What Works with the High Risk Drug Offender

1
What Works with the High Risk Drug Offender?
Quality Systems and Evaluation Services
Unit http//www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/evaluation.
shtml
Multnomah County Department of Community
Justice 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd. Suite
250 Portland, OR 97214

• Services, Sanctions and Supervision

Prepared by Charlene Rhyne, PhD
Lailah Hamblin, MS
2
Background

• The High Risk Drug Unit began in spring of 2005,
  after the federal grant funding for Clean Court
  ended.
• HRDU retained the Clean Court model of using
  counselors in conjunction with PPOs to supervise
  offenders.
• HRDU supervises those who are high risk to
  reoffend and have been convicted of a PCS, DCS or
  MCS charge.

3
Methodology

• This study looked at a sample of offenders under
  HRDU supervision in September 2005 through March
  2007 (19 months).

4
Dosage DCJ Contacts

• Home visits
• Office visits
• Phone contacts
• Face-to-face contacts
• Monthly contact rate derived for each contact
  category for each offender
• Offender days on abscond, in jail, transferred to
  another office not counted

5
Monthly Average Dosage
Controlling for time in the community
6
Dosage by Risk LevelTotal Average Monthly
Contacts

• High risk 2.83
• Medium risk 2.78
• Low/limited risk 3.86

7
PPO Sanction Patterns

• 174 offenders received a sanction while under
  supervision
• 84 of those who received a sanction received
  jail at least once
• 43 of sample received no sanction
• 25 received one
• 14 received two
• 18 received three

8
Treatment

• 132 offenders received treatment (43)
• Most commonly received treatment was for
  substance abuse
• Average length of stay in treatment was 218 days

9
Treatment episode exits

252 referrals
217 entrances
57 successful exits
117 unsuccessful exits
10
Needs assessment data

• 107 offenders had two assessments during this 19
  month period
• Average length of time between assessments 256
  days
• 51 decreased needs from pre to post
• 49 increased needs from pre to post

11
Needs Descriptives by Group
12
Needs Descriptives by Group
13
Recidivism

• 120 offenders arrested one year pre-HRDU
  supervision, 313 arrests
• 57 offenders arrested one year post-HRDU
  supervision, 98 arrests
• 53 reduction in offenders arrested
• 69 reduction in total number of arrests

14
Reduction in drug crimes
15
Findings

• Significant correlation between total number of
  sanctions and the need change score. Positive
  relationship between sanctions and need (plt.05).

16
Findings

• Arrests by race pre supervision whites .69,
  blacks 2.07
• Arrests by race post supervision whites .18,
  blacks .80
• Both findings significant at the .001 level
• 14 of whites recidivated
• 38 of blacks recidivated
• Significant at the .001 level

17
Findings
Age Race Gender Supervision Level Total of
sanctions Total of PO contacts Total LOS in
treatment
Total post arrests
18
Findings

• Blacks significantly more likely to be
  re-arrested 1 year post
• Significant positive relationship between total
  number of sanctions received and total number of
  arrests one year post
• The more sanctions an offender received, the more
  times they were arrested 1 year post

19
Recommendations

• Develop culturally specific programming
• Monitor PPO contact with low/limited clients
• CJM monitor all sanctions