summary: SPEP - FY21-22

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami-Dade, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Period: November 15, 2020-November 14, 2021
SPEP Review Conducted: December 21, 2021
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: 2/10/22
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 Thinking for a Change.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve months of
records. The program is currently utilizing the Thinking for a Change (T4C) 3.1 curriculum. T4C
utilizes a problem-solving program with both cognitive restructuring, and social skills interventions
bringing the identification of thinking, beliefs, attitudes, and values to behavior. Effort is focused
on helping youth become aware of their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs in particular
circumstances.
The program provided documentation of five staff members being trained in the primary service.
Their position titles are: director of case management, staff development specialist, recreational
therapist, youth specialist and two case managers. The director of case management and two
case managers facilitated T4C during the past twelve months. One of the case managers is no
longer with the program. When staff are identified as facilitators, they are trained during a four-
day, in-person training. No one particular job title is identified as sole facilitators of T4C.
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.
A review of documents revealed the use of the curriculum Thinking for a Change (T4C) 3.1. The
program utilizes a highly detailed, commercially-produced manual which provides lesson plans,
facilitator notes, ideas to facilitate the curriculum, and long-term planning schedules.
All youth assigned to the program complete T4C. Groups are held on Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday. Groups are conducted as closed groups, meaning once a group commenced, no new
youth can be added.
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 Thinking for a Change was observed virtually. The group session took place in a
classroom with nine youth in attendance. The facilitator modeled the role play, then each youth
was able to practice the new skill. There were no behavior issues observed during the group. The
facilitator did not read the script verbatim but did have the facilitator's guide open on the desk to
ensure all points of the lesson were covered.
Basic Score: 1 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.
A review of documentation and informal conversation with the director of case management,
revealed the program had one facilitator leave during a cohort. In June 2021, a case manager left
the cohort and the director of case management, who is trained in Thinking for a Change (T4C),
took over and completed the cohort without interruption.
The program facilitated four cohorts of T4C during the review period. The first cohort began
before the review period began. On September 20, 2020 a cohort started with five youth. The
cohort was completed on January 25, 2021 with four youth. One youth was released from the
program.
A second cohort began on March 1, 2020 with seven youth. The cohort ended on July 12, 2021
with five youth. One youth was transferred to adult jail and a second youth was released from the
program.
A third cohort began on July 26, 2021 with eleven youth. It ended on October 11, 2021 with nine
youth. One youth was released from the program and one youth was removed from group for
refusal to attend/comply with group rules.
A fourth began on September 13, 2021 with eight youth, and was ongoing at the time of the
annual review with eight youth.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
According to documentation provided, internal fidelity monitoring took place on a monthly basis for
facilitators of Thinking for a Change, without exception. The fidelity monitoring was completed by
another trained facilitator.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a policy for corrective action plans for facilitators of Thinking for a Change. In
the event a facilitator is in need of help with service delivery, the director of case management will
sit with the facilitator and develop a plan to improve the facilitator's skills.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A review of annual evaluations documented the facilitators were given credit for their group
facilitation. The facilitators' skills in the delivery of Thinking for a Change was also evaluated by
supervisors.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 15 youth in the
sample, 80% (12 of 15) 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 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 15 youth in the
sample, 80% (12 of 15) 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: 18 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 72%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 73%
Moderate to High Score: 5 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 42%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 0 youth
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 15 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 42%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 7 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 15 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, 73% (11 of 15) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 5 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 47% (7 of 15) 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 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 18 25 72%
Totals 89 100 89%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Miami Youth
Academy.
19 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 15 total youth sampled, all
15 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 12 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 7 and 20 weeks of
service, with an average of 17 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 15 total youth
sampled, all 15 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 12 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 19 and 51 hours of
service, with an average of 42 hours.
The program was awarded 18 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 92%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
Miami 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


state: FL

facility_name: Miami Youth Academy

summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami-Dade, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Cannabis Youth Treatment
SPEP Review Period: November 1, 2021-October 31, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: December 13, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: March 30, 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: 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: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve (12) months
of records. The Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) program consists of two individual sessions of
Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) and three weekly group sessions of Cognitive-
Behavioral Therapy (CBT). The MET sessions focus on factors that motivate participants who
abuse substances to change, while in the CBT sessions, participants learn skills to cope with
problems and meet needs in ways that do not involve turning to marijuana or alcohol, increase
their social support network and non-drug activities, and how to avoid and cope with relapses.
The MET/CBT12 model comprises the complete 5-session model combined with 7 supplemental
cognitive behavioral sessions covering additional coping skills.
The program showed documentation of three staff members being trained in the primary service-
the clincial director, the retired clinical director who is working as needed with the program during
the transition, and one therapist.
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 commercially-produced curriculum Cannabis Youth Treatment. The
service has both a participant guide, used to facilitate large group discussions, and a facilitator's
guide for ideas, key topic reinforcements and disucssion points. The participant handbook also
has reinforcement exercises used for both in class work and homework.
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.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 4
A session of Cannabis Youth Treatment was observed in person during the annual review period.
Nine youth were present, along with the facilitator and two direct care staff members. The session
began with a "check-in" on the current emotional status of each youth. The rules of the group
were written and reveiwed by one of the youth and a large group discussion began about anger
triggers and ways to handle triggers in pro-social actions. The group was slightly longer than one
hour in length and the facilitator did a good job of keeping the youth on task.
Basic Score: 2 Point(s)
d. Facilitator Turnover
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
Measures the extent to which facilitators of the specific intervention/service have changed as
well as gaps in service of that Primary Service.
According to documentation provided by the program, no facilitator turnover occurred which
adversely affected delivery of Cannabis Youth Treatment. The groups are co-facilitated with
trained staff so if one person leaves, the other trained facilitator can complete the cohort with out
interruption.
The program provided documentation of three cohorts being facilitated during the review period.
The first cohort began on January 26, 2022 with eight youth and was completed on March 23,
2022 with all eight youth. A second cohort commenced on May 18, 2022 with eight youth and
ended on July 13, 2022 with all eight youth. A third cohort began on August 10, 2022 with nine
youth and was on-going at the time of the review.
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to conduct internal fidelity monitoring. Internal fidelity
monitoring is scheduled to take place on a monthly basis. One cohort had one month of missing
fidelity montioring. All other cohorts were monitored monthly.
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.
A review of documentation confirmed no corrective actions were initiated for facilitators of
Cannabis Youth Treatment during the review period. The facilitators were found to be delivering
the primary service in an acceptable manner. If a facilitator is found to be in need of a corrective
action, the director of treatment will sit with the facilitator and together develop a corrective action
plan for improvement.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A copy of annual employee evaluations for facilitators of Cannabis Youth Treatment were
provided as part of the review. Each employee who facilitated the primary service were rated in
their skill in service delivery.
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 11 youth in the
sample, 0% (0 of 11) reached at least the indicated target duration. Further explanation is detailed
in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (duration) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information System
(JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Duration is included for the youth in the SPEP sample.
4. Amount of Service – Contact Hours
Basic Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Research indicates a target of 12 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 11 youth in the
sample, 100% (11 of 11) reached the indicated target contact hours. Further explanation is
detailed in the Summary and Recommendations below.
Note: Dosage information (contact hours) is calculated from the Juvenile Justice Information
System (JJIS) Evidence-Based Services module. Contact hours are included for the youth in the
SPEP sample.
5. Risk Level of Youth Served:
Basic Score: 23 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 92%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 91%
Moderate to High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 83%
Table 1
Moderate = 2 youth
Moderate-High = 3 youth
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 11 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 46%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 5 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 11 youth
The risk level score is compiled by calculating the total percent of the SPEP sample that score
Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend and also the total percent of the SPEP sample that score High-
Risk to reoffend.
Of the SPEP sample, 91% (10 of 11) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 10 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 45% (5 of 11) 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 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 0 10 0%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 10 10 100%
Risk Level of Youth Served 23 25 92%
Totals 88 100 88%
This SPEP report evaluates Cannabis Youth Treatment, an intervention delivered at Miami Youth
Academy.
28 youth completed the program during the review period.
Cannabis Youth Treatment was designated as a primary service on December 15, 2021.
Removed from this sample were youth who were released shortly thereafter and/or received the
full dosage of the previously designated substance abuse treatment service.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
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
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
SPEP standards to deviate from the standard dosage targets for Group 5 services (15 weeks; 45
hours).
The program earned 0 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 11 total youth sampled, all
11 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 0 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 10 and 11 weeks of
service, with an average of 10 weeks.
The program earned 10 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 11 total youth
sampled, all 11 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 11 received at least the
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed 12 hours of service.
The program was awarded 23 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
fidelity monitoring is completed every month for each facilitator.
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for
all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

source: DJJ

report_type: SPEP

file_name: FY2022-23 MYA CYT.pdf

program_name_raw: Miami Youth Academy - TrueCore

program_status_note: Closed

service_type: Cannabis Youth Treatment


summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami-Dade, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Impact of Crime
SPEP Review Period: November 1, 2021-October 31, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: December 13, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: March 30, 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: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve (12) months
of records. Impact of Crime (IOC) is based on the belief that crime is more than just a legal
definition, but rather, crime affects the victim, the offender, their families, and the community. The
harm caused brings with it the moral responsibility to all involved. The focus of Impact of Crime is
to help offenders understand the harm they have created and then assist them in taking personal
accountability for their actions. Together, the victim, offender, and the community arrive at a viable
solution to repair the harm caused and the offender. Once the harm is repaired, the offender
subsequently reintegrates back into the community. Facilitators are encouraged to bring in victim
impact speakers throughout the course of the curriculum.
IOC is facilitated as a closed group, meaning once a cohort commences, no new youth may be
added. The program showed evidence of three case managers and one director of case
management being trained in the primary service.
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 commercially produced curriculum Impact of Crime: Addressing the
Harm to Victims and the Community. It is highly detailed providing a facilitator's manual, and
student workbook. The facilitator's manual provides lessons plans, classroom management ideas,
and tips for engaging youth discussions. The student manual provides reproducible worksheets to
help facilitate group discussions, and review concepts learned during the group sessions.
Homework materials are also utilized in the student manual to re-enforce learned concepts.
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 the primary service was observed during an earlier quarterly review. The group was
held at 6pm in the evening in a classroom setting at the program. Eight youth were present in the
group, as well as a case manager facilitating the group and two direct care staff members. The
group opened with a review of last week's topics and a discussion of hate crimes and the game
myth/reality of different types of hate crimes. The group then turned to the main topic which was
the "I have a dream" speech by Dr. Martin Luther King. A discussion of not only race relations in
current and past times, but also focus on what dreams the youth held about their own futures.
The group ended with various youth sharing a short essay they had written about their dreams.
The class was approximately one hour, and the youth remained on task the entire time. No
behavioral issues were observed in the group.
Basic Score: 1 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.
According to documentation provided by the program, facilitator did occur twice. In one cohort of
the primary service, A case manager left during the middle of a cohort, and the director of case
management provided coverage for two sessions. Another case manager completed the group.
During another cohort, a facilitator was on medical leave and the director of case management
provided coverage for one session. In each circumstance, the group continued as regularly
scheduled.
The program showed evidence of three cohorts of the service being facilitated during the review
period. A fourth cohort was ongoing at the time of the review. The first cohort was ongoing at the
start of the review period on November 2, 2021, with twelve (12) youth. The cohort was completed
on January 13, 2021, with twelve (12) youth. A second cohort began on January 18, 2022, with
eight youth and was completed on May 10, 2022, with eight youth. The third cohort began May
17, 2022, with eight youth and was completed on September 6, 2022, with eight youth. A fourth
cohort began on September 13, 2022, with ten (10) youth and was ongoing with eight youth at the
time of this review..
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: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
Internal fidelity monitoring took place on a monthly basis. Each person facilitating group was
observed and the monitoring was conducted by staff member trained in Impact of Crime.If a
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
facilitator is found to be in need of a corrective action, the director of case managment will sit with
the facilitator and together develop a corrective action plan for improvement.
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
A review of documentation revealed that no corrective action was initated during the review
period. The facilitators were found to be delivering Impact of Crime in an acceptable manner. If a
facilitator is found to be in need of a corrective action, the director of case management will sit
with the facilitator and together develop a corrective action plan for improvement.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A copy of the annual employee evaluations were provided as part of the review. Each employee
who facilitated Impact of Crime was rated on their effectiveness of service delivery.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 16 weeks for this type of service. Of the 27 youth in the
sample, 96% (26 of 27) 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 27 youth in the
sample, 96% (26 of 27) 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: 17 Points
Program Optimization Score: 25 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 68%
Percentage of Youth with Moderate, Moderate-High, and High-Risk Levels to Reoffend: 78%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 9 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 33%
High Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 77%
Table 2
High = 9 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 27 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, 78% (21 of 27) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 33% (9 of 27) youth scored High-Risk to reoffend, for a score of 10 points.
Note: The latest Community Assessment Tool (CAT) prior to the placement date was used in the
derivation of the risk level score. This CAT provides the best indication of the risk to re-offend
level of the youth when the youth was first placed in the program.
Summary and Recommendations
Program Program
Category Basic Score Optimization Optimization
Score Percentage
Primary and Supplemental Service Type 20 20 100%
Quality of Service Delivery 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 17 25 68%
Totals 73 85 86%
This SPEP report evaluates Impact of Crime, an intervention delivered at Miami Youth Academy.
28 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 27 total youth sampled, all
27 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 26 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6 and 35 weeks of
service, with an average of 18 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 27 total youth
sampled, all 27 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 26 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 11 and 63 hours of
service, with an average of 34 hours.
The program was awarded 17 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 95%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Impact of Crime is an intervention suitable for all youth. The Department recommends providing
this service to every youth in the program.
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for
all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2022-23 MYA IOC.pdf

service_type: Impact of Crime


summary: SPEP - FY22-23

raw_content:
Standardized Program Evaluation
Protocol [SPEP] Report
Miami Youth Academy
TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC
(Contract Provider)
10855 SW 84th Street
Miami-Dade, Florida 33173
Primary Service: Thinking for a Change
SPEP Review Period: November 1, 2021-October 31, 2022
SPEP Review Conducted: December 13, 2022
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Report Date: March 30, 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: 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 Thinking for a Change.
The program was awarded 30 points because the Primary Service is identified as a Group 5
Service. The specific Sub-Component Service Type identified is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
The Primary Service was identified as this type of service as it is intended to correct faulty
cognitions and perceptions and provides skills individuals can use to monitor thought patterns and
correct behaviors.
An additional 5 points was awarded based on a Qualifying Supplemental Service. The Qualifying
Supplemental Service was identified as None (automatic 5 points added to score), which was not
demonstrated to have been implemented.
The Primary and Supplemental Service Raw Score is equal to the sum of the Primary Service
points plus the Qualifying Supplemental Service points.
Note: Quality information is evaluated during quarterly and annual reviews.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 3
Basic Score: 20 Points
2. Overall Quality of Service Delivery Score POS: 20 Points
POP: 100%
The Quality of Service Delivery Score is the sum of the scores for the seven treatment quality
indicators. The Program Optimization Percentage Rating determines the Overall Quality of
Service Level:
Indicator Sum Score 0-3 = Low; Sum Score 4-7 = Medium; Sum Score 8-10 = High.
Sum of all Indicator Scores (a – g below): 9 Points
Overall Quality of Service Delivery Level:
Low (Raw Score = 5)
Medium (Raw Score = 10)
High (Raw Score = 20 Points)
Basic Score: 1 Point(s)
a. Facilitator Training
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
All facilitator(s) of the Primary Service must have received formal training specific to the
intervention or model/protocol.
The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) review encompasses twelve (12) months
of records. The program is currently utilizing the Thinking for a Change (T4C) 4.0 curriculum. T4C
utilizes a problem-solving program with both cognitive restructuring and social skills interventions,
bringing the identification of thinking, beliefs, attitudes and values to behavior. Effort is focused on
helping youth become aware of their thoughts, feelings and beliefs in particular circumstances.
The program showed documentation of four staff having been trained and facilitated group during
the review period- the director of case management, one case manager, one recreation therapist
and one direct care staff supervisor.
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.
A review of documents and records revealed the evidence-based curriculum Thinking for a
Change (T4C) 4.0. The program utilizes a highly detailed, commercially-produced manual which
provides lesson plans, facilitator notes, ideas to facilitate the curriculum, and long-term planning
schedules. The manual is maintained online. Facilitators are given access to the materials once
they have successfully completed train-the-trainer training. T4C is conducted as a closed group,
meaning once a group has commenced, no new youth may be added.
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 Thinking for a Change was observed. The facilitator had a copy of the facilitator
guide open as a reference. The group consisted of the facilitator reviewing key points from the
previous lesson, then having the youth read definations of new key words to be introduced in this
group. The youth both completed individual exercises in their student editions, and had a large
group discussion about the ripple effects of crime. The youth were generally engaged and
participated in the discussion. No behavioral issues were observed.
Basic Score: 1 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.
According to documentation provided by the program, facilitator turnover occurred during two
cohorts of Thinking for a Change (T4C). In each case, another trained facilitator was able to
immediately step in and continue the group without delay.
The program showed documentation of five cohorts of T4C being facilitated during the review
period. A cohort was completed on November 10, 2021 with eight youth. That cohort commenced
under a different review period and started with eight youth. A second cohort began on November
1, 2021 with eight youth and was completed on January 10, 2022 with eight youth. A third cohort
began on January 14, 2022 and was completed on May 2, 2022 with seven youth. One youth was
released before completing the service. A fourth cohort began on May 9, 2022 and was
completed on August 24, 2022 with eight youth. A third cohort began on September 14, 2022 with
eleven youth and was on-going on October 28,2022 with eleven youth.
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: 2 Point(s)
e. Internal Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 2 Points
The program has a process to monitor the delivery of the intervention to examine how closely
actual implementation matches the model protocol.
The program has a process in place to monitor the delivery of Thinking for a Change. Internal
fidelity monitoring took place on a monthly basis for facilitators of Thinking for a Change. Each
person facilitating group was observed and the monitoring was conducted by staff member trained
in the primary service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 5
Basic Score: 1 Point
f. Corrective Action based on Fidelity Monitoring
Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
The program has a process by which corrective action is applied and demonstrated based on
the fidelity monitoring of the delinquency intervention/therapeutic service.
The program has a process in place to address corrective actions identified during monthly
internal fidelity monitoring. A review of documentation confirmed no corrective actions were
initated during the review period. The facilitators were found to be delivering Thinking for a
Change in an acceptable manner.
g. Evaluation of Facilitator Skill Delivering the Basic Score: 1 Point
Intervention Maximum Possible Score: 1 Point
Performance evaluations of the facilitators of the specific intervention/service include
evaluation of skill in delivering the intervention/service.
A copy of the annual employee evaluations were provided as part of the review. Each employee
who facilitated Thinking for a Change was rated in their effectiveness in service delivery.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 6
3. Amount of Service - Duration
Basic Score: 8 Points
Program Optimization Score: 10 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 80%
Research indicates the target duration of 15 weeks for this type of service. Of the 28 youth in the
sample, 89% (25 of 28) 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 45 contact hours for this type of service. Of the 28 youth in the
sample, 89% (25 of 28) 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: 79%
Moderate to High Score: 7 Points
Program Optimization Score: 12 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 58%
Table 1
Moderate = 4 youth
Moderate-High = 8 youth
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 28 youth
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 7
Percentage of Youth with High-Risk Level to Reoffend: 36%
High Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Score: 13 Points
Program Optimization Percentage: 100%
Table 2
High = 10 youth
Total Youth in Sample = 28 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, 79% (22 of 28) youth scored Moderate to High-Risk to reoffend, for a score
of 7 points.
Of the SPEP sample, 36% (10 of 28) 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 20 20 100%
Amount of Service: Duration 8 10 80%
Amount of Service: Contact Hours 8 10 80%
Risk Level of Youth Served 20 25 80%
Totals 91 100 91%
This SPEP report evaluates Thinking for a Change, an intervention delivered at Miami Youth
Academy.
28 youth completed the program during the review period.
The program scored High for Quality of Service Delivery.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Duration. Of the 28 total youth sampled, all
28 included dosage with end dates in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 25 received at least the
recommended weeks of service. Youth in the sample completed between 2 and 23 weeks of
service, with an average of 16 weeks.
The program earned 8 points for Amount of Service: Contact Hours. Of the 28 total youth
sampled, all 28 included dosage in the EBS Module. Of those youth, 25 received at least the
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 8
recommended hours of service. Youth in the sample completed between 6 and 53 hours of
service, with an average of 42 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). 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 96%. As stated previously, the Risk Level of Youth
Served score is not under the control of the program.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Quality of Service Delivery score by ensuring
facilitator turnover does not impact groups.
Miami Youth Academy can optimize their SPEP Amount of Service score by ensuring dosage for
all youth is recorded accurately in EBS and by ensuring youth receive the full targeted dosage of
service.
Department of Juvenile Justice | Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol [SPEP] Report 9

file_name: FY2022-23 MYA T4C.pdf

service_type: Thinking for a Change