1 CLEAN COURT OUTCOME STUDY January, 2005 Charlene Rhyne, PhD.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Etienne Maffli Swiss Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and other Drug Problems Lausanne, Switzerland Characteristics of male and female outpatients.
Advertisements

National Center for State Courts VCCJA Baseline Recidivism Study Fred Cheesman, Ph.D. Tara Kunkel, MSW The National Center for State Courts August 16,
Crisis Shelter Program GOALS To stabilize youth and families in crisis To develop stable living conditions for youth To engage families in the resolution.
Background: The low retention rates among African Americans in substance abuse treatment (Milligan et al., 2004) combined with the limited number of treatments.
Differences in Characteristics of Heroin Inhalers and Injectors at Admission to Treatment J. C. Maxwell, R. T. Spence, & T. M. Bohman UT Center for Social.
The Catalyst Group, LLC Adolescent Residential Treatment Initiative I Mua Mau Ohana Project Preliminary Findings Richard Kim, Ph.D. 03/03/2005 Funded by.
Conducting Research in Challenging Times: California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation Association of Criminal Justice Research, California March
Preliminary Findings: Recovery Center Outcome Study
Social identification and support within the Therapeutic Community Genevieve Dingle & Cassandra Perryman School of Psychology The.
Correlates of polydrug use among injection drug users: The role of socioeconomic stress and quality of life Marrero CA, Robles RR, Reyes JC, Matos TD,
Trauma Issues with Specific Populations: Adolescents & Transition Age Youth OVERVIEW Michael Dennis, Ph.D. and Megan Catlin, M.S. Chestnut Health Systems,
1 The Importance of Successful Reentry to Jail Population Growth Presented by: Allen J. Beck, Chief Corrections Statistics Program Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Re-Entry and Recidivism
BJS CORRECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
Comparison of recreational marijuana users in three nations Monisha Jayakumar, MPH PhD Program in Maternal and Child Health Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School.
Cost Effectiveness of Treatment for People on Probation Farrokh Alemi, Ph.D. Faye Taxman, Ph.D. Jee Vang Meridith Thanner Victoria Doyon.
Risks of Reentry into the Foster Care System for Children who Reunified Terry V. Shaw, MSW University of California, Berkeley School of Social Welfare.
The Impact of Reentry Services on Juvenile Offenders’ Recidivism Presented by: Jeffrey A. Bouffard, Ph.D. Co-Authored with Kathleen J. Bergseth All opinions.
Reentry Services Project Shelley Ford, MN Department of Corrections Sally Dandurand, Reentry Services Project June 2008, Connecting Youth to Success 1.
Evaluation of the Connecticut Judicial Branch’s Three Court-Mandated Family Violence Programs: FVEP, EXPLORE, and EVOLVE Stephen M. Cox, Ph.D, Professor.
UCLA Drug Abuse Research CenterForever Free Evaluation Forever Free Substance Abuse Treatment Program Outcomes Study Michael Prendergast, Ph.D., Principal.
Audrey J. Brooks, PhD University of Arizona CA-AZ node.
Table 1 Introduction  Overview  While predictors of recidivism and technical violations are often examined in probation and parole outcome research,
Using Research/Evaluation Questions to Define Data Collection and Findings: Findings from the FY 2004 KTOS Follow-up Study Robert Walker, Allison Mateyoke-Scrivener,
FFT in California: Evaluation Outcomes Cricket Mitchell, PhD CIMH Consultant April 3, 2008.
LA County Cases: An Overview of Characteristics & Disposition Outcomes Denise C. Herz, Ph.D. California State University—Los Angeles School of Criminal.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Evaluation Phase 2 Interim Report Findings in Brief Juvenile Crime Prevention Evaluation Phase 2 Interim Report Findings in Brief.
PowerPoint Template ©2009 Texas Christian University, Center for Instructional Services. For Educational Use Only. Content is the property of the presenter.
Missouri Re-Entry Program Analysis of offender release factors from 2005 to 2011 and selected demographics Boone County Prepared for Boone.
Introduction The United States has one of the largest criminal justice populations in the world with over 6.94 million people under the supervision of.
PREPARED BY NPC RESEARCH PORTLAND, OR MAY 2013 Florida Adult Felony Drug Courts Evaluation Results.
Chapter 11 Subset of Overview by Mental Health Disorders GAIN Coordinating Center (11/21/2012). Normal, IL: Chestnut Health Systems. November Available.
MIA: STEP Toolkit Overview. NIDA-SAMHSA Blending Initiative 2 What is an MI Assessment?  Use of client-centered MI style  MI strategies that can be.
CARIBBEAN BASIN AND HISPANIC ADDICTION TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CENTER Effects of a Two-facet Intervention to Reduce HIV Risk Behaviors Among Hispanic Drug.
Do you have to hit “rock bottom” to recover? An analysis of motivation to recover through the lens of the Vigo County Drug Court experience.
8/21/2015 Scott Ronan Idaho Supreme Court Senior Manager, Problem-Solving Courts and Sentencing Alternatives.
Final Report for East Carolina University
OFFENDER REENTRY: A PUBLIC SAFETY STRATEGY Court Support Services Division.
Chapter 15 Subset of Overview by Program GAIN Coordinating Center (11/21/2012). Normal, IL: Chestnut Health Systems. November Available from
Introduction Introduction Alcohol Abuse Characteristics Results and Conclusions Results and Conclusions Analyses comparing primary substance of abuse indicated.
Introduction Results and Conclusions On demographic variables, analyses revealed that ATR clients were more likely to be Hispanic and employed, whereas.
Methamphetamine: User Characteristics and Treatment Response Alice Huber, Ph.D. Steven Shoptaw, Ph.D. Richard A. Rawson, Ph.D. Paul Brethen, M.A. Walter.
UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs Amity In-Prison Therapeutic Community: Five-Year Outcomes Association of Criminal Justice Research (CA) Sacramento,
Chapter 6 Subset of Overview by Gender GAIN Coordinating Center (11/21/2012). Normal, IL: Chestnut Health Systems. November Available from
Chapter 13 Subset of Overview by Crime and Violence GAIN Coordinating Center (11/21/2012). Normal, IL: Chestnut Health Systems. November Available.
Reading Evaluation Results: A Brief Introduction PAG June 2 nd, 2009 Becca Sanders, Program Evaluator.
Introduction Results and Conclusions Analyses of demographic and social variables revealed that women were more likely to have children, be living in a.
Substance Use among Older Adults (Age 50+): Current Prevalence and Future Expectations Presented by Joe Gfroerer U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
Chapter 9 Subset of Overview by Risk of Homelessness GAIN Coordinating Center (11/21/2012). Normal, IL: Chestnut Health Systems. November Available.
Chapter 17 Subset of Overview by Type of Treatment GAIN Coordinating Center (11/21/2012). Normal, IL: Chestnut Health Systems. November Available.
Introduction Results and Conclusions Comparisons of psychiatric hospitalization rates in the 12 months prior to and after baseline assessment revealed.
UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse ProgramsForever Free Evaluation Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs for Women Laurie Bright, National Institute.
Youth Who Received Informal Handling/Supervision in 2006 DCJ Quality & Evaluation Services April 2009 Prepared by: Liang Wu, Sr. Research Analyst Charlene.
Association for Women in Psychology Conference “A Model of Integrated Treatment for Women with Co-Occurring Disorders who are at High Risk for HIV” Presented.
Cleveland Municipal Drug Court: SAMHSA CSAT Adult Treatment Drug Court Grant Dr. Margaret Baughman Madison Wheeler, BS Paul Tuschman, BA Begun.
First Steps System of Care Family Systems Collaborations Systems to Systems Nancy Gottlieb, MFT.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Impact of Screening and Brief Intervention Grants in Seven States: Substance Use, Criminal Justice,
Introduction Results and Conclusions Results: On demographic and social characteristics, ATR completers were more likely to be male, Hispanic, employed,
Recidivism Rates for DCJ Offenders Exiting Residential Treatment June 2007 Kim Pascual Research & Evaluation.
SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTORS OF A SAMPLE OF PROBATIONERS Prepared by Charlene Rhyne, PhD July, 2001 Data Source: Supervision Program Information.
Trends in Access to Substance Abuse Treatment for Women and Men: Jeanne C. Marsh, PhD, Hee-Choon Shin, PhD, Dingcai Cao, PhD University of Chicago.
Fall Enrollment by Ethnic Group and Year Grant Campus Year ETHNIC GROUP Nonresident alien Hispanic/Latino American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black.
An Examination of AB109 Recidivism In San Joaquin County In Year 4
Recidivism Rates for DCJ Offenders Exiting Residential A&D Treatment
Congregate Care in Ohio
Engagement Survey Results: Demographics
Consolidated district performance report (CDPR)
Recidivism Among DWI Offenders in New Mexico (Preliminary Results)
Clinically significant improvements in function
DRUG COURTS IN ILLINOIS
Presentation transcript:

1 CLEAN COURT OUTCOME STUDY January, 2005 Charlene Rhyne, PhD

2 RESEARCH & COMPARISON SAMPLES N= 130 Entered from Jan 02 thru May 03 Outcomes: Changes in arrest rates one-year pre-and post- intake Impact of closure type on outcomes Patterns of outpatient treatment engagement and completion Changes in social, stability and drug taking behaviors at Intake and 12 months later N= 130 On supervision in 2001 Outcomes: Changes in arrest rates one-year pre-and post- intake Impact of closure type on outcomes Patterns of outpatient treatment engagement and completion

3 ANALYSES Within research group: pre/post social criminal drug using changes Within comparison group: pre/post criminal behavior change Between group comparison

4 SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS Research Sample Comparison Sample Number (%) Gender Male Female Missing 92 (71%) 38 (29%) 91 (70%) 38 (29%) 1 (1%) Race Asian Black Hispanic American Indian White Refused/other/missing 1 (1%) 22 (17%) 3 (2%) 4 (3%) 95 (73%) 5 (4%) 1 (1%) 35 (27%) 5 (4%) 2 (2%) 86 (66%) 1 (1%) Risk-to-re-offend High/Medium Low/Limited Missing 73 (56%) 49 (38%) 8 (7%) 78 (60%) 49 (38%) 3 (2%) Age Range Average

5 RESEARCH SAMPLE AT INTAKE 38 year old high-risk white male Housed and living alone 3 out of 5 unemployed, looking for work 61 (47%) arrested in past 30 days – 42 (69%) for drug offense Averaged 8 days in jail/prison in last 30 days

6 RESEARCH SAMPLE AT INTAKE cont Amphetamines primary drug of choice – 62% reported use in last 30 days First use – 23 years old Cannabis secondary drug of choice – 64% reported use in last 30 days First use – 13 years old

7 RESEARCH SAMPLE AT INTAKE AND 12 MOS LATER PARTICIPANTS AT INTAKE PARTICIPANTS AT 12 MONTHS Percent housed in stable housing* 67.7% 72.3% Percent with full-time employment* 13.1% 16.2% Percent unemployed and looking for work* 60.8% 36.2% Percent using alcohol in the past 30 days* 36% 21% Percent using illegal drugs in the past 30 days* 61% 28% *significant difference 12 mos after Intake

8 RESEARCH SAMPLE AT INTAKE AND 12 MOS LATER cont PARTICIPANTS AT INTAKE PARTICIPANTS AT 12 MONTHS Percent using primary dug of choice in the past 30 days* 62% 29% Percent using secondary drug of choice in the past 30 days* 64% 41% Percent injecting drugs in the past 30 days* 24% 15% Average number of times arrested in the past 30 days** Average number of nights spent in jail/prison n the past 30 days Average number of times arrested for drug-related offenses n the past 30 days* *significant difference 12 mos after Intake

9 RESEARCH SAMPLE AT INTAKE AND 12 MOS LATER * Significant difference 12 mos after intake

10 RESEARCH SAMPLE AT INTAKE AND 12 MOS LATER cont *Significant difference 12 mos later

11 TREATMENT EXPERIENCE

12 SUCCESSFUL (N=22) / UNSUCCESSFUL (n=78) COMPLETERS White male looking for work Primary drug – amphetamines or cannabis Second choice – cocaine (38%) Split between H/M and L/Ltd risk Referral to entry – 10 days LOS – 191 days White male looking for work Primary drug – amphetamines or cannabis Second choice – cannabis (37%) Predominately H/M risk Referral to entry – 22 days LOS – 61 days

13 SUCCESSFUL (N=22) / UNSUCCESSFUL (n=78) COMPLETERS In the past 30 days, averaged.50 arrests.37 drug-related arrests 6.63 nights in jail/prison 1.93 days of primary drug use 5.86 days of secondary drug use In the past 30 days, averaged.52 arrests.33 drug-related arrests 7.37 nights in jail/prison 4.28 days of primary drug use 2.79 days of secondary drug use

14 COMPARISON SAMPLE: DEMOGRAPHICS (N=26) Primary drug of choice = amphetamines or cocaine Secondary drug of choice = alcohol or none 54% working full- or part-time, irregularly, or seeking work Average age = 40 years Education = average 11.5 years

15 COMPARISON SAMPLE: TREATMENT EXPERIENCE Closure data available on 21 episodes 6 (29%) successful 3 (14%) unsuccessful 12 (57%) neutral Average LOS = 81 days

16 RESEARCH SAMPLE: ARREST DATA (N=101) * Significant difference 12 mos after Intake One year pre-treatment One year post-treatment Arrest count TOTAL 32 (32%) 38 (38%) 21 (21%) 5 (5%) 3 (3%) 2 (2%) 117 ARRESTS 66 (65%) 21 (21%) 8 (8%) 3 (3%) 58 ARRESTS Mean Arrests*

17 COMPARISON SAMPLE: ARREST DATA (N=120) * Significant difference 12 mos after Intake One year pre-treatment One year post-treatment Arrest count TOTAL 51(39%) 47 (36%) 21 (16%) 8 (6%) 1(1%) 1(1%) 129 ARRESTS 82 (63%) 29(22%) 8(6%) 7(5%) 1(1%) 88 ARRESTS Mean Arrests*.99.68

18 BOTH GROUPS: ARREST DATA * Significant difference 12 mos after Intake

19 BOTH GROUPS: ARREST PATTERNS Research Sample Comparison Sample Reduced arrests post- entry 52 (51.5%) 58 (44.6%) No change in arrests post-entry 32 (31.7%) 51 (39.2%) Increased arrests post entry 17 (16.8%) 21 (16.2%)

20 STUDY LIMITATIONS Lack of consistent data elements for both groups Research sample comprised of first offenders enrolled Small sub-group size Limited generalizability

21 KEY FINDINGS Clean Court model more successful in engaging clients in treatment. Clean Court sample evidenced improvement in many areas of stability and drug using behavior pre and post Both groups experienced significant pre/post arrest differences

22 KEY FINDINGS cont No significant differences in pre/post arrest changes between groups Specialized caseloads more successful in intervening on domain of specialty than generic Caution urged in generalizing findings due to low numbers

23 RECOMMENDATIONS Further study to include larger sample size of offenders who successfully complete treatment Compare Clean Court model with generic supervision utilizing above larger sample

24 CONTACT INFORMATION