Varieties of centralized intake: the Portland Target Cities Project experience

To assess the possible influence of centralized intake on client outcomes, initial, six- and twelve-month Addiction Severity Index composite scores (in the alcohol, drug, legal and psychiatric areas) for clients who experienced provider intake were compared with scores for those going through two different models of centralized intake. Centralized intake clients were more likely than provider intake clients to have legal problems, and those legal problems became fewer over time. Clients from in-jail intake, including pretreatment services and accompanied placement, showed a greater initial and lower subsequent prevalence of drug, psychiatric and legal problems than the clients of the freestanding centralized intake. For all clients, psychiatric composite scores were powerful predictors of problems in alcohol, drug medical and legal areas, and psychiatric symptoms decreased over time. Since baseline differences in demographics and service assignment existed among the three groups, it was difficult to identify whether the outcome differences were due to the nature of the participants, the nature of the intake intervention, or both. However, the Portland Target Cities Projects's emphasis on in-jail centralized intake was associated with enhanced client outcomes.