The Cost of High-Fidelity Supported Employment Programs for People With Severe Mental Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study determined the costs of evidence-based supported employment programs in real-world settings. METHODS: A convenience sample of 12 supported employment programs known to follow closely the principles of evidence-based supported employment was asked to provide detailed information on program costs, use, and staffing. Program fidelity was assessed by using the Supported Employment Fidelity Scale. Cost and utilization data were analyzed in a comparable manner to yield direct and total costs per client served, per full-year-equivalent client, and per employment specialist. RESULTS: Usable data were obtained from seven programs in rural and urban locations in seven states: Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont. All programs received high fidelity ratings, ranging from 70 to the maximum value of 75. Annual direct costs per client served varied from dollars 860 in New Hampshire to dollars 2723 in Oregon, and direct costs per full-year-equivalent client varied from dollars 1423 in Massachusetts to dollars 6793 in Indiana. Direct costs per employment specialist did not show as much variation, ranging from dollars 37339 in Rhode Island to dollars 49603 in Massachusetts, with a mean of dollars 44082. Differences in cost per client arose in part from differences in rules for determining who is or is not considered to be on a program's caseload. By assuming a typical caseload of about 18 clients, it was estimated that the cost per full-year-equivalent client averaged dollars 2449 per year, ranging from dollars 2074 to dollars 2756. CONCLUSIONS: The results point to the need for greater uniformity in caseload measurement and help specify the costs of high-fidelity supported employment programs in real-world settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".