“ Improving Diversity through

Supported Employment ”

Approach to cost-benefit analysis between supported employment and special employment centers.Comparative simulation with 24 workers.

Jordán de Urríes, F. B.*, de León, D., Hidalgo, F., Martínez, S. y Santamaría, M.*INICO, Universidad de Salamanca

PaperJordán de Urríes, F. B., de León, D., Hidalgo, F., Martínez, S. & Santamaría, M. (2014) Aproximación al análisis coste-beneficio entre empleo con apoyo y centros especiales de empleo mediante simulación comparativa con 24 trabajadores. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 2 (1): 33-50.

Approach to cost-benefit analysis between supported employment and special employment centers through comparative simulation with 24 workers.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5569/2340-5104.02.01.02

Perspectives and variablesVARIABLES REFERENCES

WORKER PERSPECTIVEEarnings per hour Beyer, 2012; Beyer et al., 1999; Cimera, 2012b, 2011a,

2011b, 2010; Cimera y Burgess, 2011Net earnings Cimera, 2010; Cimera y Burgess, 2011Cost-benefit Cimera, 2010; Cimera y Burgess, 2011

COMPANY PERSPECTIVECost per hour Cimera, 2006a, 2011b; Shearn et al., 2000Cost per hour of support Cimera, 2006a, 2009a; Shearn et al., 2000Cost per month of service Cimera, 2011bCost per dollar earned Cimera, 2011bCost-benefit Cimera, 2006a, 2007a, 2010; Cimera y Burgess, 2011;

Shearn et al., 2000Net benefit Cimera, 2010; Cimera y Burgess, 2011Trend of quarterly costs of a fiscal year Cimera, 2008

SOCIETY PERSPECTIVEBenefits Beyer et al., 1999; Cimera y Burgess, 2011Costs Beyer et al., 1999; Cimera y Burgess, 2011

Objective

• The objective is to analyze the costs for the same hypothetical situation of a PWD in SE and EEC through a simulation.

• Given the descriptive nature, we do not intend to establish any cause - effect relation between variables, we simply aims to show the existing differences by group analysis.

• The Calculations were made from the perspective of the worker (net amount received and paid time), company (net cost, time cost and social burden percentage) and society (society cost, time cost, performance and profitability invested €).

Procedure• The 24 people in the sample, were in open employment by SE.• In order to compare the sample in a hypothetical situation in EEC, a simulation was

made with the same type of contract (in number of hours and type of work) in EEC addressing the subsidies and allowances in effect at that time.

• For the calculation of subsidies for permanent contract, both ordinary company and EEC have the obligation to maintain the contract for three years, so quantities were divided into three considered the amortization period.

• For calculating the number of hours and wages in the ordinary business contracts, in all cases was applied the agreement for catering considered in all cases, as it best represents is the for being the most represented the whole of the selected sample.

• For simulation of EEC contracts, the agreement is the generic one for EEC.• Modulation was applied in each case corresponding to age, sex and disability

degree. Similarly, it has been taken into account in each case whether the contract was permanent or temporary.

Sample

NUMBER VALID PERCENT

GENDER Male 12 50,0Female 12 50,0

% DISABILITY>33%<45% 13 54,2>45%<65% 4 16,7>65% 7 29,2

TYPE OF DISABILITYPhysical 8 33,3Intellectual 10 41,7Sensory 6 25,0

AGE < 45 20 83,3>45 4 16,7

TYPE OF CONTRACT Permanent 10 41,7Temporary 14 58,3

Findings from the worker’s perspective

Ʃ Net salary Ʃ Hours per year Net salary per hour Net salary per hourSE 304.968,54 € 33.072 9,22 € 9,03 € EEC 151.920,42 € 33.072 4,59 € 4,53 €

Net hourly wages of 24 workers from the sample in the two employment options

SE workers, working the same amount of hours, have higher hourly earnings than in EEC (9.22 € compared to 4.59 €).

Findings from the perspective of the company

Net cost per hour and % of Social burden of 24 workers from the sample in the two employment options

Ʃ Anual net cost Ʃ Hours per year Net cost per hour Net cost per hourSE 339.121,01 € 33.072 € 10,25 € 9,85 €EEC 30.886,48 € 33.072 € 0,93 € 0,72 €

Ʃ Bonuses Ʃ Costs % Social burden % Social burdenSE 96.805,72 € 435.926,73 € 22,21% 23,99%EEC 182.732,23 € 213.618,71 € 85,54% 89,74%

The SE also generates less social burden from the company (22.21 %) than EEC (85.54 %).

Relationship between what society provides for that contract and the costs thereof. It is computed by dividing the bonuses of government with the costs of the company.

Findings from the perspective of society

Cost per hour society and % of Socioeconomical Returns of 24 workers from the sample in both employment options

Ʃ Anual net cost S. Ʃ Hours per year Cost per hour S. Cost per hour S.SE 47.094,22 € 33.072 1,42 € 1,69 €EEC 172.941,64 € 33.072 5,23 € 5,37 €

Ʃ Annual net wage Ʃ Bonuses % Returns % ReturnsSE 304.968,54 € 96.805,72 € 315,03% 348,60%EEC 151.920,42 € 182.732,23 € 83,14% 82,83%

The Supported Employment’s payoff for society is much higher (315.03%) than that of the EEC (83.14%).

Efficiency of a job in relation to the aid received. It is computed by dividing net salary received by the worker and the costs of society, ie subsidies or bonuses.

Conclussions

• SE is more beneficial in terms of cost benefit for the individual, business and society when compared to EEC.

• Even with precautions (considering sample of workers as part of this study, and based on the simulation) when working in ordinary company by SE :– better wages, almost double.– percentage of social burden of companies is almost four times smaller.– and four times higher social returns.

Thanks

Borja Jordán de UrríesInstituto Universitario de Integración en la Comunidad, INICO

Universidad de Salamanca.bjordan@usal.es

http://diarium.usal.es/bjordan/