PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12653445

Practices differentiating high-performing from low-performing supported employment programs.

Abstract

This paper reports on a qualitative study designed to uncover the practices that differentiate programs producing high rates of competitive employment from those with low rates. The study found 13 differentiating practice factors in three areas: building consumer interest in working, getting a job, and maintaining a job. The congruence between these findings and current definitions of "best practice" is discussed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Elizabeth L Gowdy, Linda S Carlson, Charles A Rapp. 2003. Practices differentiating high-performing from low-performing supported employment programs.. https://doi.org/10.2975/26.2003.232.239

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Performance-based funding of supported employment for persons with severe mental illness: vocational rehabilitation and employment staff perspectives.

Vocational rehabilitation (VR) supervisors and counselors (n = 35) as well as supported employment (SE) program managers and employment specialists (n = 26) were enrolled in a 12-month evaluation comparing two models of funding services for persons with severe mental illness: fee-for-service and results-based funding (RBF). Quantitative measures of job satisfaction and preference for funding method were obtained prospectively on a quarterly basis, and SE staff activity logs were collected monthly. Qualitative data were collected using a series of focus groups conducted at the conclusion of the study. Despite recording a substantial increase in semi-annualized VR billing charges when using RBF (45-49%), SE staff expressed less satisfaction with RBF over time. Staff raised concerns about increased financial risks and pressures to achieve job placements under RBF. Vocational rehabilitation staff were consistently more satisfied with RBF, expressing particular satisfaction with perceived effectiveness and the payment authorization process. Both VR and SE staff expressed some reservations about RBF, primarily concerning possible pressures for adverse client selection.

Employment, Supported↗