Figure 2.1 Length of Stay by Gender, Children in Household, and Type of Treatment
Figure 3.1 CALDATA Treatment Population Estimates by Gender, Children in Household, and Welfare Receipt in Past Year
Figure 3.2 CALDATA Treatment Population by Gender, Children in Household, and Parenting Concerns
Figure 3.3 CALDATA Treatment Population by Gender, Children in Household, and Child Custody History
Figure 3.4 CALDATA Treatment Population by Gender, Percentage Employed, and Median Earnings
Figure 4.1 Crack: Change in Use (5+ times)
Figure 4.2 Cocaine: Change in Use (5+ times)
Figure 4.3 Heroin: Change in Use (5+ times)
Figure 4.4 Amphetamines: Change in Use (5+ times)
Figure 4.5 Alcohol: Change in Use (5+ times)
Figure 4.6 Change in Employment (Any Earnings)
Figure 4.7 Change in Welfare Receipts (Any)
Figure 4.8 Change in Drug Trafficking
Figure 4.9 Change in Arrests
Figure 4.10 Change in Hospitalization
Figure 4.11 Change in Homelessness (2+ days)


Table 2.1 Comparison of Sample Interviews and Noninterviewed Cases in CALDATA Using Data from Administrative Records of Cooperating Providers
Table 5.1 Cost and Benefits to Taxpaying Citizens
Table 5.2 Unemployment in California, 1989-1993

Endnotes

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education, Risk and Reality: Teaching Preschool Children Affected by Substance Abuse, 1994.
[Back to Chapter 1. Introduction]

2.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Patterns of Substance Abuse and Program Participation, 1994; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Patterns of Substance Abuse and Substance-Related Impairment Among Participants in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC), 1994. The national results based on NHSDA are comparable to previous findings on the scope of substance abuse in local-area samples of AFDC and General Public Assistance (GPA) recipients (see Schmidt, L., 1992, "Shifting moral categories of the poor: addiction and mothers on weflare," paper presented at the Alcohol Epidmiology Symposium, Toronto, June, 1992; Sisco, C.B. and C.L. Pearson, 1994, "Prevalence of alcoholism and drug abuse among female AFDC recipient," Health and Social Work 19:75-77.)
[Back to Chapter 1. Introduction]

3. Grant, B.F. and Dawson, D.A., 1996 "Alcohol and Drug Use, Abuse, and Dependence among Welfare Recipients," American Journal of Public Health 86:1450-1454.
[Back to Chapter 1. Introduction]

4.Gerstein, D., Johnson, R.A., Harwood H.J., Fountain, D., Suter, N. Malloy, K. Evaluating Recovery Services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessmrnt (CALDATA), California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Sacramento, 1994.
[Back to Chapter 1. Introduction]

5.Thirty-two of these respondents were interviewed too late during the field period for their data to be included in the analytical data files used in the original report, the same files used in this study. Analyses of differences between characteristics of early versus late responders indicated that omitting these cases has minimal effect on analytical results.
[Back to Chapter 2. Data Source: About CALDATA]

6.We used ANOVA F tests to test for significant differnces in treatment effects across the subgroups showm in the Figures, additional discriminations among women based on other parenting variables, and similar subgroups among the men of our analysis. Of Figures 4.1 - 4.5, only Figures 4.1 (crack) and Figure 4.4 (amphetamines) showed a dignificant global difference at the .05 level. Based on two-sample t-tests, neither of the two figures with a significant global difference showed a significant paairwise diffeence in percentage change between the two subgroups of greatest interest in our analysis, women with children who received welfare income and women wih children who did not receive welfare income. We also used ANOVA F tests to test for significant global differences in the before-treatment measurement. Only one before/after differnece failed (by a small margin) to reach the conventional .05 significance level: as shown in Figure 4.1, the subgroup of women with children who did not receive wefare income had the lowest percentage change in crack, -25.7 percent, of any category.
[Back to Chapter 4. Treatment Effects]

7.These analysis are based on persons discharged from treatment only, and do not include "Continuing Methadone Maintenance."
[Back to Chapter 5. Treatment Costs and Benefits]