Program Profile: Employment Intervention for Drug-Involved Offenders (Kentucky)

This program for Kentucky drug court participants focuses on obtaining, maintaining, and upgrading employment. The intervention concentrates on job-skills and social-skills training. The program is rated No Effects. There was a small, statistically significant improvement for program participants on multiple drug use in the past 30 days, but no statistically significant effects for days worked at a legitimate job, income from a legitimate job, property damage, and handling stolen goods.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals

Employment Intervention for Drug-Involved Offenders (EIDIO) is an enhanced intervention that provides education and skills training to help drug court participants obtain, maintain, and upgrade their employment. The program was designed specifically to enhance services provided in a drug court program.

Target Eligibility

Program eligibility is based on drug court entry requirements, which are 1) having a self-admitted drug problem, 2) meeting criteria on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) for drug abuse, 3) consenting to a urine test, 4) having a nonviolent criminal history, and 5) agreeing to participate in the program.

Program Activities

Trained clinicians with counseling experience help to develop and implement the intervention. The EIDIO program was developed based on focus groups with drug court participants, who identified factors critical to finding a job, keeping a job, and upgrading employment skills to get a better job. EIDIO includes three distinct phases that correspond with drug court programming: obtaining, maintaining, and upgrading employment. The obtaining employment phase is 4 to 5 weeks long and includes information on obtaining immediate employment, employment behavioral contracting, and job-readiness assessment. The maintaining employment phase is 12 to 15 weeks long and includes topics such as resolving conflicts at work, setting goals and problem solving, and life-skills development. The upgrading employment phase is 6 weeks long and includes information on identifying possible employers, job development, and job placement.

The employment intervention services are offered in the afternoons and evenings, at the drug court facilities. Weekly group sessions include clinical approaches such as motivational interviewing, structured stories, and thought mapping. Individual sessions are offered to individuals who struggle with issues that impede their employment success (e.g., continued use of drugs and alcohol, conflict with coworkers). Individual sessions incorporate motivational interviewing, behavioral contracting, and a strengths-based, case-management approach to problem solving, job searches, completing job applications, resume writing, and job-interviewing skills.

Program Theory

Research shows that gainful employment contributes to the successful treatment of those who have committed offenses and have drug problems. In particular, daily structure, such as employment, has been found to be effective when combined with relapse-prevention activities. For substance users who have committed offenses, getting and keeping a job can be challenging, especially when there are few employment and vocational rehabilitation services. This program was designed to support those individuals in finding and keeping employment and improve treatment outcomes (Leukefeld et al. 2007).

Study

Leukefeld and colleagues (2007) conducted a randomized controlled trial of Employment Intervention for Drug-Involved Offenders (EIDIO), which focused on Kentucky drug court participants in two locations: Fayette County Drug Court in Lexington, and Warren County Drug Court in Bowling Green. To be eligible, the study participants were required to 1) have a self-admitted drug problem, 2) meet criteria for drug abuse in the Addition Severity Index (ASI), 3) consent to urine drug testing, 4) have a nonviolent criminal history, and 5) sign an informed consent form. All eligible drug court clients were individually interviewed at baseline, at a 30-day follow up, and at a 12-month follow up.

Overall, the study sample (N=500) included 327 males and 173 females. The majority of the sample identify as white (59 percent); the other race/ethnicities of study participants were not provided. The average age of the study sample was 30 years. Fewer than half worked full time, with an average of 3.7 jobs over the 5 years prior to entering drug court. The majority of participants indicated their primary job had been as a service worker or laborer. The participants in the treatment group received the enhanced employment intervention in addition to drug court as usual. The members of the comparison group received only the drug court as usual.

Baseline interviews assessed lifetime drug abuse, drug abuse in the past year, and/or drug abuse 30 days before drug court. Demographics, employment, drug/alcohol use, and criminality were adapted from the Addition Severity Index. Employment was measured by 1) pattern of employment in the past year, 2) total number of jobs worked in the past year, 3) days worked a legitimate job in both the past year or 30 days, 4) days worked in an illegal job in either the past year or the past 30 days, 5) income from a legitimate job in the past year, and 6) income from an illegal job in the past year or past 30 days. Drug use was measured by examining participants’ drug use, patterns of use in the past 6 months, and the number of days used in the past 30 days. Criminality was measured by self-reported dichotomous outcomes on specific criminal behaviors during the year before drug court.

The treatment group was divided into two groups: low upgrade and high upgrade. This division was based on the number of upgrade sessions attended by a participant divided by the number of upgrading sessions that the participant could have attended. The resulting percentages were then split in half. Participants with over the median in percentage attendance were placed into the high upgrade treatment group (n = 120); participants below the median of attendance were placed into the low upgrade treatment group (n = 118). Some differences between the groups were noted: participants in the low upgrade group were younger than participants in both the high upgrade group and control group. The high upgrade group was more likely to have participated in the Warren County (Lexington) drug court than the Fayette County (Bowling Green) drug court; the opposite was true for the low upgrade and control groups. However, for the purposes of this CrimeSolutions review, data from the high and low upgrade treatment groups was combined into a single treatment group. The combined treatment group results were then compared with the results from the comparison group.

ANOVA and chi-square analyses were used by the study authors to examine differences between groups at the 12-month follow up.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Rehabilitation Programs for Adults Convicted of a Crime

This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?