-
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Alcohol and Drug Program Administration
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
-
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Alcohol and Drug
Program Administration
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.
-i-
-
ADPA-Funded Alcohol and Drug Treatment/Recovery Program
Admissions During the 2005-06 Fiscal Year, ADPA contracted with 150
community-based agencies that provided the following types of
alcohol and drug treatment programs in Los Angeles County.
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)
-ii-
-
Participant Characteristics Participant demographics have
remained relatively constant over the five fiscal years (2001-02 to
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.
-iii-
-
Treatment Services by Division and Program Type - Continued
• Methamphetamine was the most frequently reported primary drug
problem for three program types; day care (41.2%), outpatient
counseling (33.1%), and residential services (36.5%). Over 90% of
participants in narcotic treatment programs reported 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.
-iv-
-
Special Populations - Continued Table 4 provides a summary of
the special populations who received services during the 2005-06
Fiscal 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-v-
-
Special Populations - Continued
Alcohol was the most frequently reported primary drug problem
for general relief participants for
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
-vi-
-
Table of Contents
-vii-
Executive Summary
.................................................................................................................................
i 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
Table 2.21 Residential Services Program Participant Discharge
Status by FY.................................... 21
-
Table of Contents
-viii-
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 3.32 Needle User Program Participant Admissions by Program
Type and FY .......................... 47
Table 3.33 Needle User Program Participant Demographics by
FY..................................................... 48
Table 3.34 Needle User Program Participant Primary Drug Problem
by FY ........................................ 49
-
Table of Contents
-ix-
Chapter 3 – Continued
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
Table 4.10 Apex Foundation
.................................................................................................................
79
-
Table of Contents
-x-
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
Table 4.43 Community Alcohol and Drug Treatment
...........................................................................
112
Table 4.44 Cri-Help, Inc.
.......................................................................................................................
113
Table 4.45 Cultural Bridges Treatment Center
.....................................................................................
114
-
Table of Contents
-xi-
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
Table 4.80 MELA Counseling Services Center, Inc.
............................................................................
149
-
Table of Contents
-xii-
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
Table 4.113 Prototypes
...........................................................................................................................
182
Table 4.114 R.A.P. Community Recovery
Services................................................................................
183
Table 4.115 Reseda Substance Abuse Treatment Center, Inc.
.............................................................
184
-
Table of Contents
-xiii-
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
Table 4.150 Wings of
Refuge..................................................................................................................
219
-
Table of Contents
-xiv-
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
and FY
..........................................................................................................................
231
Fact Sheet 5.16 Adult Participants Length of Stay (LOS) by
Residential Program Type and FY .......... 232
Fact Sheet 5.17 Adult Participant Employment Status by
FY.................................................................
233
-
Table of Contents
-xv-
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
Fact Sheet 5.23 Adult Female Program Participant Demographics by
Race/Ethnicity, 2005-06 FY ..... 238
-
Introduction The tenth Annual Review is a comprehensive
description of adult participants who received alcohol and 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.
-1-
-
CChhaapptteerr 11 –– LLAACC AAllccoohhooll aanndd DDrruugg
TTrreeaattmmeenntt PPrrooggrraamm
-2-
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
-
CChhaapptteerr 11
-3-
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
1 Percents found in this table and subsequent tables do not
always sum to 100% due to rounding.
-
CChhaapptteerr 11
-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 66.4%); 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
-
CChhaapptteerr 11
-5-
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
-
CChhaapptteerr 11
-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
-
Chapter 2 – LAC Alcohol and Drug Treatment Program by Division
And Program Type
-7-
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 group
discussions, and social and recreational activities.
-
Chapter 2
-8-
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 NTP Detox
NTP Maint 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.
-
Chapter 2
-9-
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 Division and 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
Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
-
Chapter 2
-10-
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
Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
-
Chapter 2
-11-
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
-
Chapter 2
-12-
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
Source: Los Angeles County Participant Reporting System
-
Chapter 2
-13-
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
-
Chapter 2
-14-
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
-
Chapter 2
-15-
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
-
Chapter 2
-16-
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
-
Chapter 2
-17-
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
Maint