Understanding the Costs of the DOL Welfare-to-Work Grants Program:

II. Measuring Program Costs

[Main Page of Report | Contents of Report]

Contents

1. Total WtW Program Costs
   1. How Total WtW Program Costs Were Estimated
   2. Estimates of Total Costs for WtW Programs
2. Allocating Costs to Program Components
   1. How Total Costs Were Allocated
   2. Allocation of WtW Costs to Program Components
3. Estimating Average Costs
   1. How Average Costs per Participant Were Estimated
   2. How Average Costs per Placement Were Estimated

Endnotes

The goal of our cost analysis was to develop cost measures that were consistent across all programs and that captured all of the costs of WtW interventions. Consistent information is useful for assessing the outcomes of WtW grants programs and for budgeting new programs similar to them. Measuring the cost of WtW program operations consistently involved formulating definitions, assumptions, and procedures for data collection and analysis, which influenced the estimates developed. Therefore, an understanding of these definitions, procedures, and assumptions is essential to interpreting the cost estimates correctly.

In this chapter, we describe the procedures and conventions used to conduct the WtW cost analysis. We also present the three types of cost estimates developed: (1) total costs for one year of program operations, (2) allocations of total costs across major program components, and (3) total unit costs per participant and per job placement. Chapter III explores the cross-program variation in these cost estimates.

A. Total WtW Program Costs

Our objective in estimating total costs was to measure the market value of all resources used to serve WtW participants. To do this, we (1) defined the interventions at each WtW program, (2) determined a specific time period for which costs would be analyzed, (3) identified the resources used to provide the interventions, and (4) used market prices or equivalent unit-cost estimates to determine the value of those resources. We then took, as our estimate of total WtW program costs, the sum of the values for all resources used.

1. How Total WtW Program Costs Were Estimated

Here we describe in more detail the four key steps used to estimate the total costs of WtW programs:

1. Defining WtW Interventions. We defined WtW interventions as all activities conducted and services delivered to participants directly by WtW program staff. We also included services that other agencies provided to WtW participants (as in-kind contributions, through referrals, or on a fee-for-service basis) when such services were an integral feature of the programs.
2. Establishing Cost Analysis Periods. We measured costs for a single year of program operations instead of for the duration of the WtW programs. The cost analysis year varied by program; in most cases, it ran from January 2000 to December 2000 or from July 2000 to June 2001.⁽¹⁾ These were relatively stable periods in program operations, when the programs most closely resembled ongoing ones.⁽²⁾ Aiming for as much overlap as possible in the cost analysis years for individual programs enhanced their overall comparability because they were subject to similar grant regulations and national economic conditions.
3. Identifying WtW Resources. Before collecting and analyzing cost information, we reviewed site visit summaries and other evaluation documents to learn more about the WtW programs. We refined our understanding of these programs through telephone conversations with program staff. In addition, members of the cost analysis team participated in process analysis visits to a few programs. This information helped us define the interventions and identify the types of resources used to support the programs.⁽³⁾ We then worked with program staff to obtain budget, staff utilization, and expenditure data for the cost analysis period.
4. Determining Market Value. In general, the costs recorded in the accounting systems of the WtW program operators reflected true costs. When the timing of expenditures and the utilization of resources differed, or when resources were not obtained in the open marketplace (for example, when services were donated), we made adjustments to include all resources used in actual program operations for the analysis period.

2. Estimates of Total Costs for WtW Programs

Table II.1 summarizes the total cost estimates and the estimation process. For each WtW program, the table presents the costs the program operator recorded in its accounting system and our estimates of costs incurred off-budget (outside the program's accounts). As the table shows, adjustments were limited and generally accounted for a small portion of total WtW program costs.⁽⁴⁾

Our estimates of total costs are subject to some uncertainty, as we describe below. Nevertheless, we feel that all important costs have been captured and that missing or misestimated costs are unlikely to affect the basic results of our analysis. Resources excluded from our cost estimates are generally small, affected only a small proportion of WtW participants, or both. Therefore, their absence should not substantially affect the cost estimates or analysis.

Despite the adjustments made, not all costs are captured or captured equally accurately in these estimates. Because the objectives of the accounting systems that WtW grantees or program operators maintained differed from the objectives of the cost analysis, we could not obtain data for the analysis solely from program expenditure records. In addition, the structure and definitions of accounting systems differed.

Another source of uncertainty is the inclusion of special demonstration costs. Throughout the evaluation, the WtW programs included in the cost analysis incurred extra expenses to accommodate research requirements and requests. Because we believe these costs were

Table II.1
Total Estimated Costs for One Year of Wtw Program Operations

			Costs Reported in WtW Accounts		Off-Budget Adjustments
WtW Programs	Cost Analysis Year	Total Costs	WtW Program Expenditures	Percent of Total Costs	Supportive or Other Services	Volunteered Time	Administration and Other Indirect Costs	Total Off-Budget Adjustments	Percent of Total Costs
Boston-Marriott	Nov. 99 - Oct. 00	$216,233	$204,450	95			$11,783	$11,783	5
Boston-Partners	Oct. 99 - Sep. 00	$436,673	$385,754	88		$29,625	$21,294	$50,919	12
Chicago-Maximus	Jul. 00 - Jun. 01	$1,377,100	$1,348,600	98	$28,500			$28,500	2
Chicago-E&ES	Jun. 00 - May 01	$1,867,690	$1,530,190	82	$337,500			$337,500	18
Chicago-Pyramid	Jul. 00 - Jun. 01	$711,242	$671,492	94	$39,750			$39,750	6
Chicago-Catholic Charities	Jan. 00 - Dec. 00	$1,722,558	$1,591,233	92	$131,325			$131,325	8
Chicago-Easter Seals	Jul. 00 - Jun. 01	$439,691	$406,691	92	$33,000			$33,000	8
Fort Worth-ANS	Jan. 00 - Dec. 00	$231,760	$231,760	100				$0	0
Fort Worth-WC	Jan. 00 - Dec. 00	$440,222	$440,222	100				$0	0
JHU-Florida	Jul. 00 - Jun. 01	$315,908	$271,644	86			$44,264	$44,264	14
JHU-Maryland	Jul. 00 - Jun. 01	$394,982	$284,198	72			$110,784	$110,784	28
Nashville-Pathways	Jul. 00 - Jun. 01	$1,326,515	$1,306,115	98			$20,400	$20,400	2
Philadelphia-TWC	Jan. 00 - Dec. 00	$7,757,912	$7,639,236	98	$118,676			$118,676	2
Phoenix-EARN	Jul. 00 - Jun. 01	$1,920,564	$1,878,564	98		$42,000		$42,000	2
West Virginia-HRD	Jan. 00 - Dec. 00	$1,605,214	$1,605,214	100				$0	0
Yakima-PFP	Jul. 00 - Jun. 01	$688,187	$558,303	81	$129,884			$129,884	19
Yakima-OIC	Jul. 00 - Jun. 01	$546,629	$421,232	77	$125,397			$125,397	23
Yakima-FWC	Jul. 00 - Jun. 01	$639,036	$513,399	80	$125,637			$125,637	20

relatively small, we did not separate them out from total program costs.⁽⁵⁾ Thus, our cost estimates are likely to slightly overstate the costs that future nondemonstration program operators would incur to provide similar services.

This slight overstatement of administrative costs is somewhat offset by programs' inability to recognize overhead costs fully within WtW accounts. The WtW regulations limited the amount of grant funds that could be devoted to administrative expenses to 15 percent, and many WIBs and other entities administering the grants at the local level passed on these same restrictions to their WtW contractors. Thus, indirect and overhead costs--agency administration and other costs that were not program-specific--were not always charged fully to the WtW programs. When this undercharge was evident, we adjusted our total cost estimates.⁽⁶⁾ However, such adjustments were not possible for all programs.

Finally, for analytical and practical reasons, our analysis focused on WtW-funded supportive services and excluded TANF-funded supportive services. WtW resources were expected to emphasize direct services to participants, rather than supportive ones. The BBA and WtW program regulations restricted the use of WtW grant funds to provide supportive services for participants engaged in job readiness or employment activities to situations when such services were not otherwise available. From an analytical perspective, it made sense therefore for the cost analysis to focus on the use of WtW grant (or other) funds to provide supportive services as a complementary strategy. From a practical perspective, many WtW participants received TANF-funded assistance with child care, transportation, and other supportive service needs, but such assistance was generally provided by the welfare agencies directly.⁽⁷⁾ Thus, the staff and administrators of WtW programs had limited knowledge of the assistance their customers had actually received and could not describe such services, much less estimate their value, with confidence.

[Go To Contents]

B. Allocating Costs to Program Components

The WtW grants program was not a single intervention, but rather a funding stream that supported many programs. These programs used different approaches to promote employment, job retention, and career advancement, but many had common elements, which we call program components. To help us understand the similarities and differences across the programs included in the cost analysis, we disaggregated total WtW costs into program components.

1. How Total Costs Were Allocated

We broke down total WtW costs into program administration and six other basic program components, although individual WtW programs did not necessarily include all of these components. The other components were:

• Outreach and Recruitment. All activities specifically aimed at publicizing WtW program services and generating referrals or enrollments for the programs.
• Job Readiness and Case Management. Intake, assessment, service planning, and general case management activities occurring until placement in unsubsidized employment. This component also included structured job readiness workshops and other services aimed at enhancing the overall employability and job search preparedness of WtW participants.⁽⁸⁾
• Work Experience and Other Paid Temporary Employment. All activities related to the development of temporary work assignments (such as community service, work experience, or on-the-job training), as well as the placement and supervision of WtW participants in such positions. The purpose of these activities was to enhance participants' overall employability, help them develop job-specific skills, or both. These activities often involved the payment of wages, subsidies, and taxes to or on behalf of WtW participants, either by the WtW program operator or a different organization.
• Job Development and Placement. All activities to identify unsubsidized job openings (in the private or public sector) for WtW participants and help them secure such employment.
• Postemployment Followup. All WtW activities occurring after placement in unsubsidized employment (such as retention followup and bonuses, advancement-focused counseling, and occupational skills training).
• Support Services. All support services funded by WtW or other entities that were provided as a complement to TANF-funded assistance, either before or after placement in unsubsidized employment (mainly transportation, along with some child care and other services).

Whenever possible, we collected accounting information broken down by these program components, which made these allocations straightforward.⁽⁹⁾ When such detail was unavailable, we worked with program staff and administrators to break down expenditures and allocate costs to key program components. Such allocations generally followed the allocation of staff members' time (that is, the percentages of their time spent on specific WtW activities). Program costs other than staff labor that were associated with a specific component (for example, supplies used specifically for outreach, or participant wages and taxes paid as part of work experience) were allocated to that component. While allocating costs across WtW program components in this way was an inexact process, our analysis disaggregates resource use by focusing on the most distinctive elements of the WtW programs and does not partition staff activities or functions to unnecessarily fine levels of detail. Thus, we believe that it presents a useful and reasonably accurate description of the costs of important program components.

2. Allocation of WtW Costs to Program Components

Table II.2 summarizes the allocation of total WtW costs across program components. For each WtW program, the table shows how total costs for one year of WtW operations were distributed across the components described earlier.

Table II.2.
Allocation of Total Costs Across Wtw Program Components

		Outreach/ Recruitment		Job Readiness/ Case Management		Paid Work Experience		Job Development/ Placement		Postemployment Followup		Support Services		Administration
Site/Program	Total Costs	Cost	Percent of Total	Cost	Percent of Total	Cost	Percent of Total	Cost	Percent of Total	Cost	Percent of Total	Cost	Percent of Total	Cost	Percent of Total
Boston-Marriott	$216,233	$37,001	17	$99,219	46	$0	0	$17,629	8	$38,260	18	$0	0	$24,124	11
Boston-Partners	$436,673	$50,541	12	$205,796	47	$0	0	$65,650	15	$61,066	14	$0	0	$53,620	12
Chicago-Maximus	$1,377,100	$0	0	$652,745	47	$0	0	$274,503	20	$170,203	12	$199,885	15	$79,764	6
Chicago-E&ES	$1,867,690	$0	0	$918,267	49	$0	0	$288,495	15	$211,908	11	$337,500	18	$111,521	6
Chicago-Pyramid	$711,242	$0	0	$221,759	31	$273,942	39	$68,234	10	$51,175	7	$64,170	9	$31,961	4
Chicago-Catholic Charities	$1,722,558	$0	0	$618,331	36	$564,038	33	$192,093	11	$137,210	8	$131,325	8	$79,561	5
Chicago-Easter Seals	$439,691	$0	0	$102,463	23	$180,396	41	$50,456	11	$34,900	8	$33,000	8	$38,476	9
Fort Worth-ANS	$231,760	$0	0	$134,728	58	$0	0	$7,843	3	$23,570	10	$32,427	14	$33,191	14
Fort Worth-WC	$440,222	$0	0	$217,941	50	$0	0	$70,358	16	$77,496	18	$29,475	7	$44,954	10
JHU-Florida	$315,908	$59,451	19	$0	0	$0	0	$47,386	15	$174,594	55	$0	0	$34,477	11
JHU-Maryland	$394,982	$63,829	16	$0	0	$0	0	$39,498	10	$236,160	60	$0	0	$55,495	14
Nashville-Pathways	$1,326,515	$64,687	5	$469,370	35	$164,292	12	$67,375	5	$233,172	18	$86,432	7	$241,187	18
Philadelphia-TWC	$7,757,912	$155,129	2	$1,423,558	18	$3,622,211	47	$569,288	7	$552,857	7	$118,676	2	$1,316,194	17
Phoenix-EARN	$1,920,564	$274,812	14	$395,619	21	$0	0	$234,062	12	$706,274	37	$120,806	6	$188,990	10
West Virginia-HRD	$1,605,214	$27,426	2	$344,674	21	$608,811	38	$820	0	$370,414	23	$79,107	5	$173,962	11
Yakima-PFP	$688,187	$0	0	$276,889	40	$172,124	25	$77,520	11	$58,140	8	$52,519	8	$50,996	7
Yakima-OIC	$546,629	$0	0	$224,705	41	$115,485	21	$85,638	16	$62,132	11	$22,179	4	$36,490	7
Yakima-FWC	$639,036	$0	0	$234,998	37	$237,358	37	$64,288	10	$48,216	8	$27,748	4	$26,430	4
Averages	$1,257,673	$40,715	5	$363,392	33	$329,925	16	$123,396	11	$180,430	19	$74,181	6	$145,633	10

[Go To Contents]

C. Estimating Average Costs

The decision to enroll an individual in WtW represented an offer of job readiness, employment placement, case management, supportive services, retention and advancement followup, and other assistance. Because not all participants needed or used all these services, the WtW programs did not require the capacity to provide all participants with all services. The average cost per participant describes the average value of the package of WtW services that individuals who enrolled actually received. While any individual participant's actual resource use is likely to differ from this average, this estimate provides a sound basis for comparing programs, as well as for planning interventions with goals and target populations similar to those of WtW programs.

The ultimate aim of WtW programs was to place participants in unsubsidized jobs that could make them economically self-sufficient. However, not all individuals who enrolled in WtW programs entered unsubsidized employment. Therefore, when assessing and comparing WtW programs, it is important to take into account their overall rate of success in helping participants

achieve this objective. For each WtW program, we collected information on the number of participants ever placed in unsubsidized employment during the cost analysis period and on the program's overall rate of participant placement in unsubsidized employment. We used this information to estimate average costs per participant placed in unsubsidized employment.⁽¹⁰⁾

1. How Average Costs per Participant Were Estimated

The average cost per participant is a broad measure that describes the financial commitment implicit in the decision to enroll an individual into a WtW program. To develop this measure, we had to estimate participation in the WtW programs. Participation figures also helped us describe the overall scale of program operations.

Whenever possible, participation measures were derived from the programs' management information systems (MIS), which usually collected information on each participant's enrollment and activities.⁽¹¹⁾ For each WtW program where MIS data were available, we used these data to determine (1) the number of participants enrolled or otherwise active during the cost analysis period, (2) the number of months each participant was active in the program, (3) the average duration of participation in the program, and (4) the total months of participation for all individuals served at any time during the cost analysis period. When MIS information was unavailable to conduct such analysis, we relied on paper-based administrative records, reports to DOL, and other documents to impute participation figures.

In our estimates, we used program longitudinal records to measure the length of enrollment from the time participants officially entered in the WtW program to the time they were terminated or deemed inactive. Some WtW programs had an open-door policy for participants who had been placed in unsubsidized jobs, which allowed them to return for assistance (for example, for reemployment assistance upon job loss or for skills upgrading or career advancement) for as long as the program operated. In such cases, termination dates usually were unavailable and had to be imputed based on program's stated expectations for how long the staff would follow participants' status after job placement.

For programs for which we had full information, we used two steps to compute average costs per participant. First, we estimated the unit cost for a month of participation in the WtW program by dividing total costs for the analysis period by the total months of participation for that year.⁽¹²⁾ To estimate average cost per participant, we then multiplied this cost per month by the average number of months that participants received WtW services.⁽¹³⁾

When information on total participant-months of service was unavailable from programs' MIS data, we first divided total costs for the cost analysis period by the number of total participants ever active during that year.⁽¹⁴⁾ Then, we adjusted this crude estimate of average cost per participant, to account for the fact that some of the costs of providing services to participants active during the cost analysis year would have occurred outside of this period.⁽¹⁵⁾ Table II.3 summarizes this process and presents the estimates of average cost per participant.

2. How Average Costs per Placement Were Estimated

The average cost per participant placed in unsubsidized employment describes the average level of resources a WtW program had to invest to achieve a job placement. To develop this measure of average costs, we first had to estimate placements for each WtW program included in the cost analysis.

Placement measures were also constructed using information from the programs' MIS, whenever possible. Since these systems typically recorded more than one placement for a given participant, special attention had to be paid to counting only placements in unsubsidized employment (as opposed to work experience, on-the-job training, or other temporary work assignments) and to counting individual participants who were placed in unsubsidized employment (as opposed to the number of placements). When MIS information was unavailable to conduct such analysis, we also relied on paper-based administrative records, reports to DOL, and other documents to impute these statistics.⁽¹⁶⁾

We computed average costs per participant placed in unsubsidized employment in two ways. First, we divided total costs for the analysis period by the number of individuals ever placed in unsubsidized employment during that year. As an alternative measure, we divided the estimates of average cost per participant by each program's rate of participant placement in unsubsidized employment.⁽¹⁷⁾ In most cases, both calculations produced similar estimates of the cost per placement. Table II.4 summarizes this process and presents the estimates of average cost per placement developed.

While used widely, we must note that measures of cost per placement provide only a partial picture of the success or efficiency that WtW programs achieved in helping participants secure and retain unsubsidized employment. For example, our measures do not take into account the hourly wages that WtW participants received, the total number of hours they were able to work, the amount of time they remained in such jobs, or other dimensions of the quality of such placements. Nor do they fully account for how difficult it was for the WtW program to achieve a placement because of characteristics of its target population, prevailing labor market conditions, or other reasons. Thus, these estimates must be used and interpreted with caution.

Table II.4
Placements in Unsubsidized Employment and Average Costs per Placement During the Cost Analysis Year

Site/Program Operator	Total Costs	Total Placements	Cost per Placement(a)	Placement Rate (percent)	Cost per Participant	Imputed Cost per Placement(b)
Boston-Marriott	$216,233	NA	NA	71.0	$2,308	$3,251
Boston-Partners	$436,673	NA	NA	66.0	$5,407	$8,192
Chicago-Maximus	$1,377,100	328	$4,198	78.0	$3,605	$4,622
Chicago-E&ES	$1,867,690	427	$4,374	62.2	$3,392	$5,453
Chicago-Pyramid	$711,242	79	$9,003	72.5	$5,827	$8,037
Chicago-Catholic Charities	$1,722,558	179	$9,623	39.7	$3,310	$8,339
hicago-Easter Seals	$439,691	86	$5,113	53.6	$3,086	$5,758
Forth Worth-ANS	$231,760	30	$7,725	33.0	$2,365	$7,167
Fort Worth-WC	$440,222	84	$5,241	42.0	$1,887	$4,493
JHU-Florida	$315,908	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
JHU-Maryland	$394,982	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Nashville-Pathways	$1,306,515	289	$4,521	53.3	$1,964	$3,685
Philadelphia-TWC	$7,757,912	585	$13,261	48.2	$6,641	$13,778
Phoenix-EARN	$1,920,564	298	$6,445	65.6	$4,133	$6,301
West Virginia-HRD	$1,605,214	228	$7,040	61.0	$3,771	$6,182
Yakima-PFP	$688,187	124	$5,550	73.1	$3,530	$4,829
Yakima-OIC	$546,629	46	$11,883	50.6	$4,433	$8,762
Yakima-FWC	$639,036	53	$12,057	60.9	$4,912	$8,065
Note: Estimates presented in bold are those used for the cross-program analysis in Chapter III. n.a. = not applicable; NA = not available. a Cost per placement = Total costs/placements during cost analysis period. b Cost per placement = Cost per participant/placement rate.

Endnotes

1.  Table II.1 reports the analysis periods used. As the table shows, 3 of the 18 WtW programs had cost analysis periods other than January to December 2000 or July 2000 to June 2001. In these cases, the specified time frames corresponded to WtW program operators' contract (and reporting) periods. Using these time frames made data collection easier and should not have affected the basic results of the cost analysis since there is, at most, a two-month difference from the periods specified for other programs.

2.  WtW programs went through several phases as they planned, implemented, refined, and phased out their operations. During the cost analysis period, the WtW programs were well established and operations were, for the most part, routine. Cost analysis periods also ended before programs began to close down or alter their structure to move toward more permanent long-term operational arrangements.

3.  We sought information on all sources of support for the programs, not just the WtW grant funds. For some programs, this included WtW grant funds, grants from foundations, state matching funds, and funds from other sources.

4.  Off-budget costs varied across programs due to differences in program structure and funding strategies. For example, some grantees provided in-kind contributions of office space and facilities, and in some programs participants received transportation passes or other supports from external agencies.

5.  The WtW programs participating in the national evaluation were all compensated to offset the burden of introducing customers to the national evaluation, administering baseline information forms, and other activities associated with enrolling WtW participants in a research sample. The compensation these programs received during their cost analysis periods represented, at most, one percent of total estimated costs for these same periods.

6.  In such cases, we determined the full overhead costs incurred by the programs on the basis of the contractor's audited overhead rates and accounting procedures. Then, we added in any of these costs not already included in the accounting records.

7.  Furthermore, TANF recipients did not have to participate in WtW to receive TANF-funded supportive services.

8.  Case management services were provided to WtW participants throughout their enrollment. However, the pre-employment phase of most programs involved primarily case management activities that were closely integrated with overall job readiness preparation. For this reason, we refer to this program component as "job readiness and case management." Case management services provided after job placement are included in "postemployment followup."

9.  Cost information was available with such breakdowns from 11 of the 18 WtW programs included in this analysis.

10.  From here on, we refer to "average costs per participant placed in unsubsidized employment" as "average costs per placement." The terms should be viewed as equivalent.

11.  MIS data were unavailable for WtW programs in Boston. For the WtW programs in Chicago (except Catholic Charities), the available MIS data did not cover the programs' cost analysis periods fully, and there appeared to be significant lags in data entry of participant information for some programs.

12.  The estimate of average cost per participant-month masks month-to-month variation in the actual costs of WtW programs. For example, these estimates do not indicate that WtW per-month costs could be much higher while a participant was engaged in temporary work activities that involved wage payments by the program, or that costs were generally lower during the follow-up period after placement in unsubsidized employment.

13.  Average duration is not calculated as total participant-months divided by total participants ever active during the cost analysis period. Since the spells of some participants are truncated, but none are overstated, such calculation underestimates average duration. Instead, using MIS data, we estimated the overall duration of participation for individuals active in WtW at any time during the cost analysis period; average duration is the mean value of this variable.

14.  As Table II.3 shows, we were unable to estimate total participant-months for nine programs. Also, for the WtW programs in Boston and for Maximus and Easter Seals in Chicago, average duration of participation was estimated based on discussions with program staff. For E&ES and Pyramid (also in Chicago), average duration was estimated using all available MIS participant records (not just those for participants active during the cost analysis year).

15.  Using the information for the nine programs for which we had full information, we estimated the average relationship between the total number of individuals ever active in the cost year and the total number of participant-months. We then applied this "adjustment" factor to the crude estimates of average cost per participant for the programs where we were missing information. In algebraic terms, we set (Total Costs/Total Participant Months) * Average Duration = (Total Costs/Total Participants Ever Active) * X, where X is the adjustment factor. Furthermore, we assumed that X was inversely related to average program duration (that is X = Y/Average Duration), which was available for all the programs, so that Average Cost per Participant = Total Costs * Y/(Total Participants Ever Active * Average Duration). Thus, we estimated the average value of Y across those programs with full information (Y = 11.1), and used this adjustment to impute average costs for those programs missing total participant months of service. Alternative models were tested, but the one we used achieved the best fit for the data from programs with full information.

16.  Placement rates were imputed for the WtW programs in Boston and Fort Worth, and for the WtW programs operated by Maximus and Easter Seals in Chicago.

17.  Importantly, placement rates were computed over each program's full period of operations (not just the cost analysis period), except for Philadelphia-TWC, West Virginia-CEP, and the WtW programs in Fort Worth. For the West Virginia and Fort Worth programs, we could only obtain information on placements occurring during the cost analysis period. For Philadelphia-TWC, we computed an overall placement rate for those participants ever active during the cost analysis period.

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)