of
service, with an average of 17 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 20 total youth
sampled, all 20 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 18 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 5 and 43 hours of
service, with an average of 32 hours.
The program was awarded 5 available points for Risk Level of Youth Served. This is calculated
using data from the Community Assessment Tool (CAT). This score reflects youths' most recent
CAT score prior to placement at the program. The program itself has no control over youths' CAT
risk level because the scored assessment was administered prior to the youths' admission.
Had the percentage of youth served with Moderate-High and High risk to reoffend been higher,
and this report awarded each 25 of the available points for this section, the Program Optimization
Percentage for this service would increase to 81%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Alachua Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
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.
Alachua Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for all
youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 10

file_name: FY2022-23 Alachua IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime