OBJECTIVE: Despite the large number of Latinos living in the United States, little research has evaluated the effectiveness of different vocational rehabilitation programs for individuals with severe mental illness in this rapidly growing minority population. This article presents a secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled trial comparing supported employment with 2 other vocational rehabilitation programs in 3 ethnic/racial groups of participants with severe mental illness: Latinos, non-Latino African Americans, and non-Latino Whites. METHOD: The data were drawn from a previously published randomized, controlled trial comparing supported employment with standard vocational rehabilitation services and a psychosocial clubhouse program in persons with severe mental illness (Mueser et al., 2004), including 64 Latinos, 91 non-Latino African Americans, and 43 non-Latino Whites. Comparisons were made between the 3 groups at baseline on demographic characteristics, clinical and psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. Within each ethnic/racial group, competitive employment and all paid employment outcomes were compared between the 3 vocational rehabilitation programs over the 2-year study period. RESULTS: At baseline, the Latino participants had lower levels of education and disability income, were less likely to have worked competitively over the previous 5 years, had more severe symptoms, and worse psychosocial functioning than the non-Latino African American or non-Latino White participants. Latinos randomized to supported employment had better competitive and all-paid work outcomes than those assigned to either standard services or the psychosocial clubhouse program, similar to the non-Latino consumers. Rates of competitive work for consumers in supported employment were comparable across all 3 racial/ethnic groups. DISCUSSION: Supported employment is effective at improving competitive work in Latinos with severe mental illness. Efforts should be made to increase access to supported employment in the growing population of Latinos with severe mental illness.

Substance use disorders have a profound impact on the course of severe mental illnesses and on the family, but little research has evaluated the impact of family intervention for this population. To address this question, a randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing a brief (2-3 mo) Family Education (ED) program with a longer-term (9-18 mo) program that combined education with teaching communication and problem-solving skills, Family Intervention for Dual Disorders (FIDD). A total of 108 clients (77% schizophrenia-spectrum) and a key relative were randomized to either ED or FIDD and assessed at baseline and every 6 months for 3 years. Rates of retention of families in both programs were moderate. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that clients in both programs improved in psychiatric, substance abuse, and functional outcomes, as did key relatives in knowledge of co-occurring disorders, burden, and mental health functioning. Clients in FIDD had significantly less severe overall psychiatric symptoms and psychotic symptoms and tended to improve more in functioning. Relatives in FIDD improved more in mental health functioning and knowledge of co-occurring disorders. There were no consistent differences between the programs in substance abuse severity or family burden. The findings support the utility of family intervention for co-occurring disorders, and the added benefits of communication and problem-solving training, but also suggest the need to modify these programs to retain more families in treatment in order to provide them with the information and skills they need to overcome the effects of these disorders.

The authors compared 3 approaches to vocational rehabilitation for severe mental illness (SMI): the individual placement and support (IPS) model of supported employment, a psychosocial rehabilitation (PSR) program, and standard services. Two hundred four unemployed clients (46% African American, 30% Latino) with SMI were randomly assigned to IPS, PSR, or standard services and followed for 2 years. Clients in IPS had significantly better employment outcomes than clients in PSR and standard services, including more competitive work (73.9% vs. 18.2% vs. 27.5%, respectively) and any paid work (73.9% vs. 34.8% vs. 53.6%, respectively). There were few differences in nonvocational outcomes between programs. IPS is a more effective model than PSR or standard brokered vocational services for improving employment outcomes in clients with SMI.