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


1.  Project Advance continued to enroll teenage parents in the program at a reduced level after intake for the demonstration evaluation sample ended in September 1989.  Program participants who enrolled after that time were not included in the demonstration evaluation. 

2.  Costs associated with conducting intake included administering baseline questionnaires and basic skills tests to teenage parents who ended up being assigned to the control group. As a result, program costs are slightly overstated.

3.  In cases where reported expenditures over time correspond to contract terms, workshop costs are included under program-paid site costs as site service contracts.  In those instances where actual expenditures do not clearly match reported contract terms over any defined period, the estimated cost of services provided is included as an in-kind cost, as explained in the following section.

4.  Some data on support service payments obtained from the Illinois Department of Public Aid did not allow us to distinguish payments made to program participants.  As a result, our estimate of Chicago support service costs is likely to somewhat understate total costs.

5.  For example, workshop cost estimates were calculated based on the estimated total number of hours that an agency staff person spent preparing for and conducting workshops at the demonstration site, the staff's approximate salary, and the applicable overhead rate for the provider agency.

6.  The Camden JTPA agency actually reported an estimate of $2,500 per-trainee, exclusive of administrative overhead.  Since that agency applied an overhead rate of 47.8 percent to the salary of a JTPA job counselor provided to the demonstration, we used the same overhead increment to adjust the unit cost estimate for training services.

7.  Using the average cost per person served in JTPA job training assumes that demonstration participants consumed the same amount of training program resources as the general population served by JTPA programs.  It is possible, of course, that teenage participants may have been more or less likely to drop out of programs they started than other trainees.  However, since most training programs have fixed class schedules that do not allow trainees who drop out beyond the initial stages of a program to be replaced, even dropouts can be assumed to be consuming a "program slot" regardless of the actual duration of their training participation.  Overall average cost per JTPA training participant is therefore a reasonable basis for estimating costs for demonstration participants.

8.  These rates were also used to calculate the in-kind costs for GED/ABE classes taught at the Project Advance site (provided by one of the city community colleges) and for any educational courses provided as part of the New Jersey programs that were not program-paid and reported in the demonstration accounts.  We did not pursue separate unit cost estimates of education services in New Jersey because costs for almost all GED/ABE classes in the New Jersey sites were program-paid and included in the demonstration accounting reports and only a limited number of New Jersey participants were in post-secondary education in fiscal year 1989.  Using the Chicago community college rate to calculate the small amount of implicit educational costs in New Jersey introduces little error in our estimates.  Only 17 Camden participants were reported as active at any time in postsecondary education in FY 1989.  In Newark, only four participants were in post-secondary education in FY 1989, and the approximations of college cost rates received from the local Essex County College were roughly consistent with the cost estimates from Chicago.