You are on page 1of 14


The Family and the Dually Diagnosed Patient

Authors: Kathleen Sciacca, M.A.

Agnes B. Hatfield, Ph.D.

Authors' bios:

Kathleen Sciacca, M.A., is the Founding Executive Director of Sciacca Comprehensive Service
Development for Mental Illness, Drug Addiction and Alcoholism (MIDAA)(R), Dual Diagnosis
- Co-occurring Disorders. She is the author of the MIDAA Service Manual: A Step by Step
Guide to Integrated Treatment, Program Development and Services for Dual/Multiple Disorders.
She is a nationally known program developer, trainer, consultant, and lecturer. Ms. Sciacca can
be reached at: 212-866-5935.

Agnes B. Hatfield, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of the University of Maryland. She is the author
of Family Education and Mental Illness, and a co-author with Harriet Lefley of Surviving Mental
Illness: Stress, Coping and Adaptation. She is a Founding Member and Former President of the
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI).

From: Lehman, AF, Dixon LB (ed). "Double Jeopardy: Chronic Mental Illness and Substance
Use Disorders," Gordon and Breach Publishers, Chapter 12, 1995.

People who have multiple disorders of severe mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism
"dual diagnosis" have the same severity of addictive disorders as do people who have addictive
disorders alone. They also experience exacerbation of both their mental illness and their
addictive disorder due to interaction effects. Their families experience the disruptions evoked by
addictive disorders alone. This is in addition to the stressors of coping with a serious mental
illness. Although many studies (Hatfield, 1990; Lefley,1987; Marsh 1992) have shown that
families of mentally ill relatives, in general, report enormous amounts of stress due to mental
illness, there are few studies that have looked at the added burden due to substance abuse
problems. One study (Kashner, Rader 1991) reported that substance abuse contributes to
family conflict, erodes social support, and generates high levels of expressed emotion, thus
disturbing the vitally needed caregiving network. A dually diagnosed individual can throw the
best of families off balance. Therefore, it is important to provide services for families.

Our divided systems of care for mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism include our
educational programs and clinical training. As a result, there are serious gaps in services for the
dually diagnosed (Ridgely, Goldman & Willenbring,1990), and for their families. This has also
effected the development of advocacy groups.

One example, is the "National Alliance for the Mentally Ill" (NAMI). NAMI is an advocacy
group that began from grass roots movements of families with mentally ill relatives in the 1970's
and has since grown to over 1,000 local chapters (Grosser, Vine, 1991: pp.282-290). The "family
movement" has a strong influence on research and treatment of individuals with severe and
persistent mental illness (U.S.News and World Report, 1989). However, as recently as 1984
when pioneer programs were developed for the treatment of persons with mental illness and
substance disorders in the psychiatric facilities (Sciacca, 1987), many family members accepted
a mental health system and a substance abuse system that did not address their relative's
addictive disorders.

In a recent national survey of family perspectives on meeting the needs of people with mental
illness conducted by NAMI (Steinwachs, Kasper, and Skinner,1992) 18 per cent of the
respondents indicated that getting drunk or using drugs occurred in their families. Of these
families 62 per cent found this a serious problem.

It is important to note that the 18 per cent substance abuse reported in the NAMI study is a much
smaller prevalence rate than most other studies report. For example the Epidemiologic
Catchment Area (ECA) study conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health
(Reiger,Myers, found that 47% of individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or
schizophreniform disorder were abusing drugs. In a national survey conducted by the Alcohol,
Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) (Ridgely,Osher,& Talbot,1987), it
was reported that at least 50 per cent of the 1.5 to 2 million Americans with severe mental illness
abuse illicit drugs or alcohol as compared to 15 per cent of the general population. The lower rate
reported in the NAMI study may be explained in one of several ways. Members of NAMI are not
fully representative of all families with mentally ill relatives. It is possible that there is less
substance abuse in their relatives. It is equally possible that families see the mental illness as the
primary source of disturbance and overlook the substance abuse. Some families may not be able
to distinguish problems due to mental illness from those due to substance abuse. Still others may
deny the problem out of shame, guilt or embarrassment. A growing awareness of the problems
and some solutions to the provision of treatment of persons who are dually diagnosed is under
way. Much has been written about the problems of substance abuse among mentally ill patients.
These patients have been characterized as systems misfits with poor outcome, more relapses,
more acting out behavior, and more likelihood of being homeless (Minkoff and Drake,1991).
Dually diagnosed patients experience interaction effects that compound their distress and
disability (Evans and Sullivan 1991). These patients tend to respond to their distress by
exhibiting highly disturbing acting-out behaviors (McCarrick, Manderschied, 1985)

Despite these serious consequences, the family movement has not attained the degree of
knowledge about addictive disorders as they have about mental illness. There is a need for
education that demonstrates that addictive disorders are illnesses. Understanding mental illness
as a disease that is not caused by families was necessary to successful advocacy for the mentally
ill. The same advocacy must happen for those who are dually diagnosed, through a clear
understanding of the addictive disorders. Families of the dually diagnosed continue to experience
frustration resulting from a service delivery system that does not meet their needs, or the needs
of their relatives.

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss some of the issues and problems, and to outline a model
program "MICAA-NON" for families of the dually diagnosed. We will begin by clarifying some
of the areas that effect the delivery of services. Next we will report on our family survey, the
Maryland study, which provides a family perspective of the issues. This will be followed by an
outline of a pioneer program and some assessment considerations.


Both families and providers encounter difficulty in accessing comprehensive services for the
dually diagnosed. The underlying issues are the same nationally. They include: 1. Divided
bureaucracies across discrete disorders, mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism and
segregated admissions criteria, treatment programs, services, and reimbursement; 2. Providers
are educated and trained to deliver services for singular disorders, and are not prepared to
provide services for unfamiliar symptoms (Ridgely, Goldman,& Willenbring,1990); and, 3.
Treatment approaches across these discrete disorders are different in method and philosophy and
are in direct contrast and incompatible (Sciacca,1991).

The more impermeable issues are the contrasting treatment methods used by providers in the
different fields. Traditional treatment methods for drug addiction and alcoholism are usually
intense and confrontational. They are designed to break down the patient's denial or resistance of
his or her addictive disorder. Admissions criteria to substance abuse programs usually require
abstinence from all illicit substances. Potential patients are expected to be aware of the problems
caused by substance abuse, and motivated to receive treatment. In some programs the use of
medication unacceptable. This automatically excludes people who take prescribed medication for
their symptoms of mental illness. In contrast, treatment methods used for serious mental illness
are supportive, benign and non-threatening. They are designed to maintain the patient's defenses
which are often fragile to begin with. Criteria for admission into mental health services rarely
require that patients are aware of their substance abuse problems and motivated to accept
substance abuse treatment. Patients entering the mental health system are generally not seeking
treatment for their substance abuse problems. Within the mental health system we encounter
patients who actively abuse drugs and alcohol, and deny such use. Respondents in our Maryland
study selected denial of the problems of substance abuse (77 %) as the most problematic
behavior they encountered in their dually diagnosed relative (see table I).

These differences perpetuate the gaps in services and eliminate the dually diagnosed from
existing services. The traditional substance abuse services will not accept patients who have a
serious mental illness either because they do not meet the readiness criteria, or because they are
not prepared to provide services for symptoms of mental illness. If accepted into a substance
abuse program that is not modified, the dually diagnosed patient may experience difficulty when
participating in an intense, confrontational program. Traditionally, the mental health system
attempts to eliminate the dually diagnosed patient on the basis of substance abuse at the point of
admission. For patients within the system, services are interrupted or terminated on the basis of
rules that address addictive behaviors. Families who do not understand the addictions as
disorders will accept these determinations. Without knowledge of the necessity of professional
treatment, family members are not likely to perceive their relative's entitlement to addiction
treatment. The result is frustration and hardship for families who bear the burden of caring for a
relative who does not receive the benefits of professional help, or the pain and fear involved
when a family can no longer provide primary care. In such cases, their relative loses the support
of both the family and service systems. Community residences and other alternative living
programs for the mentally ill eliminate the dually diagnosed patient using the same criteria to
screen out substance abusers. These program options are rarely accessable.

These differences perpetuate the gaps in services and eliminate the dually diagnosed from
existing services. The traditional substance abuse services will not accept patients who have a
serious mental illness either because they do not meet the readiness criteria, or because they are
not prepared to provide services for symptoms of mental illness. If accepted into a substance
abuse program that is not modified, the dually diagnosed patient may experience difficulty when
participating in an intense, confrontational program. Traditionally, the mental health system
attempts to eliminate the dually diagnosed patient on the basis of substance abuse at the point of
admission. For patients within the system, services are interrupted or terminated on the basis of
rules that address addictive behaviors. Families who do not understand the addictions as
disorders will accept these determinations. Without knowledge of the necessity of professional
treatment, family members are not likely to perceive their relative's entitlement to addiction
treatment. The result is frustration and hardship for families who bear the burden of caring for a
relative who does not receive the benefits of professional help, or the pain and fear involved
when a family can no longer provide primary care. In such cases, their relative loses the support
of both the family and service systems. Community residences and other alternative living
programs for the mentally ill eliminate the dually diagnosed patient using the same criteria to
screen out substance abusers. These program options are rarely accessable.

Working with patients who deny substance abuse, who are unmotivated for substance abuse
treatment, and are unable to tolerate intense confrontation, requires a new model of treatment.
Sciacca developed a "non-confrontational" approach to the engagement and treatment of the
dually diagnosed. The treatment model first developed by Sciacca in 1984 (Sciacca, 1987) is
based upon non- judgmental acceptance of all symptoms and experiences related to both mental
illness and substance abuse. The phase by phase interventions from "denial" to "abstinence"
(Sciacca, 1991) begins by assessing the patient's readiness to engage in treatment (Sciacca,
1990). Readiness levels are accepted as starting points for treatment, rather than points of
confrontation or criteria for elimination.

These programs (MICAA treatment groups) are implemented as components of existing mental
health, or substance abuse programs, "Integrated Treatment." They have been adapted to a wide
variety of services including short- and long-term inpatient units, acute care services, outpatient
clinics, day treatment programs, continuing care programs, case management services,
community residences, shelters, and clubhouse models of service (Sciacca, 1987b).


or no data available on how families view the problem of substance abuse and mental illness, we
asked families in the Maryland Alliance for the Mentally Ill who had such a problem to complete
a brief survey. While the number of usable responses was limited to 22, we have decided to use
those responses along with published information on the subject to suggest family problems and

The dually diagnosed individuals identified in this study were male (77%) and in their twenties
and thirties (68%). This conforms to other studies (Cuffel, Heithoff, and Lawson 1993:250)
indicating that substance abusers tend to be young and male. Their diagnosis were nearly split
between schizophrenia and affective disorder. They most often lived in their own homes or
apartments (50%) or in the homes of their families (32%) with only one person living in a
community residence. Most of the patients became mentally ill in their teens (41%) or in their
twenties (32%). As in other recently reported research (Cuffel, Heithoff, & Lawson,1993:250) it
appeared that often the substance abuse problem preceded the mental illness. The abused
substance was given as alcohol in about half the cases, and the other half were given as poly
substance abusers. Street drugs named most often were cocaine and marijuana, but also PCP,
heroin, LSD, and crack were used. Prescription and over-the-counter drug abuse was also noted.
A large percentage (73%) of the alcohol users have had a problem for over ten years; somewhat
fewer of the street drug users (54%) have been involved for more than ten years.

Consequences of Substance Abuse

The effect of substance abuse on the individual and on the family are invariably very severe. A
recent summary of research on the consequences of abuse (Drake, McLaughlin,
indicate that there is more verbal hostility, disruptive behavior, aggression, poorer management
of personal affairs, and home-lessness. These individuals have more severe symptoms, more
suicidal behavior, and more treatment noncompliance and more often wind up in institutions or

Families in the Maryland study were asked to identify the behavior problems and increased
symptomatology they believed were due to substance use. These were summarized in Table I. It
is important in interpreting this table to recognize that some families noted that it was hard to
separate problems due to substance abuse from those due to mental illness. --------------------------
Table I here

A large majority of families (77%) found the tendency to deny the problem and money problems
(77%) troublesome to them. Well over half (59%) indicated that legal difficulties, blaming
others, and being argumentive were very troublesome behaviors and nearly as many (55%) were
concerned about decline in health and loss of jobs. When asked which problems were the most
troublesome the clear response was denial of the problem and decline in health. These, then, are
the areas with which families will need help from providers. Respondents said that re-
hospitalization was required for 88% of their relatives and that 77% had acute symptoms of
mental illness evoked by their alcohol or drug use. The symptoms most often mentioned were:
Depression (59%); Suicidal ideation (59%); Voices (55%); Violence (36%); Visual
hallucinations (23%); and, Blackouts (23%). It must be very puzzling to families as to why their
mentally ill relative continues to use drugs and alcohol when the consequences are so severe.
Their frustration at this added burden must be enormous.

Reasons for Substance Abuse Problems

Some authorities (Cuffel, Heithoff, & Lawson,1993:250) suggest there might be a number of
reasons for substance abuse in mental illness --self medication, negative affective states,
impaired cognition, and poor self-esteem. Users of these substances say they do so to relieve
boredom, depression and anxiety, and to facilitate social contact. Other authorities (Drake,
McLaughlin, suggest that downward drift as well as self medication and facilitation
of social contact are reasons for substance use. They emphasize, however, that we really don't
know the etiology of these problems and that we should consider substance abuse as an
independent and autonomous problem rather than a secondary disorder.

Although it may not be possible to know the etiology of substance abuse in a reliable way, it is
important to know what families believe is the case because it may influence the way they
respond to their relative's problem. Families in the Maryland study were asked to check as many
reasons for substance abuse as applied to their relative. Table II summarizes their responses.
______________________ Table II here It is interesting to note that most families (68%) feel
that self medication is the reason (or one of the reasons) for their relative's reliance on alcohol
and/or drug use. Just over half (55%) see substance abuse as a disease that needs treatment and
55 per cent feel that one explanation lies in an underlying psychological problem. Boredom and
the search for a social life are given as further reasons. Only one respondent felt that substance
abuse was evidence of weak character.

Treatment Used and Their Effectiveness

An important objective of the Maryland study was to determine what treatments for substance
abuse families found available to their dually diagnosed relatives and how well they were
working. This was difficult to do in this study. Only 68 per cent had ever been treated for
substance abuse disorders and the treatments used were very varied. Some people had been
exposed to a variety of approaches, some only one or two, and nearly a third had no treatment.
This confirms the findings of Sciacca in New York (Sciacca,1991:69) that a large percentage of
those in psychiatric care never received treatment for substance abuse and the rest had only
minimal care. Table III shows the most frequently used services in the Maryland study and how
families rated there effectiveness.

____________________ Table III here

The most often used services, used by half the dually diagnosed in this study, were group therapy
and Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (A.A./N.A.). While both were rated as fair or
good in effectiveness, the clear winner was A.A./N.A.. Although used less often (36%)
individual therapy was seen as having equal effectiveness to group therapy. Detoxification was
rated as effective, but as one respondent noted it was only of temporary value.

What is of most interest for the purposes of this chapter was that while only 36 per cent of
families were involved, all of them rated the effectiveness of this involvement as fair or good.
This supports the recommendations of a number of authorities (Sciacca:1991:81; and Evans and
Sullivan 1990:129) that families should receive special services or be included in the treatment.

Special Services Needed

It is important to learn from families who are in a position to observe their relatives over time
and to note their reactions to various treatments, what special services they feel are needed for
this population. Table IV shows the responses of the Maryland families.
_______________________ Table IV here

Families feel the need for special outpatient services for this group (82%) much more than the do
inpatient (39%). Over half the group feel that special crisis intervention, special self help groups,
and special residences need to be available. Of interest to us was the need expressed for special
family support groups (64%). This confirms the empirical findings that led to the development of
MICAA-NON a model program for families of the dually diagnosed.

Services for families of the dually diagnosed are an important compliment to the MICAA patient
treatment process. Prior to, and apart from our Maryland study, numerous families reported
devastating experiences stemming from their efforts to access services, and from the stressors of
caring for a dually diagnosed relative (Sciacca, 1989). Traditional twelve step programs for
family members of alcoholics, Al-Anon, often do not meet the needs of a family whose relative
also has a mental illness. Concepts such as "hitting bottom" (Al-Anon,1984:9) are not easily
acceptable to families of the dually diagnosed. For a dually diagnosed person, hitting bottom
may result in decompensation into acute symptoms, deterioration of functioning, loss of
supports, and hospital- ization. In MICAA treatment patients are maintained at their present
stable level, and progress in substance abuse treatment proceeds from there (Sciacca, 1991).
Families also fear the potential dangers involved in "putting their relative out on the street,"
which may be construed as a necessary action for families of addicted individuals. Programs
such as Al-Anon evolved in response to discrete disorders, in this case, alcoholism. They are not
comprehensive, and do not address mental illness or the interaction effects of mental illness and
substance disorders. There is a gap in learning and understanding for families of the dually

When traditional supports and services are not sufficient, families of the dually diagnosed rely
upon the mental health system for support. Presently, there are few services within that system to
address their needs. Alliance for the Mentally ILL (AMI) chapters include families of the dually
diagnosed, here they usually constitute a less cohesive sub-group. As a result, many chapters do
not provide specialized supports. Families who belong to AMI should continue to do so.
Programs for families of the dually diagnosed are additional specialized supports, not
replacements for the broader range of benefits provided by AMI. At the national and several
statewide levels NAMI does address the issues of the dually diagnosed (Hatfield, 1992). This
includes efforts to educate all of the membership.


Without the development of specialized services for dually diagnosed patients there is virtually
no consideration given to the special needs of their families. As an outgrowth of the attention
given to the treatment needs of the patients, the serious needs of their family members came the
fore. As a model family program was developed, it paralleled the intervention process adapted to
dually diagnosed patients in several important ways.

Initially, a patient in denial is engaged to participate in a psycho-educational group where he or

she may learn about substance disorders (Sciacca, 1991). Providers trained to work with patients
at this phase create a non-threatening environment and employ interventions that foster trust
among the leader and the group members. When patients recognize that it is safe to discuss one's
own use of substances, progress has been made along the continuum. They move from denial of
substance use, to openly discussing their use of substances in a supportive environment.

Interventions necessary to assist the client to the next step of readiness or recovery are
continually employed. For example, a patient who has reached the point of readiness to discuss
his or her substance use may deny any negative consequences. Through concerned exploration
and education about the effects of substance abuse, the patient is assisted along the continuum to
recognize specific problems and interaction effects with mental illness. This process continues
until abstinence, the goal, is achieved.

Specific education about mental illness and substance abuse is essential to this treatment process
(Sciacca, 1991).

MICAA-NON began in 1987 (Sciacca, 1989) in an effort to educate families about mental
illness, drug addiction and alcoholism. It began with presentations at local AMI chapters.
Chapter presidents forewarned that many members were resistent toward openly discussing
substance abuse issues. As a result, educational meetings were offered as a follow up to
presentations, rather than support groups. The engagement process used with dually diagnosed
patients is applied here. Participants need not disclose information about their dually diagnosed
relative. Interest in learning about the addictive disorders and interaction effects with mental
illness is the only prerequisite. The first MICAA-NON meetings included some families who
were not ready to discuss their relative's substance abuse, and other families who did so openly.
Family members had tales of isolation, disrupted lives, uncertainty as to where to go for help.
They clearly lacked a forum to discuss these problems. Families reported having their input
ignored while treatment was administered to their relative that did not account for the substance
abuse problem. Similar reports were given by families who attended presentations at statewide
AMI, and national NAMI conferences. Frequently these were initial disclosures of experiences
that had long been harbored in silence. Empirically, this confirmed the extent of the need for
education and support for families of the dually diagnosed.

MICAA-NON Program Outline

MICAA-NON groups require the leadership of an informed provider who can assist families to
acquire services and develop networks from limited resources. When developing programs for
MICAA treatment services, some agencies extend their services to include a MICAA-NON
program. Staff members in training at such agencies learn to lead family meetings under
supervision (Sciacca, 1991). This enhances their educational experience. Through educating and
learning from families they gain insight into the broader network and experiences of their dually
diagnosed patients. They understand the family and the patient as a system and learn new ways
to work together. As the plight of the family unfolds, providers begin to let to of outworn
theories of families as causal to mental illness (Lefley,1987:1066). Instead, they recognize the
support families provide, often under extremely adverse conditions.

Thus far MICAA-NON groups have not been developed for profit. When a group begins it is
open to all families throughout the community. Participants need not have a patient in treatment
at the sponsoring agency. Many families who do attend have the presenting problem of a relative
who either refuses, or is unable to access appropriate treatment. Groups include multiple
families. They do not usually include the dually diagnosed patient. Meetings are usually held in
the evening. They are held weekly, bi-monthly or monthly as decided by members. They last
approximately one and one-half to two hours. Group size is from three to twelve participants.

Outreach is very important to the formation of groups, and for sustaining membership. Programs
that begin with a presentation at a local AMI chapter or other family programs start out with a
general overview of the disease concepts of mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism.
Participants are given the opportunity to sign up to attend additional educational meetings. They
are notified of the details of each meeting in writing and by telephone the day of the meeting.
Flyers and notices are strategically sent to reach as many agencies, and family members as
possible. Notices are placed in local newsletters. New members may join at any time.
Participants are encouraged to invite other families, as well as additional members of their own

MICAA-NON Program Content:

The content of the meetings includes both support and education. Following introductions,
participants share in an open forum of discussion. Usually, at least one member will discuss a
personal issue. The leader and the group members explore the issue and attempt to find solutions.

Participants are not pressured to discuss their relative. Denial and resistance unfold gradually
with the development of trust. Non-judgmental support and education lead to understanding and
open participation as family members learn some of the causes and cures of mental illness and
substance disorders. This process parallels engagement and interventions developed for patient
groups. Emphasis is placed upon understanding discrete, multiple disorders, versus seeing dual
disorders as causal. Some people believe that their relative drinks alcohol or uses drugs because
he or she is mentally ill. This leads to seeking help for the mental illness alone with the
expectation that the addiction will simply clear up. Others are uncertain that their relative has a
mental illness and may perceive drinking and drug use as the cause of symptoms. Another
common belief is that drinking or drug use as a leisure activity is the best quality of life a person
with a severe mental illness can expect. Family members are taught the necessity of treatment,
support, and relapse prevention for each disorder.

The supportive nature of the group process includes assisting each participant to consider his or
her own well being and separateness. As participants discuss their situations, leaders assist them
to consider their personal well being. Group members are encouraged to be supportive of one
another, and to share their successes as well as their concerns.

Through this process, participants learn the parameters of their ability to be helpful to the dually
diagnosed. They learn to differentiate between their relative's need for appropriate services in
contrast to frustrating interactions or efforts that do not have the potential for success. This
provides options for families to consider as they choose how they will expend their energy and
Educational Content:

Each meeting includes educational content. Media such as videos, written materials, and guest
speakers are used. Topics are addressed from many different perspectives and discussion from
each member is encouraged. Some topics include: 1. The physio-logical aspects of the
addictions, including effects upon brain chemistry; 2. Risk factors in mixing psychotropic
medication with illicit substances; 3. Etiology of addictive disorders, including genetic research
findings and reactive causes; 4. Tolerance levels and other addictive syndromes; 5. The parallels
across addictive disorders and mental illness; 6. Treatment methods and recovery from addictive
disorders; 7. Special treatment programs for the dually diagnosed, MICAA treatment; 8.
Interaction effects of mental illness and addictive disorders; and, 9. The impact of addictive
disorders upon the family system.

It is most important for families to learn that the addictions are diseases that require treatment.
Of particular importance is the understanding of the physical addictions. Without the knowledge
that a relative is responding to a physical addiction, families and providers frequently view
substance abuse as a behavior that can be changed at will. This results in unrealistic expectations
and frustrating, disappointing inter-actions.


Assessment of families is an ongoing process. The following are some areas that need to be
explored during initial contacts, and continually updated throughout the entire process.

1. Assessment should include the readiness of the family to accept that their relative has an
addictive disorder (and in some cases a mental illness), and the readiness of the patient to receive
treatment. Interventions and content of the meetings will assist participants to reach the next step
along the continuum of acceptance. Education about each disorder is directed toward dispelling
stigma, shame, and guilt. Each of these areas parallel the process developed for patient groups.
Discussions about the experiences families have in coping with or assisting their relative often
validates the educational information, and the disease concepts. When the dually diagnosed
relative is discussed, his or her readiness to engage in treatment is determined.

2. Of extreme importance is the assessment of the safety of all concerned. As noted earlier in this
chapter, interaction effects of multiple disorders often result in suicidal behavior, violence or
tendencies toward harming others. Physical cravings for illicit substances can lead to various
inappropriate behaviors in order to obtain money to buy drugs. Violence in families of substance
abusers who are not diagnosed with a mental illness is well documented (Gorney,1989:232;
Gelles,Strauss,1988). As is true with substance abuse, people tend to minimize, rationalize, and
deny violence due to stigma, fear, and shame (Gorney, 1989:232). In a survey of NAMI
members 38 percent of the sample reported that their mentally ill relative was assaultive and
destructive in the home either sometimes or frequently (Swan, Lavitt, 1986). Families in our
Maryland study reported violence (36%) and suicidal ideation (59%) as acute symptoms evoked
by substance abuse. In MICAA-NON groups, the unfolding of denial about assaultive and
destructive behavior occurs in the same way that denial unfolds about other issues. In addition to
the development of trust, participants learn from the media and from one another that these
behaviors are common and symptomatic. This helps to alleviate shame and guilt. Families will
then reveal the degree of discomfort they experience when their relative is under the influence of
alcohol or drugs. Some members will describe past physical altercations, or verbal threats.
Leaders must consider whether or not there is an imminent danger. If there is, crisis intervention,
hospitalization or alternative living arrangements may be recommended.

Another body of literature on " Aging Parents as Caregivers of Mentally Ill Adult Children"
(Lefley,1987b:1065-1070) is also representative of some family compositions of the dually
diagnosed. With this family composition, the stressors may be manifold, and dangers more

3. Assessment of a physical addiction provides important information necessary to pursue an

appropriate course of action. Questions about the dually diagnosed relatives's drug(s) of choice,
frequency and quantity of use, and length of time used (Sciacca, 1990) will facilitate this
assessment. Families with physically addicted relatives come to understand the limitations of
willful change, and the treatment necessary for detoxification and recovery. Education about
withdrawal effects, and neurochemical and nutritional depletion, are examples of information
that helps families to understand the physical addictions.

4. It is important to explore the family's support network. This should include the quality of
relationships between all family members; the identification of particular family members who
provide support and caregiving; and the presence or absence of outside supports including the
relationships between the family and providers to the dually diagnosed patient. Assisting family
members to increase supports for the family and the dually diagnosed relative is a formative
goal. Leaders may attempt to engage other family members to attend MICAA NON. Participants
of MICAA-NON are encouraged to join their local AMI chapter. MICAA-NON meetings
usually include members of AMI who will assist in engaging new AMI members.

Al-Anon speakers are invited to speak at MICAA-NON meetings. They are asked to discuss
their resolutions to relationships with addicted relatives, and to answer questions about Al-Anon.
Attending Al-Anon meetings can provide additional support for participants who have learned
the similarities and differences between the dually diagnosed and people with addictive disorders

Participants are encouraged to communicate with those who provide treatment to their dually
diagnosed relative. This includes asking questions, and discussing their concerns.

5. It is important to assess the family history of addictive disorders. An assessment developed for
MICAA patients (Sciacca, 1990) details the family history of substance abuse and the patient's
history. This provides information necessary to determine the possibility of genetics involved in
the addictive disorders, or reactive causes. The family dynamic of guarding information about
family substance abuse, and experiences of betrayal when revealing it, exists for dually
diagnosed patients and their families. As participants learn the symptoms of addictive disorders
they may begin to question whether or not there is substance abuse among other family
Educating families about genetic research in alcoholism (Goodwin,1985:171 174) that utilize the
same paradigms, and yield the same results as genetic research in schizophrenia (Torrey,
1983:82-84), is often easily understandable. Other parallels across mental illness and substance
disorders include, treatments necessary to bring active symptoms into remission, the potential for
relapse, and the need for ongoing support for continued remission for each disorder (Sciacca,
1991). Assisting families to recognize the addictions as a family disease, when relevant, can
provide the clarity necessary to end years of misplaced blame and uncertainty. MICAA-NON
groups are on-going, they continue for as long as the resources (leader, space, sponsoring
agency) are available. Attention to the issues of dual diagnosis comes and goes as a priority in
various states and communities. Advocacy sometimes consists of an individual family member
who persistently tries to educate and influence entire bureaus, agencies, and other families
(Sciacca, 1993). Successful efforts have resulted in presentations on the topic, and in some cases,
education and training for providers in their communities. Efforts to develop services must
include assisting families and patients to transition from experiences of frustration and
uncertainty, to a stance of informed advocacy. This transition needs to take place for program
administrators and providers across all services. Advocates for patients who are dually diagnosed
must join together to form a cohesive group and a sustained effort to achieve the success NAMI
has achieved in helping those who have a mental illness alone.


Al-Anon Family Groups, Published by Al-Anon Family Group

Headquarters, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1987.

Cuffel, B.J., et. al., "Correlates of Patterns of Substance Abuse among patients with
Schizophrenia," Hospital and Community Psychiatry, March, 1993, pp. 247-251.
Drake, R.E., et. al., "Dual Diagnosis of Major Mental Illnesses and Substance Disorder, ed. K.
Minkoff and R.E. Drake. New Directions for Mental Health Services, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco,Number 50, Summer 1991, pp. 3-12.
Evans, K. and Sullivan, J.M. Dual Diagnosis: Counseling the Mentally Ill Substance Abuser,
Guilford, New York, 1990.
Gelles, R.J. and Strauss, M.A., Intimate Violence, Springer. New York, 1988. Goodwin, D.W.
"Alcoholism and Genetics, The Sins of Fathers,"Archives of General Psychiatry,Vol.42, Feb.
1985, pp.171-174.
Gorney, B.,"Domestic Violence and Chemical Dependency: Dual Problems, Dual Interventions,"
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Volume 21(2) April-June, 1989, pp. 229-238.
Grosser, R.C., and Vine,P., "Families as Advocates for the Mentally Ill: A Survey of
Characteristics and Service Needs," American Orthopsychiatric Association, Inc., 1991, pp. 282-
Hatfield, A.B., Family Education in Mental Illness. Guilford, New York, 1990. Hatfield, A.B.,
Dual Diagnosis: Substance Abuse and Mental Illness, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill,
Arlington, VA., 1992.
Kashner, T.M. et. al., "Family Characteristics, Substance Abuse and Hospitalization," Hospital
and Community, Feb. 1991, pp.195-197.
Lefley, H.P., "The Family's Response to Mental Illness in a Relative," Families of the Mentally
Ill: Meeting the Challanges, ed. A.B. Hatfield, New Directions for Mental Health Services,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, No.34, 1987, pp.3-22.
Lefley, H.P., "Aging Parents as Caregivers of Mentally Ill Adult Children: An Emerging Social
Problem," Hospital and Community Psychiatry, Vol.38, No.10, October, 1987b, pp.1063-1070.
Marsh, D.T., Families and Mental Illness: New Directions in Professional Practice. Praeger, New
York, 1992.
McCarrick, A.K.,, "Correlates of Acting-Out Behaviors among Young Adult Chronic
Patients," Hospital and Community Psychiatry, August, 1985, pp.848-853.
Minkoff K., and Drake, R. "Editor's Notes," Dual Diagnosis of Major Mental Illness and
Substance Disorder, ed. K. Minkoff and R. Drake. New Directions for Mental Health Services,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, No.50, Summer, 1991, pp.1-2.
Regier, D.,, "The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program," Archives of General
Psychiatry, Vol.41, 1984, pp.934-941.
References, Cnt'd.: Ridgely, M.S., Goldman, H.H.,, "Barriers to the Care of Persons with
Dual Diagnosis: Organizatinal and Financing Issues," Schizophrenia Bulletin, 16(1), 1990,
Ridgely, M.S., Osher, F.C., and Talbot, J.A., Chronic Mentally Ill Young Adults with Substance
Abuse Problems: Treatment and Training Issues. Baltimore Mental Health Policy Studies, Univ.
Maryland School of Medicine, 1987.
Sciacca, K., "New Initiatives in the Treatmrnt of the Chronic Patient with Alcohol/Substance
Abuse Problems."TIE Lines, 4(3), 1987, pp. 5-6.
Sciacca K., "Alcohol/Substance Abuse Programs in New York State Psychiatric Centers Develop
and Expand," This month in Mental Health (New York State Office of Mental Health) 10(2)6,
Sciacca, K., "MICAA-NON, Working with Families, Friends, and Advocates of Mentally Ill
Chemical Abusers and Addicted (MICAA)" TIE Lines 6(3), 1989, pp.6-7.
Sciacca, K., MIDAA Service Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Integrated Treatment, Program
Development and Services for Multiple Disorders, Kathleen Sciacca, Sciacca Comprehensive
Service Development for MIDAA, New York, 1990.
Sciacca, K. "An Integrated Treatment Approach for Severely Mentally Ill Individuals with
Substance Disorders," Dual Diagnosis of Major Mental Illness and Substance Disorder, ed. K.
Minkoff and

R.E. Drake, New Directions for Mental Health Services, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, No.50,
Summer 1991, pp.69-84.
Sciacca, K., "Tennessee Encourages New Program Models for Multiple Disorders, Mental
Illness, Drug Addiction and Alcoholism (MIDAA)." In Print. Curriculum and Training Network
News, NAMI, Arlington, VA. 1993.
Steinwachs, D.,, Family Perspectives on Meeting the Needs for Care of Severely Mentally
Ill Relatives: A National Survey, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD.(mimeo) 1992.
Swan, R.W., Lavitt, M.R., Patterns of Adjustment to Violence in Families of the Mentally Ill.
New Orleans, Elizabeth Wisner Research Center, Tulane University School of Social Work,
Torrey, E.F., Surviving Schizophrenia,A Family Manual, Harper & Row, New York, 1983.
U.S. News and World Report. When Mental Illness Hits Home. April, 24, 1989, pp.55-65.
Copyright ©1996 Kathleen Sciacca

You might also like