Factors Related to the Successful Vocational Rehabilitation of Substance Abusers

Abstract

This study compared vocational rehabilitation clients with substance abuse disabilities to clients with other disabilities, and it compared successfully and unsuccessfully rehabilitated substance abuse clients in order to identify factors which might further promote successful outcomes. Comparisons suggest that substance abusers may have greater obstacles to employment, such as more criminal involvement. Substance abusers received slightly more services, were nearly as likely to be successfully rehabilitated, were less costly to rehabilitate, and received services for shorter periods than other clients. The personal characteristics of the successfully and unsuccessfully rehabilitated substance abusers were nearly identical, but the successful ones were more costly to serve and received more services, particularly (1) diagnostic and evaluation services and (2) education and training services. While the substance abuse literature indicates that clients' personal characteristics (marital and psychiatric status, etc.) are strong predictors of positive client outcomes, regardless of the treatment received, this vocational rehabilitation study suggests the importance of services. Unlike client characteristics which are relatively fixed, service characteristics can be manipulated to produce better outcomes.

Benefits of Substance Use Disorder Screening on Employment Outcomes in State–Federal Vocational Rehabilitation Programs

“…Our replication and extension of the findings of Schwab and DiNitto (1993) as well as McAweeney et al (2008) suggest that persons with SUD who successfully complete VR, both with an official diagnosis as demonstrated in the earlier research, or based on a positive screening result as Note. Reasons for closure codes are 0: achieved employment outcome, 6: transferred to another agency; 1: unable to locate or contact, 3: refused services or further services, 5: individual in institution, 7: failure to cooperate.…”

“…Contrary to Schwab and DiNitto (1993), McAweeney et al (2008) found the cost of providing services to individuals with SUD to be slightly higher than cost of services to consumers without an SUD diagnosis, perhaps due to the greater number of services received by the consumers in the later study. The common predictors in these two studies were the identification of SUD early in the process and participating in VR for a shorter amount of time.…”

“…This hypothesis was inspired by the findings of Schwab and DiNitto (1993) and McAweeney et al (2008) who found that consumers with a diagnosis of SUD and have successful closures receive more VR services in a shorter time and at less expense compared with consumers with other disabilities. Although Schwab and DiNitto and McAweeney et al had conflicting results regarding the cost of services we expected that shorter time in VR would lead to less cost.…”

Comparing Employment Outcomes of Vocational Rehabilitation Consumers with Hearing Loss to Other Consumers and the General Labor Force

“…As agencies and counselors have traditionally been evaluated by number of successful closures, researchers have also frequently evaluated outcomes for state-federal VR consumers related to whether they achieved employment (e.g., Butterworth, Schalock, & Gilmore, 1998;Caston & Watson, 1990;Hill, 1989;Moore, Flowers, & Taylor, 2000;Schwab & DiNitto, 1993). Other authors have attempted to evaluate VR consumer outcomes beyond obtainment of employment at closure.…”

Physical Disability and Substance Use Disorders: A Convergence of Adaptation and Recovery

“…Little, if any, research has focused on interventions or strategies for counseling individuals with disabilities and substance use disorders. It is estimated that up to 33% of consumers of vocational rehabilitation services have substance use disorders (Schwab & DiNitto, 1993) and 22% report being in recovery (Glenn, Ford, Moore, & Hollar, 2003). With the prevalence rate of substance use disorders among persons with disability higher than that for the general population (Moore & Li, 1994), it seems prudent for the field to begin exploring rehabilitation counseling issues related to this group.…”