ROI Comparison
Providence Partners vs. Internal Recruiting Team
Compare fully loaded internal recruiting costs against the Providence Partners recruiting model.
Annual Cost Comparison
Internal Recruiting Team
- TA Leader Salary$
- Coordinator Salary$
- Specialist Recruiter Salary$
- Benefits + Payroll Burden$
- Recruiting Technology$
- Job Boards / Employer Branding$
- Agency Overflow Fees$
- Expected Severance / Reduction Cost$
- Expected Rebuild Cost$
- Vacancy-Cost Impact$
- Total Internal Annual Cost $
- Internal Cost Per Hire $
Providence Partners
- Annual Base / Retainer$
- Variable Per-Hire Fees$
- Year 1 Implementation$
- Vacancy-Cost Impact$
- Providence Year 1 Total $
- Providence Ongoing Annual Cost $
- Providence Cost Per Hire $
Value Proposition & Break-Even
Year 1 Savings vs. Internal: $
Ongoing Annual Savings vs. Internal: $
Ongoing Savings Percentage: %
Break-Even Providence Annual Base Fee: $
Providence Fee Headroom: $
Required Specialist Recruiters:
Estimated Idle Payroll Exposure: $
Hiring Volume Scenarios
| Annual Hires | Internal Cost | Providence Ongoing | Savings / Premium | Savings % | Internal Cost/Hire | Providence Cost/Hire | Required Specialist FTEs |
|---|
Why the Internal Salary Comparison Is Incomplete
Minimum viable internal team: Even before adding specialists, the client carries a Recruiting Leader and Coordinator/Assistant as fixed headcount.
Specialization gap: A two-person team may not cover every functional market. Experienced specialist recruiters can solve part of the problem, but create additional fixed FTE costs.
Cycle risk: When hiring slows, corporations may reduce recruiting headcount, creating severance, disruption, lost institutional knowledge, and rebuilding costs when hiring resumes.
Capacity economics: Internal recruiting is purchased in whole FTEs. Providence can provide access to recruiting capability and specialization without the same permanent-headcount commitment.