Skip navigation.
Home | About Us | Contact Us
Rick Scott, Governor
Florida Department of Corrections, Secretary Michael D. Crews

Florida Department of Corrections
Michael D. Crews, Secretary

Executive Summary: Secure Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

Secure Substance Abuse Treatment Programs are full service, long-term residential treatment programs providing a therapeutic community (TC) setting. This program type consists of an intensive treatment component lasting up to twelve (12) months, in which the offenders live and remain at the facility twenty-four (24) hours per day, followed by a six (6) month employment/re-entry component. This program type is appropriate for offenders who have had unsuccessful treatment outcomes in less restrictive settings and need long term rehabilitation in a controlled environment.

Profiles of Secure Residential Program Facilities

Facility Dates of Operation Number of
Beds Funded
Bradenton DTC June, 1993 - 125
DISC Village - Tallahassee November 1999-October 2000 15
Daytop Ocala* November, 1993 - June 1999 0
First Step September, 1991 - 10
Operation Par September, 1991 - 75
Phoenix House July 1999 180
Spectrum September, 1991 - 45
Spectrum - Federal January, 1995 - 33
TOTAL 483
*Services now provided by Phoenix House
Average Per Diem

$43.24

Workload

Table 2A: Secure Treatment Program Enrollment Data by Fiscal Year
  • Secure programs began with only 188 new enrollments in the start-up year, and increased substantially in the next three (3) years. Enrollments have remained relatively constant since 1994-95. This year's enrollments total 753.
  • For FY 2000-01, 1,168 different offenders participated in a Secure program.
  • On any given day, as seen in the June 30th offender counts for each year, there are about 508 offenders in the programs.
  • Since 1991, the programs have served 9,132 different offenders.

Table 2B: FY 2000-01 Secure Treatment Program Enrollment Data by Facility

  • The programs vary substantially in size. While both First Step and DISC Village - Tallahassee had less than ten (10) offenders on June 30, 2001, Phoenix House had nearly 200 offenders.

Outcomes

Table 2C(a): Secure Treatment, Program Outcomes for Offenders by Fiscal Year
  • This table shows outcomes based on a three (3)-year follow-up after the offender first entered a program of this type. If they participated in more than one (1) program, they are counted as successful if they completed at least one (1) program.
  • On average, Secure programs had a 36.4% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).
  • Success rates have dropped over the 7-year period, from 44.9% to 36.8%.
  • The proportion of offenders whose final program outcome is an administrative exit has decreased over the history of the programs from 23.0% to 10.7%.

Table 2C(b): Secure Treatment, Program Outcomes for Offenders by Fiscal Year

  • This table shows outcomes based on a two (2)-year follow-up after the offender first entered a program of this type. For FY 1998-99, Secure programs had a 43.9% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).

Table 2D: FY 2000-01 Secure Treatment Exit Data (Event-Based) by Facility

  • Looking at the outcome of the offender's experience in each program from which they exited, the success rate varies from 64.7% for DISC Village Tallahassee to 28.2% for Bradenton DTC. Bradenton DTC has a younger offender population than other facilities.
  • On average, these programs had a 41.3% success rate with offenders exiting their program during this fiscal year. Administrative exits averaged 13.2% for the year. As seen in the prior table, many of these administrative exits lead to subsequent enrollments in other programs.

Recommitments

Table 2E: FY 1998-99 (2-Year Follow-up), Secure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • At two (2) years after program exit, recommitment rates for Secure program completers are substantially lower than for program non-completers (22.5% vs. 52.8%). This pattern holds true for each type of recommitment except for return to supervision for a technical violation.
  • Completers (16.2%) are slightly higher in total recommitments to community supervision (for either a new offense or technical violation) than non-completers (15.5%)
  • Prison recommitments rates for program completers are much smaller non-completers (6.3% vs. 37.3%).

Table 2F: FY 1997-98 (3-Year Follow-up), Secure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

  • For a three (3)-year follow-up period, Secure program completers remain lower than non-completers in overall recommitments (29.2% vs. 66.7%), and this pattern is true for all recommitment types except return to supervision for a technical violation.
  • The greatest differences are for recommitment to prison (new offense or technical violations) for completers (18.1%) versus non-completers (54.2%).

Table 2G: FY 1996-97 (4-Year Follow-up), Secure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

  • While the overall recommitment rate increases, program completers remain significantly lower than non-completers (44.0% vs. 70.5%).
  • About 17.0% of completers were recommitted to supervision (new offense or technical), compared to 14.9% for non-completers.
  • The greatest differences are for recommitment to prison (new offense or technical violations) for completers (27.0%) versus non-completers (55.6%).

Table 2H: FY 1995-96 (5-Year Follow-up), Secure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

  • For this cohort, at five (5) years after program completion, recommitments average 49.0% for program completers and 74.8% for non-completers.
  • Completers are slightly higher (15.6%) than non-completers (10.3%) in returns to supervision, but remain significantly lower for prison commitments (33.5% vs. 64.5%).

Table 2I: FY 1994-95 (6-Year Follow-up), Secure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

  • Program completers remain slightly more likely to serve another period of supervision (22.9% vs. 17.5%), but are substantially lower in prison commitments (30.4% vs. 59.9%).
  • Note that the number of offenders who can be followed for a six (6)-year period is limited, since the programs were not as large in the early years.