Annual Review of Adult Participants in
Alcohol and Drug Programs
Contracted by the
Alcohol and Drug Program Administration
2005-06 Fiscal Year
Prepared by
Planning Division
Annual Review of Adult Participants in Alcohol and Drug Programs
Contracted by the
Alcohol and Drug Program Administration
2005-06 Fiscal Year
Executive Summary
Introduction
The tenth Annual Review is a comprehensive descriptive report on the adult participants who received
various types of treatment/recovery services from alcohol and drug programs contracted with the
Los Angeles County Alcohol and Drug Program Administration (ADPA) during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year.
Note that the majority of information and statistics presented in the Annual Review is based on participant
admission and discharge information collected through ADPA’s Los Angeles County Participant Reporting
System (LACPRS). LACPRS is an ongoing, standardized, computer-supported system sustained by a
close working relationship between ADPA and contracted alcohol and drug program providers.
The 2005-06 Annual Review is composed of the following five chapters:
Chapter 1 provides statistical information on participants in ADPA-contracted alcohol and
drug treatment/recovery programs over five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06). This
includes program admission, participant demographic, primary drug problem, and treatment
outcome statistics.
Chapter 2 starts with a description of treatment services by division and program type. For
each program type, a description of participants who were served in the 2005-06 Fiscal
Year is provided along with key trend statistics that occurred over five fiscal years, 2001-02
to 2005-06.
Chapter 3 provides admission, participant, and outcome trend statistics by special
programs designed to serve the following special populations: criminal justice defendants,
homeless individuals, needle users, persons with co-occurring mental illness and
substance abuse problems, pregnant and parenting women, and public assistance
recipients.
Chapter 4 provides participant-related demographic statistics for each of the 150
community-based agencies contracted with ADPA to provide alcohol and drug
treatment/recovery services during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year.
Chapter 5 is composed of numerous “Fact Sheets” which cover key Los Angeles County
alcohol and drug-related indicators and outcomes.
Table 1 - Type and Number of Treatment Programs, 2005-06 Fiscal Year
Non-Residential Programs
Number
Residential Programs
Number
Day Care
43
Residential Detoxification
5
Outpatient Counseling
186
Residential Services
94
Narcotic Treatment Detoxification
8
Narcotic Treatment Maintenance
26
During the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 150 ADPA contracted community-based agencies
provided treatment/recovery services to a total of 44,853 participants who accounted
for 56,016 program admissions
Table 2 shows the number of annual participants and program admissions from 2001-02 to 2005-06 fiscal
years. Over the five fiscal years, the annual number of admissions to programs increased by 24.8% and
the individual participants increased by 23.4%.
Table 2 - Total Number of Admissions and Participants by Fiscal Year Treatment/Recovery Programs Fiscal Year Admissions Participants 2001-02 44,861 36,328 2002-03 47,148 38,052 2003-04 57,911 45,048 2004-05 58,964 47,519 2005-06 56,016 44,853 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
Treatment/Recovery admissions to programs increased by 24.8% over five fiscal years
(2001-02 to 2005-06)
2005-06). During the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, most of the treatment/recovery program participants were
male (65.4%); Hispanic/Latino (34.2%), White (29.8%), or Black/African American (25.4%); between 25
and 44 years of age (57.5%); had 9 to 12 years of education (75.4%); and unemployed (68.4%).
Methamphetamine (30.8%) was the most frequently reported primary drug problem followed by
cocaine/crack (23.0%) and alcohol (19.7%). Over five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06), the number of
participants reporting methamphetamine as their primary drug problem has increased each year.
Methamphetamine use has increased each fiscal year,
17.4% to 30.8%
(2000-01 to 2005-06)
Participant Discharge Status
Participants with “Positive Compliance” are those who completed treatment or left before completing
treatment with satisfactory progress. Over half of the program participants had positive treatment
outcomes four out of five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06). The five year-year average for positive
treatment compliance was 52.3%.
Over five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06), an average of 52.3% of the participants
received a positive treatment compliance assessment at program discharge. They
successfully complied with their individualized treatment plans.
Treatment Services by Division and Program Type
Program participant characteristics were relatively similar across program types. Regardless
of program type, the majority of participants were male, between 25 and 44 years of age, had 9
to 12 years of education, and were unemployed. Most participants were Hispanic/Latino,
White, or Black/African American. The notable exceptions for the 2005-06 Fiscal Year were:
•
Of the six program types, only day care programs provided services primarily to female
participants (86.2%).
•
Narcotic treatment programs served the largest proportion of older program
participants. Among the narcotic treatment programs (detoxification and
maintenance), over half of the participants were between 45 and 64 years of age,
54.9% and 55.8%, respectively.
Narcotic Treatment Programs served the largest proportion of older
adult participants, 45 to 64 years of age.
heroin as their primary drug problem. This is to be expected since by design narcotic
treatment programs provide services to individuals addicted to heroin or other
morphine-like drugs. Heroin (43.3%) also ranked as the number one drug problem for
participants who received residential detoxification services.
Table 3 shows positive treatment compliance by program type for the 2005-06 Fiscal Year.
Positive outcomes varied among program types. However, residential programs had higher
percentages of positive compliance. The majority of participants in residential detoxification
(79.3%), residential services (61.6%), and NTP detoxification (50.6%) complied with their
treatment plans.
Table 3 – Positive Treatment Compliance 2005-06 Fiscal Year
Positive Compliance Program Type Discharges
Number Percent Non-Residential Day Care 905 360 39.8 Outpatient Counseling 13,477 5,871 43.6 NTP – Detoxification 543 275 50.6 NTP – Maintenance 630 145 23.0 Residential Detoxification 4,266 3,385 79.3 Residential Services 9,686 5,970 61.6 Overall 29,507 16,006 54.2
The majority of participants in residential detoxification (79.3%), residential
services (61.6%), and NTP detoxification (50.6%)
had positive treatment outcomes.
Special Populations
ADPA-contracted treatment/recovery programs address specific needs of certain populations such as
criminal justice defendants, homeless individuals, needle users, persons with co-occurring mental illness
and substance abuse problems, pregnant and parenting women, and public assistance recipients.
Year.
Table 4 – 2005-06 Fiscal Year Special Population Admissions and Participants
Special Population Admissions Participants Target Group
CalWORKs’ Recipients 2,325 2,049 CalWORKs’ (welfare reform) recipients with alcohol/drug problems Co-Occurring Disorders 12,263 10,395 Individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse problems Drug Court Defendants 2,317 1,886 Non-violent drug offenders
Female Offenders Project 106 98 Female inmates from California Institute for Women in Frontera General Relief Recipients 3,921 3,637 General Relief (indigent adults) recipients with alcohol/drug problems Homeless Individuals 11,882 10,509 Individuals living on the street or in an emergency shelter due to lack of financial resources or community ties Needle Users 9,134 7,088 Intravenous drug users
Prenatal Services Network 1,326 1,240 Pregnant and parenting women and their children Pregnant Women 1,039 947 Pregnant women
Prison Parolee Network 799 731 Male and female offenders, paroled to Los Angeles County Proposition 36 Defendants 17,252 13,720 Non-violent drug offenders
Salient findings regarding special population outcomes are:
¾
During the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, the most frequently reported primary drug problem for
CalWORKs recipients was methamphetamine. The prominence of methamphetamine has grown
from 25.4% in 2001-02 to 45.5% in 2005-06.
¾
The average percent of CalWORKs participants with positive treatment compliance each of the
five fiscal years was 51.0%. More specifically, over five fiscal years, 3,213 of the 6,311
CalWORKs recipients discharged from alcohol and drug treatment/recovery programs
successfully complied with their treatment plans.
¾
Admissions for participants with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse problems more
than doubled over five fiscal years; 5,632 in 2001-02 to 12,263 in 2005-06. Over five years, most
program participants reported alcohol, cocaine/crack, or methamphetamine as their primary drug
problem.
¾
Over five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06), the majority of drug court participants reported
cocaine/crack or methamphetamine as their primary substance abuse problem. Each of the past
five fiscal years, the majority (66.0% to 71.0%) of the drug court program participants were
discharged with a positive treatment compliance status.
¾
During the five fiscal year time period, cocaine/crack remained the most prominent primary drug
problem for female offenders despite the dropped from 70.7% in 2001-02 to 39.8% in 2005-06.
During the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 53.3% of the female offender participants were discharged with a
positive treatment compliance status.
the first four fiscal years (2001-02 to 2004-05). In 2005-06, methamphetamine became the
number one drug problem for general relief recipients. Methamphetamine use has increased
each fiscal year, from 15.0% in 2001-02 to 30.4% in 2005-06.
¾
A total of 49,950 homeless participants have been admitted to ADPA-funded alcohol and drug
treatment/recovery programs over the last five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06). The percent of
homeless participants reporting mental health concerns has increased slightly over the five-year
period, from 15.0% in 2001-02 to 23.3% in 2005-06.
¾
In 2005-06, the most prominent drug problems reported by homeless participants were
methamphetamine (30.7%), cocaine/crack (28.8%), and alcohol (19.0%). Each fiscal year, the
majority (56.4% to 62.3%) of homeless participants successfully complied with their treatment
plan.
¾
Each fiscal year, heroin was the primary drug problem for two-thirds of needle users. Noteworthy
is the increase in needle users reporting methamphetamine as their primary drug problem, from
11.0% in 2001-02 to 19.2% in 2005-06.
¾
Over the five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06), the majority (58.2% to 79.7%) of perinatal
program participants received services from a day care program. Perinatal participants were
most likely to report cocaine/crack or methamphetamine as their primary drug problem. While
cocaine/crack (40.1% to 21.7%) has declined each fiscal year; methamphetamine (30.2% to
43.6%) use has increased.
¾
The number of pregnant women in alcohol and drug treatment/recovery programs has increased
by 29% (734 to 947) over the five fiscal years. During the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 6.1% (947 of
15,534) of female participants reported being pregnant. Since 2002-03, methamphetamine has
been the most frequently reported primary drug problem followed by cocaine/crack.
¾
In 2005-06, one-third of the PPN participants reported methamphetamine as their primary drug
problem. Methamphetamine use doubled during the five year period (16.8% in 2001-02 to 34.7%
in 2005-06).
¾
Since implementation in July 2001, Proposition 36 participants have increased from 3,550 in
2001-02 to 13,720 in 2005-06. Since 2002-03, methamphetamine ranked as the number one
drug problem. Over the five fiscal years, approximately 4 out of 10 Proposition 36 participants
were discharged with a positive treatment compliance status.
Introduction
...
1
Chapters
1
Los Angeles County (LAC) Alcohol and Drug Treatment Program
2
Table 1.1
Program Admissions and Participants by Fiscal Year (FY) ... 2
Table 1.2
Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and FY... 3
Table 1.3
Program Participant Demographics by FY... 4
Table 1.4
Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY ... 5
Table 1.5
Program Participant Discharge Status by FY... 6
2
LAC Alcohol and Drug Treatment Program by Division and Program Type
7
Table 2.1 Number of Non-Residential Admissions by Program Type and FY... 8
Table 2.2 Number of Residential Admissions by Program Type and FY... 9
Table 2.3 Admissions by Division and Program Type, 2005-06 FY... 9
Table 2.4
Day Care Program Participant Demographics, 2005-06 FY... 10
Table 2.5
Day Care Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY... 11
Table 2.6
Day Care Program Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 11
Table 2.7
Outpatient Counseling Program Participant Demographics, 2005-06 FY ... 12
Table 2.8
Outpatient Counseling Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY ... 13
Table 2.9
Outpatient Counseling Program Participant Discharge Status by FY... 13
Table 2.10 Narcotic Treatment Program (NTP) Detoxification Participant Demographics,
2005-06 FY... 14
Table 2.11 NTP Detoxification Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY ... 15
Table 2.12 NTP Detoxification Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 15
Table 2.13 NTP Detoxification Participant Demographics, 2005-06 FY ... 16
Table 2.14 NTP Maintenance Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY
...
17
Table 2.15 NTP Maintenance Program Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 17
Table 2.16 Residential Detoxification Program Participant Demographics, 2005-06 FY... 18
Table 2.17 Residential Detoxification Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY... 19
Table 2.18 Residential Detoxification Program Participant Discharge Status by FY... 19
Table 2.19 Residential Services Program Participant Demographics, 2005-06 FY ... 20
Table 2.20 Residential Services Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY ... 21
3
LAC Alcohol and Drug Treatment Program Special Populations
22
Table 3.1
Total Number of California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs)
Program
Admissions
and Participants by FY... 23
Table 3.2
CalWORKs Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and FY ... 24
Table 3.3
CalWORKs Program Participant Demographics by FY ... 25
Table 3.4
CalWORKs Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY... 26
Table 3.5
CalWORKs Program Participant Discharge Status by FY... 26
Table 3.6
Total Number of Co-Occurring Disorder Program Admissions and Participants by FY ... 28
Table 3.7
Co-Occurring Disorder Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and FY ... 28
Table 3.8
Co-Occurring Disorder Program Participant Demographics by FY ... 29
Table 3.9
Co-Occurring Disorder Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY ... 30
Table 3.10 Co-Occurring Disorder Program Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 30
Table 3.11 Total Number of Drug Court Program Admissions and Participants by FY ... 31
Table 3.12 Drug Court Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and FY... 32
Table 3.13 Drug Court Program Participant Demographics by FY ... 33
Table 3.14 Drug Court Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY... 34
Table 3.15 Drug Court Program Participant Discharge Status by FY... 34
Table 3.16 Total Number of Female Offender Program Admissions and Participants by FY... 35
Table 3.17 Female Offender Program Participants Admissions by Program Type and FY... 36
Table 3.18 Female Offender Program Participant Demographics by FY... 36
Table 3.19 Female Offender Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY ... 37
Table 3.20 Female Offender Program Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 37
Table 3.21 Total Number of General Relief Program Admissions and Participant by FY ... 38
Table 3.22 General Relief Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and FY ... 39
Table 3.23 General Relief Program Participant Demographics by FY... 40
Table 3.24 General Relief Program Participant Primary Problem by FY... 41
Table 3.25 General Relief Program Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 41
Table 3.26 Total Number of Homeless Program Admissions and Participants by FY... 43
Table 3.27 Homeless Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and FY ... 43
Table 3.28 Homeless Program Participant Demographics by FY... 44
Table 3.29 Homeless Program Participant Primary Drug Program by FY... 45
Table 3.30 Homeless Program Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 45
Table 3.31 Total Number of Needle User Program Admissions and Participant by FY ... 47
Table 3.35 Needle User Program Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 49
Table 3.36 Total Number of Perinatal Program Admissions and Participant by FY ... 51
Table 3.37 Perinatal Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and FY ... 51
Table 3.38 Perinatal Program Participant Demographics by FY ... 52
Table 3.39 Perinatal Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY... 53
Table 3.40 Perinatal Program Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 53
Table 3.41 Total Number of Pregnant Program Admissions and Participants by FY ... 55
Table 3.42 Pregnant Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and FY... 55
Table 3.43 Pregnant Program Participant Demographics by FY ... 56
Table 3.44 Pregnant Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY... 57
Table 3.45 Pregnant Program Participant Discharge Status by FY... 57
Table 3.46 Total Number of Prison Parolee Network (PPN) Program Admissions and
Participants by FY ... 58
Table 3.47 PPN Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and FY ... 59
Table 3.48 PPN Program Participant Demographics by FY ... 60
Table 3.49 PPN Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY... 61
Table 3.50 PPN Program Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 61
Table 3.51 Total Number of Proposition 36 Program Admissions and Participants by FY... 63
Table 3.52 Proposition 36 Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and FY ... 63
Table 3.53 Proposition 36 Program Participant Demographics by FY... 64
Table 3.54 Proposition 36 Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by FY ... 65
Table 3.55 Proposition 36 Program Participant Discharge Status by FY ... 65
4
LAC Participant Statistics by Agency
66
Table 4.0
Number of Program Participants and Admissions by Agency, 2005-06 FY ... 67
Table 4.1 Able Family Support, Inc... 70
Table 4.2
Addiction Research and Treatment, Inc... 71
Table 4.3
Aegis Medical System, Inc... 72
Table 4.4
Alcoholism Center for Women, Inc... 73
Table 4.5
Alcoholism Council of Antelope Valley/NCA... 74
Table 4.6
AltaMed ... 75
Table 4.7
American Asian Pacific Ministries, Inc ... 76
Table 4.8
American Indian Changing Spirits... 77
Table 4.9
Antelope Valley Rehabilitation Centers... 78
Chapter 4 – Continued
Table 4.11 Arms of Grace Humanitarian Services... 80
Table 4.12 Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc. ... 81
Table 4.13 Atlantic Recovery Services ... 82
Table 4.14 Avalon - Carver Community Health Center ... 83
Table 4.15 BAART Behavioral Health Services, Inc ... 84
Table 4.16 Beacon House Association of San Pedro (The) ... 85
Table 4.17 Behavioral Health Services, Inc. ... 86
Table 4.18 Bernie’s Lil Women Center... 87
Table 4.19 Bienvenidos Children’s Center, Inc. ... 88
Table 4.20 Blessed Drug and Alcohol Treatment and Research Program, Inc. ... 89
Table 4.21 Calabasas Treatment Center ... 90
Table 4.22 California Drug Consultants, Inc. ... 91
Table 4.23 California Drug Treatment Program, Inc. ... 92
Table 4.24 California Graduate Institute ... 93
Table 4.25 California Health Alcohol and Drug Education Program, Inc. ... 94
Table 4.26 California Hispanic Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Inc. ... 95
Table 4.27 Cambodian Association of America ... 96
Table 4.28 Canon Human Services, Inc ... 97
Table 4.29 Caring Residential Care, Inc ... 98
Table 4.30 Casa de Hermandad, Inc ... 99
Table 4.31 Casa de Las Amigas ... 100
Table 4.32 Chabad of California, Inc... 101
Table 4.33 Changing Steps... 102
Table 4.34 Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science... 103
Table 4.35 Children’s Institute International... 104
Table 4.36 Circle Friends Outpatient Services, Inc... 105
Table 4.37 Circle of Help Foundation ... 106
Table 4.38 City of Compton ... 107
Table 4.39 City of Long Beach, A Municipal Corporation ... 108
Table 4.40 City of Pasadena... 109
Table 4.41 CLARE Foundation, Inc... 110
Table 4.42 Clinica Monsenor Oscar A. Romero... 111
Chapter 4 – Continued
Table 4.46 Dare U to Care Outreach Ministry... 115
Table 4.47 Didi Hirsch Psychiatric Service ... 116
Table 4.48 Do It Now Foundation... 117
Table 4.49 Driver Safety Schools, Inc. ... 118
Table 4.50 East Los Angeles Health Task Force, Inc. ... 119
Table 4.51 El Centro del Pueblo ... 120
Table 4.52 El Proyecto del Barrio ... 121
Table 4.53 Epidaurus ... 122
Table 4.54 Family Service of Long Beach ... 123
Table 4.55 Found, Inc. ... 124
Table 4.56 Fred Brown’s Recovery Services, Inc. ... 125
Table 4.57 Goretti Health Services, Inc. ... 126
Table 4.58 Grandview Foundation, Inc. ... 127
Table 4.59 Guidance Health Services, Inc. ... 128
Table 4.60 Help the People Foundation... 129
Table 4.61 His Sheltering Arm, Inc... 130
Table 4.62 Homeless Health Care Los Angeles, Inc. ... 131
Table 4.63 House of Hope Foundation, Inc. ... 132
Table 4.64 I-ADARP, Inc. ... 133
Table 4.65 Independence Community Treatment Clinic... 134
Table 4.66 Interconnection Center, Inc. ... 135
Table 4.67 Jeff Grand Clinic, Inc... 136
Table 4.68 Joint Efforts, Inc... 137
Table 4.69 La Clinica del Pueblo, Inc. ... 138
Table 4.70 Laws Support Center ... 139
Table 4.71 Little House ... 140
Table 4.72 Live Again Recovery Home, Inc... 141
Table 4.73 Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center ... 142
Table 4.74 Los Angeles Centers for Alcohol and Drug Abuse ... 143
Table 4.75 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Service Center... 144
Table 4.76 Los Angeles New Life Center, Inc... 145
Table 4.77 Mary-Lind Foundation ... 146
Table 4.78 Maternity House, LLC... 147
Table 4.79 Matrix Institute on Addictions ... 148
Chapter 4 – Continued
Table 4.81 Mid Valley Recovery Service, Inc... 150
Table 4.82 Mini Twelve Step House, Inc... 151
Table 4.83 MJB Transitional Recovery, Inc. ... 152
Table 4.84 Mount Sinai Health Center, Inc. ... 153
Table 4.85 NCADD – Long Beach Area... 154
Table 4.86 NCADD of East San Gabriel & Pomona Valleys, Inc... 155
Table 4.87 NCADD of the San Fernando Valley... 156
Table 4.88 Ness Counseling Center, Incorporated (The) ... 157
Table 4.89 New Beginnings Recovery Treatment Center, Inc... 158
Table 4.90 New Destiny, Inc (The)... 159
Table 4.91 New Directions ... 160
Table 4.92 New Hope Health Services, Inc. ... 161
Table 4.93 New Millennium Counseling ... 162
Table 4.94 New Way Foundations, Inc. ... 163
Table 4.95 Noble Heart Services Inc... 164
Table 4.96 Options – A Child Care and Human Services Agency... 165
Table 4.97 Outreach Health Services, Inc. ... 166
Table 4.98 Pacific Clinics ... 167
Table 4.99 Pajo Corporation (The)... 168
Table 4.100 Palm House, Inc. ... 169
Table 4.101 Palm Residential Care Facility (The)... 170
Table 4.102 Pasadena Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency ... 171
Table 4.103 Pasadena Recovery Center, Inc. ... 172
Table 4.104 People Coordinated Services of Southern California... 173
Table 4.105 People in Progress, Inc. ... 174
Table 4.106 Phoenix Houses of Los Angeles, Inc. ... 175
Table 4.107 Plaza Community Center ... 176
Table 4.108 Pomona Alcohol and Drug Recovery Center, Inc. ... 177
Table 4.109 Pomona Community Crisis Center, Inc... 178
Table 4.110 Pom-Pom’s Castle D.B.A Clean and Free Substance Abuse Center ... 179
Table 4.111 Pride Health Services, Inc... 180
Table 4.112 Principles, Inc. ... 181
Chapter 4 – Continued
Table 4.116 Roy’s National Health Services, Inc... 185
Table 4.117 Salvation Army, A California Corporation... 186
Table 4.118 Santa Anita Family Services ... 187
Table 4.119 Santa Monica Bay Area Drug Abuse Council ... 188
Table 4.120 Shields for Families Project, Inc (The) ... 189
Table 4.121 Social Model Recovery Systems, Inc... 190
Table 4.122 South Bay Alcoholism Services, DBA NCADD of the South Bay ... 191
Table 4.123 South Bay Human Services Coalition ... 192
Table 4.124 Southern California Alcohol and Drug Program, Inc. ... 193
Table 4.125 Special Service for Groups ... 194
Table 4.126 SPIRTT Family Services, Inc. ... 195
Table 4.127 Stepping Stones Home... 196
Table 4.128 Substance Abuse Foundation of Long Beach, Inc... 197
Table 4.129 Sunrise Community Counseling Center... 198
Table 4.130 Tarzana Treatment Center... 199
Table 4.131 T.E.A.M. One Stop ... 200
Table 4.132 Total Family Support Clinic ... 201
Table 4.133 Transcultural Health Development, Inc... 202
Table 4.134 Twin Palms Recovery Center... 203
Table 4.135 Twin Town Corporation ... 204
Table 4.136 United American Indian Involvement, Inc... 205
Table 4.137 United States Veterans Initiative, Inc. ... 206
Table 4.138 United Women in Transition... 207
Table 4.139 URDC Human Services Corporation... 208
Table 4.140 U – Turn Alcohol and Drug Education Program, Inc... 209
Table 4.141 Valley Women’s Center, Inc... 210
Table 4.142 Van Ness Recovery House ... 211
Table 4.143 Verdugo Mental Health Center... 212
Table 4.144 Volunteers of America of Los Angeles... 213
Table 4.145 Walden House, Inc... 214
Table 4.146 Watts Healthcare Corporation... 215
Table 4.147 We Can Help Foundation... 216
Table 4.148 Western Pacific Med Corp... 217
Table 4.149 Wilshire Treatment Center, Inc. ... 218
5
LAC Alcohol and Drug Statistical Fact Sheets
220
Fact Sheet 5.1 LAC Indicators of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, 1995 to 2005 ... 221
Fact Sheet 5.2 LAC 2005 Population Estimates by Service Planning Area and Race/Ethnicity ... 222
Fact Sheet 5.3 Adult Homeless Outcome Statistics, 2005-06 FY... 223
Fact Sheet 5.4 Adult Participants Reported Times Arrested at Program Admission and Discharge,
2005-06 FY ... 224
Fact Sheet 5.5 Adult Participants Report Days in Jail at Program Admission and Discharge,
2005-06 FY ... 224
Fact Sheet 5.6 Adult Participants Reported Days in Prison at Program Admission and Discharge,
2005-06 FY ... 225
Fact Sheet 5.7 Adult Participants Reporting of Physical Health Problems at Program Admission and
Discharge, 2005-06 FY... 225
Fact Sheet 5.8 Adult Participants Reported Days in Hospital at Program Admission and Discharge,
2005-06 FY ... 226
Fact Sheet 5.9 Adult Participants Reported Emergency Room Visits at Program Admission and
Discharge, 2005-06 FY... 226
Fact Sheet 5.10 Adult Participants Reported Days in Psychiatric Facility at Program Admission and
Discharge, 2005-06 FY... 227
Fact Sheet 5.11 Adult Participants Reporting Use of Prescribed Medication for Mental Health-Related
Needs at Program Admission and Discharge, 2005-06 FY... 227
Fact Sheet 5.12 Adult Participants Reported Outpatient Emergency Services for Mental
Health-Related Needs at Program Admission and Discharge, 2005-06 FY ... 228
Fact Sheet 5.13a Adult Participants Diagnosed with Tuberculosis at Program Admission and
Discharge, 2005-06 FY... 229
Fact Sheet 5.13b Adult Participants Diagnosed with Hepatitis C at Program Admission and Discharge,
2005-06 FY ... 229
Fact Sheet 5.13c Adult Participants Diagnosed with Sexually Transmitted Infection at Program
Admission and Discharge, 2005-06 FY ... 229
Fact Sheet 5.14a Adult Participants Tested for HIV/AIDS at Program Admission and Discharge,
2005-06 FY ... 230
Fact Sheet 5.14b Adult Participants Who Received HIV/AIDS Test Results at Program Admission and
Discharge, 2005-06 FY... 230
Fact Sheet 5.15 Adult Participants Length of Enrollment by Non-Residential Program Type
Chapter 5 – Continued
Fact Sheet 5.18 Adult Program Participant Discharge Status by Average LOS and FY... 233
Fact Sheet 5.19 LAC Alcohol and Drug Adult Treatment Program Summary Statistics by FY... 234
Fact Sheet 5.20 Adult Participant Demographics by Gender, 2005-06 FY ... 235
Fact Sheet 5.21 Adult Program Participant Demographics by Race/Ethnicity, 2005-06 FY ... 236
Fact Sheet 5.22 Adult Male Program Participant Demographics by Race/Ethnicity, 2005-06 FY... 237
drug treatment/recovery services during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year. Adult treatment services are traditional
ADPA-contracted residential and non-residential alcohol and drug treatment/recovery program services
(day care, detoxification, outpatient, and residential) provided to individuals who are 18 years of age and
older.
The 2005-06 Annual Review is composed of the following five chapters:
Chapter 1 provides statistical information on participants in ADPA-contracted alcohol and drug
treatment/recovery programs over five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06).
Chapter 2 provides a description of treatment services by division and program type. For
each program type, a description of participants who were served in the 2005-06 Fiscal
Year is provided along with key trend statistics that occurred over five fiscal years, 2001-02
to 2005-06.
Chapter 3 provides admission, participant, and outcome trend statistics for special populations.
Chapter 4 provides participant-related demographics for each of the 150 community-based
agencies contracted with ADPA during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year.
Chapter 5 is composed of numerous “Fact Sheets” which cover key Los Angeles County alcohol
and drug-related indicators and outcomes.
The majority of the information found in the Annual Review is based on participant admission and
discharge data collected through ADPA’s Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System (LACPRS).
LACPRS is an ongoing, standardized, computer-supported system sustained by a close working
relationship between ADPA and contracted alcohol and drug program providers.
For the purposes of this report, participant and program admission are defined, as follows:
(1) A participant is an individual who is admitted and becomes actively engaged in an alcohol or drug
treatment program.
(2) A program admission is a treatment event that starts when the program admits the participant.
The Annual Review includes all adult participants who received services in ADPA-contracted
treatment/recovery programs. This review does not include information on participants who received
substance abuse services at facilities operated by federal agencies in Los Angeles County (e.g., the
Veterans Administration), crisis intervention facilities (e.g., hospital emergency departments), private
entities, and other publicly funded non-ADPA contracted programs. The Annual Review does not include
information on ADPA-contracted youth/adolescent and prevention programs.
Acknowledgments:
Special thanks are extended to program providers for their submission of information to ADPA. Without
their cooperation and support, the information necessary for the preparation of the Annual Review would
not have been possible.
Introduction
Alcohol and Drug Program Administration (ADPA) contracted with community-based agencies to provide a
range of treatment and recovery services to County residents with alcohol and other drug problems. Consistent
with federal, State, and County reporting requirements, each time an individual enters or departs from a
treatment program, standardized admission or discharge information is collected. Since a participant may be
admitted to more than one program during a fiscal year, or return to the same program more than once, the
number of participant program admissions can be greater than the number of individual participants.
LAC Program Admission and Participant Trends
Table 1.1 shows the number of annual participants and program admissions from 2001-02 to 2005-06
fiscal years. During the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, ADPA-contracted alcohol and drug treatment programs
provided services to a total of 44,853 participants who accounted for 56,016 treatment/recovery program
admissions.
Over the first four fiscal years (2001-02 to 2004-05), the number of program admissions and participants
increased by 31.4% and 30.8%, respectively. From the fourth to fifth fiscal year (2004-05 to 2005-06),
there was a slight decline in both admissions (-4.9%) and participants (-5.6%). Overall, program
admissions increased by 24.8% and individual participants increased by 23.4%.
Table 1.1 – Program Admissions and Participants by Fiscal Year Treatment/Recovery Programs Fiscal Year Admissions Participants 2001-02 44,861 36,328 2002-03 47,148 38,052 2003-04 57,911 45,048 2004-05 58,964 47,519 2005-06 56,016 44,853 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
LAC Program Participant Admissions by Program Type
Table 1.2 shows the type of programs that provided alcohol and drug treatment/recovery services to
participants over five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06). During the five-year period, most participants
received services from an outpatient counseling program. More than half of the participants were
admitted to an outpatient counseling program during the last two fiscal years (2004-05 and 2005-06). In
the first fiscal year (2001-02), a third of the participants received services from a residential service
program. For the remaining fourth fiscal years (2002-03 to 2005-06), approximately 1 out of every 4
admission was to a residential service program. Day care program admissions remained constant; the
five-year average was 3.4%. Admissions to residential detoxification programs fluctuated slightly, ranging
from a high of 11.1% in 2002-03 to a low of 8.0% in 2005-06. With the exception of 2003-04, there has
been a downward trend in the percent of admissions (from 5.7% to 1.3%) to narcotic treatment
detoxification programs. Over the five fiscal years, narcotic treatment maintenance programs accounted
for approximately 4.0% to 6.0% of the admissions.
Table 1.2 - Program Participant Admissions by Program Type and Fiscal Year1
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Program Type
# % # % # % # % # % Day Care 1,427 3.2 1,858 3.9 1,971 3.4 1,941 3.3 1,909 3.4 Narcotic Treatment Detoxification 2,562 5.7 2,303 4.9 5,216 9.0 1,553 2.6 706 1.3 Narcotic Treatment Maintenance 2,463 5.5 1,794 3.8 3,656 6.3 3,834 6.5 2,425 4.3 Outpatient Counseling 19,199 42.8 22,797 48.4 27,756 47.9 31,733 53.8 31,254 55.8 Residential Detoxification 4,317 9.6 5,235 11.1 5,495 9.5 5,161 8.8 4,504 8.0 Residential Services 14,893 33.2 13,161 27.9 13,815 23.9 14,742 25.0 15,218 27.2 Total 44,861 100.0 47,148 100.0 57,911 100.0 58,964 100.0 56,016 100.0 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
-4-LAC Program Participant Demographic Trends
Table 1.3 shows the demographics for program participants over five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06).
Participant demographics have remained relatively constant during this period. The majority of
participants were male (63.9% to 6
6
.
4
%); between 25 and 44 years of age (57.2% to 63.6%); had 9 to
12 years of education (74.9% to 78.8%); and unemployed (68.4% to 85.1%). Most participants were
Hispanic/Latino (33.7% to 36.1%), White (29.8% to 32.0%), or Black/African American (25.4% to 30.3%).
Table 1.3 – Program Participant Demographics by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Demographics # % # % # % # % # % Admissions 44,861 100.0 47,148 100.0 57,911 100.0 58,964 100.0 56,016 100.0 Participants 36,328 100.0 38,052 100.0 45,048 100.0 47,519 100.0 44,853 100.0 Gender Male 23,214 63.9 25,112 66.0 29,909 66.4 31,240 65.7 29,319 65.4 Female 13,114 36.1 12,940 34.0 15,139 33.6 16,279 34.3 15,534 34.6 Race/Ethnicity White 11,119 30.6 11,523 30.3 14,403 32.0 14,686 30.9 13,363 29.8 Black/African American 10,991 30.3 10,997 28.9 11,890 26.4 12,108 25.5 11,377 25.4 Hispanic/Latino 12,232 33.7 13,112 34.5 16,116 35.8 17,146 36.1 15,328 34.2 Native American 444 1.2 430 1.1 499 1.1 556 1.2 552 1.2 Asian/Pacific Islander 629 1.7 714 1.9 909 2.0 1,244 2.6 1,299 2.9 Other 913 2.5 1,276 3.4 1,231 2.7 1,720 3.6 2,934 6.5 Age 18 – 20 1,429 3.9 1,376 3.6 1,394 3.1 2,787 5.9 1,781 4.0 21 – 24 3,304 9.1 4,011 10.5 4,603 10.2 4,953 10.4 5,143 11.5 25 – 44 23,101 63.6 24,079 63.3 27,231 60.4 27,173 57.2 25,807 57.5 45 – 64 8,269 22.8 8,377 22.0 11,478 25.5 12,230 25.7 11,627 25.9 65 – Over 225 0.6 209 0.5 342 0.8 376 0.8 495 1.1 Education None 237 0.7 260 0.7 247 0.5 449 0.9 1,008 2.2 1 – 8 years 1,844 5.1 2,003 5.3 2,331 5.2 1,311 2.8 2,201 4.9 9 – 12 years 28,247 77.8 29,854 78.5 35,515 78.8 35,589 74.9 33,832 75.4 13 or more years 6,000 16.5 5,935 15.6 6,955 15.4 10,170 21.4 7,812 17.4 Employment Status Employed 5,414 14.9 6,550 17.2 8,983 19.9 9,578 20.2 8,775 19.6 Unemployed 30,914 85.1 31,502 82.8 36,065 80.1 34,513 72.6 30,675 68.4 Not in the labor force 3,428 7.2 5,403 12.0 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
LAC Program Participant Primary Drug Problem Trends
The primary drug problems reported by program participants over five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06)
are shown in Table 1.4. During the five fiscal years, approximately 1 out of 5 participants reported alcohol
as their primary drug problem. Heroin use fluctuated annually during the five-year period, ranging from a
high of 20.8% in 2001-02 to a low of 13.1% in 2005-06. From the first to the second fiscal year (2001-02
to 2002-03), cocaine/crack was the most frequently reported primary drug problem. In the third fiscal year
(2003-04), both cocaine/crack and methamphetamine ranked as the most prominent primary drug
problems reported by participants. Beginning with the fourth fiscal year (2004-05), methamphetamine
surpassed cocaine/crack and became the most frequently reported participant primary drug problem.
One notable change in participant reported primary drug problems over these five fiscal years has been
the steady increase in methamphetamine use; from 17.4% in 2001-02 to 30.8% in 2005-06. During the
2005-06 Fiscal Year, the majority of methamphetamine users were White (37.3%) or Hispanic/Latino
(45.4%). The average age for marijuana/hashish (31.3 years) and methamphetamine (31.8 years) users
was considerably younger than the average age of other primary drug user groups. Methamphetamine
users had the highest percent (38.9%) of female participants.
Table 1.4 – Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Primary Drug Problem
# % # % # % # % # % Alcohol 8,473 23.3 8,120 21.3 9,158 20.3 9,331 19.6 8,847 19.7 Cocaine/Crack 9,585 26.4 9,927 26.1 10,290 22.8 10,619 22.3 10,296 23.0 Heroin 7,556 20.8 6,651 17.5 9,119 20.2 8,093 17.0 5,879 13.1 Marijuana/Hashish 2,787 7.7 3,244 8.5 3,985 8.8 4,987 10.5 4,511 10.1 Methamphetamine 6,320 17.4 8,155 21.4 10,260 22.8 12,449 26.2 13,818 30.8 Other 1,607 4.4 1,955 5.1 2,236 5.0 2,040 4.3 1,502 3.3 Total 36,328 100.0 38,052 100.0 45,048 100.0 47,519 100.0 44,853 100.0 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
-6-LAC Program Participant Discharge Status Trends
Table 1.5 shows treatment compliance over five fiscal years (2001-02 to 2005-06). Participants with
“Positive Compliance” are those who completed treatment or left before completing treatment with
satisfactory progress. “Negative Compliance” refers to those participants who left before completing
treatment with unsatisfactory progress. The majority of program participants had positive treatment
outcomes four out of the five fiscal years. In 2003-04 Fiscal Year, slightly less than half (49.4%) of the
participants had positive treatment outcomes. The five-year average for positive treatment compliance
was 52.3%
During the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 52.9% of participants who departed from programs with a negative
compliance assessment were in treatment for less than 31 days. This outcome is consistent with current
literature which states that better or positive outcomes are associated with longer treatment durations.
Table 1.5 – Program Participant Discharge Status by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Participant Discharge Status
# % # % # % # % # % Number of Discharges 32,458 100.0 33,764 100.0 37,951 100.0 28,207 100.0 29,507 100.0 Positive Compliance 17,233 53.1 17,448 51.7 18,741 49.4 14,997 53.2 16,006 54.2 Completed Treatment 8,397 25.9 8,487 25.1 9,294 24.5 9,124 32.3 10,704 36.3 Left - Satisfactory 8,836 27.2 8,961 26.5 9,447 24.9 5,873 20.8 5,302 18.0 Negative Compliance 15,225 46.9 16,316 48.3 19,210 50.6 13,210 46.8 13,501 45.8 Left – Unsatisfactory 15,225 46.9 16,316 48.3 19,210 50.6 13,210 46.8 13,501 45.8 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
Introduction
Chapter 2 describes the participants in alcohol and drug treatment/recovery program by division and program
type. During the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 150 individual community-based agencies operated 362 treatment
programs at 295 different facility sites located throughout Los Angeles County.
Alcohol and drug treatment/recovery programs are classified as either non-residential or residential and as
one of the following six program types:
Non-Residential – Participants reside outside of the program facility while receiving treatment/recovery
services.
•
Day Care Programs
provide counseling and recovery services to persons who have drug and/or
alcohol-related problems. The primary purpose of these services is to provide a planned treatment
program in a social setting structured to maximize recovery and rehabilitation of participants. These
programs services are more intensive than a visit (person-to-person contact) but less extensive than
24-hour residential services. The services are usually available a minimum of six hours per day, six
days per week.
•
Outpatient Counseling Programs
provide crisis intervention, counseling, and participant referral services
to individuals affected by alcohol and/or drug-related problems. Services may include participant
screening and assessment, development of treatment plans, individual and group counseling, hosting
mutual self-help groups, coordination of services with other agencies, and referral to other resources.
Outpatient counseling is designed to provide an alcohol and drug-free structured environment that
encourages and supports a participant’s effort to improve his/her level of functioning.
•
Narcotic Treatment Detoxification Programs
administer or furnish methadone and/or
levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM) in decreasing doses for a period not to exceed 21 days to assist an individuals’
withdrawal from dependency on heroin or other morphine-like drugs. Services may include intake and
physical examination, casework services, an individualized treatment plan, body fluid testing,
coordination of additional services with other agencies, and referrals to other resources.
•
Narcotic Treatment Maintenance Programs
administer methadone/LAAM, at relatively stable dosage
levels for a period in excess of 21 days, as an oral substitute narcotic drug. The treatment protocol is
accompanied by ancillary social and medical services for individuals 18 years of age or older who have
a history of two or more years of dependence on heroin or other morphine-like drugs and two or more
failures in alternative treatment programs. Services may include intake and assessment, body fluid
testing, group and family counseling, crisis intervention, coordinating additional services with other
agencies, and participant follow-up.
Residential – Participants reside in a drug-free program facility, operating on a 24-hour per day basis,
receiving food and shelter as part of the treatment/recovery service.
•
Residential Detoxification Services
provide care and treatment for person suffering from the withdrawal
symptoms of alcohol and/or other drugs in a non-medical setting. These services are generally offered
as preparation for entry into a treatment and recovery program, therefore, the medical and
psychological supports are provided. Services may include physical examination and medical history,
medication as needed, recidivism counseling, referrals to other resources, and after care planning.
•
Residential Services
is a 24-hour live-in, drug-free treatment environment for persons with drug and/or
alcohol-related problems. Participants are involved in no less than six hours of planned treatment
activities per day under the supervision of trained staff. Services may include intake and participant
screening, room and meals, crisis intervention, individual and group counseling, host mutual self-help
Non-Residential Program Admission Trends
Table 2.1 shows admission trends over five fiscal years by the four non-residential program types and the
overall non-residential program. The number of non-residential program admissions increased over the
first four fiscal years, from a low of 25,651 admissions in the 2001-02 Fiscal Year to a high of 39,061
admissions in the 2004-05 Fiscal Year. Then in 2005-06, non-residential program admissions dropped to
36,294 (2,767 fewer). As shown, outpatient counseling programs account for the majority (71.9% to
86.1%) of non-residential admissions each fiscal year. From 2001-02 to 2004-05 fiscal years, outpatient
counseling admissions increased by 65.2% and decreased by 1.5% in 2005-06.
Day care admissions increased 38.1% from the first to third fiscal year (2001-02 and 2003-04). From the
third to the fifth fiscal year, day care program admissions deceased by 3.1% (1,971 to 1,909). Narcotic
treatment detoxification program admissions were relatively constant the first two fiscal years (2,562 to
2,303). Then, in the third fiscal year, program admissions more than doubled to 5,216. Over the
remaining two fiscal years, narcotic treatment detoxification admissions decreased by 70.2% (1,553) in
2004-05 and by another 54.5% (706) in 2005-06. The narcotic treatment maintenance program
admissions have fluctuated over the five fiscal years, ranging from a low of 1,794 in 2002-03 to a high of
3,834 in 2004-05. Essentially the same number of narcotic treatment maintenance program admissions
was reported in 2001-02 and 2005-06 fiscal years, 2,463 and 2,425, respectively.
Table 2.1 - Number of Non-Residential Admissions by Program Type and Fiscal Year
Non-Residential Admissions Fiscal Year
Day Care Outpatient Detox NTP Maint NTP Overall
2001-02 1,427 19,199 2,562 2,463 25,651 2002-03 1,858 22,797 2,303 1,794 28,752 2003-04 1,971 27,756 5,216 3,658 38,601 2004-05 1,941 31,733 1,553 3,834 39,061 2005-06 1,909 31,254 706 2,425 36,294 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
Residential Program Admission Trends
Table 2.2 shows admission trends over five fiscal years by the two residential program types and the
overall residential program. The admissions to the overall residential program decreased by 4.2% from
2001-02 to 2002-03. Conversely, over the next two fiscal years (2003-04 to 2004-05), reported residential
program admissions increased by 8.1%. A decrease of less than 1.0% was seen in 2005-06 Fiscal Year.
The residential services program, the larger of the two types of residential programs, had an 11.6%
decrease in reported admissions from 2001-02 to 2002-03, followed by a steady increase over the
remaining three fiscal years (2003-04 to 2005-06). There was a 27.2% increase in residential
detoxification program admissions over the first three fiscal years (2001-02 to 2003-04). A downward
trend occurred in the remaining two fiscal years (2004-05 to 2005-06), 6.0% and 12.7%, respectively.
Residential Program Admission Trends - Continued
Table 2.2 - Number of Residential Admissions by Program Type and Fiscal Year
Residential Admissions Fiscal Year
Detoxification Residential Overall 2001-02 4,317 14,893 19,210 2002-03 5,235 13,161 18,396 2003-04 5,495 13,815 19,310 2004-05 5,161 14,742 19,903 2005-06 4,504 15,218 19,722 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
Admissions by Division and Program Type
As shown in Table 2.3, a total of 56,016 admissions were reported during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year.
Approximately two-thirds of participant admissions were to non-residential programs. The majority
(86.1%) of non-residential participant admissions was to outpatient counseling programs. The remaining
one-third of participant admissions was to residential programs with the majority (77.2%) of participants
being admitted to residential services programs.
Table 2.3 - Admissions by Divisionand Program Type 2005-06 Fiscal Year Admissions Division/Program Type Number Percent Non-Residential Division 36,294 64.8 Day Care – 1,909 (5.3%)
Narcotic Treatment Detoxification – 706 (1.9%) Narcotic Treatment Maintenance – 2,425 (6.7%) Outpatient Counseling – 31,254 (86.1%)
Residential Division 19,722 35.2
Detoxification – 4,504 (22.8%) Residential Services – 15,218 (77.2%)
Total 56,016 100.0
Day Care Program Participant Demographics
During
the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 1,759 unique participants accounted for 1,909 admissions to day care
programs; 141 (8.0%) of these participants had two or more admissions.
According to Table 2.4, several key day care program participant findings are
•
86.2% were female
;
•
65.5% were between 25 and 44 years of age
;
•
most were Hispanic/Latino (31.6%) or Black/African American (35.7%); and
•
41.2% reported methamphetamine as their primary drug problem.
Table 2.4 – Day Care Program Participant Demographics 2005-06 Fiscal Year
Demographics Number Percent
Admissions 1,909 100.0 Participants 1,759 100.0 Gender Male 242 13.8 Female 1,517 86.2 Race/Ethnicity White 412 23.4 Black/African American 628 35.7 Hispanic/Latino 556 31.6 Native American 24 1.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 38 2.2 Other 101 5.7 Age 18 – 20 116 6.6 21 – 24 286 16.3 25 – 44 1,152 65.5 45 – 64 200 11.4 65 – Over 5 0.3 Education None 23 1.3 1 – 8 years 99 5.6 9 – 12 years 1,377 78.3 13 or more years 260 14.8 Employment Status Employed 152 8.6 Unemployed 1,277 72.6
Not in the labor force 330 18.8 Primary Drug Problem
Alcohol 228 13.0 Cocaine/Crack 417 23.7 Heroin 47 2.7 Marijuana/Hashish 299 17.0 Methamphetamine 725 41.2 Other 43 2.4
Day Care Program Participant Primary Drug Problem Trends
Table 2.5 shows that over the five fiscal years, the primary drug problem for most day care program
participants was either methamphetamine or cocaine/crack. Since 2001-02 Fiscal Year, there has been a
steady decreased in the percent of participants who reported cocaine/crack as their primary drug problem.
Four out of 10 participants reported cocaine/crack as their primary drug problem in 2001-02 compared to 2
out 10 participants in 2005-06. During the five-year period (2001-02 to 2005-06), methamphetamine users
increased from 19.6% to 41.2%. Over the last two fiscal years, 4 out of 10 participants reported
methamphetamine as their primary drug problem.
Table 2.5 – Day Care Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Primary Drug Problem
# % # % # % # % # % Alcohol 252 18.8 253 14.5 248 13.4 212 12.1 228 13.0 Cocaine/Crack 561 41.8 610 35.0 560 30.3 480 27.4 417 23.7 Heroin 65 4.8 87 5.0 79 4.3 60 3.4 47 2.7 Marijuana/Hashish 148 11.0 210 12.0 244 13.2 274 15.6 299 17.0 Methamphetamine 263 19.6 477 27.3 642 34.7 670 38.2 725 41.2 Other 52 3.9 108 6.2 77 4.2 59 3.4 43 2.4 Total 1,341 100.0 1,745 100.0 1,850 100.0 1,755 100.0 1,759 100.0 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
Day Care Program Participant Discharge Status Trends
Table 2.6 shows that during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 39.8% of day care program participants received a
positive treatment compliance assessment at discharge; they were successful in complying with their
treatment plan. The five-year positive treatment compliance average was 38.1%.
Table 2.6 – Day Care Program Participant Discharge Status by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Participant Discharge Status
# % # % # % # % # % Number of Discharges 867 100.0 1,231 100.0 1,272 100.0 764 100.0 905 100.0 Positive Compliance 335 38.6 501 40.7 450 35.4 276 36.1 360 39.8 Completed Treatment 117 13.5 157 12.8 158 12.4 116 15.2 188 20.8 Left – Satisfactory 218 25.1 344 27.9 292 23.0 160 20.9 172 19.0 Negative Compliance 532 61.4 730 59.3 822 64.6 488 63.9 545 60.2 Left – Unsatisfactory 532 61.4 730 59.3 822 64.6 488 63.9 545 60.2 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
Outpatient Counseling Program Participant Demographics
Table 2.7 shows that during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 27,280 participants accounted for 31,254 admissions
to outpatient counseling programs; 3,410 (12.5%) of these participants had two or more admissions.
Most outpatient counseling program participants were:
•
male
(67.1%);
•
between 25 and 44 years of age (58.1%);
•
Hispanic/Latino (35.5%), White (27.3%) or Black/African American (26.0%); and
•
reported methamphetamine (33.1%), cocaine/crack (24.5%), or alcohol (21.2%) as their
primary drug problem.
Table 2.7 – Outpatient Counseling Program Participant Demographics
2005-06 Fiscal Year
Demographics Number Percent
Admissions 31,254 100.0 Participants 27,280 100.0 Gender Male 18,297 67.1 Female 8,983 32.9 Race/Ethnicity White 7,440 27.3 Black/African American 7,100 26.0 Hispanic/Latino 9,696 35.5 Native American 258 0.9 Asian/Pacific Islander 850 3.1 Other 1,936 7.1 Age 18 – 20 963 3.5 21 – 24 3,313 12.1 25 – 44 15,863 58.1 45 – 64 6,812 25.0 65 – Over 329 1.2 Education None 708 2.6 1 – 8 years 1,428 5.2 9 – 12 years 20,810 76.3 13 or more years 4,334 15.9 Employment Status Employed 7,503 27.5 Unemployed 16,890 61.9
Not in the labor force 2,887 10.6 Primary Drug Problem
Alcohol 5,782 21.2 Cocaine/Crack 6,674 24.5 Heroin 1,358 5.0 Marijuana/Hashish 3,676 13.5 Methamphetamine 9,038 33.1 Other 752 2.8
Outpatient Counseling Program Participant Primary Drug Problem Trends
According to Table 2.8, outpatient counseling program participants reported alcohol, cocaine/crack, or
methamphetamine as their most likely primary drug problem each fiscal year. Since 2003-04 Fiscal Year,
methamphetamine has been the primary drug problem reported by most outpatient counseling program
participants. The number of methamphetamine users has increased each of the five fiscal years.
Table 2.8 – Outpatient Counseling Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Primary Drug Problem
# % # % # % # % # % Alcohol 4,607 26.1 4,652 22.3 5,746 23.2 6,110 22.5 5,782 21.2 Cocaine/Crack 5,188 29.4 6,016 28.9 6,473 26.1 6,632 24.4 6,674 24.5 Heroin 1,266 7.2 1,294 6.2 1,366 5.5 1,410 5.2 1,358 5.0 Marijuana/Hashish 2,210 12.5 2,614 12.5 3,233 13.1 4,090 15.0 3,676 13.5 Methamphetamine 3,525 20.0 5,247 25.2 6,747 27.2 7,923 29.1 9,038 33.1 Other 853 4.8 1,008 4.8 1,200 4.8 1,023 3.8 752 2.8 Total 17,649 100.0 20,831 100.0 24,765 100.0 27,188 100.0 27,280 100.0 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
Outpatient Counseling Program Participant Discharge Status Trends
According to Table 2.9 during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 43.6% of the outpatient counseling program
participants were discharged with a positive treatment compliance status; they were successful in
complying with their treatment plan. The percentage of outpatient counseling program participants
discharged with positive treatment compliance assessments decreased over the first three fiscal years;
from a high of 47.0% in the 2001-02 Fiscal Year to a low of 38.8% in 2003-04. During the last two fiscal
years (2004-05 and 2005-06), positive treatment compliance increased slightly, 41.1% and 43.6%,
respectively. The five-year positive treatment compliance average was 42.5%.
Table 2.9 – Outpatient Counseling Program Participant Discharge Status by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Participant Discharge Status
# % # % # % # % # % Number of Discharges 11,922 100.0 14,353 100.0 15,233 100.0 12,354 100.0 13,477 100.0 Positive Compliance 5,606 47.0 6,005 41.8 5,918 38.8 5,083 41.1 5,871 43.6 Completed Treatment 2,797 23.5 2,817 19.6 2,937 19.3 2,880 23.3 3,535 26.2 Left – Satisfactory 2,809 23.6 3,188 22.2 2,981 19.6 2,203 17.8 2,336 17.3 Negative Compliance 6,316 53.0 8,348 58.2 9,315 61.2 7,271 58.9 7,606 56.4 Left – Unsatisfactory 6,316 53.0 8,348 58.2 9,315 61.2 7,271 58.9 7,606 56.4 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
Narcotic Treatment Detoxification Program Participant Demographics
As shown in Table 2.10, during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 597 participants accounted for 706 admissions to
narcotic treatment detoxification programs; 85 (14.2%) of these participants had two or more admissions.
According to statistical findings:
•
71.5%
were
male;
•
54.9% were between 45 and 64 years of age;
•
most participants were Hispanic/Latino (53.4%); and
•
95.3% of the participants reported heroin as their primary drug problem.
Table 2.10 – Narcotic Treatment Program (NTP) Detoxification Participant Demographics
2005-06 Fiscal Year
Demographics Number Percent
Admissions 706 100.0 Participants 597 100.0 Gender Male 427 71.5 Female 170 28.5 Race/Ethnicity White 152 25.5 Black/African American 104 17.4 Hispanic/Latino 319 53.4 Native American 5 0.8 Asian/Pacific Islander 6 1.0 Other 11 1.8 Age 18 – 20 6 1.0 21 – 24 14 2.3 25 – 44 239 40.0 45 – 64 328 54.9 65 – Over 10 1.7 Education None 16 2.7 1 – 8 years 36 6.0 9 – 12 years 473 79.2 13 or more years 72 12.1 Employment Status Employed 46 7.7 Unemployed 485 81.2
Not in the labor force 66 11.1 Primary Drug Problem
Heroin 569 95.3
Non-Prescription Methadone 1 0.2 Other Opiates and Synthetics 27 4.5 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
NTP Detoxification Programs Participant Primary Drug Problem Trends
Narcotic treatment programs by design provide methadone/LAAM services to participants who have heroin
or other morphine-like primary drug problems. As anticipated, each fiscal year almost all participants in
narcotic treatment detoxification programs reported heroin (94.5% to 98.5%) as their primary drug problem
(Table 2.11).
Table 2.11 – NTP Detoxification Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Primary Drug Problem
# % # % # % # % # %
Heroin 1,792 98.5 1,579 98.4 3,235 96.1 1,269 94.5 569 95.3 Non-Prescription Methadone 1 0.1 0 0.0 2 0.1 4 0.3 1 0.2 Other Opiates and Synthetics 26 1.4 25 1.6 131 3.9 70 5.2 27 4.5 Total 1,819 100.0 1,604 100.0 3,368 100.0 1,343 100.0 597 100.0 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
NTP Detoxification Program Participant Discharge Status Trends
As shown in Table 2.12, during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, half (50.6%) of the narcotic treatment
detoxification program participants received a positive treatment compliance assessment at discharge;
they were successful in complying with their treatment plan. The five-year positive treatment compliance
average was 46.1%.
Table 2.12 – NTP Detoxification Program Participant Discharge Status by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Participant Discharge Status
# % # % # % # % # % Number of Discharges 2,286 100.0 2,115 100.0 4,493 100.0 1,101 100.0 543 100.0 Positive Compliance 1,023 44.8 928 43.9 1,970 43.8 522 47.4 275 50.6 Completed Treatment 468 20.5 422 20.0 701 15.6 242 22.0 169 31.1 Left – Satisfactory 555 24.3 506 23.9 1,269 28.2 280 25.4 106 19.5 Negative Compliance 1,263 55.2 1,187 56.1 2,523 56.2 579 52.6 268 49.4 Left – Unsatisfactory 1,263 55.2 1,187 56.1 2,523 56.2 579 52.6 268 49.4 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
Narcotic Treatment Maintenance Program Participant Demographics
According to Table 2.13, during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 2,056 participants accounted for 2,425
admissions to narcotic treatment maintenance programs; 290 (14.1%) of these participants had two or
more admissions.
According to statistical findings:
•
64.3%
were
male;
•
55.8% were between 45 and 64 years of age;
•
most participants were Hispanic/Latino (38.2%) or White (33.9%); and
•
92.9% of the participants reported heroin as their primary drug problem.
Table 2.13 – NTP Maintenance Participant Demographics 2005-06 Fiscal Year
Demographics Number Percent
Admissions 2,425 100.0 Participants 2,056 100.0 Gender Male 1,321 64.3 Female 735 35.7 Race/Ethnicity White 698 33.9 Black/African American 425 20.7 Hispanic/Latino 785 38.2 Native American 16 0.8 Asian/Pacific Islander 31 1.5 Other 101 4.9 Age 18 – 20 3 0.1 21 – 24 46 2.2 25 – 44 754 36.7 45 – 64 1,147 55.8 65 – Over 106 5.2 Education None 23 1.1 1 – 8 years 107 5.2 9 – 12 years 1,543 75.0 13 or more years 383 18.6 Employment Status Employed 384 18.7 Unemployed 1,325 64.4
Not in the labor force 347 16.9 Primary Drug Problem
Heroin 1,909 92.9
Non-Prescription Methadone 11 0.5 Other Opiates and Synthetics 136 6.6 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
NTP Maintenance Programs Participant Primary Drug Problem Trends
Narcotic treatment programs by design provide methadone/LAAM services to participants who have heroin
or other morphine-like primary drug problems. As anticipated, each fiscal year almost all participants in
narcotic treatment maintenance programs reported heroin (92.2% to 96.4%) as their primary drug problem
(Tables 2.14).
Table 2.14 – NTP Maintenance Program Participant Primary Drug Problem by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Primary Drug Problem
# % # % # % # % # %
Heroin 2,049 96.4 1,425 92.2 3,006 94.4 3,274 93.4 1,909 92.9 Non-Prescription Methadone 3 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 22 0.6 11 0.5 Other Opiates and Synthetics 73 3.4 119 7.7 174 5.5 208 5.9 136 6.6 Total 2,125 100.0 1,545 100.0 3,183 100.0 3,504 100.0 2,056 100.0 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
NTP Maintenance Program Participant Discharge Status Trends
According to Table 2.15, in 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 23.0% of the narcotic treatment maintenance program
participants received a positive treatment compliance assessment at discharge; they were successful in
complying with their treatment plan. The five-year positive treatment compliance average was 29.7%.
Table 2.15 – NTP Maintenance Program Participant Discharge Status by Fiscal Year
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Participant Discharge Status
# % # % # % # % # % Number of Discharges 1,568 100.0 977 100.0 1,669 100.0 700 100.0 630 100.0 Positive Compliance 547 34.9 371 38.0 457 27.4 175 25.0 145 23.0 Completed Treatment 40 2.6 44 4.5 20 1.2 12 1.7 22 3.5 Left – Satisfactory 507 32.3 327 33.5 437 26.2 163 23.3 123 19.5 Negative Compliance 1,021 65.1 606 62.0 1,212 72.6 525 75.0 485 77.0 Left – Unsatisfactory 1,021 65.1 606 62.0 1,212 72.6 525 75.0 485 77.0 Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
Residential Detoxification Program Participant Demographics
As shown in Table 2.16, during the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, 3,973 participants accounted for 4,504
admissions to residential detoxification programs; 432 (10.9%) of these participants had two or more
admissions.
Most residential detoxification program participants were:
•
male
(73.0%);
•
between 25 and 44 years of age (56.4%);
•
White (44.5%) or Hispanic/Latino (35.7%); and
•
reported either heroin (43.3%) or alcohol (24.2%) as their primary drug problem.
Table 2.16 – Residential Detoxification Program Participant Demographics
2005-06 Fiscal Year
Demographics Number Percent
Admissions 4,504 100.0 Participants 3,973 100.0 Gender Male 2,900 73.0 Female 1,073 27.0 Race/Ethnicity White 1,769 44.5 Black/African American 398 10.0 Hispanic/Latino 1,417 35.7 Native American 49 1.2 Asian/Pacific Islander 82 2.1 Other 258 6.5 Age 18 – 20 105 2.6 21 – 24 248 6.2 25 – 44 2,242 56.4 45 – 64 1,348 33.9 65 – Over 30 0.8 Education None 29 0.7 1 – 8 years 174 4.4 9 – 12 years 2,760 69.5 13 or more years 1,010 25.4 Employment Status Employed 545 13.7 Unemployed 3,102 78.1
Not in the labor force 326 8.2 Primary Drug Problem
Alcohol 960 24.2 Cocaine/Crack 295 7.4 Heroin 1,722 43.3 Marijuana/Hashish 47 1.2 Methamphetamine 542 13.6 Other 407 10.2
