Funding supported employment: Are there better ways

This article describes different methods used by state Vocational Rehabilitation agencies to fund time limited supported employment services. Findings are reported from a survey of 385 vendored supported employment provider agencies regarding types of reimbursement method used, the influence of different types of methods on key consumer outcomes, and recommendations for improving funding systems. The findings consistently pointed to significantly more positive response of vendors to funding methods that incorporate negotiated rates at the individual provider level as compared to statewide fixed rates for all vendors. Statewide fixed hourly rates were found to discourage both conversion to community integrated employment opportunities and the reopening of supported employment cases after job loss. The same response pattern held true for respondents ' perceptions of reimbursements covering the costs of services. Statewide rates for specified outcomes or for daily, weekly or monthly service units were found to cover the cost of services at levels significantly lower than the other funding methods. Few Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) programs have grown as rapidly as supported employment, from fewer than 10,000 participants at the program's inception in 1986 to over 135,000 in 1995 (Wehman, Revell, & Kregel, 1997). To a substantial degree, this growth has been spurred by state systems change grants funded by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) under Title III of the Rehabilitation Act. The pur-pose of these grants was to modif