Teorías de la satisfacción del contribuyente

ETA awarded each AWI grantee about $1,000,000 to fund activities and services for aging workers. This amount was spread across three years, and in some cases, multiple counties and LWIAs, making overall funding levels limited for many grantees (see Exhibit II-7). Grantees proposed funding activities at different levels, with some focused primarily on direct service staffing and others on tuition or other training costs.

Exhibit II-7:

AWI Grant Award Amounts and Service Areas by Grantee

Grantee Total Grant Number of Counties

Average Amount per

County Average Amt. per County per Year

Indiana $1,000,000 12 $83,333 $27,778

Louisiana $1,000,000 7 $142,857 $47,619

Maine $1,000,000 16 (entire state) $62,500 $20,833

Maryland $967,005 2 jurisdictions $483,503 $161,168

Michigan $979,400 7 (including Detroit metro area) $139,914 $46,638

Pennsylvania $971,000 8 $121,375 $40,458

Texas $999,949 13 (including Houston metro area) $76,919 $25,640 Vermont $1,000,000 14 (entire state) $71,429 $23,810

Washington $1,000,000 1 $1,000,000 $333,333

Wisconsin $1,000,000 13 $76,923 $25,641

In developing proposed budgets, grantees considered a variety of factors including: the availability of existing resources to support project administration, the availability of case management/career counseling/other staffed services, the expected costs of providing occupational skills training, the geographic project service area, and the size of other budget items. Grantees also considered available resources for case management and participant

training tuition, deciding whether to fund these activities using grant funds or in-kind (leveraged) resources from other programs such as WIA or SCSEP.

In aggregate, grantees proposed to spend the majority of AWI funds on case management and training (see Exhibit II-8). On average, training and case management accounted for 36 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Administration costs averaged 22 percent, while outreach and marketing averaged a combined total of 7 percent of grant funds.

Exhibit II-8:

Proposed Average Budgeted Costs by Activity

35% 36% 2% 22% 5% Case Management Training

Outreach and Marketing Administration Costs Other

Note: Because Vermont does not separate administrator salaries from case manager salaries, this chart excludes Vermont from these averages.

Due to the limited available funding across three years and large geographic areas, grantees made trade-offs in proposing to fund different activities. In particular, they had to decide how much of their grant they would use to fund case management/staffed services and how much they would use for participant training. Six grantees proposed to use the majority of their grant funding to pay for case management/staffed services (see Exhibit II.9). These sites planned to leverage resources to pay for training through WIA or other programs available at American Job Centers. The other four grantees proposed to use the majority of their grant funding to pay for participant tuition or other training costs. These sites generally planned to leverage existing resources for the case management/staffed services available through education and training institutions or American Job Centers. In their proposed budgets, grantees allocated funds among case management, participant training, outreach and marketing, administrative costs, and other costs such as travel and computer equipment. These allocations are presented in Exhibit II-8 and discussed in detail below.

Exhibit II-9:

Proposed Percent of Budget by Activity by Project Case

Management Training

Outreach and

Marketing Administra-tion Costs Other Tecumseh Area

Partnership, Inc. (IN) 37% 32% 0% 29% 2%

Quad Area Community

Action Agency (LA) 61% 7% 0% 15% 17%

Coastal Counties

Workforce, Inc. (ME) 37% 27% 8% 24% 4%

Baltimore County Division of Workforce Development (MD) 40% 26% 1% 26% 6% Macomb/St. Clair Workforce Development Board (MI) 70% 22% 0% 8% 0%

South Central Workforce

Development Board (PA) 2% 64% 6% 27% 2%

Goodwill Industries of Houston, Inc. (TX) 19% 32% 1% 36% 12% Vermont Associates Training and Development, Inc. (VT) 5%1 29% 1% 61%1 4% Seattle-King County Workforce Development Council (WA) 33% 44% 0% 19% 4%

Fox Valley Workforce

Development Board (WI) 12% 74% 0% 13% 1%

1

The Vermont proposal budget did not separate salary and fringe benefits for case managers from administrative staff, thus this amount was included in administrative costs. These costs would otherwise be categorized as case management costs.

Case Management

Grantees proposed to fund case managers and services at varying levels, ranging from about 2 percent of AWI grant funds to 70 percent, with an average of about 35 percent. Five grantees (those in Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, and Michigan) budgeted roughly 40 percent or more of their AWI funds for case management. Michigan’s proposed budget allocated almost 70 percent of its grant to case management services, assuming that it could fund participant training with WIA dollars. Pennsylvania, conversely, budgeted 2 percent on case management, expecting that it would use case management services available at the American Job Centers at no cost to the project.

Training

The budgeting of funds for participant training varied among grantees nearly as much as did the budgeting of funds for case management. This budget category included tuition, curriculum development, and training supplies (such as textbooks). Three grantees (those in Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin) allocated over 40 percent of their funding to training in their proposed budgets. The project in Wisconsin budgeted almost 75 percent of its AWI funds for participant training.

Outreach and Marketing

Five grantees (those in Maine, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Vermont) earmarked funds for outreach and marketing. On average, grantees budgeted 2 percent of their funds for this category. Maine budgeted almost 8 percent of its AWI funds for employer outreach to use these funds to educate employers about the benefits of hiring aging workers and the strategies for retaining them. These grantees and others planned to use partner and other agency funds for additional marketing and outreach materials at no cost to the grant.

Administration Costs

Grantees proposed to fund AWI project managers, administrators, and data specialists at varying FTE levels. In addition to carrying out their administrative duties, some project managers also provided direct services to participants. In Texas, the grantee proposed to fund a full-time AWI project manager and portions of the salaries of a vice president of workforce development, a director of program services, a grant administrator, and an accountant. Including other indirect costs, administration costs in Texas were budgeted for 36 percent of AWI grant funds. On average, grantees budgeted 22 percent of AWI grants for these types of expenditures. While Vermont appears to have spent the greatest proportion of their grant funds on administration cost (61 percent), however, some of the expenditures reported in administration costs should be included under case management. In their proposed budget, they did not separate salary and fringe benefits for case managers from administrative staff. As a result, their administration costs are inflated.

Other

Office supplies, travel, and independent evaluator fees were included in budgeted costs for the “other” category. In Louisiana, “other” costs were budgeted for rent, utilities, telephones, insurance, copiers, and van usage. On average, grantees funded “other” activities at 5 percent.