Printer Friendly

The perceived importance of integrated supported education and employment services.

Individuals with a psychiatric disability drop out of educational programs more often than those without a psychiatric disability (Swanson, Gur, Bilker, Petty & Gur, 1998; Waghorn, Still, Chant, & Whiteford, 2004). These individuals often experience their first major symptoms during late adolescence or early adulthood. The timing of the onset of these initial symptoms often postpones educational pursuits indefinitely. It's been estimated that almost 5 million people in the U.S. would have participated in a college education were it not for a psychiatric disability (Kessler, Foster, Saunders, & Stang, 1995).

Supported education (SEd) for individuals with psychiatric disabilities is a practice which is gathering increasing support and national attention (Leonard & Bruer, 2007). Supported education (SEd) is an intervention model designed to assist individuals with a psychiatric disability to complete educational goals. There are four major types of supported education models currently being utilized: (1) the self-contained classroom, (2) on-site support (3) mobile support, and (4) freestanding (for further description of these models see: Collins & Mowbray, 2005 and Mowbray, Brown, Furlong-Norman, & Soydan, 2002). Although, each of these models has different qualities, they often provide similar services. Historically, funding for SEd services has been a precarious mixture of state, local, and foundation sources. There continues to be a lack of a defined delivery system for supported education and an attendant financing mechanism that would make SEd more readily available to people with psychiatric disabilities.

Several recently published systematic reviews have identified SEd as providing positive outcomes for individuals with psychiatric disabilities (Chandler, 2008; Leonard & Bruer, 2007; Parrish, 2009; Rogers, Farkas, Anthony, & Kash-MacDonald, 2009). The reviews report that there is preliminary evidence indicating that SEd helps individuals obtain educational goals, achieve vocational success, increase self-esteem and self-perception, learn to manage their symptoms, and improve levels of satisfaction with services; all of which have been linked to elements of a recovery process. However, these positive outcomes must be interpreted with caution as most of the research conducted has been descriptive, qualitative or had other methodological limitations.

While qualitative and descriptive research is important, especially given that obtaining an education is a subjective experience, this research needs to be augmented by high quality effectiveness studies. Most of the quantitative studies conducted on SEd have either been non-randomized or non-experimental. For instance there have only been five pre-post studies (Unger et al., 1991; Cook & Solomon, 1993; Unger, Pardee, & Shafer, 2000; Best, Still, & Cameron, 2008; Morrison & Clift, 2005), four experimental or quasi-experimental studies (Collins, Bybee, & Mowbray, 1998; Collins, Mowbray, & Bybee, 1999a; Collins, & Bybee, 1999; Hoffman & Mastrianni, 1993), nine correlational, survey or observational designs (e.g. Collins, Mowbray, & Bybee, 2000; Collins, Mowbray, & Bybee, 1999b; Mowbray, Bybee, & Collins, 2001; Mowbray, Bybee, & Shriner, 1996) and four posttest only designs (e.g. Isenwater, Lanham, & Thomhill, 2002; Tutty et al. 1993). One of the only studies that used a randomized controlled trial methodology (Collins et al., 1998) could not determine which specific type of supported education model was most effective or why the supported education interventions tested were effective. The other major quantitative design studies all had design issues such as a self-selected sample, non-standardized measures, small sample sizes, lack of randomization, large attrition rates, or insufficient follow up.

Supported employment (SE) is an umbrella term which includes segregated and non-segregated supports and services designed to assist individuals with a variety of disabilities in obtaining employment. Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is a particular form of SE developed for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Individual Placement and Support is a well-established evidence-based practice which has shown consistent positive outcomes for the past 20 years (Bond, Drake, & Becker, 2008; Crowther, Marshall, Bond, & Huxley, 2001). Over 11 randomized controlled trials have been conducted in over six countries (e.g. Bond et al., 2007; Burns et al., 2007; Drake et al., 1996; Drake et al, 1999; Gold et al., 2006; Killackey et al, 2009; Latimer et al., 2006; Lehman et al., 2002; Mueser et al., 2004; Twamley et al., 2008; Wong et al., 2008). Across these studies employment rates were approximately 61% compared to 21% for control groups (Bond et al., 2008) and IPS participants obtained their job about 10 weeks earlier than controls. The positive findings found in these randomized controlled trials are also augmented by a plethora of additional quasi-experimental and descriptive studies. The IPS form of supported employment is one of the most established, effective, and well-studied EBP interventions available for individuals with psychiatric disabilities (Bond et al., 2008).

Several researchers have suggested that IPS may be an appropriate delivery mechanism for providing SEd services (Bond, Resnick, Drake, Xie, McHugo, & Bebout, 2001; Evans & Bond, 2008). Indeed, it has been suggested that there is a link between increases in enduring employment for individuals with psychiatric disabilities if they obtain some form of educational success (Murphy, Mullen, & Spagnolo, 2005; Waghorn, Chant, & Whiteford, 2003) as well as increases in income (Yelin & Trupin, 2003). The IPS model may be a particularly important SEd delivery system because of the recent finding that those with psychiatric disabilities often need additional employment support (such as job placement assistance, job search assistance, and on-the-job support) even after obtaining higher educational qualification (Boutin & Accordino, 2009). Job placement, job search and follow along supports are all services routinely provided by 1PS.

Several important surveys within the SEd literature have assessed campus disability services (Collins & Mowbray, 2005), uncovered diverse types of SEd program models (Mowbray, Megivern, & Holter, 2003), determined educational attainment among individuals with psychiatric disabilities who achieve managerial or supervisory positions (Ellison, Russinova, Lyass, & Rogers, 2008). Other surveys have explored the educational goals of individuals with psychiatric disabilities (e.g. Corrigan, Barr, Driscoll, & Boyle, 2008). However, to the authors knowledge, no previous studies have examined the extent that established IPS programs deliver SEd services in parallel with employment programs. Knowing what educational services are currently made available alongside or within IPS programs, and how they are delivered is an essential first step in assessing whether IPS is a viable delivery mechanism for SEd.

In addition, it is unknown what educational service elements providers identify as important. And although many programs which provide SEd often provide similar services they also frequently operate from a broad range of structures, staffing patterns and organizational features (Mowbray, Brown, Furlong-Norman, & Soydan, 2002; Mowbray, Megivern, & Holter, 2003). Determining what educational services IPS practitioners identify as important and what educational services are currently in use, may help specify how supported education and employment services are best delivered and integrated for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Most common or most preferred combinations could then be tested for effectiveness.

In the psychiatric rehabilitation field, expert and stakeholder surveys to identify core ingredients of a practice prior to effectiveness testing, is an established methodology (See for example Evans & Bond, 2008; Holter, Mowbray, Bellamy, MacFarlane, & Dukarski, 2004; Marty, Rapp, & Carlson, 2001; McGrew & Bond, 1994; Schaedle & Epstein, 2000, and Walker & Bruns, 2006). In the current study, The University of Kansas, School of Social Welfare (KU, SSW) conducted a survey of IPS programs within the Johnson & Johnson Learning Collaborative about the nature and extent of the provision of supported education services. There were two main goals of the survey: (1) To explore the extent and nature of supported education services being delivered, and (2) to explore the relative importance of specific elements of supported education services as viewed by programs that are providing educational services. The aim was to profile the educational services currently being provided within SE.

Methods

Sampling

Supported employment consultants associated with the national Johnson and Johnson Learning Collaborative were recruited to provide contact information for agencies which provided supported employment in the consultants' state of origin. The Collaborative is a project funded through Johnson and Johnson in partnership with Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center that promotes state development of IPS through partnerships with Vocational Rehabilitation Services and state mental health authorities. At the time of the study, eleven states were involved in the project. The contact lists were compiled and a master list was generated covering 11 states. This convenience sampling method yielded a contact sample list of 98 agencies. Of the 98 agencies contacted, 67 individuals (68%) completed the first survey.

Instruments

Two surveys were developed using an expert panel of five researchers at the University of Kansas School of Social Welfare. A supported education fidelity scale and protocol were also used. The first survey was developed to assess the educational staffing patterns of IPS agencies. The survey differentiated several staffing patterns: (1) agencies where supported employment workers provided both supported education and supported employment, (2) agencies where supported employment workers did not provide any supported education, (3) agencies who identified case-managers as providing supported education, (4) agencies where supported employment programs had a designated individual(s) on the supported employment team that provided only supported education services, and (5) agencies where supported employment teams had a designated individual(s) to provide supported education services who also provided supported employment services when there were no participants on the team receiving supported education services.

The second survey was primarily derived from the SAMHSA supported education fidelity scale (SAMHSA, unpublished) developed by the University of Kansas and using items from a fidelity scale developed by Unger (unpublished) that were not included in the SAMHSA tool. The SAMHSA SEd fidelity scale was initially developed using: (1) a review of the literature, (2) an expert panel of six researchers, (3) a review of other fidelity scales currently available, (4) individual consumer and staff interviews, and (5) three large group interviews. Since its initial development, the SEd fidelity scale has been piloted at three separate community mental health agencies and revised based on the piloting process. The aim of the SAMHSA SEd fidelity scale was to provide a principle-driven model that is likely to be of use in a variety of settings and programs. The consumers and agency staff involved in the piloting process of the fidelity scale reported the scale to be helpful and user friendly.

The second survey was designed to assess the educational services being provided by IPS programs and the importance placed on each of those services. The survey was divided into seven sub-sections: (a) recruitment; (b) staffing structure and expectations; (c) referral, information and outreach; (d) supported education services; (e) documentation in participant records; (f) use of outcome data; and (g) collaboration. For each item respondents had the opportunity to indicate how important they thought the educational service was to consumer outcomes on a five point Likert scale. The respondents also had the opportunity to report the degree to which they provided each of the supported education items.

Procedures

The surveys and procedures were approved by the University of Kansas Institutional Review Board and were administered between March and August of 2010. The respondents were supervisors of SE programs associated with the Johnson and Johnson Learning Collaborative. Respondents were initially contacted via their state's supported employment consultant. Once agreement to participate was achieved, respondents were sent via email, a link to an electronic survey (programmed using Ultimate Survey 2). Each email included an introductory letter explaining the process of selection, an informed consent statement, and survey instructions. Respondents qualified for the second survey if they indicated that their supported employment program provided some form of SEd. The respondent also qualified if they had a separate educational program or unit. If this was the case the respondent was then asked for the contact information for the supervisor of the educational unit.

The educational unit supervisor was then contacted to complete the survey. If a respondent qualified, a second email with a cover letter, instructions and a link to the second survey was provided. Follow up calls and reminder emails were made to practitioners who did not complete the survey within the first month of the initial survey distribution. At least 5 reminder emails and 5 reminder phone calls were attempted for each respondent who did not complete the first survey or the second survey (if they qualified). In addition, in an attempt to increase participation, monetary compensation of $20 was initiated for respondents who completed both surveys. Of the 98 agencies on the contact list 67 (68%) completed the first survey. Of those who completed the first survey 38 (57%) qualified to continue on to the second survey of which 32 (84%) responded.

Data Analysis

The results yielded primarily descriptive statistics. The means and standard deviations were then analyzed for patterns to determine which types of services were rated as more important than others. Patterns were recognized by determining which order items fell by rank and determining which sub-category of services tended to score higher or lower. Sub-category means were also examined in order to assist pattern analysis.

Results

The first survey's purpose was to identify the staffing structure and configuration of the delivery of supported education services. Respondents were simply asked how their supported education services were delivered and by whom. Sixty-four (96%) of the sixty-seven respondents answered this question. The most common form of staffing found was supported employment workers providing both SEd and SE (46.7%). The next largest group was the staffing pattern where SE workers did not provide any SEd (25%). This group was closely followed by those who identified case-managers as providing SEd (11.7%). About 6.7% of SE programs had a designated individual(s) on the SE team that provided only SEd services, and 3.3% of SE teams had a designated individual(s) to provide SEd services who also provided SE services, when permitted by the SEd service caseload. Three programs (6.7%) had separate SEd programs not associated with the SE program.

The second survey was sent to agencies that provided supported education services through their supported employment program or a separate team of supported education specialists. Those agencies where supported education services were not provided or were provide by the case managers of the agency did not qualify for the second survey. Of the 32 respondents who completed the phase two survey, 22 (71%) of the programs served urban areas and 9 programs (29%) served rural areas.

The second survey collected data on the total number of clients served in community support services, the number of clients receiving supported employment services only, the number receiving supported education services only, and the number of clients receiving both supported employment and supported education services. The total number of clients receiving community support services reported by the agencies was 18,304, ranging from 33 to 3,023 with a mean of 643. [Insert the percents in the text here and delete Table 1]. The survey also asked respondents to indicate the type of educational aspirations that are supported by program services. Respondents indicated the following types of educational aspirations supported by their program (See Table 2).

The importance ratings and the associated services which were reported as provided, were divided into four subsections: organizational factors, staffing, engagement, and services. Table 1 depicts each in rank order by mean, and provides the standard deviation, percent of agencies which provided the service, and sub-section labels.

Discussion

This survey indicates that supported education services are frequently provided within IPS programs. The majority of the programs surveyed provided some form of SEd service, meaning SEd is often a hidden service that many IPS programs are already providing. The number of SEd services being provided by IPS programs may have previously been underestimated in the SE literature (Mowbray, Megivern, & Holter, 2003). In addition, the results show substantial agreement on the preferred characteristics of SEd that ought to be provided.

The SEd characteristic rated highest in importance had to do with zero exclusion, which is geared toward ensuring that participants are not prevented from entering services due to some form of professionally derived readiness criteria like requiring people to be substance free, have symptoms under control, etc. The engagement category included the two top rated items (zero-exclusion and assertive outreach) indicating that respondents see a need for increasing the number of consumers enrolled in supported education. Further support for this contention is given by a relatively high overall engagement category mean of 3.89 [round these to one decimal place]. However, it is important to note that aspects of engagement category were dispersed through the rank order, with marketing to consumers rated as less important compared to engagement items reflecting rapid access and not denying services to consumers.

The services component received the highest overall group mean (3.90) with engagement coming in a close second (3.89) [These are equivalent after rounding]. The staffing (3.73) and organizational factors (3.62) categories received slightly lower group means. Respondents attributed higher relative importance to the elements of educational services for participants than to the staffing and organizational aspects of providing supported education. From a clients' perspective it is encouraging that SE staff view the service elements to consumers as being the most important aspect of service delivery.

While rated lower than the other items included in this survey, staffing and organizational factors were considered important. Documentation, tracking, and sharing outcomes are often difficult for many human service programs not just SE programs. While acknowledging that documentation is difficult, it is also important to recognize that the majority of those surveyed had a primary goal of providing and tracking employment services, not necessarily educational services. Therefore, educational services may not be tracked as often or as well as employment service outcomes. In order to improve this aspect, it may be necessary to integrate outcome records to ensure education outcomes are recorded routinely along with employment outcomes, without increasing the overall administrative burden. If SEd services and their outcomes are not tracked within or alongside IPS outcomes, these services may remain unrecognized.

Finally, respondents placed less importance on segregating the IPS and SEd service components. This seems appropriate given the sample of responses and that many SEd services are already being provided by IPS staff. These staff may already believe that IPS and SEd integrated services is a viable delivery model.

Limitations

There are several limitations of the study. Similar to other expert studies, importance ratings were skewed toward positive ratings (e.g. Marty et al., 2001; McGrew & Bond, 1995; Schaedle & Epstein, 2000). This made it difficult to discern preferred ingredients from other elements. In addition, generalizability may be limited because of moderate survey participation, use of convenience sampling, unverified self-report, administration in a single country, and because all programs surveyed were part of a single collaborative. Many of the items that were rated highest (over 4.0) were consistent with the major principles of IPS, such as zero exclusion criteria (item 1) and follow along supports (item 4), among others. The tendency of respondents to select items consistent with the well known IPS supported employment fidelity scale, may represent a sampling bias because most agencies surveyed provide educational services within the context of IPS (n = 29). Therefore, it was not surprising to find that these core components of IPS were also perceived as applying to SEd with similar importance.

Implications

Gaining a more nuanced understanding of the educational services being provided within IPS is an important first step in determining the viability of integrating IPS and SEd services. These findings provide some initial information to inform how supported education and supported employment services can be provided together to the same client group. We contend that integrating SEd and IPS services appears feasible and seems to provide a mechanism for ensuring zero-exclusion for educational support services when required. Client access to educational services may be increased by links to IPS as complementary service with a more established service delivery platform and funding mechanism. Integration of IPS and SEd programs appears a promising strategy with potential benefits to both programs.

Increasing access to supported education services is important given a recent survey that found that just over 50% of individuals with psychiatric disabilities stated that they would like to return to school and believed themselves capable of doing so (Corrigan et al., 2008). In many states only about 3% of individuals with psychiatric disabilities on Medicaid are currently enrolled in educational services (e.g. AIMS, 2011). There appears to be a much larger demand for educational services than is currently being met. Given the discrepancy between stated demand and actual enrollment it may be important to ensure that clients know that educational assistance is available within most IPS programs. Client participation in educational services should be a personal choice and consumers should not be coerced. Therefore, client preference and client demand should be a major factor in deciding whether or not established IPS programs are supplemented by SEd.

It is encouraging that SEd services are already being provided by some IPS programs. We note that nearly 57% of the IPS programs are providing some type of assistance to clients pursuing educational goals. It may be that the development of these services arose from client demand. If this is the case, it will be essential to work out how best to provide SEd services within IPS so that neither service loses its effectiveness. This study provides avenues for further defining the role of IPS practitioners in their support of consumers with educational goals.

In addition, the results suggest refinements to the SEd fidelity scale, a scale in an early stage of development, to better capture the services provided by integrated IPS-SEd programs, better track zero exclusion, and to further explore the perceived importance of program elements.

References

AIMS. (2011). Adult consumer status report. Topeka, KS: State of Kansas.

Bellamy, C.D. and Mowbray, C.T. (1998). Supported education as an empowerment intervention for people with mental illness. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(5), 40-413.

Best, L.J., Still, M., & Cameron, G. (2008). Supported education: Enabling course completion for people experiencing mental illness. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 55(1), 65-68.

Bybee, D., Bellamy, C., & Mowbray, C.T. (2000). Analysis of participation in an innovative psychiatric rehabilitation intervention: supported education. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(1), 41-52.

Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E., & Becker, D. R. (2008). An update on randomized controlled trials of evidence-based supported employment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 31(4), 280-290.

Bond, G. R., Resnick, S. G., Drake, R. E., Xie, H., McHugo, G., & Bebout, R. R. (2001). Does competitive employment improve nonvocational outcomes for people with severe mental illness? Journal of Clinical and Consulting Pyschology, 69(3), 489-501.

Bond, G. R., Salyers, M. P., Dincin, J., Drake, R. E., Becker, D. R., Fraser, V. V., et al. (2007). A randomized controlled trial comparing two vocational models for persons with severe mental illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 968-982.

Boutin, D. L. & Accordino, M. P. (2009). Exploring post-secondary education and competitive employment for people with mental illness. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 40(2), 13-21.

Burns, T., Catty, J., Becker, T., Drake, R. E., Fioritti, A., Knapp, M., et al. (2007). The effectiveness of supported employment for people with severe mental illness: A randomized controlled trial. Lancet, 3 70, 1146-1152.

Chandler D. (2008). Supported education for persons with psychiatric disabilities. California Institute for Mental Health.

Collins, M.E., Bybee, D., & Mowbray, C.T. (1998). Effectiveness of supported education for individuals with psychiatric disabilities: Results from an experimental study.

Community Mental Health Journal, 34(6), 595-613. Collins, E. C., & Mowbray, C. T. (2005). Higher education and psychiatric disabilities: National survey of campus disability services. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(5), 304-315.

Collins, M.E., Mowbray, C.T., & Bybee, D. (1999a). Establishing individualized goals in a supported education intervention: Program influences on goal-setting and attainment. Research on Social Work Practice, 9(4), 483-507.

Collins, M.E., Mowbray, C.T., & Bybee, D. (1999b). Measuring coping strategies in an educational intervention for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Health & Social Work, 24(4), 279-290.

Collins, M.E., Mowbray, C.T., & Bybee, D. (2000). Characteristics predicting successful outcomes of participants with severe mental illness in supported education. Psychiatric Services, 51(6), 774-780.

Cook, J.A., & Solomon, M.L. (1993). The community scholar program: An outcome study of supported education for students with severe mental illness. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 17(1), 83-97.

Corrigan, P. W, Barr, L., Driscoll, H., & Boyle, M. G. (2008). The educational goals of people with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 32(1), 67-70.

Crowther, R. E., Marshall, M., Bond, G. R., & Huxley, E (2001). Helping people with severe mental illness to obtain work: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 322, 204-208.

Drake, R. E., McHugo, G. J., Bebout, R. R., Becker, D. R., Harris, M., Bond, G. R., et al. (1999). A randomized clinical trial of supported employment for inner-city patients with severe mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 627-633.

Drake, R. E., McHugo, G. J., Becker, D. R., Anthony, W. A., & Clark, R. E. (1996). The New Hampshire study of supported employment for people with severe mental illness: Vocational outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 391-399.

Ellison, M. L., Russinova, Z., Lyass, A., & Rogers, E. S. (2008). Professionals and managers with severe mental illness: Findings from a national survey. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196(3), 179-189.

Evans, L. J. & Bond, G. R. (2008). Expert ratings on the critical ingredients of supported employment for people with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 31(4), 318-331.

Gold, P. B., Meisler, N., Santos, A. B., Carnemolta, M. A., Williams, O. H., & Kelleher, J. (2006). Randomized trial of supported employment integrated with assertive community treatment for rural adults with severe mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32, 378-395.

Hoffmann, F.L., & Mastrianni, X. (1993). The role of supported education in the inpatient treatment of young adults: A two-site comparison. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 17(1), 109-119.

Holter, M. C., Mowbray, C. T., Bellamy, C. D., MacFarlane, P., & Dukarski, J. (2004). Critical ingredients of consumer run services: Results of a national survey. Community Mental Health Journal, 40(1), 47-63.

Isenwater, W., Lanham, W., Thornhill, H. (2002). The College Link Program: Evaluation of a supported education initiative in Great Britain. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal,26(1), 43-50.

Kessler, R., Foster, C., Saunders, W., Stang, P. (1995). Social consequences of psychiatric disorders, I. Educational attainment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1026-1032.

Killackey, E., Jackson, H. J., & McGorry, P. D. (2008). Vocational intervention in first episode psychosis: A randomised controlled trial of Individual Placement and Support vs. treatment as usual. British Journal of Psychiatry, 193, 114-120.

Latimer, E., Lecomte, T., Becker, D., Drake, R., Duelos, 1., Piat, M., et al. (2006). Generalisablity of the individual placement and support model of supported employment: Results of a Canadian randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 189, 65-73.

Lehman, A. E, Goldberg, R. W., Dixon, L B., McNary, S., Postrado, L., Hackman, A., et al. (2002). Improving employment outcomes for persons with severe mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 165-172.

Leonard E.J. & Bruer R.A. (2007) Supported education strategies for people with severe mental illness: A review of evidence based practice. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 11(1) 97-109.

Marty, D., Rapp, C. A., & Carlson, L. (2001). The experts speak: The critical ingredients of Strengths Model Case Management. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 24(3), 214-221.

McGrew, J. H., Bond, G. R., Dietzen, L. & Salyers, M. (1994). Measuring the fidelity of implementation of a mental health program model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 670-678.

Morrison, I., & Clift, S. M. (2005). Mental health promotion through supported further education: The value of Anotonovsky's salutogenic model of health. Health Education, 106(5), 365-380.

Mowbray, C. T., Brown, S. K., Furlong-Norman, K., & Soydan, A. S., (2002). Supported education and psychiatric rehabilitation: Models and methods. Linthicum, MD: International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services.

Mowbray, C.T., Megivern, D., Holter, M.C. (2003). Supported education programming for adults with psychiatric disabilities: Results from a national survey. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 27(2), 159-167.

Mowbray, C.T., Bybee, D., & Collins, M.E. (2001). Follow-up client satisfaction in a supported education program. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 24(3), 237-247.

Mowbray, C.T., Bybee, D., & Shriner, W. (1996). Characteristics of participants in a supported education program for adults with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Services, 47(12), 1371-1377.

Mowbray, C.T., & Collins, M. (2002). The effectiveness of supported education: Current research findings. In Mowbray, C.T., Brown, K.S., Furlong-Norman, K., & Soydan, A.S. (Eds.), Supported education and psychiatric rehabilitation: Models and Methods (pp. 181-194). Linthicum, MD: International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services.

Mowbray, C.T., Collins, M., & Bybee, D. (1999). Supported education for individuals with psychiatric disabilities: Long-term outcomes from an experimental study. Social Work Research, 23(2), 89-100.

Mueser, K. T., Clark, R. E., Haines, M., Drake, R. E., McHugo, G. J., Bond, G. R., et al. (2004). The Hartford study of supported employment for persons with severe mental illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 479-490.

Murphy, A. A., Mullen, M. & Spagnolo, A. (2005). Enhancing individual placement and support: Promoting job tenure by integrating natural supports and supported education. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 8, 37-61.

Parrish, C. (2009). MH supported education literature review. Department of Behavioral Health and Mental Retardation Services Research and Information Management.

Rogers, S., Farkas, M., Anthony, W., Kash-MacDonald, M. (2009). Systematic review of supported education literature 1989-2009. Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

Sasson, R., Grinshpoon, A., Lachman, M., and Ponizovsky, A. (2005). A program of supported education for adult Israeli students with schizophrenia. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 29(2), 139-141.

Schaedle, R., & Epstein, I. (2000). Specifying intensive case management: A multiple stakeholder approach. Mental Health Services Research, 2, 95-105.

Swanson, C. L. Jr, Gur, R. C., Bilker, W., Petty, R. G. & Gur, R. E. (1998). Premorbid educational attainment in schizophrenia: Association with symptoms, functioning and neurobehavioral measures. Biology Psychiatry, 44, 739747.

Tutty, L.M., Belanger, J.M., Gregory, B. (1993). An evaluation of redirection through education: A psychosocial rehabilitation program for young adults with psychiatric disability. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 16(3), 9-25.

Twamley, E. W., Narvaez, J. M., Becker, D. R., Bartels, S., & leste, D. V. (2008). Supported employment for middle-aged and older people with schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 11, 76-89.

Unger, L.V., Anthony, W.A., Sciarappa, K., & Rogers, E.S. (1991). A supported education program for young adults with long-term mental illness. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 42(8), 838-842.

Unger, K.V., Pardee, R., & Shafer, M.S. (2000). Outcomes of postsecondary supported education programs for people with psychiatric disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 14(3), 195-199.

Waghorn, G., Still, M., Chant, D., & Whiteford, H. (2004). Specialised supported education for Australians with psychotic disorders. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(4), 443-458.

Waghorn, G., Chant, D. & Whiteford, H. (2003). The strength of self-reported course of illness in predicting vocational recovery for persons with schizophrenia. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 18, 33-41.

Walker, J. S. & Bruns, E. J. (2006). Building on practice-based evidence: Using expert perspectives to define the wraparound process. Psychiatric Services, 57(11), 1579-1585.

Wong, K. K., Chiu, R., Tang, B., Mak, D., Liu, J., & Chiu, S. N. (2008). A randomized controlled trial of a supported employment program for persons with long-term mental illness in Hong Kong. Psychiatric Services, 59, 84-90.

Yelin, E., & Trupin, L. (2003). Disability and the characteristics of employment. Monthly Labor Review, 126(5), 20-31.

Trevor J. Manthey

University of Kansas

Charles A. Rapp

University of Kansas

Linda Carlson

University of Kansas

Mark C. Holter

University of Kansas

Jennifer K. Davis

Indiana University Northwest

Treveor, J. Manthey, LMSW, Office of Mental Health Research and Training, University of Kansas School of Social Welfare, Twente Hall, 1545 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS 66044-3184 Email: trevormanthey@gmail.com
Table 1
Percentages of Services Being Received by Clients
of the Respondent Agencies

Services                         Number   Percent

Clients Receiving Supported       3287      18%
Employment Only

Clients Receiving Supported       322       2%
Education Only

Clients Receiving Both SE and     853       5%
Education

Table 2
Type of Educational Degrees Supported

Service                    Number   Percent

Four Year College/Univ.      17       53%
Vocational/Technical         21       66%
Career College               16       50%
GED                          24       75%
High School Completion       15       47%
Pre-GED                      15       47%

Table 3
Rank ordered importance ratings and percent of agencies providing
service.

                                            % of Agencies
                              Importance       Providing
                                Rating          Service

Rank         Item              M     SD        Yes       No

1 Individuals referred to
the supported education
program are accepted for      4.3    0.8       68%       32%
services regardless of
factors such as
abstinence, perceived
readiness, severity of
symptoms, sufficient
motivation, personal
hygiene, etc.

2 Assertive engagement
and outreach occurs as        4.3    0.9       71%       29%
needed to link with new
referrals.

3 Jointly developing          4.3    1.1       77%       23%
intervention plans with
the participant.

4 Follow-along support by
the supported education       4.2    1.0       74%       26%
worker is available to a
participant regardless of
length of time in the
program.

5 Assistance with the
application process for       4.2    0.9       87%       13%
admission to the school
or program.

6 Admission to the
supported education           4.2    0.8       67%       33%
program occurs within 30
days of referral.

7 The supported education
worker assigned to a
participant provided          4.2    0.9       59%       41%
services through all
phases of the supported
education program
(intake, confidence &
knowledge building,
preparing to attend,
attending).

8 A supported education
worker is available to        4.1    1.0       64%       36%
respond when a
participant needs
immediate support (by
phone or will travel to
campus).

9 Progress through the
process from intake to
attendance in an              4.1    0.9       68%       32%
educational program
proceeds without
interference from
systematic barriers such
as treaters opinions of
readiness, program
requirement of remedial
training, etc.

10 Tours that orient
participants to               4.1    1.0       61%       39%
school/campus buildings
and their purposes.

11 Supported education
workers assist                 4     0.9       73%       27%
participants in making an
informed decision
regarding disclosure to
school staff, faculty and
students.

12 Introduction of
participant to relevant        4     1.2       68%       32%
school personnel
(advisor, disability
office staff,
instructors).

13 Accessing tutoring          4     1.2       68%       32%
services provided by the
educational institution.

14 The supported
education team/worker(s)       4     1.0       56%       44%
serve as a liaison to
educational programs in
order to address
participant and
programmatic issues.

15 Jointly developing
intervention plans with        4     1.2       77%       23%
relevant others (i.e.
case manager, supported
employment specialist,
therapist, psychiatrist,
etc.).

16 Attending the               4     1.7       71%       29%
participant's clinical
team meetings at least
quarterly.

17 Assertive outreach
occurs when a participant      4     0.8       71%       29%
unexpectedly drops out of
services.

18 Supported education
services are provided in       4     0.9       68%       32%
the community or most
natural setting.

19 On-going (follow            4     1.2       55%       45%
along) assistance with
financial aid.

20 Obtaining necessary
academic accommodations        4     1.3       61%       39%
(extended test time, note
takers, etc.).

21 Accompaniment of the
participant by the            3.9    1.2       71%       29%
educational specialist to
the school or program
during the preparation
process.

22 Mediation by supported
education workers with
agencies to secure needed     3.9    1.3       64%       36%
accommodations (i.e.
advocacy with Vocational
Rehabilitation for
decreased course load,
etc.).

23 Determination of a         3.9    1.3       68%       32%
course schedule.

24 Assistance with            3.9    1.3       74%       26%
obtaining textbooks and
supplies.

25 Availability of peer
mentors/role models to        3.9    1.2       42%       58%
consumers in earlier
phases of the supported
education process.

26 The team/worker
provides information on       3.8    0.9       81%       19%
supported education
services to the
participant verbally.

27 A specific portion of
the team/workers time is      3.8    1.1       56%       44%
designated to provide
supported education
services.

28 Using a separate           3.8    1.0       39%       61%
assessment tool for
supported education.

29 * Consumers in the
agency are aware of the       3.8    1.2        -         -
services provided in the
supported education
program

30 Peer support (students
in same class,                3.7    1.0       32%       68%
educational support group
at CMHC, campus-based
NAMI group).

31 Participants in the
supported education           3.7    1.3       43%       57%
program receive
individualized
recognition for
educational successes at
least three times per
year.

32 Program information
(brochures, flyers,           3.7    1.0       59%       41%
posters) on your
supported education
program is highly visible

33 Attendance to              3.7    1.1       55%       45%
on-campus events that
orient the participant to
campus life.

34 Educational outcomes       3.6    1.2       47%       53%
of the program are shared
within the agency.

35 * Case management
teams refer an average of     3.6    1.1        -         -
3% or more of their
consumers for supported
education services.

36 Supported education        3.6    1.3       47%       53%
workers manage caseloads
of 25 participants or
less.

37 The team/worker
provides information on       3.6    1.0       58%       42%
supported education
services to the
participant in written
form.

38 Participants in the
supported education           3.5    1.3       14%       86%
program receive formal
recognition for
educational successes at
least three times per
year.

39 Program information
(brochures, flyers,           3.5    1.1       47%       53%
posters) on your
supported education
program is available in
multiple locations
frequented by consumers

41 Formal recording and
tracking of individual
educational outcomes          3.4    1.2       35%       65%
(i.e. grades, hours
completed, etc.) occurs
at least following every
academic period
(semester, quarter,
etc.).

42 Formal recording and
tracking of educational
outcomes for the program      3.4    1.3       35%       65%
as a whole (i.e. grades,
hours completed, etc.)
occurs at least following
each academic period
(semester, quarter,
etc.).

43 Using a separate goal      3.4    1.1       20%       80%
planning document for
supported education
goals.

44 Supported education        3.3    1.3       25%       75%
workers provide only
supported education
services.

45 Supported education
workers function as a         3.2    1.3       19%       81%
team independent of the
supported employment
team.

46 Educational outcomes
of the program are shared     3.2    1.3       27%       73%
with interested people in
the community.

47 Recognition of
participants in the           3.1    1.4       24%       76%
supported education
program for educational
successes is made known
to interested people in
the community.

Rank         Item             Sub-Section

1 Individuals referred to
the supported education
program are accepted for      Engagement
services regardless of
factors such as
abstinence, perceived
readiness, severity of
symptoms, sufficient
motivation, personal
hygiene, etc.

2 Assertive engagement
and outreach occurs as        Engagement
needed to link with new
referrals.

3 Jointly developing          Services
intervention plans with
the participant.

4 Follow-along support by
the supported education       Services
worker is available to a
participant regardless of
length of time in the
program.

5 Assistance with the
application process for       Services
admission to the school
or program.

6 Admission to the
supported education           Engagement
program occurs within 30
days of referral.

7 The supported education
worker assigned to a
participant provided          Staffing
services through all
phases of the supported
education program
(intake, confidence &
knowledge building,
preparing to attend,
attending).

8 A supported education
worker is available to        Services
respond when a
participant needs
immediate support (by
phone or will travel to
campus).

9 Progress through the
process from intake to
attendance in an              Engagement
educational program
proceeds without
interference from
systematic barriers such
as treaters opinions of
readiness, program
requirement of remedial
training, etc.

10 Tours that orient
participants to               Services
school/campus buildings
and their purposes.

11 Supported education
workers assist                Services
participants in making an
informed decision
regarding disclosure to
school staff, faculty and
students.

12 Introduction of
participant to relevant       Services
school personnel
(advisor, disability
office staff,
instructors).

13 Accessing tutoring         Services
services provided by the
educational institution.

14 The supported
education team/worker(s)      Staffing
serve as a liaison to
educational programs in
order to address
participant and
programmatic issues.

15 Jointly developing
intervention plans with       Org. Factors
relevant others (i.e.
case manager, supported
employment specialist,
therapist, psychiatrist,
etc.).

16 Attending the              Org. Factors
participant's clinical
team meetings at least
quarterly.

17 Assertive outreach
occurs when a participant     Engagement
unexpectedly drops out of
services.

18 Supported education
services are provided in      Services
the community or most
natural setting.

19 On-going (follow           Services
along) assistance with
financial aid.

20 Obtaining necessary
academic accommodations       Services
(extended test time, note
takers, etc.).

21 Accompaniment of the
participant by the            Services
educational specialist to
the school or program
during the preparation
process.

22 Mediation by supported
education workers with
agencies to secure needed     Services
accommodations (i.e.
advocacy with Vocational
Rehabilitation for
decreased course load,
etc.).

23 Determination of a         Services
course schedule.

24 Assistance with            Services
obtaining textbooks and
supplies.

25 Availability of peer
mentors/role models to        Services
consumers in earlier
phases of the supported
education process.

26 The team/worker
provides information on       Engagement
supported education
services to the
participant verbally.

27 A specific portion of
the team/workers time is      Staffing
designated to provide
supported education
services.

28 Using a separate           Org. Factors
assessment tool for
supported education.

29 * Consumers in the
agency are aware of the       Engagement
services provided in the
supported education
program

30 Peer support (students
in same class,                Services
educational support group
at CMHC, campus-based
NAMI group).

31 Participants in the
supported education           Org. Factors
program receive
individualized
recognition for
educational successes at
least three times per
year.

32 Program information
(brochures, flyers,           Engagement
posters) on your
supported education
program is highly visible

33 Attendance to              Services
on-campus events that
orient the participant to
campus life.

34 Educational outcomes       Org. Factors
of the program are shared
within the agency.

35 * Case management
teams refer an average of     Engagement
3% or more of their
consumers for supported
education services.

36 Supported education        Staffing
workers manage caseloads
of 25 participants or
less.

37 The team/worker
provides information on       Engagement
supported education
services to the
participant in written
form.

38 Participants in the
supported education           Org. Factors
program receive formal
recognition for
educational successes at
least three times per
year.

39 Program information
(brochures, flyers,           Engagement
posters) on your
supported education
program is available in
multiple locations
frequented by consumers

41 Formal recording and
tracking of individual
educational outcomes          Org. Factors
(i.e. grades, hours
completed, etc.) occurs
at least following every
academic period
(semester, quarter,
etc.).

42 Formal recording and
tracking of educational
outcomes for the program      Org. Factors
as a whole (i.e. grades,
hours completed, etc.)
occurs at least following
each academic period
(semester, quarter,
etc.).

43 Using a separate goal      Org. Factors
planning document for
supported education
goals.

44 Supported education        Staffing
workers provide only
supported education
services.

45 Supported education
workers function as a         Staffing
team independent of the
supported employment
team.

46 Educational outcomes
of the program are shared     Org. Factors
with interested people in
the community.

47 Recognition of
participants in the           Org. Factors
supported education
program for educational
successes is made known
to interested people in
the community.

* Percent of agencies providing service unavailable.
COPYRIGHT 2012 National Rehabilitation Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Manthey, Trevor J.; Rapp, Charles A.; Carlson, Linda; Holter, Mark C.; Davis, Jennifer K.
Publication:The Journal of Rehabilitation
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2012
Words:7113
Previous Article:Job match and job tenure in persons with severe mental illness.
Next Article:Implementation of supported employment: what are the implications for clinical services?
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters