RS5 Fast Facts: Why Does Supported Employment and Fidelity Matter?

Available formats:    PDF   |    PDF

View PDF

What Research Says About Quality, Why Outcomes Remain Uneven, and Why Fidelity Matters:

• Employment provides more than income. Research suggests work contributes to identity, autonomy, purpose, social inclusion, and psychological wellbeing for many people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).1
• Adults with IDD consistently report wanting meaningful paid work and generally prefer competitive integrated employment over segregated options.2
• Despite decades of policy initiatives, competitive integrated employment outcomes remain low.3

Why Supported Employment Matters:

• Supported employment was designed to help people with significant disabilities obtain and maintain competitive integrated employment through individualized supports delivered in real workplaces.4
• Core components repeatedly identified include person-centered planning, individualized job development, employer engagement, workplace supports, fading, and retention services.5

The Central Problem:

• Research increasingly suggests the issue is not simply whether supported employment exists, but whether it is implemented with quality and consistency.6
• Implementation quality may be influenced by staffing, competencies, turnover, caseloads, transportation barriers, organizational culture, and funding systems.7
• Poor implementation may contribute to job loss, reduced confidence, employer distrust, and missed opportunities.8

Why Fidelity Matters:

• Fidelity measures ask whether evidence-based practices actually occurred. Without fidelity data, systems often monitor compliance and billing rather than implementation quality.9

High vs Low Fidelity:

Expanded Endnotes:

1. Claim: Employment supports wellbeing, identity, and social inclusion.
Evidence: Employment contributes to identity, autonomy, purpose, routine, social inclusion, psychological wellbeing, and quality of life. Research suggests employment can reduce isolation and increase opportunities for community participation among people with IDD. Scheef (2019) and Cheng et al. (2018) synthesize evidence connecting employment with wellbeing and participation, while Banks et al. (2010) document the emotional consequences associated with employment loss, highlighting the importance of sustained employment.
Supporting source(s):

• Scheef, A. R. (2019). What and who works: Strategies for facilitating work experience opportunities for students enrolled in postsecondary education programs. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(3), 223–231.
• Cheng, C., Oakman, J., Bigby, C., Fossey, E., Cavanagh, J., Meacham, H., & Bartram, T. (2018). What constitutes effective support in obtaining and maintaining employment for individuals with intellectual disability? A scoping review. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 43(3), 317–327.
• Banks, P., Jahoda, A., Dagnan, D., Kemp, J., & Williams, V. (2010). Supported employment for people with intellectual disability: The effects of job breakdown on psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23(4), 344–354.

2. Claim: Adults with IDD value integrated work.
Evidence: Research indicates people with IDD and their families consistently prefer competitive integrated employment (CIE) over segregated alternatives and view employment as an important avenue toward independence, inclusion, and adulthood.
Supporting source(s):

• Wehman, P., Taylor, J., Brooke, V., Avellone, L., Whittenburg, H., Ham, W., Brooke, A. M., & Carr, S. (2018). Toward competitive employment for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What progress have we made and where do we need to go? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 43(3), 131–144.
• Wehman, P. (2023). Supported employment and customized employment: How effective are these interventions and what has been their impact on the field? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 58(3), 237–247.

3. Claim: Employment rates remain low despite decades of reform.
Evidence: Although supported employment has demonstrated effectiveness, competitive integrated employment rates among people with IDD remain persistently low relative to the general population. Researchers argue these gaps reflect implementation barriers and systems challenges rather than lack of evidence regarding effectiveness.
Supporting source(s):

• Wehman, P., Taylor, J., Brooke, V., et al. (2018).
• Wehman, P. (2023).

4. Claim: Supported employment promotes competitive integrated employment (CIE).
Evidence: Supported employment has repeatedly been associated with improved employment outcomes among transition-age youth and adults with IDD. Wehman et al. (2014) found supported employment participants achieved substantially stronger vocational rehabilitation outcomes than comparison groups. Wehman (2023) further summarizes decades of evidence supporting supported and customized employment as effective interventions.
Supporting source(s):

• Wehman, P., Chan, F., Ditchman, N., & Kang, H. J. (2014). Effect of supported employment on vocational rehabilitation outcomes of transition-age youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A case control study. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52(4), 296–310.
• Wehman, P. (2023). Supported employment and customized employment

5. Claim: Core supported employment phases exist.
Evidence: Supported employment generally includes: understanding the job seeker; individualized job development and matching; workplace supports; support fading when appropriate; and long-term retention supports.
Supporting source(s):

• Wehman, P., Taylor, J., Brooke, V., et al. (2018). Toward competitive employment
• Wehman, P. (2023). Supported employment and customized employment

6. Claim: Implementation quality matters.
Evidence: Variation in outcomes appears linked not only to whether supported employment is offered, but to how consistently and effectively it is implemented. Researchers increasingly emphasize competencies, systems supports, and implementation quality.
Supporting source(s):

• Wehman, P. (2023). Supported employment and customized employment
• Wehman, P., Taylor, J., Brooke, V., et al. (2018). Toward competitive employment

7. Claim: Systems factors influence outcomes.
Evidence: Employment specialist competencies, organizational resources, training, funding structures, and interagency coordination influence implementation quality and outcomes.
Supporting source(s):

• Cheng, C., et al. (2018). What constitutes effective support
• Ham, W., Schall, C., & Avellone, L. (2022). A scoping review of the competencies and training of employment specialists supporting individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

8. Claim: Job loss harms confidence and wellbeing.
Evidence: Longitudinal evidence suggests job breakdown can be traumatic, negatively affecting confidence, emotional wellbeing, and perceptions of future employment opportunities.
Supporting source(s):

• Banks, P., Jahoda, A., Dagnan, D., Kemp, J., & Williams, V. (2010). Supported employment for people with intellectual disability

9. Claim: Compliance ≠ quality.
Evidence: Existing systems often emphasize billing, reporting, and compliance rather than fidelity and implementation quality, limiting opportunities for continuous improvement and reducing understanding of why outcomes differ.
Supporting source(s):

• Migliore, A., Butterworth, J., & Nye-Lengerman, K. (2022). Rethinking management information systems for scaling up employment outcomes.

Full APA 7 References:

Banks, P., Jahoda, A., Dagnan, D., Kemp, J., & Williams, V. (2010). Supported employment for people with intellectual disability: The effects of job breakdown on psychological well-being. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23(4), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00541.x

Cheng, C., Oakman, J., Bigby, C., Fossey, E., Cavanagh, J., Meacham, H., & Bartram, T. (2018). What constitutes effective support in obtaining and maintaining employment for individuals with intellectual disability? A scoping review. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 43(3), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2017.1310824

Ham, W., Schall, C., & Avellone, L. (2022). A scoping review of the competencies and training of employment specialists supporting individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. [Use exact publication details if published; earlier drafts referenced this as a review, but publication metadata should be verified.]

Migliore, A., Butterworth, J., & Nye-Lengerman, K. (2022). Rethinking management information systems for scaling up employment outcomes. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 33(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073211011258

Scheef, A. R. (2019). What and who works: Strategies for facilitating work experience opportunities for students enrolled in postsecondary education programs. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 16(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12296

Wehman, P. (2023). Supported employment and customized employment: How effective are these interventions and what has been their impact on the field? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 58(3), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-230021

Wehman, P., Chan, F., Ditchman, N., & Kang, H. J. (2014). Effect of supported employment on vocational rehabilitation outcomes of transition-age youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A case control study. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52(4), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-52.4.296

Wehman, P., Taylor, J., Brooke, V., Avellone, L., Whittenburg, H., Ham, W., Brooke, A. M., & Carr, S. (2018). Toward competitive employment for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What progress have we made and where do we need to go? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 43(3), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796918777730