Table 4 Supported employment iInitiatives targeting people with psychiatric disorders

Supported Employment Model — summary of independent studies (Bond 2004; Bond et al. 2005)

Random assignment evaluations of 12 supported employment interventions that were summarized by Bond et al. (2005), which were originally conducted by nine research teams in various geographic regions representing both rural and urban communities.

In the 12 studies reviewed, the most common supported employment model tested was the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model (see Rangarajan et al. 2008 for more details on this model), which was compared with groups that usually had access to standard practices.

Number of participants varied by study, but all studies included people with psychiatric impairments who were generally recruited by social service agencies.

Percent employed:

Average competitive employment rate for consumers in supported employment was more than 250 percent larger than that of control group members. The summary did not assess the earnings levels or cash disability receipt.

Control: 23 percent

Treatment: 61 percent

No earnings estimates

Employment Intervention Demonstration Program (EIDP) (Cook et al. 2008)

Random assignment evaluation of the effectiveness of several experimental supported employment programs for people with psychiatric disabilities in seven locations across the United States from 1995 to 2003.

The treatment group received services delivered by various entities under different supported employment service models designed for people with psychiatric disabilities. Other experimental sites enhanced their service model by providing unique features such as developing special connections to employers. All interventions shared common characteristics of supported employment program models.

1,273 participants with psychiatric impairments.

Percent employed:

Individuals enrolled in supported employment programs were 62 percent more likely to be competitively employed than their counterparts. Supported employment participants had 23 percent higher monthly earned income (Cook et al. 2005).

Control: 34 percent

Treatment: 55 percent

Annualized earned income:

Control: $1,315

Treatment: $1,621