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


1.  In Illinois, women in the third trimester of pregnancy can receive AFDC, so the demonstration-eligible population also included pregnant teenagers with no custodial child.

2.  Program group members could receive services directly provided and funded by the demonstration -- such as case management, child care and transportation payments, and program-provided workshops -- only while they were on AFDC.  However, certain services that they obtained through the demonstration (for example, JTPA-funded job training) could be continued and completed after they left AFDC, assuming that they still met the provider agency's eligibility criteria.  In periods when program group members were not receiving AFDC, they could obtain some of these services on their own, as could control group members.

3.  This comprehensive approach has been used in numerous earlier cost studies of employment training programs for disadvantaged populations, such as Kemper and Long (1980) and Handwerger and Thornton (1988).

4.  Based on telephone conversations with representatives of the New Jersey and Illinois Departments of Education, May 7, 1991.

5.  For the Chicago site, it was also necessary to obtain data on support payments from general IDPA computer files, because most support payments for Project Advance participants were made through regular agency payment systems rather than through special demonstration payment procedures.