TEENAGE PARENT DEMONSTRATION

Report on Costs of Education and Training Programs, Chapter II

CHAPTER II:
DEMONSTRATION SERVICES AND RESOURCES

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER

1. Introduction
2. Case Management
3. Workshops
4. Education
5. Job Training
6. Support Services
7. Job Placement

INTRODUCTION

The three Teenage Parent Demonstration programs had a common mandate to develop comprehensive services for teenage parents.  All three sites developed their programs in keeping with the demonstration guidelines set forth in the grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  However, sites had latitude in defining the specific services they offered, finding resources to deliver services in their local communities, and developing staff resources of their own to deliver some services.  They identified services that would be provided directly by demonstration staff, and defined the specific staff positions, organizational structure, and roles these staff would play.  They determined which services would have to be sought from other sources in their communities, developed relationships with these other agencies, and reached formal or informal agreements concerning referral of demonstration participants, the nature of services they would receive, and in some instances the terms of payment for these services. 

The demonstration provided six types of services to participants:  case management, workshops, education, job training, support services, and job placement assistance.⁽¹⁾  Below we describe each of these services and identify the staff and other resources used to deliver them (see Table II.1).⁽²⁾

NOTE:  This table does not distinguish between services provided on-site versus at other locations, or those provided on a contractual basis versus for free.  See Chapter III for details on location of and payments for demonstration services. 

N.A.  means that the program did not offer this service. 

^a  GED means General Educational Development; ABE means Adult Basic Education; and ESL means English as a Second Language. 

CASE MANAGEMENT

Although the exact responsibilities of case managers varied across sites depending on the other specialized positions included in the program staff, the basic functions of the case managers were to:

1. Perform initial and ongoing assessment of participants and help them plan their program activities,
2. Provide personal support and motivation,
3. Coordinate the delivery of services and serve as advocates to help participants gain access to services,
4. Enforce participation requirements, and
5. Maintain case records.

1. Initial and Ongoing Assessment and Planning.  When teenage parents had completed their intake session, they were assigned to a case manager who conducted an assessment interview and worked with the participant to develop a self-sufficiency plan for full-time program activity.⁽³⁾  The case manager was then responsible for ongoing monitoring, reassessment, and redirection of participants' program activities as needed.  This process occurred when the participant entered the program, and was repeated as necessary during the course of the participant's involvement in the program. 
2. Personal Support and Motivation.  One of the largest challenges case managers faced was helping participants overcome the personal, family and community pressures that could undermine meaningful participation.  Case managers had to strengthen participants' faith in the possibility of building a better life, and help them develop some measure of confidence and self-esteem.  Case managers tried to provide encouragement and sympathy, but also clear and consistent expectations. 
3. Service Coordination and Advocacy.  An important concern of the case managers was ensuring that participants gained access to needed services.  Case managers had to keep track of the availability of desirable education and training courses and program workshops, and fit together plans which made optimal use of available resources and participants' time.  Often they had to intercede on behalf of clients with other agencies, schools, or training providers. 
4. Enforcing Participation Requirements.  Case managers -- or other staff in the case management unit -- enforced the requirement that eligible teenage parents participate in the program, including requirements for attendance at the initial intake session and regular attendance at later workshops, education or training courses, or a job.  Case managers, with support from clerical staff, monitored attendance at on-site activities as well as at public school and other off-site education and training courses.  When participants failed to attend as required, case managers sent warning notices to them, held conferences with them to identify and resolve problems that might be interfering with attendance, and in many cases eventually arranged for imposition of grant-reduction sanctions by income maintenance staff if the participant failed to comply. 
5. Maintaining Case Records.  The program staff at the demonstration sites used a combination of computerized and manual systems to maintain records concerning assessment and self-sufficiency plans, program activity and status, case notes, attendance, and payment issuance.  These systems were also used to issue notices of scheduled workshops, warnings of sanction action for failure to attend program activities, other notices, and management reports.  Case managers also maintained written case narratives. 

Case managers were the core staff for providing these services.  For most of the demonstration period there were five case managers in Camden, five in Newark, and nine or ten in Chicago.  In addition, the demonstration staff included project managers, supervisors, and clerical and data entry support staff, some of whose time was devoted to case management functions. 

WORKSHOPS

Two general types of workshops were offered:  initial workshops and ongoing workshops.  Each new participant was required to attend a series of initial workshops, which ranged in length from just three days in Chicago to four to five weeks in Camden and several months in Newark.  The workshops covered topics that program staff judged to be important for all new program participants:

• Motivation and self-esteem,
• The world of work,
• Life skills,
• Family planning and parenting,
• Health and nutrition,
• Child support and child support enforcement,
• AIDS and drug/substance abuse, and
• Personal grooming.⁽⁴⁾ 

The sites also offered some "ongoing" workshops for active participants who had completed the initial workshops and may have already been involved in other program activities.  These workshops were for selected participants in particular circumstances.  The Newark site ran a special parenting workshop intended to provide intensive help for participants deemed at high risk of neglecting or abusing their children.  All three sites conducted pre-employment workshops or job clubs for participants preparing to enter the labor market for permanent full-time or part-time jobs or summer employment.  The Chicago site offered a three-session workshop for participants who were about to enroll or reenroll in high school or other education, or who were having difficulty in school, to help them strengthen their study skills and work habits.  The Chicago program also conducted workshops for active participants on home and life management skills. 

Workshops were led by both in-house program staff and outside experts.  In Chicago, case managers were responsible for all of the initial workshops offered over a three-day period after intake, but staff from other organizations such as the Department of Employment Security, the Sexual Assault Alliance, the University of Illinois Extension Service, and a local medical center contributed staff for ongoing workshops.  At the New Jersey sites, selected case managers devoted a portion of their time to leading some initial workshops, but most initial and all ongoing workshops were led by staff from other organizations.  In some instances these outside staff were provided by the organizations under contract for specified fees, and in others staff time was donated.  Staff who participated in leading workshops in the New Jersey sites were from organizations like the county extension services, Planned Parenthood, the State Department of Personnel, the local child support enforcement offices, a local medical center, and a local non-profit organization devoted to promoting self-esteem and good grooming. 

EDUCATION

Many demonstration participants attended some type of educational program.  For example, roughly 40 to 45 percent of the participants reported in their baseline interviews that they were in school at the time; most of these were in high school, and many continued attending high school.  Many participants attended other forms of education at the demonstration site or were referred to courses at other schools.  These included GED preparation, Adult Basic Education (ABE), and English as a Second Language (ESL) courses.  Some participants attended two-year community college programs or four-year colleges.

All three sites provided education courses at their own locations for at least some period of the demonstration.  Arrangements were made with other agencies -- a local community college, local school district, or county Department of Personnel -- for their instructors to teach ABE and GED classes.

JOB TRAINING

Occupational skill training was suitable for some of the older teenage parents in the demonstration.  Job training was provided entirely by other agencies at locations apart from the demonstration site.  Although some participants entered job training on their own, most were referred by the demonstration staff to JTPA-funded providers for job training.⁽⁵⁾ 

SUPPORT SERVICES

The demonstration helped participating teenage parents deal with the two most pressing practical problems that could interfere with their involvement in the program -- finding and paying for child care, and paying for transportation to and from their program activities.

Child care services included helping participants find providers, inspecting and approving providers' physical facilities, providing child care directly, and paying providers for their services.  In both New Jersey sites, a child care counselor was part of the case management staff.  This counselor helped participants understand the merits of alternative types of child care, identified available providers if participants had not already chosen one, and visited and inspected providers chosen by participants.  The counselor also served as a liaison to providers for resolving questions about invoices and payment.  In Chicago, case managers helped participants identify suitable child care if they did not have care already arranged.

In all three sites, demonstration staff were involved in approving payments to child care providers.  Providers sent invoices to the demonstration office, where either case managers or support staff reviewed the invoices, checked the invoices against participants' attendance at program activities, and authorized payments.  Authorizations were then sent to the appropriate county or State fiscal office, which issued payments according to established rates based on the type of provider and the age of the child.

Child care was also provided to a limited extent directly by the demonstration programs.  In Newark, the demonstration paid an individual private provider to care for participants' children in an on-site child care room while the participants attended classroom activities or workshops at the site, or met with their case managers.  In Chicago, for at least part of the demonstration, work-experience participants from Illinois's adult work-welfare program, Project Chance, were paid to staff a child care room.

The demonstration also helped participants by paying expenses for transportation to and from program activities at the demonstration office as well as at other education and training locations.  In all sites, participants were paid a weekly amount to cover bus fare; in the New Jersey sites all participants received the same amount, but in Chicago amounts were established based on each participants' actual commute to program activities.  The Chicago program also distributed free bus tokens purchased from the Chicago Transit Authority.

JOB PLACEMENT

Demonstration participants sought employment at various stages of their involvement with Teen Progress and Project Advance.  Some older participants entered the labor market soon after they entered the demonstration program.  Others began their job search after a period in an education activity or in job training.  Some participants found summer employment, often through the JTPA summer youth employment program.

All three sites provided job search and job placement assistance.  Staff stationed at the demonstration offices -- in some instances demonstration staff and in others JTPA staff out-stationed at the demonstration site -- helped to identify appropriate job openings and set up interviews, and arranged job fairs with local employers at the demonstration offices.

[End of Chapter II]

Go to Chapter III:  APPROACH TO MEASURING RESOURCE COSTS

ENDNOTES

1.  Demonstration services are described in detail in other evaluation reports, including Hershey and Nagatoshi (1989) on general program implementation, Hershey (1991c) on identifying and enrolling teenage parents, Hershey (1991b) on program workshops, Hershey (1991a) on case management, and Hershey and Rangarajan (1993) on education and employment services.  [Back to text]

2.  In identifying the resources used to deliver services, we distinguish between demonstration "program staff" and other staff.  Demonstration staff were those who worked at the demonstration offices in positions specified in the States' grant applications.  Grant funds were also used to cover the costs of some other staff from other organizations, as described in this chapter, by means of contracts for services.  [Back to text]

3.  The demonstration guidelines established a goal of 30 hours of participation per week.  [Back to text]

4.  Although not all of these topics were the basis for a distinct workshop in all sites, most of these topics were covered in some way in the initial workshops of all the sites.  [Back to text]

5.  While some participants who arranged their own job training obtained it through the JTPA agency, a few others were attending proprietary schools at their own expense.  For the purpose of the cost analysis, who paid for the training is of no consequence, since we are estimating the overall resource cost rather than only program expenditures.  [Back to text]

Where to?

[ Top | Table of Contents | Cover Page | Acknowledgments | Endnotes | References for this report | References and Other Reports  ]

[ Teenage Parent Demonstration:  Home Page | Timeline | ASPE Home Page | DHHS Home Page ]