Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

Summary

IPS was designed to help individuals with severe mental illness find and keep a job. This evaluation directly compared IPS to a separate intervention, EVR, to understand which of the two might be more effective. The distinctive feature of IPS was an individualized rapid job search process to quickly place participants in competitive employment.

IPS gave people ongoing support to find work based on their own preferences, a vocational assessment, and job development. Employment specialists gave individualized support to participants as well as counseling and help with transportation. There was no time limit on IPS services; employment support was given as needed. IPS was provided to unemployed individuals who were living in an urban neighborhood that was low income and who had severe mental disorders that kept them from finding employment for at least two years. This study of IPS was implemented at Community Connections, a large mental health agency in Washington, DC.

The effectiveness of IPS when compared to EVR indicates the effect of being referred to a set of services that includes those unique to IPS, or how much better the offer of IPS met participants’ needs than the offer of EVR. IPS did not provide prevocational services and did not operate through a rehabilitation agency; it’s primary focus was on individualized vocational support, whereas EVR provided a stepped approach of vocational services through rehabilitation agencies. The main services for EVR consisted of the presence of a vocational counselor, who helped match participants with rehabilitation agencies, and (sheltered?) work or training specially supervised by mental health staff.

25092-Individual placement
Populations and employment barriers: Unemployed, Mental illness

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below?
View the "Table help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

View table help

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $-42 per year -0.002 150
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1
Back to top

Implementation details

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
83%
Unknown or not reported
17%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

State(s) where implemented

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Canada

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Back to top