|
The monetary
benefits and costs of hiring supported employees: A primer
Robert E. Cimera
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
Volume 17 (2002)
Copyright© IOS Press
Reprinted with permission
Abstract:
The fiscal aspects of supported employment programs are well explored
from the perspectives of the supported employee, taxpayer, and society
in general. However, little has been written regarding the economic
advantages or disadvantages experienced by employers who hire supported
employees. A potential cause for this lack of emphasis on the employer's
perspective may be the convoluted nature of the issue. This manuscript
proposes an economic, cost accounting, framework that could help
determine whether hiring supported employees is a good financial
decision for businesses.
1. Introduction
There are four primary stakeholders associated with supported employment
programs. First, individuals with disabilities and their families
benefit from the increased wealth and opportunity for socialization that
community-based employment often yields [6,8]. Second, job coaches and
other supported employment personnel are reimbursed for the services
that they provide to individuals with disabilities [28,31]. Third,
taxpayers, the actual funders of supported employment, experience
reductions in the costs of governmental programs, such as welfare, as an
outcome of individuals with disabilities becoming gainfully employed
[10,19, 24]. Finally, employers who hire supported employees acquire
workers who perform tasks needed for the businesses¡¦ operation [15].
Each of these four stakeholders experience benefits and costs resulting
from supported employment programs. For example, individuals with
disabilities may gain a sense of self-worth from working in the
community (i.e., a benefit). However, they may also experience failures
(e.g., being fired) as a result of being out of more sheltered settings,
such as segregated workshops (i.e., a cost).
Of particular interest in the literature are the fiscal benefits and
costs arising from funding supported employment programs. For example,
monetary costs of supported employment from the taxpayers¡¦ perspective
may entail the actual operating expenditures of these programs (e.g.,
job coach salaries, office supplies, renting office space). Monetary
benefits from this perspective may include the savings from programs
(e.g., sheltered workshops) that would have been utilized had it not
been for supported employment.
By measuring monetary benefits and costs, policymakers and funders
(e.g., taxpayers) become better informed as to the merits of potential
decisions (e.g., to fund or not to fund supported employment programs).
Specifically, these stakeholders are able to compare the benefits and
costs of various programs that are competing for the same funds (e.g.,
supported employment verses sheltered workshops). But more importantly,
examining the benefits and costs of programs enable professionals (e.g.,
job coaches) to re-evaluate programmatic goals and procedures in an
attempt to make programs more cost-efficient, and thus more palatable to
policy-makers and taxpayers. In other words, analyses of economic issues
can improve the quality of services being provided to individuals with
disabilities. Since 1980, at least 21 studies have explored whether the
monetary benefits of supported employment justify the corresponding
monetary costs [9,11]. Of these 21 cost-efficiency studies, 18 explored
benefit and costs from the perspective of the worker with a disability.
Fifteen studies investigated the cost-efficiency of supported employment
from the taxpayer’s or societal perspectives. Finally, nearly all of
these studies directly, or indirectly, investigated the costs of
providing services from the perspective of the supported employment
professionals. Unfortunately, to date, no study has systematically
explored the monetary benefits and costs that employers incur as a
result of hiring workers from supported employment programs. Though
there have been several anecdotal articles and book chapters discussing
the benefits of hiring people with disabilities [2,5,14,30], the issue
of whether or not it is economically appropriate to hire supported
employees remains unclear. Perhaps the principal reason for the lack of
focus upon economic issues resulting from hiring supported employees
involves the complexity of the issue.
For example, every decision, including whether or not to hire workers
with disabilities, results in a complex matrix of interrelated benefits
and costs.
What might be a benefit from one perspective (e.g., taxes collected by
the taxpayer) may also be a cost from another (e.g., taxes collected
from the supported employee). Further, some of these benefits and cost
have obvious dollar values, such as wages earned by supported employees.
The monetary values of other benefits and costs, however, are more
illusive, such as the increased happiness of workers. Accounting for,
and measuring, each of these benefits and costs is a tedious process.
Moreover, the end product of these investigations is often nothing more
than an estimate based upon a set of assumptions.
Even though economic analyses are complex and only approximate fiscal
reality, the need to understand the financial repercussions of funding
programs is great. Understanding the benefits and costs of hiring
supported employees is particularly important due to the misconceptions
that many employers have regarding workers with disabilities (e.g.,
workers with disabilities cannot work quickly, they are unsafe, and
require constant supervision) [2,6,14]. Examining the costs and benefits
of hiring supported employees can help dissolve these misconceptions and
encourage more employers to hire workers with disabilities.
To illustrate the importance of the employer’s economic perspective,
suppose for a moment that, as numerous studies have found, supported
employment is a good investment for taxpayers [10,21,25]. That is, for
every dollar that taxpayers give to fund supported employment programs
(i.e., costs), they receive more than a dollar back in taxes collected
and savings from other programs (i.e., benefits). Also assume that, as
numerous studies have found, supported employment is the best financial
option for individuals with disabilities [1,10,35]. That is, individuals
with disabilities earn more money via supported employment programs than
through any other program. With these assumptions in mind, it would be
logical to assume that supported employment would be experiencing a
significant increase in enrollment while other, more costly, programs
(e.g., sheltered workshops) would be experiencing a period of decline.
This, however, is not the case [4,33].
When compared to sheltered workshops, supported employment has
repeatedly been shown to be a good investment from the taxpayer and
worker’s perspectives
[34]. However, many individuals with disabilities continue to be
referred to sheltered workshops rather than supported employment
programs [4,33]. Moreover, supported employment programs tend to have
long waiting lists of individuals looking to work within the community
[17].
It is likely that the reason why supported employment has failed to
reach its potential [33], is the result of a “bottleneck”. That is,
funders understand that supported employment is cost-efficient. Workers
and parents understand that supported employment offers more financial
rewards than sheltered placements. However, without employers willing to
hire supported employees, supported employment cannot grow.
Specifically, some supported employees are being forced to go into
alternative, more costly and less beneficial, placements (e.g.,
sheltered workshops) because employers within the community are
unwilling to hire workers with disabilities – thus creating long waiting
lists as noted by Bond, Picone, Mauer, Fishbein, and Stout. (in press).
Moreover, without employers hiring supported employees, program
enrollment cannot increase. In order to secure supported employment’s
future, the bottleneck must be alleviated. To do this, more must be
learned regarding the economic advantages and disadvantages of hiring
workers with disabilities. The purpose of this paper is to explore the
monetary benefits and costs that businesses experience as a result of
hiring supported employees. Specifically, a new economic methodology and
cost-accounting formula that can measure employer cost-efficiency and
cost effectiveness will be presented. Discussions of the importance of
cost-accounting research and implications to the field are also
provided.
2. Economic models: Cost-efficiency verses cost-effectiveness
There are two primary cost-accounting models that are used to examine
the monetary benefits and costs of decision-making: cost-efficiency and
cost effectiveness. Although these terms erroneously tend to be used
interchangeably, they differ substantially in relation to their
methodology and the questions that they each address. Understanding
their differences, and similarities, will help shed some light as to how
to examine whether employers should hire supported employees.
2.1. Cost-efficiency
Cost-efficiency analyses attempt to answer the question, “Do the
benefits of a decision justify the resulting costs?” To accomplish this,
a cost-accounting perspective, that is the perspective from which the
analyses are examined (e.g., the taxpayer’s perspective or the worker’s
perspective), must be delineated. Delineating a perspective is important
because many program outcomes can be both a benefit as well as a cost.
For example, taxes paid as a consequence of being employed are costs to
workers since taxes reduce the amount of money worker have to spend on
themselves. On the other hand, taxes are a benefit to taxpayers, and
society in general, because taxes enable taxpayers to improve
communities by providing police services, new schools, and repaired
roads. After the cost accounting perspective is delineated, all program
outcomes (i.e., benefits and costs) affecting the selected perspective
are converted to monetary units. This becomes problematic when certain
program outcomes do not have obvious monetary values. For example,
supported employment programs might increase the self-confidence of
workers with disabilities, which would be a notable benefit to supported
employees. However, it is difficult to measure self confidence, let
alone equate a dollar value to each unit of self-confidence an
individual receives as a result of being employed.
Once all benefits and costs are quantified with dollar values, a
benefit-cost ratio is created. Typically, benefit-cost ratios are
calculated by dividing the gross monetary benefits by the gross monetary
costs [18,23]. Using this formula, if the benefit-cost ratio exceeds
1.0, the decision is said to be “cost-efficient”. Or, the monetary
benefits of the decision are greater than the corresponding monetary
costs. If the benefit-cost ratio is less 25 than 1.0, the decision is
said to be “cost-inefficient”. Or, the monetary costs of the decision
are greater than the corresponding monetary benefits. Finally, if the
benefit-cost ratio is exactly 1.0, the monetary benefits
equal the monetary costs. Or, there is “benefit-cost equilibrium”.
To illustrate cost-efficiency methodology, suppose that you wanted to
buy an automobile. First, you would identify a cost-accounting
perspective (e.g., the perspective of the buyer) and then examine all of
the benefits and costs of buying a specific vehicle. Some of the
benefits and costs cannot be quantified into a dollar amount, such as
the feeling you get when you drive with the top down or the ability to
go from zero to sixty miles an hour in under three seconds. However some
benefits and costs are clear. For instance, the price of the automobile
is a primary cost. The money that you would no longer spend to maintain
your old car may be a benefit of buying a new car.
After calculating all of the benefits and costs that can be quantified
into dollar values and dividing gross that buying a new car is
cost-inefficient. That is, the monetary costs of buying a car (e.g., the
price of the car, increased insurance rates, etc.) do not justify the
corresponding monetary benefits (e.g., resale value, increased gas
mileage, savings from maintaining an old car). However, consumers often
make cost-inefficient decisions based upon non-monetary benefits and
costs. For example, their old car “looks ugly” or they need more
passenger space or they want something more “sporty”. These non-monetary
variables from the cost accounting perspective (i.e., the car buyer) do
not factor into cost-efficiency, yet they often drive the decision
making process. It is likely that similar, non-monetary benefits and
costs influence whether employers hire supported employees. As a result,
they cannot be ignored.
2.2. Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness methodologies address the question, “Which of
comparable options involves the least amount of costs for the same
outcome?” To conduct these analyses, a target outcome must be identified
(e.g., programs that teach individuals with disabilities how to work).
Monetary costs of programs, or options, that achieve the target outcome
are then compared. It is important to note that all options must achieve
the same target outcome. For example, cost-effectiveness studies have
been conducted comparing sheltered and supported employment (cf. [24]).
However, it has been argued that supported employment and sheltered
workshops do not produce the same outcome [31]. More precisely,
supported employment produces workers who are competitively employed
within the community; whereas, sheltered workshops produce workers who
perform potentially non-employment-related tasks in segregated settings.
To illustrate the use of cost-efficiency methodology, imagine buying
another car. In the cost-efficiency scenario discussed earlier, the
monetary benefits and costs of one automobile were analyzed. With cost
effectiveness, the costs of several automobiles must be examined.
However, prior to examining any costs, an outcome must be determined
(e.g., an automobile that gets at least 25 miles per gallon, has air
conditioning, and can seat a minimum of four adults). Next, all of the
options that match these outcomes are identified. Perhaps there are
several automobiles that match the desired outcome. The one that results
in the least amount of costs (e.g., sticker price, insurance payments,
maintenance expenditures, etc.) would be the most cost effective option.
3.A new methodology
Both cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness methodologies have
advantages and disadvantages. For instance, cost-efficiency
methodologies can only assess one option at a time, however they attempt
to account for benefits as well as costs. Cost-effectiveness
methodologies, on the other hand, only examine costs, but they can
evaluate several options at once. To examine whether employers should
hire supported employees a combination of these two methodologies will
need to be developed.
3.1. The questions
Employers are likely to have two questions regarding the hiring of
supported employees. The first is “Are supported employees going to be
more trouble (i.e., costs) than they are worth (i.e., benefits)?” This
is a cost-efficiency issue. As a result, employers will need to
understand the benefits and costs of hiring supported employees. The
second question employers are likely to have regarding hiring supported
employees is “How do supported employees compare to workers without
disabilities?” This is a cost-effectiveness issue. It is not enough for
employers to know that supported employees generate more benefits than
costs (i.e., cost-efficient). Employers must also know how supported
employees compare
to the traditional workforce (i.e., workers without disabilities). For
example, suppose for a moment that research finds that hiring supported
employees generates $2.00 of benefits for employers for every $1.00 of
costs (i.e., a benefit-cost ratio of 2.00). Would hiring supported
employees be a good investment for employers? Not if worker’s without
disabilities generate $3.00 of benefits for every $1.00 of costs (i.e.,
a benefit-cost ratio of 3.00).
To determine whether they should hire supported employees, employers
will need a wide range of information. Specifically, they will need
answers related to both cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness
questions. In order to obtain the information that employers seek, a new
cost-accounting methodology is needed.
3.2. Variables
Prior to developing a new cost-accounting methodology that will help
determine whether employers should hire supported employees, the
variables that may cause employers to experience monetary benefits and
costs must be investigated. Eight principle economic variables affecting
the decision to hire supported employees
are discussed below.
3.2.1. Wages
At first thought, wages would appear to be a cost to employers. After
all, much like taxes, wages are expenditures that prevent employers from
spending money on other things (e.g., renovating their lobby or
increasing their advertising budget). However, wages are neither a cost
nor a benefit to employers. They are what is called a “transfer payment”
[12,23]. Transfer payments are cost-accounting variables that would have
been allocated in roughly the same manner no matter what decision was
made. In other words, regardless of whether an employer hires a
supported employee or a worker without a disability, wages would have to
be paid. That is, employers cannot reallocate the money earmarked for
wages because employers need employees. Without wages, employers would
not A primer employ workers. Without workers, employers would not be
employers.1 This is not to say that that employers cannot lessen the
amount that they spend on employee wages. They can. For example,
employers can invest in technology that increases production yet
decreases the need for workers. However, technology and other methods
used to increase production would affect workers with
and without disabilities alike. Thus, technology would have no influence
on the decision of whether to hire supported employees or workers
without disabilities.
3.2.2. Fringe benefits
Much like wages paid to workers, fringe benefits are transfer payments.
That is, if an employer has a position available that includes health
insurance, or vacation days, those benefits would be given to any worker
whom is hired, regardless of whether he or she had a disability.
Consequently, fringe benefits would not enter into an employer’s
decision to hire supported employees.
3.2.3. Supervision
Supervision represents an important expenditure for employers. The more
supervision workers require the less time supervisors have to perform
other needed tasks. In other words, if an employer hires workers who
require little to no supervision, the employer could either reduce the
number of supervisors scheduled to work or re-invest the supervisors’
time to do other, more important, tasks. Both outcomes would be a
monetary benefit for employers. Conversely, hiring workers who require a
great deal of supervision represents a cost to employers due to time
taken away from other tasks and the increased need to hire more
supervisors. Because the cost of supervision can vary depending upon the
employee hired, it would be an important variable to consider when
examining whether employers should hire supported employees. That is to
say, in order to make an informed hiring decision, employers would need
to know if supported employees require more or less supervision than
workers without disabilities. Note that individuals who are
self-employed, and who do not hire other workers, are not actually
“employers” as they do not employ employees. These individuals,
therefore, would not consider hiring supported employees or non-disabled
workers. As a result, they perspective is not included within this
paper’s analyses.
3.2.4. Worker’s compensation claims
As with supervision, worker’s compensation claims represents a potential
cost to employers. If employers hire workers who are accident-prone or
incompetent, the likelihood of accidents will increase. If the number of
accidents increase, the premiums that employers have to pay for worker’s
compensation insurance will
most likely rise as well. Further, increased accidents will add to
employer costs as a result of slower productivity and increased medical
bills. Conversely, hiring workers who are less accident-prone will be a
benefit to employers due to lower worker’s compensation insurance
premiums and increased production. Learning how many workers’
compensations claims filed by supported employees compared to those
filed by non disabled workers would be needed information for employers
to determine which workers to hire.
3.2.5. Employee turnover
Hiring a worker constitutes several costs to employers. First, if an
employer is short a worker, production will not be running at peak
capacity. As a result, the employer is losing production and profit.
Second, hiring an employee consumes time and resources. For example, the
position needs to be posted. Applications need to taken and read.
Interviews need to be conducted. All of these activities require
somebody’s time and effort – time and effort that could be applied to
other, more beneficial, tasks. If an employer hires workers who will
stay in there positions for several years, the employer will endure the
costs of replacing these workers less frequently than if the workers
left their positions after a few months. In other words, if supported
employees have longer
tenures than workers without disabilities, employers would reduce their
hiring expenses by employing supported employees (i.e., a monetary
benefit). If, on the other hand, supported employees leave their jobs
after only a few weeks, employers would experience increased
expenditures due to the higher turnover rate (i.e., a monetary cost).
Consequently, whether supported employees retain their positions longer
than workers without disabilities would be important information for
employers to obtain.
3.2.6. Tax credits
There are several government programs that give employers monetary
incentives for hiring under-employed populations (e.g., Targeted Job Tax
Credits). These
typically provide employers with tax credits equaling a portion of the
wages paid to the target populations (e.g., individuals with
disabilities). For example, if employers received a 40% tax credit for
the first $6,000 a supported employee earns, they would save $2,400 in
taxes over the first 12 months the supported employee was employed. This
money would be a benefit to employers.
However, employers are likely to wonder if such a benefit would exceed
the potential costs of hiring
supported employees.
3.2.7. Accommodations
In addition to amount of supervision and increased risk of accidents,
employers may also be concerned that, if they hire supported employees,
costly accommodations will have to be made to their place of business.
Such expenditures would be a cost to employers and may make hiring
supported employees cost ineffective compared to workers without
disabilities.
Although, several authors [13,14,32] have found that workplace
accommodations for workers with disabilities are typically inexpensive,
it is unclear if even small costs related to accommodations may negate
the monetary benefits of hiring supported employees (e.g. tax
credits).
3.2.8. Public relations
Perhaps the most important variable employers consider when considering
to hire supported employees is public relations [2,7,15]. If an employer
cultivates positive relationships with the public, the public will be
more likely to become the employer’s customer. The better the public
relations, the more customers might consider utilizing the employer’s
products or services. The more potential customers, the higher the
potential profit for the business. Conversely, if the public has a low
opinion of an employer, fewer people might consider the employer’s
business – thus decreasing the potential profit that the employer could
experience. Many employers might wonder if hiring supported employees
will enhance the public image of the business, or will supported
employees scare business away? Although many businesses (e.g., DuPont,
McDonald’s, Marriott) have gone to great lengths to develop employment
programs for people with disabilities, employers often feel that
customers are “uncomfortable” around individuals with disabilities
[6,16]. This discomfort may translate to decreased business and, thus,
would be a cost of hiring supported employees. The impact of hiring
supported employees on public relations remains
Unclear and requires considerable attention.
3.3. Formulae
To determine whether it is economically advantageous for employers to
hire supported employees, each cost-accounting variable that might
impact an employer’s decision must be analyzed. Specifically, the
monetary value of supervision, employee turnover, worker’s compensation,
tax credits, accommodations, and public relations must be determined.
There are numerous methods for estimating monetary values. Below
proposed methods are discussed for each variable.
3.3.1. Supervision
The costs of supervision originate from the compensation paid to
supervisors. For instance, if an employer can hire workers who do not
need supervision, the cost of supervisors (e.g., their salaries and
fringe benefits) could be reallocated in a more cost-efficient manner.
To determine whether supported employees generate more supervision costs
than workers without disabilities, these costs must be compared. The
costs of supervising supported employees can be estimated by calculating
the amount of supervision compensation that occurs for each “type”
(i.e., supported employees verses workers without disabilities) of
worker. For instance, suppose that during the average shift there are
102 workers (100 employees without disabilities and two supported
employees) and three supervisors (workers who’s primary job description
is to oversee the production of other workers). Also suppose that the
average compensation paid to a supervisor is $12.50 an hour (including
fringe benefits). The proportion of hourly supervision costs per
supported employee would be $0.37 (i.e., 2/102× $12.50× 3/2). In order
to estimate the cost of supervision for workers without disabilities the
same formula is utilized, however, data must be gathered when no
supported employees are working. For instance, suppose that, during an
average shift without supported employees, two supervisors supervise 95
workers without disabilities. The proportion of hourly supervision costs
per non-disabled worker would be $0.26 (i.e., $12.50 × 2/95). In this
example, each supported employee generates $0.11 of supervisory costs
per hour more than did workers without disabilities. However, this
analysis is based upon only one observation of each worker cohort.
Numerous observations would be needed to make a more accurate estimate
of actual supervisory costs.
3.3.2. Employee turnover
To determine whether supported employees generate more hiring costs for
employers than workers without disabilities the actual costs of hiring a
new employee is needed. Costs can include the price of putting ads in
the newspaper as well as the time it takes to review applications and
interview potential employees (i.e., time multiplied by the hourly wage
of the reviewer). In addition to hiring costs, employers will need to
know the average lengths of tenure for both supported employees and
non-disabled workers. For example, Brickley and Campbell [5] found that
supported employees working
at McDonalds had a much longer tenure than did workers without
disabilities.
To illustrate how to determine the impact that employee tenure has on
hiring costs, suppose that hiring a new worker costs an average of $250.
Also suppose that supported employees keep their jobs an average of 9
months, compared workers without disabilities who keep their jobs and
average of three months. In this example, supported employees would
generate $333.33 of hiring costs per year (i.e., 12 months/9 months ×
$250) compared to $1,000 generated by workers without disabilities
(i.e., 12 months/3 months × $250). If
this is correct, employers will save $666.67 per year for
each supported employee that they hire.
3.3.3. Worker’s compensation claims
In order to determine whether supported employees generate more or less
costs related to worker’s compensation claims, the amount an employer
pays per year for worker’s compensation insurance and the number of
worker’s compensation claims filed by both supported employees and
workers without disabilities must be known. With this information, the
amount of worker’s compensation costs that can be attributed to each
category of worker can be estimated. Specifically, this information can
be obtained by multiplying the amount of worker’s compensation insurance
by the percent of claims made by each group, which in turn is divided by
the number of each type of workers. For example, suppose that there are
100 employees at a business, 98 without disabilities and 2 supported
employees. Two worker’s compensation claims have been filed within the
past year, one by a supported employee and one by a worker without
disabilities. Further, the employer pays $1,000 per year in worker’s
compensation insurance. Each worker without a disability accounts for
$5.10 of worker’s compensation costs per year ($1,000 × [1 claim by
non-disabled workers/2 claims total]/98 workers without disabilities).
Each 29-supported employee, on the other hand, accounts for $250 of
worker’s compensation costs per year ($1,000 × [1 claim by supported
employees/2 claims total]/2 supported employees). In this example,
employers would decrease worker’s compensation costs by hiring workers
without disabilities.
3.3.4. Tax credits
The monetary benefits that employers receive from tax credits can be
calculated by dividing the taxes saved by the number of supported
employees hired. For example, suppose that an employer hires two
supported employees and saves a total of $2,400 in taxes over a two-year
period as a result of a tax credit program (e.g., TJTC). The monetary
benefit to employers would be $600 per year for each supported employee
(i.e., $2,400/2 supported employees/2 years).
3.3.5. Accommodations
To calculate the costs associated with accommodations, the gross
expenditures for the accommodations (e.g., construction costs,
maintenance costs, etc.) needed to be divided by the number of supported
employees hired and the number of years that the accommodations are
utilized. For example, suppose that an employer hires three supported
employees and needs to modify the employee locker room to accommodate
one of them whom uses a wheel chair. The employer experiences a one-time
cost of $2,000. Assuming that the supported employee for whom the
accommodations were made retains her or his position for four years, the
annual costs per supported employee would be $167.
3.3.6. Public relations
In order to determine whether hiring supported employees improves or
harms an employer’s public relations – and thus influences the amount of
business
that is done – longitudinal projection trends must be examined. For
example, suppose that a business hires a supported employee in January
1998. By examining the amount of revenue that the business generated
from the prior two or three years (January, 1995–December, 1997) it is
possible to estimate the amount of revenue that the business would have
generated had the supported employee not been hired. The projections
would have to be adjusted for inflation, changes in consumer spending,
and other economic indicators. However,
such projections are common in economic evaluations (cf. [12,23,26]). To
determine whether supported employees help or hurt the public relations
of employers, the projected. Revenue can be compared to the actual
revenue generated by the employer after the supported employee is hired.
The difference between the actual and the projected revenue is called
the “marginal value”. If the actual is higher than the projected, it can
be assumed that hiring the supported employee increased public relations
and thus increased the amount of business an employer experienced. If
the projected revenue is higher than the actual, it can be assumed that
hiring supported employees negatively affected public relations and thus
decreased the amount of business an employer experienced.
3.4. Assumptions
All economic analyses are based upon a set of assumptions [18,27,29]).
For example, in the methodology outlined above, it is assumed that
supervisors spend equal time with both supported employees and workers
without disabilities when both workers are present. Further, the
proposed methodology also assumes that accommodations made for supported
employees do not benefit workers without disabilities. Thus, the costs
of accommodations may be unfairly attributed to only supported employees
– increasing the costs of hiring them. Finally, the proposed methodology
assumes that the marginal value between actual and projected revenue is
directly due the hiring of supported employees, and not some other
variable (e.g., increased marketing). Each of these assumptions are
reasonable if they are held constant from study to study. Further, it
should be noted that economic analyses are only one of the sources of
information upon which decisions should be made. Results from the
proposed formulae must be treated as skeptically as with any other piece
of research.
4. Discussion
If employers do not hire supported employees, supported employment will
no longer remain a viable program option for people with disabilities.
Regardless of how cost-efficient supported employment programs are to
the taxpayer and worker, if supported employees do not have the
opportunity to accept community-based, competitive jobs, supported
employment will cease to exist. In order to secure supported
employment’s future, more must be learned regarding the monetary
benefits and costs that employers incur when they utilize supported
employment programs.
4.1. Implications
If it can be shown that hiring supported employees has a positive net
economic return to employers, more employers may be likely to hire
supported employees. If it is shown than hiring supported
employee’s results in more monetary costs than monetary benefits,
proponents of supported employment will have to revisit training
strategies and best practices utilized in the field in an attempt to
make supported employment more beneficial to employers. Either way,
exploration of the employers’ perspective can only strengthen the future
of supported employment programs. It should be noted that employers
might feel justified in not hiring supported employees if they were
found to generate higher costs than benefits. However, as with the cases
of older Americans, women, and individuals from other demographic
backgrounds, federal law prohibits the discrimination of workers based
upon their disabilities. Still, such ethical implications must be
considered when conducting research on this topic.
4.2.
Future research In
order to benefit supported employment programs, individuals with
disabilities, and employers, the proposed methodology needs to be
pilot-tested. Specifically, a longitudinal examination of the monetary
benefits and costs experienced by employers who hire supported employees
must be undertaken. Further, a systematic analysis of the effects of
hiring supported employees at diverse types of businesses (e.g., fast
food, construction, clerical, etc.) should also be performed given that
each type of business may experience different economic outcomes.
Finally, due to the fluid nature
of economic evaluation, multiple studies will have to be conducted
before a clear picture of the employer perspective can be painted.
5. Conclusions
Advocates have observed the unfulfilled potential of supported
employment [33]. Numerous authors have found that supported employment
is cost-efficient and cost-effective compared to sheltered workshops
[9,10, 24,34], however, enrollment in sheltered workshops continues to
climb [4]. Why has supported employment’s success lessened over the past
decade? A potential answer to this question may lie in the hands of
employers. Without employers hiring supported employees, supported
employment cannot exist – regardless of the amount of funding it
receives from the taxpayers. Unfortunately, to date, very little
attention has focused upon the economic perspective of employers. It
remains unclear whether hiring a supported employee is a good fiscal
decision. Only when the perspectives of all of supported employment’s
stakeholders are thoroughly understood, will supported employment regain
its momentum and live up to its true potential.
References
[1] R. Baer, T. Simmons, R. Flexer and C. Smith, A study of the costs
and benefits of supported employees with severe physical and multiple
disabilities, Journal of Rehabilitation Administration 18(1) (1995),
46–57.
[2] D. Bissonnette, Beyond traditional job development: The art of
creating Opportunity, Milt Wright & Associates, Chatsworth, CA, 1994.
[3] G.R. Bond, J. Picone, B. Mauer, S. Fishbein and R. Stout, The
Quality of Supported Employment Implementation Scale, Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation (in press). [4] D. Braddock, R. Hemp, S.
Parish and J.Westrich, The state of the states in developmental
disabilities, AAMR, Washington, DC, 1998.
[5] M. Brickey and K. Campbell, Fast food employment for moderately
and mildly retarded adults: The McDonald’s project, Mental Retardation
19(3) (1981), 113–116.
[6] S.C. Burnham and W.F. Housely, Pride in work: Perceptions of
employers, service providers, and students who are mentally retarded and
learning disabled, Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 15
(1992), 101–108.
[7] M.J. Callahan and J.B. Garner, Keys to the workplace: Skills and
supports for people with disabilities, Brookes, Baltimore, 1997.
[8] J.G. Chadsey, D. Linneman, F.R. Rusch and R.E. Cimera, The impact of
social integration interventions and job coaches in work settings,
Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities (1997), 281–292.
[9] R.E. Cimera, The cost-efficiency of supported employment programs: A
literature review, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation (in press).
[10] R.E. Cimera, Are individuals with severe mental retardation and
multiple disabilities cost-efficient to serve via supported employment
programs? Mental Retardation 36 (1998), 280– 292.
[11] R.E. Cimera and F.R. Rusch, The cost-efficiency of supported
employment programs: A review of the literature, in: International
Review of Research in Mental Retardation, L. Masters Glidden, ed.,
Academic Press, San Diego, 1999, pp. 175–226.
[12] R. Conley, The Economics of Mental Retardation, John Hopkins,
Baltimore, 1973.
[13] E.S. Fabian and Luecking, Doing it the company way: Using internal
company supports in the workplace, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation
Counseling 22 (1991), 22–26.
[14] E.S. Fabian, R.G. Luecking and G.P. Tilson, A working relationship:
The job development specialist’s guide to successful partnerships with
business, Brookes, Baltimore, 1994.
31
[15] D. Hagner and D. DiLeo, Working together: Workplace culture,
supported employment, and persons with disabilities, Brookline,
Cambridge, MA, 1993.
[16] J.E. Havranek, The social and individual costs of negative
attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities, Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling 22 (1991), 15–21.
[17] M.F. Hayden and P. DePaepe, Waiting for community services:
The impact on persons with mental retardation and other developmental
disabilities, in: Challenges for service systems in transition: Ensuing
quality community experiences for persons with developmental
disabilities, M.F. Hayden and B.H. Avery, eds, Brookes, Baltimore, 1994,
pp. 178–185.
[18] L.W. Heal, W.B. McCaughrin and J.J. Tines, Methodological nuances
and pitfalls of benefit-cost analysis: A critique, Research in
Developmental Disabilities 10 (1989), 201–212.
[19] M.L. Hill, P.D. Banks, R.R. Handrich, P.H.Wehman, J.W. Hill, and
M.S. Shafer, Benefit-cost analysis of supported competitive employment
for persons with mental retardation, Research in Developmental
Disabilities 8 (1987), 71–89.
[20] M. Hill and D. Ruth, Improving quality and attacking costs of
employment services: A radical example of diversity management, Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation 2(2) (1992), 73–83.
[21] M.L. Hill, P.H. Wehman, J. Kregel, P.D. Banks and H.M.D. Metzler,
Employment outcomes for people with moderate and severe disabilities: An
eight year longitudinal analysis of supported competitive employment,
Journal of The Association For The Severely Handicapped 12 (1987),
182–189.
[22] J. Kregel and P. Wehman, Supported employment: Promises deferred
for persons with severe disabilities, The Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps 14 (1989), 293–303.
[23] R. Layard and S. Glaister, Cost-benefit analysis, (2nd ed.),
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
[24] W.B. McCaughrin, W.K. Ellis, F.R. Rusch and L.W. Heal,
Cost-effectiveness of supported employment, Mental Retardation
31 (1993), 41–48.
[25] W.B. McCaughrin, F.R. Rusch, R.W. Conley and J. Tines, A
benefit-cost analysis of supported employment in Illinois:
The first two years, Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities
3 (1991), 129–145.
[26] W. McMahon, Investment Criteria and Financing Education for
Economic Development, Journal of Educational Planning
and Administration 1 (1993), 347–380.
[27] J.H. Jr. Noble, The limits of cost-benefit analysis as a guide to
priority-setting in rehabilitation, Evaluation Quarterly 1
(1977), 347–380.
[
[28] W.G. Revell, M. West and Y. Cheng, Funding supported employment:
Are there better ways? Journal of Disability Policy
Studies 9 (1998), 59–79.
[29] R.K. Rhodes and M. Hill, Economic evaluation of employment
services: A review of applications, Journal of the Association
for the Severely Handicapped 12 (1987), 175–181.
[30] L. Rhodes, D. Sandow, D. Mank, J. Buckley and J. Albin, Expanding
the role of employers in supported employment,
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 16 (1991),
213–217.
[31] F.R. Rusch, Supported employment: Methods, models, and
issues, Syracuse, Syracuse, IL, 1990.
[32] VCU-RRTC, Fast facts on reasonable accommodations and the Americans
with Disabilities Act, Author, Richmond, VA,
2000.
[33] P. Wehman and J. Kregel, At the crossroads: Supported employment a
decade later, The Journal of the Association for
R.E. Cimera / The monetary benefits and costs of hiring supported
employees: A primer 32 Persons with Severe Handicaps 20 (1995), 286–299.
[34] P. Wehman, J. Kregel, P.D. Banks, M. Hill and M.S. Moon, Sheltered
verses supported work programs: A second look,
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 31 (1987), 42–53.
[35] S. Zivolich, S.A. Shueman and J.S. Weiner, An exploratory
cost-benefit analysis of natural support strategies in the employment
of severe disabilities, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 8 (1997),
211–221.
|
JVR Article 
