A Community's Response to Supported Employment: Implications for Social Work Practice

Abstract

Supported employment is one of the most significant advances in vocational rehabilitation services to have emerged from the 1980s (Rogan & Hagner, 1990). Viewed as an alternative vocational service for individuals with severe mental or physical challenges, supported employment was initially defined in the regulations of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in 1984 and has since appeared in a variety of federal contexts, including the Developmental Disabilities Act of 1984, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, and the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 (Bellamy, Rhodes, & Albin, 1988). These numerous federal initiatives define individuals with severe disabilities or challenges as those need intensive, ongoing support to live and work in community settings (Bellamy et al., 1988, p. 4). Supported employment exists when three program components are present: employment for wages and benefits in the competitive marketplace; continuing on-the-job supports such as training, supervision, and transportation; and an integrated workplace in which nonchallenged and challenged people are employed (Bellamy et al., 1988). The initial findings regarding the benefits of supported employment are promising. For example, research indicates that people who had been previously excluded from vocational programs because of their challenges can maintain community employment with individualized supported services (Hill, Wehman, Kregel, Banks, & Metzler, 1987; Kiernan & Stark, 1986; Mcloughlin, Garner, & Callahan, 1987; Nisbet & Hagner, 1988; Parent, Hill, & Wehman, 1989; Rusch, 1986). Furthermore, businesses are beginning to recognize the value of employing challenged individuals in terms of low absenteeism and consistent productivity (Pati & Adkins, 1980; Pati & Morrison, 1982; Rhodes & Valenta, 1985). Whereas the concept of supported employment is relatively new, there is a significant body of research on how it benefits challenged people and society as a whole. Findings in social psychology indicate that increases in contact, followed by positive experiences, influence positive change in attitudes (Eddy, 1964; Rosenberg, 1956; Watson, 1950). Further evidence suggests that eliminating political and community barriers promotes the confrontation of stereotypes and prejudice (Bettelheim & Janowitz, 1950; Green, 1952; MacKenzie, 1948). In social work, writings on the community support services model. (Turner & TenHoor, 1978), policies of inclusion (Lewis, Shadish, & Lurigio, 1989), outreach case management (Libassi, 1988; Rapp & Chamberlain, 1985: Stein, Test, & Marx, 1975), and the strengths perspective (Rapp & Chamberlain, 1985; Rapp & Wintersteen, 1989; Saleebey, 1992; Weick, Rapp, Sullivan, & Kisthardt, 1989) underscore the promise of interventions built on the strengths inherent in challenged individuals and the community (Sullivan, 1992). The study reported in this article contributes to the research on supported employment by examining the impact of participation in a supported employment program on community members' responses to individuals with severe challenges. More specifically, this study addresses the following three questions: (1) What impact does participation in supported employment have on community members' responses to integrated workplaces? (2) Is the willingness of community members to work with challenged individuals affected by participation in a supported employment program? (3) Does exposure and interaction with challenged individuals change community members' assumptions about their potential to acquire skills? The answers to these questions will prove helpful to social workers as they prepare community members and challenged individuals to live and work together. Method The study used a pretest-posttest design and investigated the influence of participation in a supported employment program on the responses of community members to individuals who were severely physically challenged, severely mentally challenged, or both. …