Suchergebnisse

Although adults with severe mental retardation were one of the primary target groups intended to benefit from supported employment when it first emerged, the vast majority continue to be served in segregated sheltered work or non-work settings. To change this picture, many have believed that resources currently invested in day activity and sheltered employment programs must be redirected to supported employment. Recent studies suggest, however, that most rehabilitation organizations are adding supported employment to their existing array of services, rather than pursuing total changeover from facility-based to community-based employment support. If these data reflect the national experience, the anticipated and necessary shift of resources from segregated to community employment services is not occurring. To supplement existing data, a telephone survey was conducted of eight rehabilitation organizations pursuing changeover. This paper provides information on the experience of these eight organizations related to their reinvestment and agency changeover to supported employment, and offers recommendations for the future.

Since the Workforce 2000 report documenting labor trends and issues was released by the Hudson Institute in 1987, business and industry have been reevaluating how support is provided to employees. Employee assistance programs, renewed investment in training, and other accommodations for an increasingly diverse workforce present an unparalleled opportunity to bring supported employment technology, values, and systems to contemporary business. This paper is an initial attempt at reconceptualizing supported employment and the role of employers in providing support. Changing strategies and future research questions that may need to be addressed are discussed.

This paper responds to Brown et al. (1984), who propose an extended training program involving work without pay in integrated settings for adults with severe intellectual handicaps. While agreeing about the capability of persons with disabilities, the importance of integration, and the failings of typical services, we believe that their extended training proposal represents an unnecessary retreat from values that have guided development of exemplary school and community services for persons with severe handicaps. As an extended outcome of services, the proposed program needlessly sacrifices wages and other employment benefits, distorts the benefits of integration by looking only at the workplace, and tolerates unequal treatment of citizens with severe handicaps. Relying on unpaid work as a strategy for time-limited employment preparation creates the risk of overuse and of perpetual readiness programming, suggesting that professional effort could be better spent in development of supported employment opportunities. Current federally supported employment initiatives provide a framework for combining wages and integration and offer support for local program development.