The correct approach is to break down the overwhelming task into smaller, achievable components. This builds confidence and self-efficacy, aligning with the APSE principle of facilitating self-determination and using individualized, strength-based strategies. The other options either disregard the individual’s current capacity, compromise professional boundaries with the employer prematurely, or unnecessarily limit job opportunities.

The correct answer involves gathering contextual information directly from the natural support (the supervisor) and observing the actual performance in the real work environment. This collaborative assessment is the foundation for identifying whether the issue is a skill deficit, a need for a job accommodation, or a mismatch in expectations, and it guides effective intervention. The other options jump to conclusions, formal discipline, or job change without proper assessment.

Informal workplace culture consists of the unwritten social rules and norms that are not found in official documents. Helping a job seeker learn these—such as typical break room behavior, appropriate humor, or communication styles—is key to social integration and long-term job satisfaction. The other options focus on formal, written structures which do not address the nuanced social environment.

Person-centered planning, resulting in a detailed Vocational Profile, is the cornerstone of the APSE model. Effective job development is not a generic search but a targeted effort based on a deep, individualized understanding of the job seeker. This ensures job matches are based on personal assets and preferences, leading to better outcomes. The other options are tools or outcomes that flow *from* this foundational understanding.

This response professionally acknowledges the employer’s concern, provides reassuring factual information (most accommodations are low or no cost), and redirects the conversation to collaborative problem-solving with concrete examples. It builds a partnership with the employer. The other responses are confrontational, dismissive of the candidate, or misrepresentative of the interactive accommodation process.

This reflects the interactive process of reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The next step is not to assume impossibility but to engage in creative problem-solving with the key stakeholders (the job seeker and employer) to determine if the function can be performed with an accommodation. The other options represent giving up, requesting an unreasonable alteration of the job, or suggesting a non-professional, potentially irrelevant solution.

A core ethical principle and best practice is to avoid unnecessary dependence. The goal of supported employment is to facilitate natural supports and independence. Support should be systematically faded based on the employee’s success, promoting self-sufficiency and dignity. The other options prioritize external factors (cost, billing, error prevention) over the individual’s right to independence.

This balances professional ethics with respectful communication. It upholds the adult job seeker’s right to confidentiality and self-determination (key CESP competencies) while educating the family member about your role. It redirects the parent to the appropriate communication channel (their son) without being dismissive. The other options violate confidentiality, abdicate professional responsibility, or create an unnecessary procedural hurdle.

Customized employment involves individualizing the employment relationship by negotiating job duties that meet the specific needs of both the employer and the job seeker. It often involves creating a new position or significantly reshaping an existing one. This is distinct from placing someone into a pre-existing, standard job (even with supports) or conducting a traditional job search.

The correct approach is to break down the overwhelming task into smaller, achievable components. This builds confidence and self-efficacy, aligning with the APSE principle of facilitating self-determination and using individualized, strength-based strategies. The other options either disregard the individual’s current capacity, compromise professional boundaries with the employer prematurely, or unnecessarily limit job opportunities.0