Cost-effectiveness of supported employment.

Monetary costs and benefits of supported employment to individuals, taxpayers, and society were assessed as was the cost-effectiveness of the nonmonetary benefit, namely, quality of life of employees, as a result of supported employment. Participants were 20 individuals from two Central Illinois agencies serving clients with developmental disabilities. Costs and effects were evaluated using benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analyses. Supported employment was found to be cost-beneficial from the perspectives of the supported employee, the taxpayer, and society over a 5-year period as programs move from sheltered employment. In addition, supported employment was also more cost-effective with regard to quality of life than was sheltered employment.

Benefits and costs of supported employment: an analysis of the Illinois Supported Employment Project.

This investigation presents a cost-benefit analysis completed for one of 27 states implementing supported employment as a result of federal funding. Based upon the benefits and costs detailed, society realized a $0.75 return for every $1.00 invested in supported employment in Illinois. Supported employees realized a 37% increase in their earnings over a comparable period. The results of this study are discussed and recommendations are made for similar analyses across states.

Methodological nuances and pitfalls of benefit-cost analysis: a critique.

The recent paper by Hill, Banks, Handrich, Wehman, Hill, and Shafer, entitled "Benefit-Cost Analysis of Supported Competitive Employment for Persons with Mental Retardation" was critiqued. Concerns were of three types: logic, omission, and imprecision. Logically, Hill et al. incorrectly interchanged the concepts of cost-benefit ratio and net benefits; defined the taxpayer's perspective inconsistently; and appeared to double-adjust for inflation. Omissions included taxpayers' cost of paying benefits to workers from the regular labor force who were displaced by workers from the Hill et al. project; and certain costs and benefits when an individual changed from a minimally productive day program to an employment program. Finally, many cost and benefit estimates appeared to be extremely coarse, and to err in the direction of favoring benefits over costs. Most critically, Hill et al. reported their figures as absolutely true, when it would have been preferable to present a range of feasible cost and benefit estimates to test the sensitivity of their reported net benefit to reasonable variations in the values of its components. The ranges suggested by the present authors generally supported the conclusions of Hill et al., but reduced the certainty that taxpayers would benefit from their program.