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

Florida Department of Corrections
Michael D. Crews, 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 offender's 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, 2005

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

July 30, 2001

75

Bridges of America, Inc., dba
The Turning Point Bridge (Broward Bridges)

December 1991

155

Bridges of America, Inc., dba
The St. Petersburg Bridge

August 2004

25

CARP-West Palm Beach

April 1992

45

DACCO-Tampa

December 1991

150

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

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. – Tampa

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
1,452
Average Per Diem on June 30, 2005
$41.28*
*Average Per Diem does not include 25 beds funded by the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment federal grant.

Profiles of Nonsecure Residential Program Facilities Closed During FY 2004-2005

Facility Status Facility Capacity

CARP – Jensen Beach

June 1995

45

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 through 1996-97.  After two years of small declines in enrollment (FY 1997-98 and FY 1998-99), enrollments increased in FY 1999-00 to more than 3,500 and have remained approximately at that level with enrollments reaching 3,667 in fiscal year 2004-05.
  • Over the course of 14 years, the number of different offenders participating in a Nonsecure program has increased from 946 to more than 4,400.
  • There were 1,365 offenders in the programs on June 30, 2005. This has nearly tripled since inception (474 on June 30, 1992).
Table 1B: Nonsecure Drug Treatment FY 2004-05 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 America, Inc., dba The Orlando Bridge (339) and Bridges of America, Inc., dba, The Turning Point Bridge (Broward Bridges) (416).

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 59.9% 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 58.0% in FY 2001-02.
  • The proportion of offenders whose final program outcome is an administrative exit has decreased over ten years from 10.5% to 6.9%.
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 2002-03, Nonsecure programs had a 59.5% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).
Table 1D: FY 2004-05 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 43.2% for Bridges of America, Inc., dba The St. Petersburg Bridge (RSAT-female) to a high of 76.9% for The Guidance Clinic of the Middle Keys, Inc. (Keys to Recovery) – Marathon.
  • On average, these programs had a 58.3% success rate with each offender exiting their program during this fiscal year. Administrative exits averaged 8.9% 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 2002-03 (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 (36.0%) are substantially lower than for program non-completers (54.3%), 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.12.8%) or supervision (2.2% vs. 5.5%).
  • The greatest difference in recommitment rates is between those admissions/returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation who completed the program (22.2%) and those who did not (37.3%).
Table 1F: FY 2001-02 (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 (44.1% vs. 61.0%).
  • The only category that is greater for completers than non-completers is return to supervision for a technical violation (11.2% vs. 9.4%).
  • The greatest difference in recommitment rates is between those admissions/returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation who completed the program (27.9%) and those who did not (45.0%).
Table 1G: FY 2000-01 (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 46.3% of completers were recommitted, compared to 63.9% 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 (27.8%) and those who did not (47.5%).
Table 1H: FY 1999-00 (5-Year Follow-up), Nonsecure Treatment Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • Five-year recommitments average 46.8% for completers vs. 67.1% for non-completers.
  • Completers are slightly higher (8.3%) than non-completers (5.6%) in returns to supervision for a technical violation, but remain lower for prison commitments (13.4% vs. 22.5%).
  • The greatest difference in recommitment rates is between those admissions/returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation who completed the program (28.7%) and those who did not (50.8%).
Table 1I: Nonsecure Treatment FY 1998-99 (6-Year Follow-up) Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • Six-year recommitments average 50.7% for completers vs. 69.5% for non-completers.
  • Program completers are more likely to serve another period of supervision as non-completers (19.5% vs. 19.2%), but are substantially lower in admissions to prison (31.2% vs. 50.3%).