Employment Services Utilization and Outcomes among Substance Abusing Offenders Participating in California’s Proposition 36 Drug Treatment Initiative

Abstract

California drug treatment programs may use funds to address barriers to work faced by Proposition 36 offenders, most of whom are not working at treatment entry, but employment services utilization and related behavioral outcomes have never been studied. This study examined primary data collected on 1,453 offenders by 30 programs during 2004 to explore the characteristics, employment services utilization, and outcomes of those who did and did not receive employment services while in drug treatment. One-year outcomes were mostly similar across groups, however, increases in the proportion of offenders employed, receiving income from employment and family or friends, and being paid for work were significantly greater among the received-employment-services group, and a greater proportion of this group also completed drug treatment. Employment services utilization was less likely for persons recruited from outpatient settings and more likely with greater severity of family/social problems and desire for services. Odds of employment one-year post-treatment entry were higher for those of Hispanic race/ethnicity (vs. White) and for those with treatment completion/longer retention but lower for those who were older, lived in specific counties, had greater employment problem severity at intake, and received other income-related services. Strategies for improving employment services utilization and outcomes among Proposition 36 offenders are discussed.

Effectiveness of work skills programmes for offenders with mental disorders: A systematic review

“…Assessment of risk of bias confirmed that one study had a low risk of bias (Schaeffer et al ) and three studies a moderate risk of bias (LePage et al, ; LePage et al, ; Evans et al, ). One study was found to have a high risk of bias (Hall et al, ), and it was not possible to assess the risk of bias for one study (Twentyman et al, ) because of poor reporting of the study procedure.…”

“…Table summarises intervention and study characteristics. There were three randomised controlled trials (Twentyman et al, ; Hall et al, ; Schaeffer et al, ), two non‐randomised but controlled trials (LePage et al, ; LePage et al, ) and one retrospective cohort study (Evans et al, ). It was not possible to ascertain if a sub‐sample of LePage et al () participants also participated in the LePage et al () study.…”

“…All studies compared a work skills programme with another employment focused approach or treatment as usual. Five of the six articles reported primary data and one (Evans et al, ) secondary analysis of previously collected data. Intervention times ranged from 4 days to 6 months, with follow‐up times ranging from as little as 2 weeks up to 31 months.…”

“…In a retrospective cohort study, Evans et al () compared drug treatment with and without employment services, where the latter were regarded as accessed if the participant had seen an employment specialist at least once. Twentyman et al () compared vocational training sessions, which included information about where to find jobs, interview role‐plays and job application form training against a programme which incentivised participants to submit job applications by paying them for each form submitted.…”

“…Most participants were men. Four studies (Evans et al, ; Hall et al, ; LePage et al, ; Schaeffer et al, ) reported that the primary mental health problem was substance abuse/dependence, whilst LePage et al () reported that participants had depression, a psychotic disorder or substance use disorder. One study did not specify the disorders, but stated that all participants had a history of psychiatric referral or intervention (Twentyman et al, ).…”