No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Gazebo Café Skills Training Program — A Multi-perspective Evaluation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2012
Abstract
Interwork Limited is an open employment service that aims to maximise participation of individuals in the open labour market. As part of its services Interwork offers a Gazebo Café Program. The aim of this research project was to evaluate the impact of the participation in the Gazebo Café Program (a work preparation and skills training centre), from the perspective of key stakeholders. The rationale for this evaluation was to provide the management team of Interwork with information to inform decision-making for future directions of the Café. The project was undertaken as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Applied Science in Occupational Therapy with Honours. In-depth interviews were conducted with three consumers, as well as two focus groups with four employment coordinators, and two referring agency staff members respectively. Analysis of the data revealed seven themes. The results suggested that participation in the Gazebo Café Program was a positive experience. Consumers felt they developed functional skills. Employment coordinators and referring agency staff emphasised the impact of the development of social and interpersonal skills. Opportunities to experience meaningful occupation while performing the work role, all within a natural and supportive community environment were valued impacts. Issues were raised relating to finding the right composition of consumers with and without disabilities, the affordability of the services for external users, and the current unavailability of accredited training. While the findings expand upon existing literature, they describe impacts of participation in a transition program for consumers that appear to not have been described elsewhere. Information is provided to other service providers in regards to the value and impact of such a program. Implications for open employment services are discussed.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 14 - 25
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003
References
Buys, N.J., & Rennie, J. (2001). Developing relationships between vocational rehabilitation agencies and employers in rehabilitation agencies and employers. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44(2), 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadsey, J., & Beger, S. (2001). Social relationships in the workplace. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 7, 128–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePoy, E., & Gitlin, L.N. (1998). Introduction to research: Understanding and applying multiple strategies (2nd ed.). USA: Mosby.Google Scholar
Fabian, E.S. (1999). Rethinking work: The example of consumers with serious mental health disorders. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42(A), 302–317.Google Scholar
Farris, B., & Stancliffe, R.J. (2001). The co-worker training model: outcomes of an open employment pilot project. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 26(2), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, J.R., & Wheaton, J.E. (1999). Patterns of Services to Vocational Rehabilitation Consumers with Serious Mental Illness. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42(3), 214–228.Google Scholar
Forsyth, L. (2001). Report to I.D.S.C. — Gazebo Cage “Pre-Employment” Program for the Year 00/01. Unpublished Report.Google Scholar
Interwork Limited. (1999). Assisting people with a disability to find and maintain employment. 08, Adelaide.Google Scholar
Koch, L.C. (2001). The preferences and anticipations of people referred for vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44(2), 976-–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, R.A. (1998). Developing questions for focus groups — Focus group kit 3. California: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lougheed, V. (1999). Employer-based rehabilitation. American Rehabilitation, Autumn, 25–29.Google Scholar
McCarthy, H., & Leirer, S.J. (2001). Consumer concepts of ideal characteristics and minimum qualification for rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45(1), 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis — A sourcebook of new methods. California: Sage.Google Scholar
Morgan, D.L. (1998). Planning focus groups — Focus group kit 2. California: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrovski, P., & Gleeson, G. (1997). The relationship between job satisfaction and psychological health in people with an intellectual disability in competitive employment. Journal of Intellectual Disability Development, 22(3), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, P.L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Australia: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strauser, D.R., & Waldrop, D.G. (1999). Reconceptualizing the Work personality. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42(A), 290–302.Google Scholar
Wadsworth, Y. (1997). Everyday evaluation on the run (2nd ed.). Australia: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Wehmeyer, M.L., & Bolding, N. (2001). Enhanced self-determination of adults with intellectual disability as an outcome of moving to community-based work or living environments. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45(5), 371–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitney-Thomas, J., Timmons, J.C., Gilmore, D.S., & Thomas, D.M. (1999). Expanding Access: changes in vocational rehabilitation practice since the 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 43(1), 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar