Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

Summary

Abstinence-Contingent Wage Supplements for Drug Use was designed to promote drug abstinence and vocational entry among unemployed adults in treatment for opioid use disorder by providing financial incentives dependent on verified abstinence.

Abstinence-Contingent Wage Supplements for Drug Use was designed to promote drug abstinence and vocational entry among unemployed adults in treatment for opioid use disorder by providing financial incentives dependent on verified abstinence. During the 12-month program period, unemployed participants could earn up to 20 hours per week of wages for engaging in job-seeking activities with an employment specialist, at $10 per hour. Employed participants could receive wage supplements for verified hours worked, capped at $8 per hour for up to 40 hours per week. These payments were contingent upon maintaining drug abstinence, which was verified routine and random drug testing schedule.  

Positive results on the drug test resulted in a temporary reset of the base supplement rate to $1 per hour and restarting of routine mandatory testing. The rate increased by $1 per day for each day the participant provided a drug negative result and worked for at least five minutes until the maximum amount of $8 per hour was achieved.   

The program was evaluated in Baltimore, MD. 

 

101057-Study of Abstinence-
Populations and employment barriers: Justice involvement, Substance use disorder

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below?
View the "Table help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

View table help

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2024 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 18% (in percentage points) 0.437 91
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1
Back to top

Implementation details

Organizations implementing intervention

The program was implemented by Johns Hopkins Center for Learning and Health. 

The information contained here reflects how the intervention was implemented at the time of the evaluation.

Local context

The providers and study site were located in Baltimore, MD.

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
56%
White
40%
Another race
4%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

State(s) where implemented

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Canada

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.