Supported employment for people with severe mental illnesses is an evidence-based practice, based on converging findings from 4 studies of the conversion of day treatment to supported employment and 9 randomized controlled trials comparing supported employment to a variety of alternative approaches. These two lines of research suggest that between 40% and 60% of consumers enrolled in supported employment obtain competitive employment while less than 20% of similar consumers do so when not enrolled in supported employment. Consumers who hold competitive jobs for a sustained period of time show benefits such as improved self-esteem and better symptom control, although by itself, enrollment in supported employment has no systematic impact on nonvocational outcomes, either on undesirable outcomes, such as rehospitalization, or on valued outcomes, such as improved quality of life. The psychiatric rehabilitation field has achieved consensus on a core set of principles of supported employment, although efforts continue to develop enhancements. A review of the evidence suggests strong support for 4 of 7 principles of supported employment, while the evidence for the remaining 3 is relatively weak. Continued innovation and research on principles is recommended.

We describe different models of community care for persons with severe mental illness and review the research literature on case management, including the results of 75 studies. Most research has been conducted on the assertive community treatment (ACT) or intensive case management (ICM) models. Controlled research on ACT and ICM indicates that these models reduce time in the hospital and improve housing stability, especially among patients who are high service users. ACT and ICM appear to have moderate effects on improving symptomatology and quality of life. Most studies suggest little effect of ACT and ICM on social functioning, arrests and time spent in jail, or vocational functioning. Studies on reducing or withdrawing ACT or ICM services suggest some deterioration in gains. Research on other models of community care is inconclusive. We discuss the implications of the findings in terms of the need for specialization of ACT or ICM teams to address social and vocational functioning and substance abuse. We suggest directions for future research on models of community care, including evaluating implementation fidelity, exploring patient predictors of improvement, and evaluating the role of the helping alliance in mediating outcome.

The current review is consistent with earlier reviews, although the evidence for high-fidelity IPS appears to be somewhat stronger here than in reviews evaluating studies with more heterogeneity in the supported employment models examined. The number, consistency, and effect sizes of studies of evidence-based supported employment establish it as one of the most robust interventions available for persons with severe mental illness.

Supported employment for people with severe mental illness is an evidence-based practice, based on converging findings from eight randomized controlled trials and three quasi-experimental studies. The critical ingredients of supported employment have been well described, and a fidelity scale differentiates supported employment programs from other types of vocational services. The effectiveness of supported employment appears to be generalizable across a broad range of client characteristics and community settings. More research is needed on long-term outcomes and on cost-effectiveness. Access to supported employment programs remains a problem, despite their increasing use throughout the United States. The authors discuss barriers to implementation and strategies for overcoming them based on successful experiences in several states.