Skip to main content

Abstract

Objective:

People with serious mental illnesses and co-occurring substance use disorders are often excluded from vocational services, despite the lack of evidence that having a substance use disorder prevents them from being able to work. This study explored enrollment in supported employment services among clients with and without co-occurring substance use disorders.

Methods:

With data from electronic medical records from a psychiatric rehabilitation agency, relationships between co-occurring substance use disorders and supported employment were examined among 1,748 clients with serious mental illnesses who were consecutively admitted to the agency over a two-year period.

Results:

Despite a similar interest in employment, clients with a co-occurring substance use disorder were 52% less likely than those without to enroll in a supported employment program. Those who were enrolled had similar competitive employment rates (25% for those with co-occurring disorders and 28% for those without).

Conclusions:

People with co-occurring substance disorders have reduced rates of enrollment in supported employment services. (Psychiatric Services 62:545–547, 2011)
Serious mental illness is associated with high rates of co-occurring substance use disorders. With the lifetime rate of alcohol or drug use disorders in the general population around 17%, overall lifetime prevalence among people with serious mental illness is about 50% (1). Clients with co-occurring disorders need integrated services for co-occurring disorders (2). In addition, employment provides a meaningful activity that supports recovery (3).
Supported employment helps people with serious mental illnesses to obtain competitive jobs aligned with their preferences and provides ongoing, individualized supports (4). The competitive employment rate for individuals who receive supported employment is more than twice that of those enrolled in other kinds of vocational programs (4). Moreover, supported employment is more effective than other vocational models for persons with a variety of demographic and clinical characteristics, including substance use disorders (5,6).
Most clients express the desire to work (7). Unfortunately, access to vocational services is difficult for individuals with co-occurring substance use disorders. Exclusion from vocational services because of substance use is common despite equivalent employment outcomes among those with and without co-occurring disorders (8). Practitioners often identify drug and alcohol use as the major barrier to employment and may not refer clients with co-occurring disorders to vocational services (9). This study explored enrollment in supported employment among clients with and without co-occurring substance use disorders. We hypothesized that clients with co-occurring substance use disorders, compared with those with serious mental illness alone, would be less likely to become enrolled in supported employment.

Methods

This historical cohort study examined the relationship between co-occurring disorders and enrollment in supported employment services among clients with serious mental illness. The study was conducted at Thresholds Psychiatric Rehabilitation Centers in Chicago, an agency that provides a comprehensive array of mental health and rehabilitation services for individuals with serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or schizoaffective disorder. Employment specialists at Thresholds are embedded within clinical mental health treatment teams and provide services at multiple program sites in the agency. The Thresholds Institutional Review Board approved the study.
The study group included 1,748 clients consecutively admitted to Thresholds services between January 2008 and December 2009.
Mental disorders, including substance use disorders, were based on criteria in the DSM-IV-TR. Sociodemographic information and employment history and interest were based on self-report. Employment history and employment status at intake included any kind of employment, both competitive and noncompetitive. The primary outcome measure, enrollment in supported employment, was determined by assignment to an employment specialist during the study period. We also assessed interest in employment at intake and success once enrolled.
Information about mental health and service utilization was culled from the electronic medical record and included diagnoses of mental disorders. Psychiatrists and other licensed professionals determined presence of active substance use disorders according to DSM-IV-TR criteria. We used the most current diagnosis of substance use disorder entered in the electronic medical record at time of data collection. Direct service staff conducted mental health assessments with all Thresholds clients at intake and obtained information from new clients on age, race, years of education completed, employment history, interest in employment services, current employment status, residential status, and receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), or both. Employment specialists documented supported employment service utilization and outcomes. Only competitive employment outcomes achieved by those enrolled in supported employment services were included in the analysis.
Using SPSS version 15.0, we imported data from the electronic medical record for analysis. We examined continuous variables for normality of the distributions and outliers and removed less than 5% of the clients from analysis due to outliers indicative of data entry error or missing data. We used t tests and chi square analyses to compare groups (active substance use versus no substance use) on demographic and clinical characteristics and employment services utilization. We conducted bivariate analyses comparing enrollment in supported employment with demographic, clinical receipt of benefits and employment variables. We also conducted logistic regression analyses to examine the relationship between the dichotomous dependent variable “enrollment in supported employment” and substance use, race, diagnosis, entitlement benefit, and homelessness status.

Results

Of 1,748 clients, 595 (34%) were diagnosed as having an active co-occurring substance use disorder. Clients with and without a co-occurring substance use disorder were similar in employment status at intake. Individuals with a co-occurring disorder were more likely than those without one to be older (t=–2.26, df=1,746, p=.02), male (χ2=34.24, df=1, p<.001), African American (χ2=39.67, df=1, p<.001), homeless at intake (χ2=69.27, df=1, p<.001), less educated (t=5.65, df=1,530, p<.001), and without SSI or SSDI benefits (χ2=54.34, df=1, p<.001).
At admission, 445 (75%) of 595 clients with a substance use disorder expressed an interest in supported employment compared with 810 (70%) of 1,153 clients without a substance use disorder (χ2=4.29, df=1, p=.04). Nevertheless, among those expressing an interest in employment (either at admission or later), clients with a substance use disorder were less likely to enter employment services (63 of 452, 14%, versus 292 of 844, 35%; χ2=63.17, df=1, p<.001). Among those who enrolled in supported employment, the competitive employment outcomes were similar for the two groups (16 of 63, 25%, for those with co-occurring disorders; 82 of 292, 28% for those without). The two groups obtaining competitive employment did not differ on days employed, earnings, hours worked per week, or days to first job.
As shown in Table 1, clients were less likely to become enrolled in supported employment if they had substance use disorders, were African American, were homeless at intake, did not have SSI or SSDI, or had a diagnosis of unipolar major depression.
Results of the logistic regression model showed that the overall model was statistically significant (χ2=114.65, df=7, N=1,748, p<.001) and correctly classified 78.4% of the cases. When included in the overall logistic regression model, three of the five variables significantly predicted enrollment in supported employment. Participants with a substance use disorder were 52% less likely to be enrolled in supported employment (B=−.74, SE=.16). Those with entitlement income were 65% more likely than nonbeneficiaries to be enrolled (B=.50, SE=.13), and participants who were homeless at intake were 79% less likely to be enrolled in supported employment (B=−1.54, SE=.30). Axis I diagnosis (B=.02, SE=.04) and race (B=−.13, SE=.11) did not predict enrollment.

Discussion

Despite high expressed interest in employment services, clients with a co-occurring substance use disorder were less likely to become enrolled in supported employment. Several explanations are possible. Practitioners may delay referrals because of competing priorities, such as finding clients a place to live (10), because they question their clients' readiness, or because they wish to use employment to reward success in substance abuse treatment (11). Practical realities of state funding and policy climates also affect referrals. The federal-state rehabilitation system is underfunded, and vocational rehabilitation counselors are pressured to prioritize services for clients with less complex challenges. Clients with co-occurring substance use disorders may doubt their ability to secure employment and delay participation for fear of failure and self-stigma (12).
Among clients who entered a supported employment program, employment outcomes were comparable for those with and without co-occurring disorders. Substance use may not substantially affect vocational functioning more than serious mental illness alone does. Alternatively, individuals with co-occurring disorders may have better vocational skills or greater motivation to succeed in work than those with a serious mental illness alone (8). In either case, selection bias may contribute to comparable employment outcomes. Whether the discrepancy in enrollment in services is a result of practitioner bias, client hesitancy, or a combination of the two, a much more select group of individuals with co-occurring disorders enter supported employment than those without such a disorder. Individuals with a co-occurring substance use disorder may have on average higher levels of functioning than those with a serious mental illness alone.
This study had several limitations. These include the use of clinical records to assess substance use diagnosis and the relatively brief follow-up period. Clinicians may have underreported substance use. Thus the “no co-occurring” sample may have included some clients with a co-occurring substance use diagnosis. However, the rate of 34% of clients with a substance use disorder is consistent with epidemiologic studies (1). Other limitations include the use of a single site as well as unclear severity of substance use disorder, functional status, and treatment history of clients.

Conclusions

This study confirms that clients with co-occurring substance use disorders have high rates of interest in employment, have difficulty accessing supported employment services, and have comparatively good outcomes once they access services.

Acknowledgments and disclosures

The authors report no competing interests.

References

1.
Kessler RC, Nelson CB, McGonagle KA, et al.: The epidemiology of co-occurring addictive and mental disorders: implications for prevention and service utilization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 66:17–31, 1996
2.
Drake RE, O'Neal EL, Wallach MA: A systematic review of psychosocial research on psychosocial interventions for people with co-occurring severe mental illness and substance use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 34:123–138, 2008
3.
Xie H, Drake RE, McHugo GJ, et al.: The 10-year course of remission, abstinence, and recovery in dual diagnosis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 39:132–140, 2010
4.
Bond GR, Drake RE, Becker DR: An update on randomized controlled trails of evidence-based supported employment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 31:280–290, 2008
5.
Becker DR, Drake R, Naughton WJ: Supported employment for people with co-occurring disorders. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 28:332–338, 2005
6.
Campbell K, Bond GR, Drake RE: Who benefits from supported employment: a meta-analytic study. Schizophrenia Bulletin 37:370–380, 2009.
7.
McQuilken M, Zahniser JH, Novak J, et al.: The Work Project Survey: consumer perspectives on work. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 18:59–68, 2003
8.
Sengupta A, Drake RE, McHugo GJ: The relationship between substance use disorder and vocational functioning among people with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 22:41–45, 1998
9.
Biegel DE, Beimers D, Stevenson LD, et al.: Predictors of referral to supported employment among consumers with co-occurring mental and substance us disorders. Community Mental Health Journal 45:427–438, 2009
10.
Frounfelker RL, Glover CM, Teachout A, et al.: Access to supported employment for consumers with criminal justice involvement. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 34:49–56, 2010
11.
Magura S: The role of work in substance dependency treatment: a preliminary overview. Substance Use and Misuse 38:1865–1876, 2003
12.
Laudet AB, Magura S, Vogel HS, et al.: Interest in and obstacles to pursuing work among unemployed dually diagnosed individuals. Substance Use and Misuse 37:145–170, 2002

Figures and Tables

Table 1 Characteristics of persons with a serious mental illness with or without a co-occurring substance use disorder who were or were not enrolled in a supported employment program

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Psychiatric Services
Go to Psychiatric Services
Cover: The Lee Shore, by Edward Hopper, 1941. Oil on canvas, 28 × 43 inches. Private collection. Photo © Art Resource, New York.
Psychiatric Services
Pages: 545 - 547
PubMed: 21532083

History

Published online: 1 May 2011
Published in print: May 2011

Authors

Details

Rochelle L. Frounfelker, M.P.H., M.S.S.W. [email protected]
Ms. Frounfelker, Dr. Wilkniss, and Dr. Devitt are affiliated with the Thresholds Institute, Thresholds Psychiatric Rehabilitation Centers, 4101 North Ravenswood Ave., Chicago, IL 60613 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Sandra M. Wilkniss, Ph.D. [email protected]
Ms. Frounfelker, Dr. Wilkniss, and Dr. Devitt are affiliated with the Thresholds Institute, Thresholds Psychiatric Rehabilitation Centers, 4101 North Ravenswood Ave., Chicago, IL 60613 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Gary R. Bond, Ph.D.
Dr. Bond and Dr. Drake are with the Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Timothy S. Devitt, Psy.D.
Dr. Bond and Dr. Drake are with the Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Robert E. Drake, M.D., Ph.D.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Get Access

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - Psychiatric Services

PPV Articles - Psychiatric Services

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share