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 (2) 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 (6) hours of counseling per week. The residential program is staffed by paid-awake staff twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week.

Profiles of Nonsecure Residential Program Facilities On June 30, 2007

Facility Start Date Number of Beds
Better Way of Miami, Inc. March 2000 41
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 St. Petersburg Bridge August 2004 25
CARP-West Palm Beach April 1992 55
DACCO-Tampa December 1991 150
Drug Abuse Foundation-West Palm Beach January 1992 42
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 53
Dual Diagnosis February 2000 22
Nonsecure Programs, Inc. – Ocala September 1991 75
Nonsecure Programs, Inc. -Panama City March 1995 75
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 40
Susan B. Anthony Center, Inc. – Lauderhill March 1 2000 23
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 1,395
Average Per Diem on June 30, 2007 $42.92
*Average Per Diem does not include 25 beds funded as a special line item appropriation.

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 (FY 1996-97). After two (2) 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 3,779 in (FY 2006-07).
  • Over the course of sixteen (16) years, the number of different offenders participating in a Nonsecure program has increased from 946 to more than 4,500.
  • There were 1,378 offenders in the programs on June 30, 2007. This has nearly tripled since inception (474) on June 30, 1992.
Table 1B: FY 2006-07 Nonsecure Drug Treatment Program Enrollment Data by Facility
  • Most programs have fewer 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 (395) and DACCO-Tampa (538).

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 (1) program, regardless of the number of programs they participated in.
  • On average, Nonsecure programs have had a (59.7%) success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits) since inception.
  • Success rates have remained close to (60.0%) over the thirteen (13) year period, from (59.4%) in FY 1991-92 to (57.8%) in FY 2003-04.
  • The proportion of offenders whose final program outcome is an administrative exit has decreased over thirteen (13) years from (10.5% to 8.5%).
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 FY 2004-05, Nonsecure programs had a (62.3%) success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits.)
Table 1D: FY 2006-07 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 (40.2%) for Better Way Of Miami, Inc. to a high of (84.6%) for Bridges of America, Inc., dba The Turning Point Bridge – Pompano Beach.

  • On average, these programs had a (60.0%) success rate with each offender exiting their program during this fiscal year. Administrative exits averaged (10.9%) 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 2004-2005 (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 (36.6%) are substantially lower than for program non-completers (55.3%,) 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 (5.4% vs.10.2%) or supervision (2.3% vs. 5.1%).
  • The greatest difference in recommitment rates is between those admissions/returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation who completed the program (21.5%) and those who did not (40.7%).
Table 1F: FY 2003-04 (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 noncompleters in overall recommitments (43.2% vs. 61.6%).
  • The only category that is greater for completers than non-completers is return to supervision for a technical violation (10.9% 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 (27.1%) and those who did not (46.3%).