Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the impact of California's Proposition 36-funded employment services on employment, earnings, public benefit receipt, and health and safety.
- Using outcome assessments conducted 12 months after participants entered the program, the authors conducted a non-experimental study to compare the outcomes of individuals receiving employment services (the treatment group) to individuals not receiving employment services (the comparison group) using statistical tests and a statistical model.
- The study found no statistically significant differences in earnings and public benefit receipt between the treatment and comparison groups. The study suggested that there was a positive relationship between Proposition 36-funded employment services and employment and a positive relationship between the employment services and drug treatment completion.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not demonstrate that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to California's Proposition 36-funded employment services; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
California's Proposition 36-funded employment services
Features of the Intervention
California's Proposition 36 is a voter-initiated policy that diverts approximately 50,000 drug offenders to community-based substance abuse treatment instead of standard criminal justice processing. The law allows funds to be allocated for employment and vocational training as part of drug abuse treatment. Offenders who successfully complete treatment can request the court to expunge their Proposition 36 criminal record, eliminating a felony conviction that could hinder future employment.
Features of the Study
The authors conducted a non-experimental study to compare the outcomes for participants who did and did not receive employment services through the Proposition-36 funded substance abuse treatment program in California. Study participants were drug offenders assessed for substance abuse treatment needs under Proposition 36 at 30 assessment sites in 5 counties in California. The sample included 192 individuals who received employment services within the first 3 months after intake (treatment group) and 1,261 individuals who did not receive employment services within the first 3 months after intake (comparison group). The treatment group included individuals who reported one or more interactions with professionals (such as employment specialists, counselors, or social workers) regarding employment opportunities, training, or education in the 3 months after their assessment for Proposition 36 treatment. The comparison group included individuals who reported zero interactions with professionals regarding employment opportunities, training, or education in the 3 months after their assessment for Proposition 36 treatment.
The authors examined the effects of the program using outcome assessments conducted 12 months after participants entered the program. The authors compared the outcomes of the treatment group to the comparison group using statistical tests and a statistical model. The authors used these statistical tests, such as Pearson's chi-square test and student's t-test, to analyze differences in categorical and continuous measures, respectively. Logistic regression models were used to examine employment status 12 months after intake.
Findings
Employment
- The study suggested that there was a greater increase in employment for the treatment group than in the comparison group.
Earnings
- The study found no statistically significant differences in earnings between the treatment and comparison groups.
Public benefit receipt
- The study found no statistically significant differences in public benefit receipt between the treatment and comparison groups.
Health
- The study suggested that the treatment group had higher rates of drug treatment completion than the comparison group. However, the study found no significant differences in drug use, drug treatment length, and drug treatment retention between the treatment and comparison groups.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors did not account for preexisting differences between the groups before program participation or include sufficient control variables. These preexisting differences between the groups—and not the program— could explain the observed differences in outcomes. Therefore, the study is not eligible for a moderate causal evidence rating, the highest rating available for nonexperimental designs.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to California's Proposition 36-funded employment services; other factors are likely to have contributed.