Does XXXX improve employment for substance-using welfare recipients?

@entity1 @entity2055
OBJECTIVE: This study tested whether @entity2055 , a continuity of care intervention for substance-use disorders, improved employment among @entity1 and @entity1 on public assistance compared with usual welfare management. METHOD: @entity1 were 421 welfare applicants identified via substance-use-disorder screening and assigned via a computerized allocation program to @entity2055 ( @entity2055 ; n = 232) or referral and monitoring practices in usual care (UC; n = 189). Substance use, treatment attendance, job training and search activities, and employment outcomes were assessed for 1 year after baseline. RESULTS: @entity1 were more likely to be working than @entity1 overall. Among @entity1 , @entity2055 clients increased their employment over time, whereas UC clients remained stable at very low employment levels. There were no treatment effects on employment for @entity1 . Also among @entity1 only, greater substance-use-disorder treatment attendance and abstinence in the first 6 months of @entity2055 predicted higher rates of later employment. Job training activities were low and did not differ by condition between either gender. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are consistent with previous research supporting the effectiveness of case management for improving abstinence, which leads to employment gains, among substance-using @entity1 on public assistance. In contrast, various mandated elements of welfare-to-work programs for substance users-treatment attendance, case management, job training-did not improve employment rates for @entity1 . Implications of study results for designing effective welfare-to-work interventions in a post-welfare-reform era are discussed.
