Barriers to employment for people with severe mental illness and criminal justice involvement

Individual placement and support programmes for young adults: Where are they and whom do they serve?

AIM

Individual Placement and Support (IPS), an evidence-based supported employment model developed for adults with serious mental illness, has been recently targeted to young adults with mental health conditions, but little is known about its adoption in this age group in the United States.

METHODS

We recruited a volunteer sample of nine IPS programmes in five states serving young adults with mental health conditions aged 16 to 24. IPS team leaders reported programme and participant characteristics and rated barriers to employment and education.

RESULTS

Most IPS programmes were located in community mental health centres, served a small number of young adults, and received most referrals from external sources. The study sample of 111 participants included 53% female, 47% under 21 years old, 60% diagnosed with a depressive disorder; 92% had an employment goal, and 40% had an education goal. IPS specialists reported that managing mental health symptoms was the most common barrier to achieving employment and education goals.

CONCLUSION

Future research should examine how IPS programmes could best provide services to young adults.

A Feasibility Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) for Patients With Offending Histories

Objective: To examine the feasibility of conducting a fully powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Individual Placement and Support (IPS). IPS is a form of supported employment which aims to put people into open employment quickly and in accordance with their preferences. It is delivered by employment specialists collocated within clinical teams, and provides time unlimited support for the individual and their employer, along with welfare benefits counselling. Method: A feasibility cluster RCT of treatment as usual (TAU) plus IPS versus TAU alone was conducted over 12 months among patients with offending histories in a community forensic setting in the UK. The feasibility criteria were to achieve 50% recruitment rate; 50% completion rate for IPS; 50% completion rate of all outcome measures; and 80% acceptability rating for IPS. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of people in open employment at 12 months. The secondary outcomes were other vocational and educational activities; Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale; Client Service Receipt Inventory; quality of life using the SF12-v2 and EQ5-D3; Social Functioning Questionnaire; Work Limitation Questionnaire; and reoffending. Results: Participants' mean age was 39.2 years. The majority were male (88.9), White British (72.2), and single (72.2%). Over 72% had no higher qualification beyond secondary education; mean years in education was 10.4. Over one third had schizophrenia, one fifth had depression, and the rest had personality disorder as their primary diagnosis. Participants had a lifetime average of 7.5 convictions for 15.5 offences. The recruitment rate of all referrals was 38.3% (IPS n = 11; TAU n = 7). Completion rate for IPS was 54.5, with 45.5% acceptability rating. Completion rates for outcome measures for the groups at baseline and 12 months ranged from 22.2 to 100%. The proportion of people in open employment at 12 months were 9.1 and 0% for IPS and TAU respectively. Conclusion: It is not feasible to conduct a full RCT of IPS in community forensic settings in the UK owing to recruitment and retention difficulties. Conducting a trial of this kind requires a large pool of patients from multiple sites and longer IPS implementation and recruitment periods than those of this study. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02442193.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of individual placement and support (IPS) for patients with offending histories in the community: The United Kingdom experience

Introduction

We aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a high fidelity individual placement and support service in a community forensic mental health setting.

Method

In-depth interviews were conducted with clinical staff ( n = 11), patients ( n = 3), and employers ( n = 5) to examine barriers and facilitators to implementation of a high fidelity individual placement and support service. Data was analysed using thematic analysis, and themes were mapped onto individual placement and support fidelity criteria.

Results

Barriers cited included competing interests between employment support and psychological therapies, perceptions of patients’ readiness for work, and concerns about the impact of returning to work on welfare benefits. Facilitators of implementation included clear communication of the benefits of individual placement and support, inter-disciplinary collaboration, and positive attitudes towards the support offered by the individual placement and support programme among stakeholders. Offences, rather than mental health history, were seen as a key issue from employers’ perspectives. Employers regarded disclosure of offending or mental health history as important to developing trust and to gauging their own capacity to offer support.

Conclusions

Implementation of individual placement and support in a community mental health forensic setting is complex and requires robust planning. Future studies should address the barriers identified, and adaptations to the individual placement and support model are needed to address difficulties encountered in forensic settings.