12th Conference EUSE Lisbon 2015

1. “ Improving Diversity through
Supported Employment ”

2. 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

3. Paper
Jordán 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

4. Perspectives and variables
VARIABLES REFERENCES
WORKER PERSPECTIVE
Earnings per hour Beyer, 2012; Beyer et al., 1999; Cimera, 2012b, 2011a,
2011b, 2010; Cimera y Burgess, 2011
Net earnings Cimera, 2010; Cimera y Burgess, 2011
Cost-benefit Cimera, 2010; Cimera y Burgess, 2011
COMPANY PERSPECTIVE
Cost per hour Cimera, 2006a, 2011b; Shearn et al., 2000
Cost per hour of support Cimera, 2006a, 2009a; Shearn et al., 2000
Cost per month of service Cimera, 2011b
Cost per dollar earned Cimera, 2011b
Cost-benefit Cimera, 2006a, 2007a, 2010; Cimera y Burgess, 2011;
Shearn et al., 2000
Net benefit Cimera, 2010; Cimera y Burgess, 2011
Trend of quarterly costs of a fiscal year Cimera, 2008
SOCIETY PERSPECTIVE
Benefits Beyer et al., 1999; Cimera y Burgess, 2011
Costs Beyer et al., 1999; Cimera y Burgess, 2011

5. 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 €).

6. 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.

7. Sample
NUMBER VALID PERCENT
GENDER
Male 12 50,0
Female 12 50,0
% DISABILITY
>33%<45% 13 54,2
>45%<65% 4 16,7
>65% 7 29,2
TYPE OF DISABILITY
Physical 8 33,3
Intellectual 10 41,7
Sensory 6 25,0
AGE
< 45 20 83,3
>45 4 16,7
TYPE OF CONTRACT
Permanent 10 41,7
Temporary 14 58,3

8. Findings from the worker’s
perspective
Net salaryƩ Hours perƩ
year
Net salary per hour Net salary per
hour
SE 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 €).

9. 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
Anual net costƩ Hours perƩ
year
Net cost per hour Net cost per hour
SE 339.121,01 € 33.072 € 10,25 € 9,85 €
EEC 30.886,48 € 33.072 € 0,93 € 0,72 €
BonusesƩ CostsƩ % Social burden % Social burden
SE 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.

10. Findings from the perspective of
society
Cost per hour society and % of Socioeconomical Returns of 24 workers
from the sample in both employment options
Anual net cost S.Ʃ Hours perƩ
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 €
Annual netƩ
wage
BonusesƩ % Returns % Returns
SE 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.

11. 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.

12. Thanks
Borja Jordán de Urríes
Instituto Universitario de Integración en la Comunidad, INICO
Universidad de Salamanca.
bjordan@usal.es
http://diarium.usal.es/bjordan/