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 (2) components. The Intensive Treatment Component (ITC) lasts two (2) months. During the ITC, the offender participates in counseling, 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, 2009

Facility Start Date Number of Contracted Beds Funded
Better Way of Miami, Inc. March 2000 27
Bridges of America, Inc., dba The Orlando Bridge September 1991 79
Bridges of America, Inc., dba The Polk Bridge February 1997 48
Bridges of America, Inc., dba The Sanford Bridge November 1993 70
Bridges of America, Inc., dba The St. Petersburg Bridge July 30 2001 68
CARP-West Palm Beach April 1992 37
DACCO-Tampa December 1991 106
First Step of Sarasota July 1993 34
Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc. -St. Pete December 1991 41
House of Hope, Inc., dba House of Hope & Stepping-Stones Nonsecure August 1999 36
Dual Diagnosis February 2000 15
Nonsecure Programs, Inc. – Ocala September 1991 50
Nonsecure Programs, Inc. -Panama City March 1995 54
Nonsecure Programs, Inc. – Pensacola December 1992 41
Nonsecure Programs, Inc. – Tallahassee October 2000 47
Spectrum Programs, Inc. – Miami July 30, 2007 17
Susan B. Anthony Center, Inc. – Lauderhill March 1 2000 16
Tampa Crossroads, Inc.-Tampa January 1992 12
The Guidance Clinic of the Middle Keys, Inc. (Keys to Recovery) – Marathon December 1994 8
The Salvation Army – Daytona September 1991 34
The Salvation Army -Ft. Myers December 1991 31
The Salvation Army – Jacksonville September 1991 41
TOTAL 912
Average Per Diem on June 30, 2009 $45.90*
*This average is based upon the 912 funded beds, not total contracted beds.

Profiles of Nonsecure Residential Program Facilities
Contracted Program Closed During FY 2008-09

Facility Start Date Number of Beds

Drug Abuse Foundation – West Palm Beach

January 1992 18

WORKLOAD

Table 1A: Nonsecure Treatment Program Enrollment Data by Fiscal Year
  • Enrollment increased in (FY 1999-00) to more than 3,500 and have remained approximately at that level with enrollments dropping slightly to 2,782 in (FY 2008-09).
  • Over the course of ten (10) years, the number of different offenders participating in a Nonsecure program has dropped from 4,649 to less than 3,400.
  • There were 881 offenders in the programs on June 30, 2009.
Table 1B: FY 2008-09 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 (300) and DACCO-Tampa (420).

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 (60.2%) success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits) since inception.
  • Success rates have remained close to (61.5%) over the most recent ten (10) year period, from (60.8%) in FY 1996-97 to (64.9%) in FY 2005-06.
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 2006-07, Nonsecure programs had a (62.6%) success rate (successful exits divided by successful and unsuccessful exits).
Table 1D: FY 2008-09 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 (42.2%) for Non-Secure Programs, Inc.- Ocala to a high of (86.4%) for Non-Secure Programs, Inc.- Panama City.
  • On average, these programs had a (61.5%) success rate with each offender 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 1E: FY 2006-2007 (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 (31.4%) are substantially lower than for program non-completers (55.2%) 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 (4.7% vs. 10.6%) or supervision (2.1% vs. 4.0%).
  • The greatest difference in recommitment rates is between those admissions/returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation who completed the program (21.4%) and those who did not (44.5%).
Table 1F: FY 2005-06 (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 non-completers in overall recommitments (41.0% vs. 60.6%).
  • The only category that is greater for completers than non-completers is return to supervision for a technical violation (9.7% vs. 6.3%).
  • The greatest difference in recommitment rates is between those admissions/returns to prison for a new offense or technical violation who completed the program (26.5%) and those who did not (49.6%).