Who goes on to receive further treatment and who did not?
-
51%
Half of clients who received an ‘Assessment only’ episode went on to receive further treatment within one year.
Of the clients who received an ‘Assessment only’ episode between 2018–19 and 2023–24, half of the clients (51%, 80,310 clients) received further alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment within one year, the other half did not (49%, 76,798 clients).
-
Regardless of whether a client receives further treatment or not, most clients main drug of concern was alcohol.
-
For those who did receive further treatment, the most common next step was to receive counselling.
Nationally between 2018–19 and 2023–24, of the clients who received further AOD treatment within one year, for their first ‘Assessment only’ episode:
- The most common principal drug of concern was alcohol (38%, 30,372 episodes).
- One third (32%, 25,511) were referred to treatment by themselves or family.
- The most common reason for ending treatment was an expected or a planned treatment completion (52%, 41,482).
- The most common next step was to receive counselling (43%, 34,354).
Of the clients who did not receive further treatment within one year, for their first ‘Assessment only’ episode:
- Over a third (36%, 27,393 episodes) had a principal drug of concern of alcohol.
- One third (34%, 26,358) were referred by a health service.
- 3 in 5 (58%, 44,185) episodes ended as expected or planned completion (tables AO7–11; Figure 3).
Differences in referral sources between those who receive further treatment and those who do not after an assessment highlights a potential intervention point and may serve as the first motivating step in accessing further treatment. Numerous factors can impact an individual’s decision to engage in further treatment, as it should be tailored to the clients’ needs at the time of assessment.
Explore the treatment episode characteristics of ‘Assessment only’ treatment cohorts by states and territories in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Treatment episode characteristics of ‘Assessment only’ treatment cohorts by states and territories
Dashboard with 5 charts showing the patterns of service use of 'Assessment only' client treatment cohorts to compare, navigated by tabs and each covers a different treatment episode characteristic.
How did treatment characteristics vary by state and territory?
While the overall treatment characteristics are consistent nationally, state and territory treatment practices plays a key role in whether clients receive further treatment. Each state and territory shows distinct pathways shaped by local programs, referral arrangements, and service models. Any comparisons between states and territories should be interpreted with caution. For more information see Technical notes: State and territory ‘Assessment only’ data quality for state and territory differences in service structure and programs.
In New South Wales:
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients whose principal drug of concern was either alcohol (35%) or methamphetamine (23%) received further treatment within one year compared to those who did not receive further treatment (30% and 19%, respectively).
- For clients who received further treatment within one year, the most common subsequent treatment type after an ‘Assessment only’ episode was counselling (32%). The next most common was either another ‘Assessment only’ (21%) or withdrawal management (21%).
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients who were referred into treatment by self or family (57%) received further treatment within one year compared to those who did not (45%).
- Clients who received further treatment, were more likely to receive their subsequent treatment in a residential setting (32%) compared to where their first ‘Assessment only’ episode was delivered (17%) (tables AO7–11; Figure 3).
In Victoria:
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients whose principal drug of concern was methamphetamine (27%) did not receive further treatment within one year, compared to those who did receive further treatment (21%).
- For clients who received further treatment within one year, the most common subsequent treatment type was counselling (52%). The next most common was either support and case management (12%) or another ‘Assessment only’ (11%).
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients who were referred into treatment by a corrections program (35%) did not receive further treatment within one year, compared to those who did receive further treatment (20%).
- Clients who did not receive another treatment episode within a year were more likely to have their 'Assessment only' episode in a home setting (24%) than those who received further treatment within one year (18%) (tables AO7–11; Figure 3).
In Queensland:
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients whose principal drug of concern was methamphetamine (19%) received further treatment within one year, compared to those who did not (12% episodes).
- For clients who received further treatment within one year, the most common subsequent main treatment was another ‘Assessment only’ (37%). The next most common was counselling (36%).
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients who were referred into treatment by a health service (61%) did not receive further treatment within one year compared to those who did (44%).
- Clients who did not receive further treatment within one year, were more likely to receive treatment in an outreach setting (22% of ‘Assessment only’ episodes) compared to those who did receive further treatment (18%).
- Clients who did receive further treatment within one year, were more likely to have their ‘Assessment only’ episode end due to being referred onto another service or a change in their treatment mode (15%) compared to those who did not receive further treatment (11%) (tables AO7–11; Figure 3).
In Western Australia:
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients whose principal drug of concern was cannabis (18%) did not receive further treatment within one year compared to those who did (9.9%).
- For clients who received further treatment within one year, the most common subsequent main treatment was counselling (45%). The next most common was rehabilitation (17%).
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients who were referred into treatment by self/family (65%) received further treatment within one year compared to those who did not (49%).
- For clients who received further treatment, their subsequent treatment episode was more likely to be delivered in a residential setting (26%,) compared to where their first ‘Assessment only’ episode was delivered (<0.5%) (tables AO7–11; Figure 3).
In South Australia:
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients whose principal drug of concern was methamphetamine (21%) did not receive further treatment within one year compared to those who did (14%).
- For clients who received further treatment within one year, the most common subsequent main treatment was counselling (42%). The next most common was another ‘Assessment only’ (34%)
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients who were referred into treatment by a diversion program (78%) did not receive further treatment within one year compared to those who did (46%).
- For clients who did receive further treatment within one year, their ‘Assessment only’ episode was more likely to end due to being referred onto another service or a change in their treatment mode (28%) compared to those who did not (6.8%) (tables AO7–11; Figure 3).
In Tasmania:
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients whose principal drug of concern was cannabis (22%) did not receive further treatment within one year compared to those who did (13%).
- For clients who received further treatment within one year, the most common subsequent main treatment was counselling (38%). The next most common was another ‘Assessment only’ (28%).
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients who were referred into treatment by self or family (34%) received further treatment episode within one year compared to those who did not (27%).
- For clients who did receive further treatment within one year, their ‘Assessment only’ episode was more likely to end due to being referred onto another service or a change in their treatment mode (35%) compared to those who did not (17%) (tables AO7–11; Figure 3).
In the Australian Capital Territory:
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients whose principal drug of concern was methamphetamine (20%) received further treatment within one year compared to those who did not (10%).
- For clients who received further treatment within one year, the most common subsequent main treatment was counselling (28%). The next most common was another ‘Assessment only’ (21%) or support and case management (17%).
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients who were referred into treatment by a diversion program (50%) did not receive further treatment within one year compared to those who did (20%).
- For clients who received further treatment within one year, they were more likely to have their ‘Assessment only’ treatment episode delivered in an outreach setting (25%) or a residential setting (14%) compared to those who did not (13% and 7.1%, respectively).
- For clients who did receive further treatment within one year, their ‘Assessment only’ episode was more likely to end due to being referred onto another service or a change in their treatment mode (19%) compared to those who did not (5.8%) (tables AO7–11; Figure 3).
In the Northern Territory:
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients whose principal drug of concern was methamphetamine (11%) received further treatment within one year compared to those who did not (5.9%).
- For clients who received further treatment within one year, the most common subsequent main treatment was ‘Assessment only’ (35%). The next most common was rehabilitation (31%).
- For the clients first ‘Assessment only’ episode, more clients who were referred into treatment by self or family (27%) received further treatment within one year compared to those who did not (18%).
- For clients who received further treatment episode within one year, they were more likely to have their ‘Assessment only’ treatment episode delivered in a residential setting (40%) compared to those who did not (29%).
- For clients who did receive further treatment within one year, their ‘Assessment only’ episode was more likely to end due to being referred to another service or a change in their treatment mode (20%) compared to those who did not (7.3%) (tables AO7–11; Figure 3).