Executive Summary

Outpatient Substance Abuse Programs

Post Prison Transitional Housing is a program designed to assist offenders by providing drug and substance abuse prevention services, transitional housing, and other such support services. These services assist them in making successful re-entry into the community and help them to create and maintain a drug-free, independent, law-abiding lifestyle. The program provides services to those offenders who need a structured environment to promote their personal recovery from substance abuse. Housing, food (two (2) meals a day), electricity, local phone service, job placement assistance, and other transition services are provided as needed. The PRTH program targets offenders who have completed a Department in-prison or community-based drug treatment program. The services provided are secular and do not include a faith-based element.

Profiles of Post Prison Transitional Housing Program Facilities
On June 30, 2007

Facility	Start Date	Facility Capacity
Orlando Bridge	July, 2001	10
Polk Bridge (Auburndale)	July, 2001	22
Turning Point Bridge (Pompano)	July, 2001	25
St. Petersburg Bridge	August, 2002	20
TOTAL		77
Average Per Diem on June 30, 2007		$20.00

Workload

Table 6A: Post Prison Transitional Enrollment Data by Fiscal Year

• Post Prison Transitional housing facilities began with (221) new enrollments in the start-up year, and dropped to about (92) in FY 2003-04. Enrollments increased to (222) in FY 2004-05. This year’s enrollments total is (248).
• For FY 2006-07, (288) different offenders participated in a PRTH program.
• There were (59) offenders in the programs on June 30, 2007.

Table 6B: FY 2006-07 Post Prison Transitional Enrollment Data by Facility

• The programs are generally small, ranging from 36 new enrollments for Orlando Bridge to 69 for Polk Bridge-Auburndale.

Outcomes

Table 6C(a): Post Prison Transitional 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. They are counted as successful if they completed at least one (1) program, regardless of the number of programs they participated in.
• On average, Post Prison Transitional facilities had a (65.4%) success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits) from FY 1999-00 to FY 2003-04.
• Success rates have gradually declined since the programs began in FY 1999-00 (73.4%) to (60.6%) in FY 2003-04.

Table 6C(b): Post Prison Transitional Outcomes for Offenders by Fiscal Year

• This table shows outcomes based on a two (2) year follow-up after the offender first entered a Post Prison Transitional program. In FY 2004-05, the Post Prison Transitional program had a (57.1%) success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).

Table 6D: FY 2006-07 Post Prison Transitional Exit Data (Event-Based) by Facility

• The success rate varies from 40.0% for Orlando Bridge to (76.6%) for Turning Point Bridge, Pompano.
• On average, these programs had a (68.3%) success rate with offenders exiting their program during this fiscal year. Administrative exits averaged (7.7%) for the year.

Recommitments

Table 6E: FY 2004-05 (Two (2) Year Follow-up,) Post Prison Transitional Recommitment Data
by Level of Participation

• At two (2) years past program completion, recommitment rates for Post Prison Transitional program completers (20.5%) are substantially lower than for program non-completers (51.5%).
• Recommitments to supervision (for new offense or technical violation) are substantially lower for completers than non-completers (6.3% vs. 23.7%).
• Admissions/Returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation for program completers are far less than that for non-completers (14.3% vs. 27.8%).

Table 6F: FY 2003-04 (Three (3) Year Follow-up,)Post Prison Transitional Recommitment Data
by Level of Participation

• For a three (3) year follow-up period, Post Prison Transitional program completers remain much lower than non-completers in overall recommitments (27.3% vs. 42.2%).
• Recommitments to prison (for new offense or technical violation) are much lower for completers than non-completers (22.7% vs. 40.0%).