Evaluation of the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy and the Skills and Partnership Fund

Program relevance

The evaluation findings demonstrate that ASETS and SPF are relevant. They are meeting the priorities of the Government of Canada, and there continues to be a demonstrable need for labour market programming for Aboriginal Canadians. The evidence indicates that both programs are working towards achieving their intended outcomes.

Partnership and engagement

Formal and informal labour market development partnerships were being established with training institutions and private and public sector employers. Evidence also demonstrated the likelihood that these partnerships are sustainable in the long term, once the funding agreement ends:

• It is estimated that 3,500 (2,350 ASETS; 1,150 SPF) partnerships were created.
• Overall, 71% of the partners were employers in either the private (40%) or public (31%) sectors.
• The majority of partnerships that were created could be characterized as formal in nature. Formal partnerships with employers were more likely to result in a worker being retained after the funding period ends.
• A majority of AAHs expected that their partnerships would continue. A greater number of ASETS partners (90%) than SPF partners (80%) were of the belief that the partnership with their AAH would continue.

While much work has been undertaken to develop partnerships, challenges remain. Staff turnover appears to be an ongoing problem, overburdening existing Aboriginal Agreement Holder (AAH) staff and managers due to a lack of internal resource capacity. In addition, the time-consuming nature of engagement at times affected the AAH’s ability to establish and maintain partnerships.

Demand-driven labour market programming

In an effort to address the gap in sustainable economic development identified in the previous evaluation (2009) of the Aboriginal Human Resource Development Strategy (AHRDS), one of the strategic priorities of ASETS was to ensure that skills development was demand-driven. The evaluation demonstrated that AAHs are taking a demand-driven approach and aligning their labour market programming with the labour market demands of their region:

• Approximately eighty-one percent of employer partners stated that working with AAHs reflected a demand-driven approach to meeting skills development needs in their industry, province or area.
• Ninety-two percent of partners felt that the program that was introduced in the workplace by the AAH was demand-driven.
• Sixty-one percent of employer partners indicated that AAHs had targeted training to their particular occupational skills needs.

While in-demand occupations have been targeted, AAHs continue to face a number of challenges including: a lack of economic opportunities in remote communities; the volatile nature of the natural resources sector; low educational attainment and/or essential skills of the target population; and poor employer perceptions regarding the hiring of Aboriginal peoples. In addition, while employers and training institutions worked with AAHs to find local demand-driven employment opportunities and training options, the lack of accurate and up-to-date local labour market information impacted their ability to accurately forecast in-demand employment opportunities.

ASETS participant outcomes

The outcome analysis measured the difference in the average annual labour market outcomes of ASETS participants in the five years preceding the start of program participation and outcomes in the year following their program start year. Results from this outcome analysis should be interpreted with caution as they pertain to a relatively short period following the start of participation. Bearing this in mind, the evidence demonstrated that:

• There was a 17 percentage point gain (+$1,621) in participant’s average annual employment earnings.
• The incidence of employment increased by 5 percentage points between both periods.
• The proportion of participants in receipt of EI benefits increased by 3 percentage points while the average annual amount of EI benefits collected increased by 37 percentage points (+$266), which implies an improved attachment to the labour market after program participation.
• Participants also had small increases in their use of SA benefits.

ASETS/SPF incremental impacts

In an effort to calibrate the level of effort of the evaluation, evaluators summarized and used the results of the previous AHRDS and Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership Program (ASEP) evaluations. These results serve as viable proxies for ASETS and SPF respectively, as both AHRDS and ASEP were very similar in relation to the types of core programs and services that they provided to Aboriginal clients. Results from the incremental impact analysis demonstrated that overall, both AHRDS and ASEP were effective at increasing the employment earnings of participants and also had positive impacts on the incidence of employment of participants. Based on these observations, it is expected that ASETS and SPF would produce similar impacts.

Recommendations

The Evaluation Directorate proposes the following recommendations which should be considered by ESDC in advancing the relevance and outcomes of ASETS and the SPF:

Recommendation #1: The Evaluation Directorate recommends that ESDC puts measures in place to encourage the adoption of formal agreements between Aboriginal Agreement Holders and employer partners, where appropriate and possible.

Recommendation #2: The Evaluation Directorate recommends that ESDC should develop strategies with Aboriginal Agreement Holders to strengthen the establishment and maintenance of partnerships, including addressing the capacity issues (training and guidance from national headquarters) faced by Aboriginal Agreement Holders, and dealing with poor perceptions amongst employers in the context of hiring Aboriginal people.

Recommendation #3: The Evaluation Directorate recommends that ESDC develop strategies to address expected outcomes where Aboriginal Agreement Holders serve remote communities. Remoteness issues to be addressed include, but are not limited to, the scarcity of economic opportunities and industries, and sector volatility.

Recommendation #4: The Evaluation Directorate recommends that ESDC should continue to ensure that continuous training is offered to Aboriginal Agreement Holders in the area of data collection and case management.

Recommendation #5: The Evaluation Directorate recommends that ESDC should continue to streamline data collection processes for Aboriginal Agreement Holders, including the adoption of consistent and common data reporting requirements, and avoid reporting overlap and duplication where feasible.

Recommendation #6: ESDC should develop a strategy for strengthening Aboriginal Agreement Holders access to timely labour market information to support their service delivery.

Recommendation #1

The Evaluation Directorate recommends that ESDC puts measures in place to encourage the adoption of formal agreements between Aboriginal Agreement Holders and employer partners, where appropriate and possible.

Recommendation #2

The Evaluation Directorate recommends that ESDC should develop strategies with Aboriginal Agreement Holders to strengthen the establishment and maintenance of partnerships, including addressing the capacity issues (training and guidance from national headquarters) faced by Aboriginal Agreement Holders, and dealing with poor perceptions amongst employers in the context of hiring Aboriginal people.

Recommendation #3

The Evaluation Directorate recommends that ESDC develop strategies to address expected outcomes where Aboriginal Agreement Holders serve remote communities. Remoteness issues to be addressed include, but are not limited to, the scarcity of economic opportunities and industries, and sector volatility.

Recommendation #4

The Evaluation Directorate recommends that ESDC should continue to ensure that continuous training is offered to Aboriginal Agreement Holders in the area of data collection and case management.

Recommendation #5

The Evaluation Directorate recommends that ESDC should continue to streamline data collection processes for Aboriginal Agreement Holders, including the adoption of consistent and common data reporting requirements, and avoid reporting overlap and duplication where feasible.

Recommendation #6

ESDC should develop a strategy for strengthening Aboriginal Agreement Holders access to timely labour market information to support their service delivery.

Labour market programming

One of the objectives of ASETS/SPF was for AAHs to align their programs with the labour market demands in their region. This was considered a key pillar of these programs, demonstrating that a fundamental shift to a more demand-driven model has taken root. Approximately 81% of employers stated that working with AAHs reflected a demand-driven approach to meeting skills development needs in their industry, province or area. In addition, 92% of overall partners surveyed (95% of SPF partners and 89% of ASETS partners) were of the view that the workplace programs introduced by the AAH through their involvement were demand-driven. This includes 96% of all employer partners.

The evaluation found that AAHs are targeting their training programs or services to the types of occupational skills needed by employers or industry. For instance, 61% of employers surveyed indicated that their partnerships with AAHs had resulted in training that had been targeted to the employer’s particular occupational skill needs. In addition, all SPF and ASETS/SPF agreement co-holders, as well as the majority of ASETS agreement holders indicated that training and skills development were tied directly to available in-demand occupations. When programs were implemented, 72% of employer partners indicated that they met all or most of their skill needs. Almost all partners noted an increase in the partnerships’ effectiveness, such as job creation/employment of Aboriginal people, and the provision of training, when the partnership is targeted to the partner organization’s and/or industry’s needs.

While much work has been undertaken to target occupations in demand, AAHs continue to face the following employment challenges:

• There are fewer economic opportunities or a narrow array of industries to support employment in isolated or remote communities. In some instances, there may be just a single sector to target near a community and oftentimes, Aboriginals were reluctant to leave their communities for employment opportunities. In Nunavut, for example, the lack of diversification of the economy, as well as the lack of mining sites in proximity of reserves constitute major barriers to building partnerships, training programs and employment.
• Economic downturns, the seasonal nature of the work, market fluctuations or dealing with volatile sectors such as oil, gas, and mining can impact on employment commitments, with employers hesitant to commit to long-term, permanent employment.
• Low educational attainment of the target population relative to the need by some employers for highly-skilled workers (engineers, for example) can make it difficult to match individuals to occupations that are in-demand. The development of such highly-skilled workers is often outside the realm of the training support provided by ASETS and SPF.
• Lack of accurate and up-to-date local labour market information makes it difficult to accurately forecast in-demand employment opportunities.
• The short timeframe available to set up the agreements, mobilize their office and begin the programming was also cited by a few SPF agreement holders as hindering their ability to adequately start and maintain a project.
• Clients with multiple barriers to employment, including a lack of essential skills (life and foundational skills) required culturally appropriate holistic approaches and services, including pre-employment training (literacy, safety, interview guidance, etc.). Addressing these barriers often require multiple interventions delivered over an extended period.
• Poor employer perceptions, including discrimination, misinformation, cultural misunderstandings, and other related workplace issues specifically in the context of hiring Aboriginal peoples still persist among some employers. According to agreement holders, employers can be unwilling to commit to providing work experience to clients if they are unfamiliar with the qualifications of First Nations people and/or have negative perceptions as to their suitability as workers. Such perceptions can be difficult to overcome, as some employers may be reluctant to become informed.

Employer engagement

Securing the participation of employers is a critical step to increasing Aboriginal peoples’ participation in demand-driven skills development programming. Success is demonstrated through employer support and by the proportion of employers participating in the program that are linked to current labour market demands and/or skills shortages.

The evaluation evidence found that private and public sector employers and training institutions are aware and engaged in the development of labour market programs and services by AAHs. Seventy-one percent of partners overall, are aware of programs and services developed by AAHs, with public (77%) rather than private (61%) sector employers being more aware of the programs and services being developed. Of the 71% of partners who reported being aware of the programs and services developed by the AAHs, the majority (51%) reported being engaged by the AAHs in their development. Early engagement of partners in the design of a project, program or service is important as it allows partners to significantly shape the structure, goals and activities of the project, thereby creating buy-in and allowing partners to link these projects to their particular occupational needs or requirements. Of those partners who reported engaging AAHs in the design and development of labour market programs or services, almost half stated these programs or services had been introduced in the workplace. The implementation of a program or service is more likely for ASETS partners (61%) compared to SPF partners (40%). It was also more likely to be the case with public sector employers (65%) than with private sector employers (29%).

The following are the most common ways in which partners were engaged:

• Employers and to a lesser extent training institutions:
  • Worked together with AAHs to develop or modify existing training curricula or delivery mechanisms.
  • Assisted with research and labour market information to identify local demand-driven employment opportunities and training options.
• Employers provided feedback on required soft skills and essential skills, and AAHs responded by concentrating on and developing programs and services to support these skills.

In cases where partners were not engaged in the development of labour market programs and services, it was because they had pre-established training programs in place; wanted specifically-qualified individuals to employ; or didn’t want to participate in the administration of training.

Financial and in-kind contributions leveraged from partners created effective partnerships that lead to job creation/employment of Aboriginal people and the provision of training. In fact, surveyed employer partners who made an in-kind or a financial contribution were more likely to retain a greater number of workers after funding ended, when compared to employers who did not make a contribution. In addition, AAHs believed they strengthened their partnerships by ensuring partners were invested in the program or project (in fact, the leveraging of cash or in-kind contributions is a mandatory requirement of SPF partnerships). Most employer partners supported this view, indicating that it increased the effectiveness of the partnership with the AAH.

Key findings on financial and in-kind contributions as reported by surveyed project partners are as follows:

• Forty-four percent of employer partners contributed financially towards their AAH partnership (48% ASETS and 37% SPF) while 49% of employer partners provided in-kind contributions (48% ASETS and 50% SPF).
• The average financial contribution was $41K ASETS and $129K SPF and the average value of in-kind contribution was estimated at $41K ASETS and $102K SPF. In-kind contributions identified by surveyed partners included: volunteer time, including administration, providing input, training, hosting meetings, etc. (52% of respondents); absorbing the costs for inputs such as a trainer, counsellor, travel costs, wages, etc. (28%); the provision of office space, training facility, etc. (21%); and the provision of equipment (19%).
• Public sector employers (56%) were more likely to provide a financial contribution than private sector employers (42%). Similarly public sector employers (68%) were more likely to provide an in-kind contribution than private sector employers (34%).
• Overall, surveyed partners who indicated having a written agreement with AAHs were far more likely to report that they had made a cash contribution (52.1%), when compared to those partners who indicated having no written agreement in place (18.3%).

One of the objectives of developing partnerships as a result of the funding agreements was long-term sustainability, after the funding period ended. A majority of AAHs interviewed were of the view that their partnerships would continue. This was also true of 90% the partners surveyed. A greater number of ASETS partners (96%) than SPF partners (80%) expected that the partnership with their AAH would continue.

While much work has been undertaken by AAHs to develop partnerships, challenges remain. The majority of key informants cited capacity issues, both in terms of time and resources, as hindrances to the development and maintaining of partnerships with employers. For instance, agreement holders noted that creating and supporting partnerships required ongoing time and effort, and involved continual communication, marketing, and monitoring which, combined with staff turnover, was overburdening AAH staff and managers. Informants noted that it takes time to build trust with potential employer partners, citing challenges to partnership commitments including: labour market fluctuations that change employee requirements; poor perceptions of Aboriginal workers due to past experiences or preconceived stereotypes; and previous poor relationships with First Nation communities/tribal councils. These issues were also identified as a constraint to the success of the Aboriginal Skills and Training Strategic Investment Fund ^{Footnote 3} (ASTSIF).

Labour market development partnerships

A key activity was the establishment of active labour market development partnerships with public and private sector employers and training institutions. AAHs focused on responding to labour market opportunities by providing clients with the necessary skills and/or meeting current labour market needs. Partnerships were designed to help improve capacity, diversify the funding base for the delivery of ASETS programs and contribute to the ongoing sustainability of the program.

AAHs established partnerships with employers and training institutions. It is estimated that 3,500 (2,350 ASETS; 1,150 SPF) formal and informal partnerships were created. As no previous calculations of the number of partners created with the assistance ASETS/SPF or AHRDS/ASEP funding exist for benchmarking purposes, this estimate may serve as a point of reference for future evaluations. Overall, 71% of the partners were employers in either the private (40%) or public (31%) sectors. SPF (76%) had more employer partners than ASETS (67%). Private sector employers comprised national, regional and local or community-owned companies. About one-third of the private sector employers were in the natural resources sector, including mining, quarrying, oil and gas extraction, agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting. An additional third were from the construction, and accommodation and food services sectors. Remaining sectors included health care and social assistance, arts, entertainment and recreation, etc.

The majority of partnerships that were created could be characterized as formal in nature. Formal partnerships have written agreements in place that define the purpose of the partnership, as well as the expected roles and responsibilities, and expected outcomes. Informal partnerships are collaborations that seek to work towards compatible goals which are not governed by official written agreements. The ESDC summative evaluation of the ASEP program, released in 2013, recognized the importance of written commitments between partners and AAHs. Overall, the majority of ASETS and SPF partnerships were formal in nature in that they had written agreements. In cases where financial support was provided by AAHs to assist employer partners hire Aboriginal workers, formal partnerships between AAHs and employers were more likely to result in a greater number of workers being retained after funding ended, when compared to informal partnerships. Evaluation evidence confirmed that having formal partnerships is a best-practice.

In some cases, informal agreements with partners were favoured as they reduce delays stemming from board/band council approval processes and requirements to seek legal counsel; for their flexible nature regarding commitments (i.e. uncertainties from employers surrounding the timing and quantity of employment opportunities); and from the perspective of smaller communities, the perception that informal agreements convey greater trust between parties.

The evaluation evidence, as presented in this report, illustrates other elements of effective partnerships such as:

• Early and frequent communication and engagement between parties.
• Successful partnership development is a long-term undertaking. It can take time to build relationships, trust between parties, and establish buy-in.
• Mutually beneficial partnerships are based on collaboration and follow through to ensure results and success.

ASETS is similar to the Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs) and other ESDC Aboriginal Labour Market programming such as ASEP, ASTSIF and SPF. Evidence from LMDA evaluations demonstrated that programming is complementary to the extent an Aboriginal client can be assisted by more than one source related to different aspects of their return-to-work-action plan. ASETS was also found to be complementary to ASEP and ASTSIF because each program provided specialized program delivery. Case management processes were in place between AHRDS/ASETS and ASEP to avoid overlap. A good portion of ASETS AAHs who are aware of provincial Labour Market Agreements (LMAs), tend to collaborate and make use of LMA funding for research, hosting conferences and to provide joint training. A key factor positively influencing collaborations was close proximity to provincial and territorial LMA service points. In contrast, a majority of SPF AAHs noted that they do not work with provincial LMAs. Those who reported not collaborating with LMAs cited the following reasons, including: the lack of inclusion of ASETS in provincial strategies; the perceived lack of opportunity to provide input or become involved in the LMAs; and friction resulting from the duplication of services, leading to a competition for clients.

Finally, the majority of AAHs interviewed believed that their partnerships were effective. Similarly, 91% of employer and educational partners surveyed also viewed their involvement with ASETS and SPF AAHs as effective.

Participant profile

The participant profile analysis is based on all individuals who started participation in ASETS or SPF between April 2010 and July 2013. This represents 67,568 ASETS participants and 3,303 SPF participants. Appendix 1 presents a more detailed breakdown of the socio-demographic characteristics of ASETS and SPF participants per principal EBSM. In summary, the profile of the socio-demographic characteristics of participants illustrates that the majority of ASETS and SPF clients were members of a First Nation, Metis or Inuit community. More males than females participated overall (SPF at 63% and ASETS at 53%). Just over half of all clients were 30 years of age or under. Sixty-eight point five percent of ASETS clients were EI non-claimants, 21.6% former EI claimants and 9.9% were active EI claimants. Comparatively, 66.5% of SPF clients were non-claimants, 22.5% former claimants and 11% active claimants. Within the last five years prior to participating in either an ASETS or SPF intervention, just over half have taken part in an intervention from the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy (AHRDS) ^{Footnote 4} and over one third have participated in an intervention under a provincial/territorial Labour Market Development Agreement (LMDA) ^{Footnote 5} .

Cost-benefit

As was demonstrated in Section 4.3, the AHRDS evaluation can serve as a proxy for the ASETS cost-effectiveness analysis. The AHRDS evaluation found that EAS and TWS interventions for active EI claimants, EAS for former EI claimants and EAS for non-claimants had the best cost-benefit ratio. Table 2 below describes the ratio of the cost to the department for each dollar earned by the clients. The lower the number in the table, the lower the cost is to the Department, hence the greater the cost-benefit ratio.

Source: AHRDS Summative Evaluation Report, 2009.

The ASEP evaluation was used as the proxy for SPF. The benefit of participating in ASEP measured over the four year period totaled $3,120 (refer to the following Table 3). In comparison, the total average cost of delivering ASEP was $16,484 per participant from the social perspective and $9,705 per participant from the governmental perspective ^{Footnote 7} . The costs and benefits of ASEP, a project-based program, were also compared to those of AHRDS, a broad-based program. From a social perspective, participating in ASEP leads to greater employment earnings compared to participating in AHRDS (incremental benefit of $2,833). However, ASEP cost $10,102 (incremental cost) more per participant to deliver than AHRDS. Therefore, from a social perspective, the incremental cost to deliver ASEP compared to AHRDS was $7,269 greater than the incremental benefit. But from a government perspective, the incremental or additional cost ($3,323) of delivering ASEP compared to AHRDS was slightly more ($490) than the incremental or additional benefit ($2,833).

Source: ASEP Summative Evaluation Report, 2013.

Participant cost analysis: Comparisons to previous evaluation results

A simple cost analysis, based on ESDC contributions, was undertaken to calculate the average participant cost and average cost per employed client. The AHRDS evaluation findings served as the most appropriate comparison for ASETS. The average cost per client for ASETS was $5,836 in 2011-2012 and $6,231 in 2012-2013, or $6,122 over both years, which is slightly greater than AHRDS participants at $5.9K (see Table 4). These higher costs may be in part explained by the increased effort and costs associated with the demand-driven approach to labour market programming under ASETS. Also, an inflationary rate of 2% per year may also account for some of the increased costs.

The ASEP and the Aboriginal Skills and Training Strategic Investment Fund (ASTSIF) evaluation findings served as the most appropriate comparison for SPF. The average cost per client for the government under SPF at $9,469 (refer to Table 5) compared favourably at 5% less than ASEP at $10K and 8% more than ASTSIF at $8.7K.

¹ In this case, clients are defined as ASETS participants with new or ongoing action plans in a given fiscal year.

A rigorous analysis of the cost per participant employed will be possible when evaluators are able to measure the employment of clients over a longer time period following the end of participation using taxation records. In the interim, to obtain limited indications of what the cost per participant employed would be, the evaluators produced rough estimates based on the most recent participants’ outcome results reported by the AAHs in the ESDC Standard Datafile (SDF) and total program expenditures for the fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

As demonstrated in the following Table 6, a total of 48,014 ASETS clients with new or ongoing action plans were recorded in the database in 2011-2012 and 45,380 ASETS clients with new or ongoing action plans were recorded in the database in 2012-2013. ^{Footnote 8} / ^{Footnote 9} Of these, a total of 42.3% (n=39,470) found employment/self-employment or returned to school. Considering that the ASETS program costs for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 totalled $589M, for all individuals who successfully became employed/self-employed or returned to school, the evaluation estimates the ASETS costs to be $14.7K per successful client. It should be noted that these costs are likely overestimated, given that a significant portion of ASETS clients in both 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 (21%) were still enrolled in the program at the time the evaluation was conducted (assigned as “pending outcome” in Table 6). In addition, an average of 8% of ASETS clients in both years could not be reached, leaving their post-program outcomes unknown.

¹“Pending outcome” indicates that the outcome was not assigned by a case worker. Likely individuals who are still participating or who recently completed their participation.

In the case of SPF (refer to Table 7 below), it is too early to develop an estimate of the costs per successful SPF client, as too many were either still participating in the program (assigned as “pending outcome” in Table 7) at the time the evaluation was conducted (46%), or could not be reached (5%). The large number of clients still participating in SPF programming is not surprising given that the evaluation was limited to conducting a one year post-program outcome analysis. In the case of SPF, the majority of employment results were not expected until at least 2014 (with almost half not expected until after 2015). Future evaluators will be in a better position to examine ASETS/SPF outcomes and net impacts when additional post-program administrative data and CRA data becomes available in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.

¹ “Pending outcome” indicates that the outcome was not assigned by a case worker. Likely individuals who are still participating or who recently completed their participation.

Demand-driven labour market programming

As suggested by the evidence, AAHs are taking a demand-driven approach and aligning their labour market programming with the labour market demands of their region. Overall, employers felt AAH efforts to target occupations reflected a demand-driven approach. Skills programming for occupations in demand in the labour market was developed. Overall, training programs or services targeted partner organization or industry occupation skill needs. While much effort has been made in targeting occupations in demand, a number of challenges were identified. These included the scarcity of economic opportunities or industries in remote communities, volatility within the natural resources sector, low educational attainment and/or essential skills of the target population and lack of labour market information.

Participant outcomes

A higher proportion of ASETS participants were employed in the year following the program start year (64%) compared to average annual proportion employed in the five years before participation (5 percentage points). As well, on average, ASETS participants earned $1,621 more from employment in the year following the program start year ($11,079) than before participation ($9,458). These results provide early indications that an increased proportion of ASETS participants were able to find employment following their participation and those who found work were able to improve their earnings by either working more hours or having a better paying job. The outcome analysis also showed that participants had higher use of EI and SA, as well as a higher level of dependence on income support in the year following the program start year compared to the years prior to program participation. However, the increased proportion on EI benefits implies an improved attachment to the labour market after program participation.

Program data requirements and collection

Overall, the administrative data supporting the outcomes analysis was generally of good quality. The technical nature of data requirements and case management systems in the context of AAH capacity issues (e.g. staff turnover) as well as the reporting requirements of ESDC and other departments are straining AAH abilities to meet their obligations.

Average cost

Using the most recent participant Action Plan result outcome indicator reported by AAHs in the Standard Data File, the cost analysis revealed that the average cost allocated per client for ASETS was $6,122 and for SPF $9,469. With 42.3% of ASETS clients experiencing positive post-program outcomes as of 2012-2013 (including employment/self-employment or returning to school), the average estimated costs allocated per successful ASETS client was $14.7K. It should be noted that the latter cost is likely overestimated, as the evaluation was limited to conducting a one year post-program analysis. As a result, the outcomes of upwards of 21% of ASETS clients have yet to be determined as they were still enrolled in the program at the time of the evaluation. In the case of SPF, it is too early to develop an estimate of the costs per successful SPF client as many (46%) were still participating in the program at the time the evaluation was conducted.