Executive Summary

Nonsecure Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

Nonsecure Substance Abuse Treatment Programs are six (6) month community-based substance abuse therapeutic communities with two components. The Intensive Treatment Component (ITC) lasts two (2) months. During the ITC the offender only participates in counseling and therapeutic and educational activities at the residential facility. The Employment/Re-Entry component (ERC) lasts four (4) months with a primary focus on successful re-entry into the community. During the ERC gaining and maintaining employment is incorporated into the offenders treatment plan. The offender resides in the treatment facility while maintaining gainful employment in the community. In this component the offender participates in a minimum of six hours of counseling per week. The residential program is staffed by paid-awake staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Programs receiving funds through the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) federal grant are considered RSAT programs.

Profiles of Nonsecure Residential Program Facilities On June 30, 2003

Facility		Start Date	Number of Beds
Better Way of Miami, Inc.		March 2000	30
Bridges of America, Inc., dba The Orlando Bridge		September 1991	120
Bridges of America, Inc., dba The Polk Bridge		February 1997	85
Bridges of America, Inc., dba The Sanford Bridge		November 1993	88
Bridges of America, Inc., dba The St. Petersburg Bridge (RSAT)		July 30 2001	75
Bridges of America, Inc., dba The Turning Point Bridge (Broward Bridges)		December 1991	155
CARP-Jensen Beach		June 1995	45
CARP-West Palm Beach		April 1992	45
DACCO-Tampa		December 1991	75
DACCO-Tampa (RSAT)		November 1 2001	75
Drug Abuse Foundation-West Palm Beach		January 1992	30
First Step of Sarasota		July 1993	50
Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc. - St. Pete		December 1991	60
House of Hope, Inc., dba House of Hope & Stepping-Stones		August 1999	38
		February 2000	12
House of Hope, Inc., dba House of Hope & Stepping-Stones	Nonsecure	August 1999	38
	Dual Diagnosis	February 2000	12
Nonsecure Programs, Inc. – Ocala		September 1991	75
Nonsecure Programs, Inc. - Panama City		March 1995	60
Nonsecure Programs, Inc. – Pensacola		December 1992	60
Nonsecure Programs, Inc. – Tallahassee		October 2000	70
South Florida Jail Ministries, Inc. dba Agape Women’s Center – Homestead		February 1995	30
Susan B. Anthony Center, Inc. – Lauderhill		March 1 2000	8
Tampa Crossroads, Inc.		January 1992	17
The Guidance Clinic of the Middle Keys, Inc. (Keys to Recovery) – Marathon		December 1994	12
The Salvation Army – Daytona		September 1991	50
The Salvation Army - Ft. Myers		December 1991	47
The Salvation Army – Jacksonville		September 1991	60
TOTAL			1,472
Average Per Diem on June 30, 2004			$39.19

Workload

Table 1A: Nonsecure Treatment Program Enrollment Data by Fiscal Year

• Nonsecure programs began with only 1,051 new enrollments in the start-up year (FY 1991-92), and increased steadily until 1996-97. After two (2) years of small declines in enrollments (FY 1997-98 and FY 1998-99), enrollments increased in FY 99-00, and then declined slightly to 3,546 in FY 2000-01. Enrollments increased in both FY 2001-02 (3,750) and FY 2002-03 (3,854). Enrollments (3,478) in 2003-04 have declined to slightly below the 2000-01 level.
• Over the course of 12 years, the number of different offenders participating in a Nonsecure program has increased from 946 to more than 4,300.
• There were 1,415 offenders in the programs on June 30, 2004. This has nearly tripled since inception (474 on June 30, 1992).
• Since 1991, the programs have served 48,073 different offenders.

Table 1B: Nonsecure Drug Treatment FY 2002-03 Program Enrollment Data by Facility

• Most programs have less than 100 offenders at any given time.
• The programs with the largest number of different offenders enrolled during this fiscal year are Bridges of Orlando (345) and Broward Bridges (418).

Outcomes

Table 1C(a): Nonsecure Treatment, Program Outcomes for Offenders by Fiscal Year

• This table shows outcomes based on a three year follow-up after the offender first entered a program of this type. They are counted as successful if they completed at least one program, regardless of the number of programs they participated in.
• On average, Nonsecure programs have had a 60.2% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits) since inception.
• Success rates have increased over the ten year period, from 59.4% in FY 1991-92 to 60.0% in FY 2000-01.
• The proportion of offenders whose final program outcome is an administrative exit has decreased over ten years from 10.5% to 6.1%.

Table 1C(b): Nonsecure Treatment, Program Outcomes for Offenders by Fiscal Year

• This table shows outcomes based on a two year follow-up after the offender first entered a program of this type. For FY 2001-02, Nonsecure programs had a 57.9% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).

Table 1D: FY 2002-03 Nonsecure Treatment Exit Data (Event-Based) by Facility

• Reviewing the outcome of the offender’s experience in each program from which they exited, the success rate varies from a low of 38.9% for Agape-Homestead to a high of 81.5% for Keys to Recovery.
• On average, these programs had a 58.3% success rate with each offender exiting their program during this fiscal year. Administrative exits averaged 9.0% for the year. As seen in the prior table, many of these administrative exits lead to subsequent enrollments in other programs.

Recommitments

Table 1E: FY 2000-01 (2-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

• At two years after the program completion, recommitment rates for Nonsecure program completers (35.2%) are substantially lower than for program non-completers (53.2%), and this pattern is true for each recommitment type except for return to supervision for a technical violation.
• Completers are less than half as likely as non-completers to commit a new offense and return to prison (6.8% vs.13.9%) or supervision (2.6% vs. 4.2%).
• The greatest difference in recommitment rates is between those admissions/returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation who completed the program (19.9%) and those who did not (37.6%).

Table 1F: FY 1999-00 (3-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

• For a three-year follow-up period, Nonsecure program completers remain lower than non-completers in overall recommitments (39.9% vs. 59.1%).
• The only category that is greater for completers than non-completers is return to supervision for a technical violation (11.2% vs. 8.0%).
• The greatest difference in recommitment rates is between those admissions/returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation who completed the program (22.3%) and those who did not (43.1%).

Table 1G: FY 1998-99 (4-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

• While the overall recommitment rate increases, program completers remain significantly lower than non-completers in all categories except recommitment to supervision for a technical violation.
• About 42.4% of completers were recommitted, compared to 63.3% for non-completers.
• The greatest difference in recommitment rates is between those admissions/returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation who completed the program (25.2%) and those who did not (47.5%).

Table 1H: FY 1997-98 (5-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

• Five-year recommitments average 47.1% for completers vs. 66.1% for non-completers.
• Completers are slightly higher (8.3%) than non-completers (7.1%) in returns to supervision for a technical violation, but remain lower for prison commitments (13.2% vs. 18.9%).
• The greatest difference in recommitment rates is between those admissions/returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation who completed the program (28.0%) and those who did not (46.5%).

Table 1I: Nonsecure Treatment FY 1996-97 (6-Year Follow-up) Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

• Six-year recommitments average 52.5% for completers vs. 67.5% for non-completers.
• Program completers are more likely to serve another period of supervision as non-completers (18.8% vs. 17.5%), but are substantially lower in admissions to prison (33.7% vs. 50.0%).