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: Nonsecure Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

Nonsecure Substance Abuse Treatment Programs are six (6)-month medium-intensity residential programs, consisting of a two (2)-month intensive treatment component in which offenders live and remain at the facility twenty-four (24) hours per day, followed by a four (4)-month employment/re-entry component. These programs target offenders who have failed outpatient or day/night treatment, or are evaluated as needing this level of structured environment. The programs provide an alternative residential sanction to the court. They began September 1, 1991.

Profiles of Nonsecure Residential Program Facilities

Facility Dates of Operation Number
Beds
Funded
Agape Center -Homestead February, 1995 - 30
A Better Way of Miami March, 2000 - 30
Broken Glass / Steps* June, 1995 - November 1999 0
Broward Bridges December, 1991 - 155
Keys to Recovery December, 1994 - 12
CARP - Jensen Beach June, 1995 - 45
CARP, West Palm Beach April, 1992 - 45
Central FL Human Services* January, 1992 - Feb. 1997 0
Concept House, Miami April 24, 2000 - March 2001 30
DACCO - Tampa December, 1991 - 75
Dade Bridge-Miami* Feb. 1995 - June 1998 0
Salvation Army- Daytona September, 1991 - 50
Disc Village-Tallahassee December, 1991 - October, 2000 30
Drug Abuse Foundation, WPB January, 1992 - 30
First Step Sarasota July, 1993 - 50
Ft. Myers SA December, 1991 - 47
Gainesville Bridge May 1, 1995 - 50
House of Hope July 1, 1999 - 70
Jacksonville-SA September, 1991 - 60
Nonsecure Programs Inc./Leon October, 2000 - 70
Nonsecure Programs Inc./ Pensacola December, 1992 - 60
Nonsecure Programs Inc./Panama City March, 1995 - 60
Nonsecure Programs Inc./Ocala September, 1991 - 75
Orlando Bridge September , 1991 - 120
Polk Bridge February, 1997 - 85
Sanford Bridge November, 1993 - 88
Serenity House* Nov. 1, 1994-Nov. 1, 1995 0
St, Pete Goodwill December, 1991 - 105
Susan B Anthony March 1, 2000 - 8
Tampa Crossroads January, 1992 - 21
Village Partners/South-Miami December, 1991 - February , 2000 0
TOTAL 1,501
*These facilities are no longer under contract
Average Per Diem $36.76

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, 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.
  • Over the course of 10 years, the number of different offenders participating in a nonsecure program has increased from 946 to more than 4,000.
  • As seen in the June 30th offender counts for each year, there are now about 1,280 offenders in the programs. This has nearly tripled since inception (474 at the end of FY 1991-92).
  • Since 1991, the programs have served 34,704 different offenders.

Table IB: FY 2000-01 Nonsecure Treatment Program Enrollment Data by Facility

  • Most programs have less than 100 offenders at any given time
  • The largest programs during this fiscal year have been Bridges of Orlando and Broward Bridges.

Outcomes

Table 1C(a): Nonsecure 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, Nonsecure programs have had a 59.6% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits) since inception.
  • Success rates have increased slightly over the six (6)-year period, from 59.4% to 60.8%.
  • The proportion of offenders whose final program outcome is an administrative exit has decreased from 10.5% to 5.8%.

Table 1C(b): Nonsecure 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 FY1998-99, Nonsecure programs had a 61.3% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).

Table 1D: FY 1999-00 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 44.8% for First Step Sarasota and St. Pete Goodwill, to 75.0% for Keys to Recovery and Village Part - Miami.
  • On average, these programs had a 59.0% success rate with each offender exiting their program during this fiscal year. Administrative exits averaged 7.0% 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 1998-99 (2-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • At two (2) years after the program completion, recommitment rates for nonsecure program completers (29.5%) are substantially lower than for program non-completers (50.4%), and this pattern is true for all recommitment types - prison, supervision, new offense, and technical.
  • Completers are less than half as likely as non-completers to commit a new offense and return to prison (5.7% vs.12.8%) or supervision (3.1% vs. 6.3%).
  • The greatest difference is for recommitment to prison, where those who completed programs have less than half the rate for non-completers (15.9% vs. 32.8%).

Table 1F: FY 1997-98 (3-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

  • For a three (3)-year follow-up period, nonsecure program completers remain lower than non-completers in overall recommitments (39.2% vs. 55.1%).
  • The only category which is greater for completers than non-completers is return to supervision for a technical violation (8.0% vs. 6.1%).
  • The greatest differences are for recommitment to prison for completers and non-completers (23.4% vs. 39.4%).

Table 1G: FY 1996-97 (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 43.8% of completers were recommitted, compared to 64.8% for non-completers.
  • The greatest differences are for recommitment to prison for completers and non-completers (25.5% vs. 44.5%).

Table 1H: FY 1995-96 (5-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

  • Five (5)-year recommitments average 52.0% for completers vs. 65.9% for non-completers.
  • Completers are slightly higher (10.0%) than non-completers (7.5%) in returns to supervision for a technical violation, but remain lower for prison commitments (29.2% vs. 45.2%).

Table 1I: FY 1994-95 (6-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

  • Six (6)-year recommitments average 53.1% for completers vs. 69.4% for non-completers.
  • Program completers remain slightly more likely to serve another period of supervision than non-completers (21.3% vs. 20.0%), but are substantially lower in admissions to prison (31.8% vs. 49.4%).