Valerie Brooke

Competitive Employment Has It Become the "First Choice" Yet?

This article addresses the issue of availability of competitive employment for individuals with significant disabilities compared to segregated day and work services. Despite the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court decision in the Olmstead v. L. C. (1999) case and its emphasis on full community integration for individuals with significant disabilities, and the blending of individualized support strategies with the philosophy of self-determination in the 1990s, the majority of individuals with significant disabilities currently are not working in competitive employment. In addition, the measures used to define quality supported employment outcomes and programs frequently lack clarity. In this article, the authors briefly discuss the underlying values that should be used to guide all competitive employment programs designed to support individuals with disabilities. Second, they detail benchmark indicators through which the quality of supported employment programs should be measured. The article concludes with a description of the importance of using quality indicators in assessing the validity of supported employment services, particularly in the current environment of strained and finite fiscal resources.

Supported Employment for Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Preliminary Data

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of supported employment in securing and maintaining competitive employment for people with autism spectrum disorder, a group that has typically been found to be underemployed or unemployed. This prospective study followed and collected data on 33 individuals with autism spectrum disorder as they progressed through a supported employment model, working one-on-one with an employment specialist. Of the 33 individuals included in the study, 27 successfully obtained competitive employment, with a total of 29 positions secured. The successful results were achieved through the use of a supported employment model and skilled employment specialists who were able to provide a high level of social supports and compensatory training strategies for skill acquisition. Specifically, employment specialists supported individuals through four steps of an individualized supported employment model: (a) the development of a jobseeker profile and assessment, (b) guiding the job development and career search, (c) conducting job site training, and (d) designing long-term supports to promote job retention. The multitude and variance of specific methods and strategies used in each case to execute these key steps of the supported employment model accurately reflect an emphasis on a highly individualized approach. Although the outcomes of this preliminary study were positive in terms of employment outcomes, further research remains to be conducted.

Job Placement and Follow-Up of Moderately and Severely Handicapped Individuals after Three Years

This paper describes the results of a three-year job placement project for moderately and severely handicapped individuals in Virginia. This project developed a training and advocacy approach to placement that involved client training by staff at the job site. Staff advocacy also took place with co-workers and employers. All clients were paid by employers as part of the regular workforce. Although the project is still ongoing as it seeks to replicate training and placement procedures throughout Virginia, at the three-year point, 63 clients have been placed, with 42 currently working, for a retention rate of 67%. These individuals have collectively earned

Quality Indicators for Competitive Employment Outcomes: What Special Education Teachers Need to Know in Transition Planning.

265,000 and paid well over

Employment for adults with autism spectrum disorders: A retrospective review of a customized employment approach.

26,000 in state and federal taxes. Moreover, most of these clients had long records of exclusion from non-sheltered and even sheltered work, since they were viewed by professionals and parents as “realistically unemployable.” This report highlights the major characteristics and conclusions drawn from staff efforts to this point.

Employment Interventions for Individuals with ASD: The Relative Efficacy of Supported Employment With or Without Prior Project SEARCH Training.

by youth with disabilities who are transitioning into employment varies widely across the country. Special education teachers, youth with disabilities, families, community rehabilitation program (CRP) staff providing employment services, and others involved in assisting transitioning youth can benefit from a set of research-referenced quality indicators for measuring the effectiveness of employment services. This article describes a program review instrument that includes seven quality indicators for competitive employment services, as well as probe questions for assessing each indicator and program improvement strategies. Customized employment, resource ownership, real work for real pay, job carving, microenterprise, business within a business: research increasingly describes a rapidly expanding array of employment outcomes possible for youth with significant disabilities while they transition into the adult employment market (Griffin, Hammis, & Geary 2007; Wehman, Inge, Revell, & Brooke, 2007). These employment outcomes reflect careful job matches, which frequently involve negotiated arrangements with employers (Targett & Inge, 2008). This focus on employment in community-integrated job settings as a first and primary choice recognizes the advantages of employment for transitioning youth with a disability in wages, the potential for benefits, and the dignity and self-determination that arises from gainful employment. There are also benefits for employers in meeting labor needs, as well as for family, co-workers, and the general public, who are able to see the employed individual in a fully competent role in the workplace and community (Wehman, Revell, and Brooke, 2003). Youth with disabilities who are interested in successfully entering competitive employment as a transition outcome, as well as the transition staff supporting them, face a variety of challenges (Wehman, Revell, & Brooke, 2003):

Effects of an employer-based intervention on employment outcomes for youth with significant support needs due to autism

Over the past few decades, there has been an increase in prevalence of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and those children are now becoming young adults in need of competitive integrated employment (CIE). Customized employment (CE) is one pathway to employment that has been successful for other individuals with developmental disabilities (DD), though research has been very limited on the effectiveness with individuals with ASD. This paper provides a retrospective review of 64 individuals with ASD who came to our program from 2009 to 2014 for supported employment services as referred by the state vocational rehabilitation services agency. Employment specialists engaged in situational assessment, discovery, job development, customized job descriptions, on-site training and support, positive behavioral supports, and job retention techniques. The employment specialists were responsible for tracking their actual time spent working directly with or for the jobseeker with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). All vocational rehabilitation clients with ASD served during this time successfully secured CIE, and maintained their employment with ongoing supports, with intensity of support time decreasing over time. The majority (63/64, 98.4%) of individuals successfully secured CIE through the use of supported employment, in 72 unique employment positions. Of the majority of the individuals who secured employment, 77% (50) individuals indicated that they had never worked before and additional 18% (12) reported having short intermittent histories of employment. Despite this lack of employment experience, in all cases the jobseeker directed the job search and ultimately the job selection.

Transition from School to Competitive Employment: Illustrations of Competence for Two Young Women with Severe Mental Retardation.

This paper presents findings from a retrospective observational records review study that compares the outcomes associated with implementation of supported employment (SE) with and without prior Project SEARCH with ASD Supports (PS-ASD) on wages earned, time spent in intervention, and job retention. Results suggest that SE resulted in competitive employment for 45 adults with ASD. Twenty-five individuals received prior intervention through PS-ASD while the other 20 individuals received SE only. Individuals in this sample who received PS-ASD required fewer hours of intervention. Additionally, individuals in the PS-ASD group achieved a mean higher wage and had higher retention rates than their peers who received SE only. Further research with a larger sample is needed to confirm these findings.

Toward Competitive Employment for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: What Progress Have We Made and Where Do We Need to Go:

The purpose of this study was to develop and investigate an employer-based 9-month intervention for high school youth with autism spectrum disorder to learn job skills and acquire employment. The intervention modified a program titled Project SEARCH and incorporated the use of applied behavior analysis to develop Project SEARCH plus Autism Spectrum Disorder Supports. A randomized clinical trial compared the implementation of Project SEARCH plus Autism Spectrum Disorder Supports with high school special education services as usual. Participants were 49 high-school-aged individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 years diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder and eligible for supported employment. Students also had to demonstrate independent self-care. At 3 months post-graduation, 90% of the treatment group acquired competitive, part-time employment earning US

Employees with Autism Spectrum Disorder Achieving Long-Term Employment Success: A Retrospective Review of Employment Retention and Intervention:

9.53–US