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: Jail Beds Programs

Jail Incarceration Programs are prison diversion programs in which non-violent offenders serve up to twenty-two (22) months in a county jail as a condition of supervision, in lieu of a state prison sentence. Programs may include work release, drug treatment, work squads, or other self-improvement programs as directed by the Sheriff's office. This program is designed to serve as a final disposition to any case whose presumptive prison sentence may have been twelve (12) to twenty-two (22) months in prison. If the above criterion is met, this program can also be used for nonsecure drug treatment, PRC, or secure drug treatment failures.

Profiles of Jail Bed Residential Programs On June 30, 2003

Facility Status Facility Capacity
Dixie County Jail December, 1994 20
Hamilton County Jail October, 1994 24
Jackson County Jail November, 1994 36
Madison County Jail October, 1994 24
Wakulla County Jail August, 1994 50
TOTAL 154
Average Per Diem $32.00

Workload

Table 4A: Jail Bed Enrollment Data by Fiscal Year
  • Jail facilities began with more than 400 new enrollments in the start-up year, and dropped to about 200 beginning in FY 1997-98. This year's enrollments total is 208.
  • For FY 2002-03, 323 different offenders participated in a jail program.
  • There were 108 offenders in the programs on June 30, 2003.
  • Since 1994, the facilities have served 3,563 different offenders.
Table 4B: FY 2002-03 Jail Bed Enrollment Data by Facility
  • The programs are generally small, ranging from twenty- two (22) new enrollments for Dixie County to seventy-five (75) for Jackson County.

Outcomes

Table 4C(a): Jail Bed 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, jail bed facilities had a 94.7% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).
  • Success rates have been at comparably high levels since the programs began in FY 1994-95 (94.4%) to (96.1%) in FY 1999-00.
  • The proportion of offenders whose final program outcome is an administrative exit has dropped from 9.0% in FY 1994-95 to 4.7% in FY 1999-00.
Table 4C(b): Jail Bed Outcomes for Offenders by Fiscal Year
  • This table shows outcomes based on a two (2) year follow-up after the offender first entered a jail bed program. For FY 2000-01, the jail bed program had a 95.3% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).
Table 4D: FY 2002-03 Jail Bed Exit Data (Event-Based) by Facility
  • Looking at the outcome of the offender's experience in each program they exited, the success rate varies from 87.3% for Wakulla County Jail to 100.0% for Dixie County.
  • On average, these programs had a 93.1% success rate with offenders exiting their program during this fiscal year. Administrative exits averaged 5.3% for the year.

Recommitments

Table 4E: FY 2000-01 (2-Year Follow-up), Jail Bed Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • At two (2) years past program completion, recommitment rates for jail bed program completers (25.3%) are substantially lower than for program non-completers (58.8%).
  • Recommitments to supervision (for new offense or technical violation) are slightly higher for completers than non-completers (15.8% vs. 5.9%).
  • Prison recommitments for program completers are far less than that for non-completers (9.5% vs. 52.9%).
Table 4F: FY 1999-00 (3-Year Follow-up), Jail Bed Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • For a three (3) year follow-up period, jail program completers remain lower than non-completers in overall recommitments (37.3% vs. 75.0%).
  • Recommitments to supervision (for new offense or technical violation) are slightly lower for completers than non-completers (13.0% vs. 18.8%).
  • The greatest difference is for recommitment to prison (new offense or technical violation) for completers (24.3%) versus non-completers (56.3%).
Table 4G: FY 1998-99 (4-Year Follow-up), Jail Bed Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • While the overall recommitment rate increases, program completers remain significantly lower than non-completers in prison recommitments (27.8% vs. 65.0%).
  • Supervision recommitments are slightly higher for program completers (19.8%) than non-completers (15.0%).
  • About 47.6% of completers were recommitted, compared to 80.0% for non-completers.
Table 4H: FY 1997-98 (5-Year Follow-up), Jail Bed Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • For this cohort, at five (5) years past program completion, recommitments average 59.2% for program completers and 72.7% for non-completers.
  • Completers are somewhat higher (17.5%) than non-completers (4.5%) in returns to supervision (new offense or technical).
  • Completers are significantly lower (41.7%) than non-completers (68.2%) in returns to prison (new offense or technical).
Table 4I: FY 1996-97 (6-Year Follow-up), Jail Bed Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • For this cohort, at six (6) years past program completion, recommitments average 63.7% for program completers and 88.9% for non-completers.
  • Completers (40.8%) were less likely to return to prison (new offense or technical violation) than non-completers (63.9%).
  • Completers (22.9%) were slightly less likely to return to supervision (new offense or technical violation) than non-completers (25.0%).