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

2. 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. 3 ANALYSES Within research group: pre/post social criminal drug using changes Within comparison group: pre/post criminal behavior change Between group comparison

4. 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 19-62 37.26 19-59 37.26

5. 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. 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. 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. 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**.58.28 Average number of nights spent in jail/prison n the past 30 days 7.78 5.95 Average number of times arrested for drug-related offenses n the past 30 days*.36.07 *significant difference 12 mos after Intake

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

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

11. 11 TREATMENT EXPERIENCE

12. 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. 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. 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. 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. 16 RESEARCH SAMPLE: ARREST DATA (N=101) * Significant difference 12 mos after Intake One year pre-treatment One year post-treatment Arrest count 0 1 2 3 4 5 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* 1.16.57

17. 17 COMPARISON SAMPLE: ARREST DATA (N=120) * Significant difference 12 mos after Intake One year pre-treatment One year post-treatment Arrest count 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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. 18 BOTH GROUPS: ARREST DATA * Significant difference 12 mos after Intake

19. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 24 CONTACT INFORMATION charlene.e.rhyne @co.multnomah.or.us