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

Secure Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

Long-term Residential (Secure) Substance Abuse Treatment Programs are community-based, full service, long-term substance abuse therapeutic communities (secure indicates a long-term program, not a program in a locked facility) with two components. The Intensive Treatment Component (ITC) lasts up to twelve (12) 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 six (6) 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.

Profiles of Secure Residential Program Facilities
On June 30, 2005

Facility

Start Date

Number of Beds

First Step of Sarasota, Inc. – Sarasota

September 1991

10

Operation PAR, Inc. – Largo

September 1991

166

Phoenix House* – Citra

November 1993

214

Spectrum Programs, Inc. – (Broward & Miami-Dade Counties)

September 1991

78

TOTAL

468

Average Per Diem on June 30, 2005

$48.11

* Formerly known as Daytop Ocala November 1993 – June 1999.

Workload

Table 2A: Secure Drug Treatment Program Enrollment Data by Fiscal Year
  • Secure programs began with only 188 new enrollments in the start-up year (FY 1991-92), and have increased substantially since.  In FY 2004-05, there were 1,072 different offenders enrolled in the program, and 487 were enrolled in the program on June 30, 2005
Table 2B: Secure Drug Treatment FY 2004-05 Program Enrollment Data by Facility
  • The programs vary substantially in size. While First Step had 10 offenders on June 30, 2005, Phoenix House had 218 offenders.

Outcomes

Table 2C(a): Secure Drug 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.
  • Secure programs had an average 38.6% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits) over an eleven-year period.
  • Success rates have dropped over the eleven-year period, from 44.9% in FY 1991-92 to 35.0% in FY 2000-01.
  • The proportion of offenders whose final program outcome is an administrative exit has decreased over the history of the program from 23.0% to 16.0%.
Table 2C(b): Secure Drug 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, Secure programs had a 48.3% success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).
Table 2D: Secure Drug Treatment FY 2004-05 Exit Data (Event-Based) by Facility
  • Looking at the outcome of the offenders’ experience in each program from which they exited, the success rate varies from a low of 39.4% for Operation PAR, Inc - Largo to a high of 73.5% for Spectrum Programs, Inc. - Pompano Beach.
  • On average in FY 2004-05, these programs had a 41.5% success rate with offenders exiting their program during this fiscal year. Administrative exits averaged 14.0% for the year. As seen in the prior table, many of these administrative exits lead to subsequent enrollments in other programs.

Recommitments

Table 2E: Secure Drug Treatment FY 2002-03 (2-Year Follow-up), Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • At two years after program exit, recommitment rates for Secure program completers are substantially lower than for program non-completers (20.6% vs. 56.4%). This pattern holds true for each type of recommitment.
  • Completers (11.9%) are slightly lower in total recommitments to community supervision (for either a new offense or technical violation) than non-completers (15.4%)
  • Prison recommitment rates for program completers are substantially lower than non-completers (8.5% vs. 41.0%).
Table 2F: Secure Drug Treatment FY 2001-02 (3-Year Follow-up), Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • For a three-year follow-up period, Secure program completers remain lower than non-completers in overall recommitments (26.4% vs. 70.0%), and this pattern is true for all recommitment types except return to supervision for a new offense.
  • The greatest differences are for recommitment to prison (new offense or technical violations) for completers (14.9%) versus non-completers (55.8%).
Table 2G: Secure Drug Treatment FY 2000-01 (4-Year Follow-up), Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • While the overall recommitment rate increases, program completers remain significantly lower than non-completers (38.2% vs. 69.7%).
  • About 15.8% of completers were recommitted to supervision (new offense or technical), compared to 16.3% for non-completers.
  • The greatest differences are for recommitment to prison (new offense or technical violations) for completers (22.4%) versus non-completers (53.3%).
Table 2H: Secure Drug Treatment FY 1999-00 (5-Year Follow-up), Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • For this cohort, at five years after program completion, recommitments average 49.4% for program completers and 71.4% for non-completers.
  • Completers are slightly higher (17.9%) than non-completers (12.9%) in returns to supervision, but remain significantly lower for prison commitments (31.6% vs. 58.5%).
Table 2I: Secure Drug Treatment FY 1998-99 (6-Year Follow-up), Recommitment Data by Level of Participation
  • For this cohort, at six years after program completion, recommitments average 52.8% for program completers and 71.6% for non-completers.
  • Program completers are more likely to serve another period of supervision (22.2% vs. 15.3%), but are substantially lower in prison commitments (30.6% vs. 56.3%).