Costs of Mandatory Education and Training Programs for Teenage Parents on Welfare: Lessons from the Teenage Parent Demonstration. Endnotes

07/12/1993

1.  As described in the previous chapter, site resource costs include both program-paid costs and estimates of the costs of in-kind services, but exclude central management costs.

2.  The numbers of participants who received AFDC in FY 1989 are lower than the overall number of participants in the demonstration programs for two reasons.  First, some participants who had enrolled in the demonstration before FY 1989 were no longer receiving AFDC by July 1988 (the start of the fiscal year).  Second, additional sample members were enrolled in fiscal years 1990 and 1991.

3.  The allocation of the line-item costs in Table IV.1 to program service components is presented in detail in Appendix A.

4.  Central management costs, the difference between total program costs and site costs, were excluded from the calculations of unit measures.

5.  As noted earlier, of course, participants could obtain services similar to some of those provided by the demonstration during periods when they were off AFDC.  The extent of such activity cannot be determined from the demonstration program data, and the cost of those non-demonstration services is not included in this analysis.  Estimates of non-demonstration service costs will be based on follow-up survey data and will be included in the benefit-cost study.

6.  Support service payments were allocated entirely to major activities, although child care and other transportation payments were made during periods when participants were not in major activities (e.g., to attend program workshops).

7.  For example, cost per participant-year, in 1993 dollars, was $5,709 for Project Redirection and $2,425 for the Teenage Parent Demonstration (based on the Gross Domestic Product implicit price deflator).

8.  This difference may be due in part to the fact that the MFSP sites achieved considerably higher rates of participation in education and training than did the Teenage Parent Demonstration sites.  In the year studied for the MFSP cost analysis, sample members were active in education or training for 53 percent of the months they were enrolled.  In the Teenage Parent demonstration in the cost study year, participants were reported active in education, training, or employment for 34 percent of the months in which they were on AFDC and thus eligible for demonstration services.

9.  These programs included the Virginia, Baltimore, and Maine WIN demonstrations, the San Diego Saturation Work Incentive Model, and the San Jose-based Center for Employment Training (one of the sites also included in the Minority Female Single Parent Demonstration).