Most individuals labeled severely handicapped remain unemployed in segregated institutions, activity programs, and work activity centers despite repeated demonstrations of vocational competence. This discrepancy presents a challenge to create alternatives to current services that will provide employment benefits and job security to individuals within the least restrictive environment possible. This article describes a program model that provides ongoing supported employment within a normal industrial setting to six persons previously judged to have severe handicaps. After 1 year, employees have dramatically increased earnings and productivity over previous earnings and national averages, and public costs have declined to one third the costs of alternative state programs.

Although adults with severe mental retardation were one ofthe 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 This manuscript was developed based on a paper requested by Conwal, Inc. for a consensus validation conference on supported employmentfor persons with severe mental retardation that was sponsored in 1993 by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. A previous version of the paper was published as Changeover to community employment: The problem of realigning organization culture, resources, and community roles by Joyce M. Albin and Larry Rhodes.The logisticssurroundingthe conference did not allowtime for a scientifically developed sample, nor an extensive qualitative research process. Therefore, the paper was developed by identifying organizations that were already participatingin the employment outcomes database of the EmploymentProjects, and conducting interviews of the organizations for whom the database included sufficient data. The results of this post hoc analysis of the database, and the resulting interviews are intended, solely, to reflect the experience of these eight organizations. However, the authors believe that these data and opinions from this limited group of organizations are important for communities, as well as for state and federal policy makers as they revisit the notion of "conversion" of existingfacility-basedservices to supported employment.Requests for reprints should be sent to Joyce M. Albin, Specialized Training Program, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403. 105 experience ofthese eight organizations related to their reinvestment and agency changeover to supported employment, and offers recommendations for the future.

No abstract

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.