Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the comparative impacts of Social Enterprise Intervention (SEI) and Individual Placement and Support (IPS) on employment and earnings.
- The study is a randomized controlled trial. The authors used statistical models with data collected through interviews to compare SEI and the IPS group outcomes.
- The study did not find any statistically significant group differences in earnings or employment outcomes.
- This study receives a moderate evidence rating. This means we would be somewhat confident that any estimated effects would be attributable to SEI or IPS; but other factors may have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Social Enterprise Intervention (SEI) and Individual Placement and Support (IPS)
Features of the Intervention
The Social Enterprise Intervention (SEI) was designed based on the assumption that by surviving and navigating homelessness, homeless youth develop entrepreneurship skills. SEI aimed to help homeless youth transfer their existing skills to create a business. SEI included four months of learning vocational skills, four months of learning small business skills, and 12 months of creating and selling apparel products as a business. Participants also received weekly clinical and case management services at the drop-in center.
Individual Placement and Support (IPS) was designed based on the assumption that young people who are homeless face many interconnected challenges obtaining and maintaining employment. IPS aimed to help homeless youth find and continue paid jobs by addressing these interconnected challenges through customized long-term case management and vocational support using trained staff. IPS services included integrating mental health and vocational services, helping clients obtain jobs with competitive wages, providing counseling on benefits, assisting with job searching, providing additional individual assistance, considering client preferences for job type and support available, and creating contacts with local employers to build a network of employers. Participants were assigned an employment specialist, case manager, and clinician and met with each weekly.
Features of the Study
This study used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impacts of SEI and IPS on outcomes. Participants were recruited from a homeless youth drop-in center in Los Angeles, California. Eligible participants were English-speaking homeless youth (ages 16 to 24) with a desire to work and a clinical diagnosis with on-going symptoms of major depressive episode, manic episode, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, antisocial personality disorder, or alcohol/substance-use disorder. Of the 72 eligible youth, 36 youth were randomly assigned to the SEI group and 36 youth were randomly assigned to the IPS group. The sample included 48 participants at baseline, with 26 in the SEI group and 22 in the IPS group. At follow-up, the sample included 38 participants, with 21 in the SEI group and 17 in the IPS group. The sample was primarily male (83%), with an average age of 22. The largest proportions of participants were Black/African American (38%), mixed race/ethnicity (33%), and Hispanic/Latino (17%). Over half of the participants (60%) received either a high school diploma or a GED. The study used data from interviews conducted at baseline and at 20-month follow-up. The authors compared the outcomes of the members of the SEI and IPS groups using statistical models.
Findings
Employment
- The study did not find any statistically significant differences between the groups in job tenure, paid employment, hours worked per week, or odds of being employed at follow-up.
Earnings and wages
- The study did not find any statistically significant differences between the groups in weekly income.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
Although this was a randomized controlled trial, the study had high attrition. However, the study authors ensured that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. Therefore, the study receives a moderate evidence rating.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is moderate because it was a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the authors ensured that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we would be somewhat confident that any estimated effects would be attributable to SEI or IPS, but other factors might also have contributed. However, the study did not find statistically significant effects.