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 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, 2002

Facility Dates of Operation Number of Beds
Agape Center-Homestead February 1995 30
A Better Way of Miami March 2000 30
Turning Point (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 Sarasota July 1993 50
House of Hope Nonsecure August 1999 38
Dual Diagnosis February 2000 12
Keys to Recovery December 1994 12
Nonsecure Programs-Leon October 2000 70
Nonsecure Programs-Pensacola December 1992 60
Nonsecure Programs-Panama City March 1995 60
Nonsecure Programs-Ocala September 1991 75
Orlando Bridge September 1991 120
Polk Bridge February 1997 85
Salvation Army-Daytona September 1991 50
Salvation Army-Ft. Myers December 1991 47
Salvation Army-Jacksonville September 1991 60
Sanford Bridge November 1993 88
St. Petersburg Bridge (RSAT) July 30 2001 75
St. Pete/Goodwill December 1991 60
Susan B. Anthony March 1 2000 8
Tampa Crossroads January 1992 17
TOTAL 1,472
Average Contractual Per Diem on July 1, 2001 $37.93

Profiles of Closed Nonsecure Residential Programs

Facility Dates of Operation
Broken Glass/Steps June 1995 - November 1999
Central FL Human Services January 1992 - February 1997
Concept House-Miami April 24, 2000 - March 2001
Dade Bridge-Miami February 1995 - June 1998
Disc Village-Tallahassee December 1991 - October 2000
Gainesville Bridge May 1995 - December 2001
Serenity House November 1, 1994 - November 1, 1995
Village Partners-South Miami December 1991 - February 2000

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. Enrollments increased in FY 2001-02 to 3,750.
  • Over the course of 11 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 1,315 offenders in the programs. This has nearly tripled since inception (474 at the end of FY 1991-92).
  • Since 1991, the programs have served 39,183 different offenders.

Table IB: FY 2001-02 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 59.9% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits) since inception.
  • Success rates have increased over the seven (7) year period, from 59.4% to 61.3%.
  • The proportion of offenders whose final program outcome is an administrative exit has decreased from 10.5% to 5.6%.

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 FY1999-00, Nonsecure programs had a 61.7% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).

Table 1D: FY 2001-02 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 36.2% for Tampa Crossroads to 82.1% for Keys to Recovery.
  • On average, these programs had a 56.2% success rate with each offender exiting their program during this fiscal year. Administrative exits averaged 9.9% 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 1999-00 (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 (28.0%) are substantially lower than for program non-completers (50.1%), 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 (5.1% vs.11.8%) or supervision (3.1% vs. 5.3%).
  • The greatest difference is for recommitment to prison, where those who completed programs have less than half the rate for non-completers (14.3% vs. 35.6%).

Table 1F: FY 1998-99 (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 (37.6% vs. 57.1%).
  • The only category which is greater for completers than non-completers is return to supervision for a technical violation (10.0% vs. 9.8%).
  • The greatest differences are for recommitment to prison for completers and non-completers (21.9% vs. 38.4%).

Table 1G: FY 1997-98 (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 44.8% of completers were recommitted, compared to 60.5% for non-completers
  • The greatest differences are for recommitment to prison for completers and non-completers (27.6% vs. 44.3%).

Table 1H: FY 1996-97 (5-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

  • Five (5)-year recommitments average 47.6% for completers vs. 68.4% for non-completers.
  • Completers are about the same (8.7%) as non-completers (8.8%) in returns to supervision for a technical violation, but remain lower for prison commitments (28.3% vs. 47.5%).

Table 1I: FY 1995-96 (6-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation

  • Six (6)-year recommitments average 55.2% for completers vs. 68.7% for non-completers.
  • Program completers remain slightly more likely to serve another period of supervision than non-completers (22.9% vs. 20.6%), but are substantially lower in admissions to prison (32.3% vs. 48.1%).