View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Vocational Rehabilitation Interagency Activity Improving Supported Employment for People with Severe Disabilities.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Vocational Rehabilitation Interagency Activity Improving Supported Employment for People with Severe Disabilities.
Language: English
Authors: Foley, Susan M., Butterworth, John, Heller, Amy
Source: Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. Spr 2000 15(1):37-42.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 6
Publication Date: 2000
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Adults, Agency Cooperation, Delivery Systems, Models, Services, Severe Disabilities, Supported Employment, Vocational Rehabilitation, Young Adults
ISSN: 1088-3576
Abstract: The first of three studies on interagency activity among state agencies delivering or funding employment services focuses on identifying exemplary models and strategies used in interagency agreements to improve delivery of supported employment services. Interagency agreements were most frequent with state agencies that specialized in or had substantial involvement with disability services. (Contains references.) (Author/DB)
Journal Code: CIJOCT2000
Entry Date: 2000
Accession Number: EJ604927
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF-1GKI_06h6zoPHCiRk85wAAAA4DCB3QYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHPMIHMAgEAMIHGBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKHzC5m7cAnqsZ71AgIBEICBmDq-7L3n7BWB4icv750ttaSTavkgBB1nYeiX-p97lT51kLHxnwQKqRzi8lZqzlZllgISFVvm888ywcJws8uhuuA7N7dS6rfNXLQh8sy3kd7BpEuBHEkf8RiEvz6CSH0grmGM02kUEBXrBrOUZcl-VXbj3xIb4_hNJBJzuyqjTeQOp6rdptCRqb511gBAJzBbqN_ncWugStaf
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0002980916;FDD01MAR.00;2000Apr11.17:55;v4.1</anid> <title id="AN0002980916-1">VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION INTERAGENCY ACTIVITY IMPROVING SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT FOR PEOPLE WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES </title> <p>This study is the first of three companion studies investigating the extent of interagency activity among state agencies that deliver or fund employment services. The purpose of this study is to identify exemplary models and strategies used in interagency agreements that improve the delivery of supported employment services. </p> <p>Interagency agreements were most frequent with state agencies that specialized in or had substantial involvement with disability services, including the state mental health (MH) agency, the state mental retardation and developmental disabilities (MR/DD) agency, and the state department of education (DOE). These agreements were seen as having a more positive impact on employment opportunities than agreements with other types of agencies. Agencies that typically provided employment services to the general population were as likely or more likely to be participating in informal interagency activity than in written state level interagency agreements. The impact of these agreements on encouraging supported employment varied by type of agency. The MH and MR/DD agency agreements with the vocational rehabilitation (VR) agency were rated as having the highest impact, whereas the agreements between the One-Stop Career Centers and the VR agency were rated as having no impact, either positive or negative. Implications and suggestions for further research are discussed. </p> <p>Over the past 15 years, there have been substantial changes in the delivery and funding of day and employment services for individuals with disabilities. Most notably, the introduction of supported employment has led to a dramatic increase in the number of individuals with severe disabilities in integrated community employment. State mental retardation and developmental disabilities (MR/DD) agencies have reported that the number of individuals supported in integrated employment increased from 32,471 to 98,315 between fiscal year (FY) 1988 and FY 1996 and the percentage of individuals with developmental disabilities closed into integrated employment by vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies increased from 74% in FY 1985 to 86% in FY 1995 (Butterworth, Gilmore, Kiernan, & Schalock, 1999; Butterworth, Gilmore, & Schalock, 1998). Similarly, Wehman, Revell, and Kregel (1998) reported that national participation in supported employment across disability groups increased from 10,000 individuals in FY 1986 to almost 140,000 in FY 1995. </p> <p>Despite these promising changes, the implementation of supported employment has not fully lived up to expectations. Early expectations for the initiative were that programs would transfer resources and services from facility-based services to integrated employment. The National Survey of MR/DD agencies found, in FY 1996, that 77% of those served in all day and employment programs participated in sheltered employment or nonwork day programs. Data from state MR/DD agencies has suggested that, although the number of individuals in integrated employment has increased, the number in facility-based or nonwork programs has also increased (Butterworth et al., 1999). These findings suggest that integrated employment services, and especially supported employment, are being viewed as an add-on service by community rehabilitation providers (CRPs). West, Revell, and Wehman (1998) found that only 37% of the CRPs that ran both facility-based services and supported employment reported converting resources to integrated employment. The remaining 63% maintained or increased their investment in facility-based services. West et al. (1998) also found that supported employment staff remained a minority, on average only 11%, of an organization's total staff. On a state level, there is considerable variability in supported employment rates. The percentage of individuals served in integrated employment by MR/DD agencies, for example, varied from 4% to 60% in FY 1996 (Butter-worth et al., 1999). </p> <p>Identifying the factors that differentiate these state-level employment outcomes will contribute to more effective systems level change. One factor often emphasized in systems change is the role of interagency collaboration and agreements in focusing and maximizing resources. State agency collaboration in the delivery of supported employment services may lead to the expansion of supported employment services (McDonald, 1998; Nebraska Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, 1994). Interagency agreements also may be a tool for systems change (Nebraska Department of VR, 1994) as well as a mechanism for local service delivery collaboration (Rogers, Anthony, & Danley, 1989). </p> <p>The Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) at the Children's Hospital in Boston has been conducting three companion studies to investigate the extent of interagency activity among state agencies that deliver or fund employment services. The first study, completed in December 1998, has examined the use of state-level interagency agreements and their impact on supported employment. VR program managers at the state central office were asked to identify interagency agreements and informal activity between the VR agency and other state agencies. They were asked to nominate agreements that encouraged supported employment opportunities for people with significant disabilities. The second study analyzed the agreements nominated as encouraging supported employment. During the spring of 1999, this study interviewed key informants and explored the relationship of agreements to practice. The last study, implemented in the fall of 1999, was a survey of local VR administrators on interagency activity. This article describes the first study's findings. </p> <hd id="AN0002980916-2">Method</hd> <hd id="AN0002980916-3">Sample</hd> <p>Supported employment program managers in the 50 states and 4 territories including Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and the Pacific Islands constituted the sample. Program managers participating in the study were personnel from the central office of the state VR agency. Forty-one of the 70 program managers working for the commissions for the blind or for the general VR agency responded. </p> <hd id="AN0002980916-4">Instruments</hd> <p>The survey was the FY 1997 wave of a longitudinal data collection effort begun in FY 1986 and led by the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC). The VCU conducts an annual survey that collects information about the numbers of individuals served in supported employment programs by types of supported employment models, by disability category and mental retardation level, wages, funding sources, authorized providers, strategies, and types of rate structures. Interagency agreement questions were developed as a module, which was included in the survey, for the purpose of identifying the existence of interagency agreements and to gather nominations for highly effective agreements. </p> <p>Participants were asked about the presence of interagency activity between the VR agency and 14 other state agencies or programs (see Table 1 for a list of state agencies and programs). Respondents were asked to identify what types of interagency agreement existed and, if present, to what extent state-level written agreements influenced opportunities for supported employment. Two additional questions addressed other types of interagency activity. Program managers were asked to identify any standing or ad hoc groups related to interagency activity and to indicate whether or not the VR agency designated a staff liaison to other state agencies. </p> <hd id="AN0002980916-5">Procedure</hd> <p>The survey was mailed in the spring of 1998 to respondents, who were then contacted to confirm receipt of the survey. Follow-up phone calls reminded respondent to return the survey, clarified any questions arising from the returned surveys, and requested copies of nominated interagency agreements. </p> <hd id="AN0002980916-6">Results</hd> <hd id="AN0002980916-7">Presence of Interagency Activity</hd> <p>Table 1 shows how many VR program managers reported interagency activity with the specified list of state agencies or entities across three levels of activity. The three levels of activity are (a) presence of a state-level written interagency agreement, (b) presence of a local-level written interagency agreement, and (c) presence of informal interagency activity. Respondents could report interagency activity with a specific agency in one, two, or all three categories. Therefore, some respondents reported multiple types of interagency activity per state agency. </p> <p>The list of agencies or entities is sorted into three distinct blocks. The first block includes agencies that were reported to have a high level of interagency activity with VR agencies across the three categories. The second block includes agencies for which informal interagency activity was reported equally or more frequently than formal written interagency activity. Overall, interagency activity was reported less often for this block than for Block 1. The third block consists of agencies with relatively little or no reported interagency activity with the VR system. </p> <p>The state mental health (MH) agency, the state MR/DD agency, and the state department of education (DOE) were the agencies reported to have the most state-level written interagency agreements, local written interagency agreements, and informal interagency activity with the VR system. These agencies provide services to people with disabilities or--in the case of the DOE--have substantial involvement in the disability services system. Formal written interagency agreements are common between each of these agencies and the VR agency. </p> <p>The next two blocks of agencies or programs include a wide range of services. Program managers reported a few more interagency agreements or activity in this grouping. These agencies included the welfare agency; One-Stop Career Centers; employment and training; children, youth, and family services; and the local office of the Social Security Administration. Most of these agencies or entities operate, fund, or are involved in employment service programs typically provided to job seekers or people receiving TANF benefits. VR-supported employment program managers reported informal activity more frequently than state-level interagency agreements for three out of five agencies in Block 2. Ten respondents reported informal interagency activity with the One-Stop Career Center, and eight reported the presence of a state-level written interagency agreement. This was true for the state welfare agency and for the state or local office of the Social Security Administration. Very few respondents reported interagency activity between the VR agency and agencies or programs in the last block. Except Corrections, these agencies or programs offer medical services to specialized populations. </p> <p>Seven of the 41 respondents reported no interagency agreements with any state agency and little or no informal interagency activity with any state agency. Four of these respondents were from the state commissions for the blind. Of the three others, one respondent's state has a highly consolidated service system--the VK agency, the MK/DD, the MH, and the welfare program all operating under one state agency. </p> <hd id="AN0002980916-8">Impact on Supported Employment</hd> <p>Respondents were asked to rate how effective the state-level written interagency agreement was in promoting integrated employment for people with severe disabilities. The possible choices ranged from strongly encourages supported employment (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>) to strongly discourages sup-ported employment (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>). A score of 3 indicated no impact, positive or negative. </p> <p>Table 2 displays the state agencies by impact in descending order. State MR/DD and state MH agency interagency agreements with the VR agency were reported to have the strongest impact on integrated employment for people with severe disabilities. Drug and alcohol programs was also listed in the top three; however, this should be interpreted with caution, because only two respondents reported an interagency agreement with this state service. </p> <p>Interagency agreements with the majority of state agencies or programs have some slight impact on supported employment. In most instances, few agreements exist between these agencies and the state VR agency. Interagency agreements between VR agencies and the One-Stop Career Centers were rated as having no impact, positive or negative, on integrated employment for people with severe disabilities. </p> <hd id="AN0002980916-9">Interagency Working Groups</hd> <p>Of the 41 respondents, 26 reported the presence of interagency working groups in which the VR agency had a designated staff person present. Tables 3, 4, and 5 list the working groups, their function, and the agencies represented by state. The function of the working groups ranged from statewide service planning and policy setting to local service delivery. Several working groups emphasized systems change in the area of employment or supported employment in particular. </p> <hd id="AN0002980916-10">Interagency Liaison</hd> <p>Eighteen respondents indicated that the VR agency had a staff person designated to interagency work. Eleven of the 18 respondents were so designated by their agency. </p> <hd id="AN0002980916-11">Discussion and Implications</hd> <p>Formal interagency activity, defined as written interagency agreements, is most frequent between the VR agency and the state agencies providing services to people with disabilities. Agencies defined as partners in the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 tend to have fewer written interagency agreements with the VR agency and relatively low impact on encouraging supported employment opportunities. This is particularly true for the agreements between the VR agency and the One-Stop Career Centers in the state. </p> <p>Supported employment program managers at the state VR agency reported informal interagency activity with a variety of agencies. In this survey, local-level interagency activity is likely to be underreported, as the respondents were central office personnel and may not have been familiar with local collaboration. Regardless, informal interagency activity was more frequent among the workforce investment partners than formal written agreements. One explanation for the low impact of formal written agreements with One-Stop Career Centers is the lack of experience with interagency agreements between these two entities. Another explanation is that central office VR personnel may not be aware of local interagency agreements between the local offices of the state VR agency and the One-Stop Career Centers. Given the importance of interagency agreements with these two entities as defined in the WIA of 1998, this finding should be explored further at a more local level. </p> <p>Interagency agreements are one form of interagency activity. Many states have working groups whose members represent a range of constituents with a vested interest in employment opportunities for people with disabilities. These groups function as statewide policy and over-sight bodies to locally based service enhancement groups. The VR representative is often the supported employment program manager. Member and partner agencies in the workgroups are predominantly disability-specific agencies, including the state MH agency and the state MR/DD agency. Many groups also included community rehabilitation providers, advocacy groups, and employer groups. </p> <p>Little is known about the impact of these groups on increasing supported employment. Most groups target their activities toward improving employment services through policy and planning or service delivery. It is likely that the working groups have significant impact on employment outcomes for people with disabilities in their state or locality. Interestingly, One-Stop Career Centers, state welfare agencies, and employment and training service agencies are not frequent participants. This also may change given the requirements of the WIA, which mandate the creation of state and local workforce boards responsible for over-sight and planning of employment services. Existing working groups should consider their role in participating in or coordinating activities with the WIA workforce boards. </p> <p>Future research should address the range of interagency activity and determine which types of interagency activities are related to better employment outcomes. Research activities should explore the particular contextual and implementation factors of interagency agreements that encourage supported employment service delivery. What is the link between written agreements and local practice? What is the form that local interagency activity takes? The next two ICI studies focus on interagency activity and local practice. One study examines policy issues and employment service delivery from the perspective of the MR/DD local office administrator and case manager. The other study examines interagency collaboration from the perspective of the VR agency local office administrator. Information about the link between various interagency activities and outcomes will provide the field with multiple policy tools to advance employment opportunities for people with disabilities. </p> <hd id="AN0002980916-12">AUTHOR'S NOTE</hd> <p>This is a publication of the Institute for Community Inclusion at Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, and was funded in part by Cooperative Agreement No. H128U970003 with the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. The opinions in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of RSA. </p> <hd id="AN0002980916-13">Table 1 Interagency Activity Between VR State Agency and Other State Agencies (N = 41)</hd> <ct id="AN0002980916-14"> Legend for chart: A1=Number of VR state agencies[supb] B1=State B2=Local B3=Informal C1=State agency or entity C2=N states[supa] C3=agreement C4=agreement C5=activity A1 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Block 1 Mental health agency 31 26 9 10 Mental retardation agency 28 23 7 13 Education and School-to-Work 26 22 8 9 Block 2 Welfare agency 15 8 2 9 One-Stop Career Center 14 8 2 10 Employment and training 14 8 2 8 Children, youth, and family 12 7 2 7 Social Security 15 6 0 10 Block 3 Corrections 9 5 0 4 Veterans Administration 5 5 0 3 Department of Public Health 7 3 1 3 Drug and alcohol programs 7 2 2 5 Health care centers/hospitals 4 2 0 3 Note. VR = vocational rehabilitation. [supa] Reporting any interagency a ctivity, 3 7 states plus Puerto Rico; CT, NC, and TX h ave multip le VR agencies responding. [supb] These columns are not addit ive becaus e many VR agencies reported multiple levels of interagency activity. </ct> <hd id="AN0002980916-15">Table 2 Perceived impact of Interagency Ac tivity On Supported Employment (N = 41 VR agencies)</hd> <ct id="AN0002980916-16"> Legend for chart: D1=State agency or entity D2=reporting[supa] D3=impact D4=Rank N states Perceived D1 D2 D3 D4 Mental retardation agency 22 4.35 1 Mental health agency 25 4.08 2 Drug and alcohol programs 2 4.00 3 Children, youth, and family 7 3.86 4 Corrections 5 3.80 5 Secondary education 4 3.67 6 Department of Public Health 3 3.67 6 Education including School-to-Work 22 3.61 7 Employment and training 8 3.57 8 Health care centers/hospitals 2 3.50 9 Welfare 8 3.38 9 Social Security 6 3.33 10 One-Stop Career Center 8 3.00 11 Veterans Administration 5 3.00 11 [supa] 37 states plus Puerto Rico; CT, NC, and TX have multiple vocational rehabilitation agencies in the respondent pool including the commissions for the blind. </ct> <hd id="AN0002980916-17">Table 3 Interagency Working Groups: Statewide Groups with Policy Focus on System Change</hd> <ct id="AN0002980916-18"> Legend for chart: E1=State E2=Work group E3=Function E4=Agencies represented F2=Employment-related and extended employment F3=Policy and quality outcomes F4=CRPs, VR, multiple agencies G2=MR/VR work groups G3=State policy and procedures G4=VR, MR H1=MH/VR work groups H2=State policy and procedures H3=VR, MH I2=Work group I3=TA and policy I4=VR, 20 state agencies J2=SE work group J3=Redesign day services J4=VR, MH K2=Employment initiatives K3=SE expansion/conversion K4=DDc project members L2=Employment services action counsel L3=Advise executive office L4=Multiple state agencies M1=Flexible Finance Committee M2=Interagency funding M3=VR, MR/DD, MH, Ed N2=ADVP=Ad hoc N3=Extended services rate setting N4=MH, VR, CRP O2=SSA Agreement O3=Oversee agreement O4=PH, MH, VR P2=Employment oversight P3=Advisory for the ARC P4=All SE funding agencies Q1=MR multiple year plan Q2=Develop SE strategies Q3=VR, MH, MR, CRP R2=Interagency work group R3=System change project R4=VR, MH, MR/DD, Ed, VR/B S2=State SE team S3=System planning S4=VR, MH, Ed E1 E2 E3 E4 AZ F2 F3 F4 DE G2 G3 G4 H1 H2 H3 FL I2 I3 I4 IL J2 J3 J4 KY K2 K3 K4 MA L2 L3 L4 M1 M2 M3 NC N2 N3 N4 OK O2 O3 O4 PA P2 P3 P4 Q1 Q2 Q3 TX R2 R3 R4 VT S2 S3 S4 Note. CRP = community rehabilitation provider; DDC = developmental disabilities council; Ed = education; MH = mental health; MR/DD = mental retardation and developmental disability; PH = public health; SE = supported employment; VR = vocational rehabilitation; VR/B = vocational rehabilitation commission for the blind; TA = technical assistance; ADVP = adult developmental vocational program; SSA = Social Security Administration. </ct> <hd id="AN0002980916-19">Table 4 Interagency Work Groups: Statewide Groups with Restructuring or Service Focus</hd> <ct id="AN0002980916-20"> Legend for chart: T1=State T2=Work group T3=Function T4=Agencies represented U2=Work group U3=Provide collaboration U4=CRP, MR/DD, CAP V2=Transition core teams V3=Coordinate systems V4=VR, Multiservice, Ed W2=Interagency transition W3=SE implementation W4=MH, SpEd, MR/DD, VR, Gov X2=State case teams X3=Youth with emotional/behavioral disabilities X4=AG, MH, HS, Ed, PH, M/A, VR Y2=Vocational alternatives Y3=Extended services Y4=VR, MH, MR/DD Z1=Dual diagnosis Z2=Enhance SE Z3=VR, MH A2=VR/DD work group A3=General collaboration A4=VR, MR/DD B2=New futures SE B3=Improve SE B4=VR, Ed, MR/DD, MH, PC, PWD C2=Core transition team C3=Interagency partnership C4=MH, VR D2=SE program evaluation D3=Evaluate proviso activity D4=VR, MR/DD, MH, DDA E2=Hi-impact E3=Cooperative project E4=VR, MR/DD F1=Transition F2=Various models of SE F3=VR, PI G1=Mental health G2=Various models of SE G3=VR, DSL A1 T2 T3 T4 ID U2 U3 U4 LA V2 V3 V4 MD W2 W3 W4 MS X2 X3 X4 NC Y2 Y3 Y4 Z1 Z2 Z3 OK A2 A3 A4 UT B2 B3 B4 VT C2 C3 C4 WA D2 D3 D4 WI E2 E3 E4 F1 F2 F3 G1 G2 G3 Note. CAP = client assistance program; DDA = division of data analysis; DSL = Division of supportive living; Ed = education; Gov = governor's office; HS = human services; M/A = Medicaid; MH = mental health; MR/DD = mental retardation and developmental disability; PH = public health; PI = public institutions; PWD = people with disabilities; SE = supported employment; SpEd = special education; VR = vocational rehabilitation; CRP = community rehabilitation provider; AG = attorney general; PC = parent center. </ct> <hd id="AN0002980916-21">Table 5 Interagency Work Groups: Local Work Groups</hd> <ct id="AN0002980916-22"> Legend for chart: A1=State A2=Work group A3=Function A4=Agencies represented B2=Local meetings B3=Consumer-agency relations B4=VR, MR/DD C2=County SE committees C3=Oversight/advisory C4=VR, MH, MR/DD D2=Local SE teams D3=Local-level planning D4=VR and other agencies E2=Alternate funding E3=Develop alternative funding E4=Local disability agencies F2=Local business advisor F3=Create SE job opportunities F4=Public social service agencies, private sector employers, VR A1 A2 A3 A4 CT B2 B3 B4 DE C2 C3 C4 KY D2 D3 D4 NH E2 E3 E4 WY F2 F3 F4 Note. MH = mental health; MR/DD = mental retardation and developmental disability; SE = supported employment; VR = vocational rehabilitation.</ct> <hd id="AN0002980916-23">REFERENCES</hd> <p>Butterworth, J., Gilmore, D., Kiernan, W. E., & Schalock, R. (1999). Day and employment services in developmental disabilities: State and national trends. Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion, Children's Hospital. </p> <p>Butterworth, J., Gilmore, D., & Schalock, R. (1998). Rates of vocational rehabilitation system closure into competitive employment. Mental Retardation, 36, 336-337. </p> <p>McDonald, B. (1998). Project UNITE: Final performance report. Jackson: Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation Services. </p> <p>Nebraska Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. (1994). Supported employment systems change grant: Project report. Lincoln, NE: Author. </p> <p>Rogers, E. S., Anthony, W. A., & Danley, K. S. (1989). The impact of interagency collaboration on system and client out-comes. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 33, 100-109. </p> <p>Wehman, P., Revell, G., & Kregel, J. (1998). Supported employment: A decade of rapid growth and impact. American Rehabilitation, 24(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>), 31-43. </p> <p>West, M., Revell, G., & Wehman, P. (1998). Conversion from segregated services to supported employment: A continuing challenge to the VR service system. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 239-247. </p> <aug> <p>By Susan M. Foley, Susan M. Foley, PhD, is a senior research associate at the Institute for Community Inclusion. Her research interests are in employment policy, career development for women with disabilities, and state systems.; John Butterworth, John Butterworth, PhD, is a research director at the Institute for Community Inclusion. His research interests are in employment policy, facilitating natural supports, person-centered planning, and transition. and Amy Heller, Amy Heller, MPT, is currently a doctoral student at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and has research interests in rehabilitation and health care utilization. Address: Susan Foley, Institute for Community Inclusion, Children''s Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115. </p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib5" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref2"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ604927
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Vocational Rehabilitation Interagency Activity Improving Supported Employment for People with Severe Disabilities.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Foley%2C+Susan+M%2E%22">Foley, Susan M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butterworth%2C+John%22">Butterworth, John</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Heller%2C+Amy%22">Heller, Amy</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Focus+on+Autism+and+Other+Developmental+Disabilities%22"><i>Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities</i></searchLink>. Spr 2000 15(1):37-42.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 6
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2000
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Agency+Cooperation%22">Agency Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delivery+Systems%22">Delivery Systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Services%22">Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Severe+Disabilities%22">Severe Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Supported+Employment%22">Supported Employment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocational+Rehabilitation%22">Vocational Rehabilitation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Adults%22">Young Adults</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1088-3576
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The first of three studies on interagency activity among state agencies delivering or funding employment services focuses on identifying exemplary models and strategies used in interagency agreements to improve delivery of supported employment services. Interagency agreements were most frequent with state agencies that specialized in or had substantial involvement with disability services. (Contains references.) (Author/DB)
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: Journal Code
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JC" term="%22CIJOCT2000%22">CIJOCT2000</searchLink>
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2000
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ604927
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ604927
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 6
        StartPage: 37
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Agency Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Delivery Systems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Severe Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Supported Employment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocational Rehabilitation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Adults
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Vocational Rehabilitation Interagency Activity Improving Supported Employment for People with Severe Disabilities.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Foley, Susan M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Butterworth, John
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Heller, Amy
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2000
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1088-3576
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 15
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1