Printer-Friendly Version
Email This Article
The monetary benefits and costs of hiring supported employees: A primer
by Robert E. Cimera
Available formats: PDF
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 workers 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 payments" 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 workers 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 and 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 employments 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 employments 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 McDonalds 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), 281292.
[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), 4253.
[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.
Have a Question or Comment About This Article?
