PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16622798

Explaining the variance within supported employment programs: comment on "What predicts supported employment outcomes?".

Robert E Drake·Gary R Bond·Charles Rapp
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Employment, SupportedHumansMental DisordersTreatment OutcomeCommentJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robert E Drake, Gary R Bond, Charles Rapp. 2006. Explaining the variance within supported employment programs: comment on "What predicts supported employment outcomes?".. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-006-9038-7

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

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↗