Krystal OSCost per outcome is the total cost of running a program, including staff time, divided by the number of outcomes it produced. A program that spent $120,000 and produced 300 outcomes has a cost per outcome of $400. The number is only as good as two things: whether spend includes people, and whether outcomes are real changes rather than attendance.
The formula
Total program spend for the period, divided by outcomes achieved in the same period. Keep the period consistent: a year of spend against a year of outcomes. Mixing periods is the most common way to produce a number that means nothing.
What belongs in spend
- Staff time delivered to the program, at loaded cost, not just direct supplies.
- Direct costs: materials, transport, stipends, venue.
- A fair share of shared costs if you allocate overhead to programs. State the method and keep it the same each year.
What counts as an outcome
An outcome is a change for a participant that the program set out to produce: a certification earned, a reading level gained, a placement secured, a housing outcome reached. Sessions attended is an output, and dividing spend by attendance gives you cost per session, which is a different and less useful number.
Why the number is worth having
Cost per outcome is the figure a board can compare across programs, a funder can compare across grantees, and you can compare across years. It is also the figure that justifies a renewal at a higher amount: if the program produced 87 certifications on $189,400, the case for funding a second cohort writes itself.
How Krystal does it
Because staff hours and spend attach to the funding line that pays for a program, and outcomes are recorded on participants against that program, Krystal divides one by the other continuously. Cost per outcome appears on the dashboard as a computed value, in violet, and it is one of the figures Krystal AI pulls into the funder report.
Is a lower cost per outcome always better?
No. A cheaper outcome that does not last is not a better one. Use the number to compare like with like and to explain changes over time, not as a single score.
Should we include volunteer time?
Show it separately. Including it in spend hides how much the program depends on volunteers; leaving it out entirely understates the real effort.
What if a program has several kinds of outcomes?
Report cost per outcome for the primary one the funder is paying for, and list the others as additional results. Averaging unlike outcomes produces a number nobody can interpret.