Employment, Employment-Related Problems, and Drug Use at Drug Court Entry

Abstract

The literature indicates that employment may be an important factor for retaining substance misusing clients in treatment. Given the link between employment problems and treatment retention for Drug Court clients, the current project builds upon the existing services provided by Drug Courts in order to develop and implement an innovative model that focuses on obtaining, maintaining, and upgrading employment for Drug Court participants. The purpose of this article is to (1) describe the employment intervention used in Kentucky Drug Courts, which is grounded in established job readiness and life skill training approaches; and (2) profile those participants who were employed full-time prior to Drug Court and those who were not. Findings suggest that those employed full-time were more likely to have higher incomes and more earned income from legitimate job sources, although there were no differences in the types of employment (major jobs included food service and construction). In addition, study findings suggest that full-time employment was not "protective" since there were few differences in drug use and criminal activity by employment status. Employment interventions need to be examined to determine their utility for enhancing employment and keeping drug users in treatment. This article focuses on the initial 400 participants, who began entering the study in March, 2000.

Employment and Work Among Drug Court Clients: 12-Month Outcomes

“…Focus group participants were asked to identify critical factors related to getting a job/obtaining a job, keeping a job/maintaining a job, and upgrading employment skills/getting a better job (see Leukefeld et al, 2004). Participants indicated that they had trouble balancing employment with the strict and rigorous drug court treatment regimen, especially Leukefeld et al clients with familial responsibilities.…”

“…Project participants were 500 clients (327 males and 173 females) who entered two Kentucky drug court programs (see Leukefeld et al, 2004, for a description of the baseline participants). Of the initial 500 participants who entered the project at baseline and were randomized into the employment intervention or the control group (drug court as usual), less than half worked full-time, with 3.7 jobs in the 5 years before entering drug court.…”

“…Drug courts are designed to decrease drug use, to decrease crime, and to divert nonviolent drug users from incarceration. Drug court judges are interested in employment because employment is required, and stable employment serves as a foundation for enhancing job skills and for getting a better job (Leukefeld, Smiley, Staton, and Mateyoke-Scrivner, 2004).…”

Organizational- and individual-level correlates of posttreatment substance use: A multilevel analysis

“…Criminal and employment history-Pretreatment criminal history has been found to be negatively associated with treatment completion (Knight, Logan, & Simpson, 2001) and positively associated with posttreatment substance use (Hubbard et al, 1989;Messina et al, 2000). Researchers have also found that employment is associated with higher rates of treatment retention (Vendetti, McRee, Miller, Christiansen, & Herrel, 2002) and lower rates of posttreatment use (Leukefeld, McDonald, Staton, & Mateyoke-Scrivner, 2004;Platt, 1995;Wolkstein & Spiller, 1998).…”

Key Linkages Between Child Welfare and Substance Abuse Treatment: Social Functioning Improvements and Client Satisfaction in a Family Drug Treatment Court*

“…In order to help participants regain control of their lives, an intensive component of this holistic approach involves addressing employment problems and assisting participants with acquiring and maintaining employment; in fact, diligent efforts to find employment and remain employed are requirements for retention in many drug court programs (Leukefeld, McDonald, Staton, & Mateyoke-Scrivner, 2004). Research shows that rates of substance abuse are highest among those who are unemployed (Townsend, Lane, Dewa, Brittingham, & Pergamit, 1999;Wilkinson, Leigh, Cordingley, Martin, & Lei, 1987).…”