The role of drug use in welfare to work: Evidence from Houston, Texas

The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of drug abuse among welfare recipients in Houston, TX and compare the work activities and employment barriers of drug abusers in order to better understand the potential effects of welfare reform for this population. Four hypotheses were tested comparing the work activities and employment barriers of drug abusers to others on welfare and the relative importance of drug abuse and employment barriers in predicting work activity. ^ This cross-sectional study examined the characteristics and work activities of 447 welfare recipients (81 drug abusers and 366 non-abusers) who were surveyed between October 1998 and April 1999 in Houston, TX. Subjects were introduced and recruited to participate in the study through a flyer, door to door visits, and peer driven recruitment/referral. ^ About 18% were found to be drug abusers, which is consistent with the national average (10–33%) among welfare recipients. Compared to others on welfare, drug abusers were less involved in work activities, and had more employment barriers. Employment barriers were found to be more predictive of welfare to work activities than drug abuse. The results suggest that alleviating employment barriers should be stressed in programs aimed at welfare recipients with drug abuse problems. ^

A multi-site pilot test study to measure safety climate in the university work setting

Next to leisure, sport, and household activities, the most common activity resulting in medically consulted injuries and poisonings in the United States is work, with an estimated 4 million workplace related episodes reported in 2008 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address the risks inherent to various occupations, risk management programs are typically put in place that include worker training, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. Recent studies have shown that such interventions alone are insufficient to adequately manage workplace risks, and that the climate in which the workers and safety program exist (known as the "safety climate") is an equally important consideration. The organizational safety climate is so important that many studies have focused on developing means of measuring it in various work settings. While safety climate studies have been reported for several industrial settings, published studies on assessing safety climate in the university work setting are largely absent. Universities are particularly unique workplaces because of the potential exposure to a diversity of agents representing both acute and chronic risks. Universities are also unique because readily detectable health and safety outcomes are relatively rare. The ability to measure safety climate in a work setting with rarely observed systemic outcome measures could serve as a powerful means of measure for the evaluation of safety risk management programs. ^ The goal of this research study was the development of a survey tool to measure safety climate specifically in the university work setting. The use of a standardized tool also allows for comparisons among universities throughout the United States. A specific study objective was accomplished to quantitatively assess safety climate at five universities across the United States. At five universities, 971 participants completed an online questionnaire to measure the safety climate. The average safety climate score across the five universities was 3.92 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating very high perceptions of safety at these universities. The two lowest overall dimensions of university safety climate were "acknowledgement of safety performance" and "department and supervisor's safety commitment". The results underscore how the perception of safety climate is significantly influenced at the local level. A second study objective regarding evaluating the reliability and validity of the safety climate questionnaire was accomplished. A third objective fulfilled was to provide executive summaries resulting from the questionnaire to the participating universities' health & safety professionals and collect feedback on usefulness, relevance and perceived accuracy. Overall, the professionals found the survey and results to be very useful, relevant and accurate. Finally, the safety climate questionnaire will be offered to other universities for benchmarking purposes at the annual meeting of a nationally recognized university health and safety organization. The ultimate goal of the project was accomplished and was the creation of a standardized tool that can be used for measuring safety climate in the university work setting and can facilitate meaningful comparisons amongst institutions.^