Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research · 2018
Employment Outcomes From a Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Employment Interventions With Homeless Youth.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ferguson Kristin M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Limited research exists on how employment interventions contribute to employment outcomes for homeless youth. This study examines the comparative efficacy of 2 interventions-Social Enterprise Intervention (SEI) and Individual Placement and Support (IPS)-provided to homeless youth with mental illness in a randomized controlled trial.
METHOD: Participants were recruited from 1 homeless youth agency in Los Angeles, CA, and randomized to the SEI (n = 36) or IPS (n = 36) conditions. Over 20 months, SEI participants received 4 SEI components, and IPS participants received IPS services based on 8 principles. Data were collected at baseline and follow-up for the primary employment outcome (paid employment) and 5 secondary employment outcomes.
RESULTS: Over 20 months, 39% of SEI participants and 32% of IPS participants reported any paid employment. Across both groups, participants who reported working at baseline had nearly 8 times the odds of working at follow-up (OR = 7.91, p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were detected across the full sample or between groups on the primary or secondary employment outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Future effectiveness research is needed to compare the long-term employment outcomes of the SEI and IPS with a more heterogeneous sample of homeless youth using customized homelessness support services and more nuanced employment outcomes.
METHOD: Participants were recruited from 1 homeless youth agency in Los Angeles, CA, and randomized to the SEI (n = 36) or IPS (n = 36) conditions. Over 20 months, SEI participants received 4 SEI components, and IPS participants received IPS services based on 8 principles. Data were collected at baseline and follow-up for the primary employment outcome (paid employment) and 5 secondary employment outcomes.
RESULTS: Over 20 months, 39% of SEI participants and 32% of IPS participants reported any paid employment. Across both groups, participants who reported working at baseline had nearly 8 times the odds of working at follow-up (OR = 7.91, p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were detected across the full sample or between groups on the primary or secondary employment outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Future effectiveness research is needed to compare the long-term employment outcomes of the SEI and IPS with a more heterogeneous sample of homeless youth using customized homelessness support services and more nuanced employment outcomes.