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

Florida Department of Corrections
Timothy H. Cannon, Interim Secretary

Executive Summary

Probation and Restitution Centers

Probation and Restitution Centers are community-based residential programs for selected offenders under Department supervision, and recently released inmates. The program consists of a four (4) to six (6) month Residential Program Phase (Phase I) followed by a three (3) to six (6) month extended Support and Follow-up Services Phase (Phase II) during which participants reside within the community. The PRC offers a sentencing alternative to the court while providing a resource for participants who experience difficulty meeting their court-imposed financial obligations to victims, the Courts, and the Department. Additionally, PRC's provide transitional assistance to newly released inmates during their re-entry into the community. The program provides a continuum of services that offer at a minimum employability, job placement and budgeting skills development and assistance; vocational and educational training through linkages to community-based employers and providers; substance abuse services; transitional housing; support services to facilitate successful participation in the community; and, other such services to promote personal responsibility, self-improvement and public safety.

Profiles of Probation and Restitution Centers
On June 30, 2004

Facility Status Facility Capacity
Jacksonville PRC – The Salvation Army Active 25
St. Pete PRC - Goodwill Industries- Suncoast, Inc. Opened October 15, 2002 70
Pensacola PRC - Non-Secure Programs, Inc. Opened January 1, 2003 40
Orlando PRC - Westcare Florida, Inc. (Original Vendor) Non-Secure Programs, Inc. (Current Vendor) Opened January 1, 2003 Assignment June 20, 2003 80
TOTAL 215
Average Per Diem on June 30, 2004 $35.09

Profiles of Secure Residential Programs
Closed during FY 2002-03

Facility Dates of Operation
Bradenton PRC Closed September 2002
Note: It was anticipated that the PRC's would not be funded after FY 2000-01. Closure of some centers was initiated. The 2001-2002 state budget did fund the program and a decision was made to outsource the services. Therefore, non-contracted program closures continued. A new program was designed.

Workload

Table 3A: PRC Enrollment Data by Fiscal Year
  • PRC facilities began with 1,077 new enrollments in the start-up year and remained relatively constant from FY 1994-95 through FY 1999-00. Enrollments dropped to 645 in FY 2000-01 and to 228 in 2002-03, due to the anticipated closure of PRCs. Enrollments increased slightly in FY 2003-04 to 363.
  • For FY 2003-04, 392 different offenders participated in a PRC.
  • On June 30, 2004, there were only 97 offenders in the program.
  • Since 1994, the facilities have served 9,951 different offenders.
Table 3B: FY 2003-04 PRC Enrollment Data by Facility
  • Nonsecure Programs/Pensacola-PRC had 120 new enrollments in their first full year of operation.
  • Goodwill/Phase 1 PRC had the highest number of different offenders enrolled in 2003-04 (164).

Outcomes

Table 3C(a): PRC 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, PRCs had a 45.6% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits) from FY 1994-95 to FY 2000-01.
  • Success rates have increased from 36.8% in FY 1994-95 to 48.0% in FY 2000-01.
  • The proportion of offenders whose final program outcome is an administrative exit has averaged 7.6% from FY 1994-95 to FY 2000-01.
Table 3C(b): PRC Outcomes for Offenders by Fiscal Year
  • This table shows outcomes based on a two-year follow-up after the offender first entered a PRC. For FY 2001-02, the PRC program had a 39.6% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).
Table 3D: FY 2003-04 PRC 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 17.0% for the Salvation Army-Jacksonville PRC to 33.7% for Goodwill/Phase 1 PRC and Nonsecure Programs/Pensacola PRC.
  • On average, these programs had a 31.5% success rate with offenders exiting their program during FY 2003-04. Administrative exits averaged 10.9% for the year. As seen in the prior table, many of these administrative exits lead to subsequent enrollments in other programs.

Recommitments

Table 3E: FY 2001-02 (2-Year Follow-up), PRC Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • At two years past program completion, recommitment rates for PRC program completers (41.8%) are lower than for program non-completers (54.5%).
  • This pattern holds true for each type of recommitment except return to supervision for a technical violation.
  • Prison recommitments (new offense or technical) for program completers are less than half that for non-completers (15.4% vs. 34.9%).
  • There is a higher rate of return to supervision (new offense or technical) for completers (26.4%) than non-completers (19.6%).
Table 3F: FY 2000-01 (3-Year Follow-up), PRC Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • For a three-year follow-up period, PRC program completers remain lower than non-completers in overall recommitments (40.1% vs. 58.2%).
  • The greatest differences are for recommitment to prison (new offense or technical) for completers (22.0%) and non-completers (42.4%).
  • There is a slightly higher rate of return to supervision (new offense or technical) for completers (18.1%) than non-completers (15.8%).
Table 3G: FY 1999-00 (4-Year Follow-up), PRC Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • While the overall recommitment rate increased slightly from three-year rates, program completers (41.4%) remain significantly lower than non-completers (63.3%).
  • The greatest differences are for recommitment to prison (new offense or technical) for completers (22.9%) and non-completers (46.1%).
  • There is a slightly higher rate of return to supervision (new offense or technical) for completers (18.5%) than non-completers (17.2%).
Table 3H: FY 1998-99 (5-Year Follow-up), PRC Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • For this cohort, at five years past program exit, recommitments average 48.8% for program completers and 67.4% for non-completers.
  • Completers are slightly higher (22.2%) than non-completers (18.9%) in returns to supervision, but remain lower for prison commitments (26.6% vs. 48.5%).
Table 3I: FY 1997-98 (6-Year Follow-up), PRC Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • For this cohort, at six years past program exit, recommitments average 47.2% for program completers and 72.6% for non-completers.
  • Completers are significantly higher (24.7%) than non-completers (17.3%) in returns to supervision, but remain lower for prison commitments (22.5% vs. 55.3%).