Evidence for IPS2023-09-13T20:06:46+00:00

Evidence for IPS

Work is the best treatment we have for serious mental illness (i.e., people with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar, or depression). Two-thirds of people with serious mental illness want to work but only 15% are employed. They see work as an essential part of recovery. Being productive is a basic human need. Working can both be a way out of poverty and prevent entry into the disability system. Competitive employment has a positive impact on self-esteem, life satisfaction, and reducing symptoms (Luciano, Bond, & Drake, 2014).

Until the 1990s, no models were effective in helping people with serious mental illness get stable competitive employment. Even today, only 2% of people who could benefit have access to effective employment services.


Evidence for IPS (July 2022)

Evidence for IPS PowerPoint: Reference List (July 2022)

IPS Research: PowerPoint (May 2023)

A Systematic Review and Meta‑analysis of IPS Supported Employment for Young Adults with Mental Health Conditions

28 Randomized Controlled Trials

The number of studies showing IPS effectiveness continues to grow. To date, 28 randomized controlled trials of IPS (See Recommended Readings below) have showed a significant advantage for IPS. Across the 28 studies, IPS showed an average competitive employment rate of 55% compared to 25% of controls. A meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials found that people receiving IPS services were 2.4 times more likely to be employed than controls (Modini, 2016).

People in IPS attain employment faster, hold their jobs for longer, and work more hours. In 4 randomized controlled trials, over an 18-month period, approximately 3 times as many people receiving IPS services achieved employment and worked more hours, and people receiving IPS services worked overall four times as many hours compared to controls.

IPS is more effective than alternative vocational approaches regardless of a variety of client background factors (e.g., ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status).

Researchers continue to explore the applicability of IPS in target subgroups and new populations.

  • Social Security Disability Beneficiaries

  • Young Adults Experiencing First Episode Psychosis

  • Transition-Age Youth

  • People with Autism Spectrum Disorders

  • People with Intellectual Disabilities

  • People with Common Mental Disorders

  • People with Chronic Medical Conditions

  • Families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

  • People with Criminal History

This review addresses the history, principles, research, and future directions of IPS. It covers current evidence on employment outcomes, cost effectiveness, and nonvocational outcomes. It also describes current attempts to extend IPS to new populations.

Recommended Readings

Implementation News


Go to Top