Recidivism Rates for DCJ Offenders Exiting Outpatient A

1
Recidivism Rates for DCJ Offenders Exiting
Outpatient AD Treatment in 2003 2004

• Kim Pascual
• Quality Systems Mgmt. Evaluation Services
• October 26, 2006

2
Purpose of Analysis

• To gauge possible treatment effect on recidivism
• To compare changes or trends over time
• To identify areas for further investigation
• To examine how the system is performing

3
Methodology

• Offenders who exited Outpatient Treatment in 2003
  (n586) and 2004 (n597)
• Treatment intake and exit data
• Felony arrest data for one year pre- and one year
  post treatment
• Arrest data extracted from DSS Justice Data
  Warehouse.

4
Clean Court Outpatient Clients

• For 2003 2004, almost a third of the OP
  treatment episodes included Clean Court
  participants. (2003 n187, 2004 n174)
• Clean Court participants had additional
  components apart from treatment.
• Analyzed separately as is referred to as the
  Clean Court Outpatient Group.

5
Demographics Gender by Year
Outpatient Only Group, excludes Clean Court OP
Clients
6
Demographics Race
Outpatient Only Group, excludes Clean Court OP
Clients
7
Length of Stay
8
Primary Drug of Choice
9
Treatment Exit Type
Outpatient Only Group
Current DCJ criteria for successful completion of
treatment are defined as meeting ASAM PPC-2R
discharge criteria and 100 of UAs in the past 30
days were clean.
10
Treatment Exit Type (Continued)
Clean Court Outpatient Group
Current DCJ criteria for successful completion of
treatment are defined as meeting ASAM PPC-2R
discharge criteria and 100 of UAs in the past 30
days were clean.
11
Recidivism Arrests Pre- Post Treatment
Reduction
40
31
22
28
12
No Arrests Pre-/Post

• The Outpatient Only Group
• No Arrest Pre- 49 in 2003 51 in 2004
• No Arrest Post 73 in 2003 62 in 2004
• The Clean Court OP Group
• No Arrest Pre- 40 in 2003 51 in 2004
• No Arrest Post 62 in 2003 64 in 2004

13
Arrest Types
14
Change Scores

• Computes a score for each offender which compares
  the number of pre- arrests with post arrests.
• Three groups
• 1) No Change pre-arrests post arrests
• 2) Increase post arrests gt pre- arrests
• 3) Decrease post arrests lt post arrests
• The No Change group also includes those with no
  arrests either pre- or post.

15
Change Scores (Continued)
16
Decreased Arrest Group

• Less than 10 successfully completed treatment in
  either year.
• 65 in 2003, 73 in 2004 were reported as Not
  Employed at the time of exit.
• 30 in 2003 46 in 2004 reported Meth as their
  Primary Drug of Choice.
• Over 50 had only one arrest in the year prior to
  treatment, and between 75-86 had no arrest in
  the year following treatment.

17
No Change in Arrests Group

• Highest rates of completion of the three groups.
• Lowest proportion reporting Meth as their primary
  drug of choice. Higher numbers reporting alcohol
  or marijuana as primary.
• Highest average LOS of the three groups.
• 84 did not have an arrest either pre- or post
  treatment.
• Slightly older on average.

18
Increased Arrests Group

• Highest proportion exiting Unsuccessfully.
• 42 in 2003 and 38 in 2004 reported Meth as
  Primary drug of choice.
• Almost 2/3 reported as Not Employed at the time
  of exit.
• Lowest average age of all three groups.

19
Limitations

• Only first treatment episode of the year used for
  the study.
• Some offenders may be in both the 2003 and 2004
  sample.
• Some offenders excluded from study as they were
  not found in DSS Justice.

20
Conclusions

• LOS decreased by 45 days for OP only group.
• Meth was the most often reported drug of choice.
• Successful completion dropped for OP only group
  and doubled for the Clean Court OP group.
• Overall decrease in number of arrests pre-/post
  for both OP groups.

21
Conclusions (Continued)

• The Decrease Arrests group had the lowest
  proportion successfully completing treatment.
• The No Change group appears to be the group
  with highest success in treatment, greater
  stability, slightly older, and lowest proportion
  reporting meth as drug of choice.

22
Recommendations

• Conduct additional analyses of recidivism over
  extender period of time.
• Further investigation of the three change score
  groups for better understanding of which clients
  might benefit most from treatment.
• Account for offender time in the community.

23
Questions or Comments

• Kim Pascual
• 503-988-4564
• kim.a.pascual_at_co.multnomah.or.us
• http//www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/evaluation_adult
  .shtml