2. Project Advance completed the process of identifying referrals for the research sample in September 1989, and Teen Progress in March 1990, but both States continued program operations and intake in order to maintain the demonstration program environment. Analysis of referrals and intake completion in this paper excludes cases that in final sample reconciliation were determined to have been incorrectly referred to the demonstration, as well as cases referred to the continuing demonstration program after the identification of the research sample was completed.
3. Limited information is available on how many teenage parents were not referred to the demonstration because they fell outside demonstration eligibility criteria. Available data for the New Jersey sites suggest that referrals might have been 10-20 percent higher if teenage parents with a prior AFDC history or more than one child had been included.
4. Virtually all of these participants would have qualified for exemption based on the age of their children at the time the participants enrolled in the demonstration; 80 percent of participants' children were less than one year old at enrollment in Camden and Chicago, and 67 percent in Newark.
5. The intake session was used to collect detailed baseline information and conduct basic skills testing on all sample members, and then to divide intake participants randomly into program and control groups. Program group members were then given appointments for their first program activity, in most instances a group workshop.
6. These procedures were thus, in fact, only partially automated; computer records did not contain detailed enough data to support definite identification of teenage parents eligible for the demonstration, so manual review of computer listings was still necessary.
7. Although JOBS program requirements apply to young parents with children, other special programs for teenage parents may be available to teenagers receiving AFDC based on pregnancy in states that extend such assistance, or to pregnant teenage minors in their parents' AFDC cases.
8. Data from the Chicago case tracking system indicate that 75 percent of all referred teenage parents completed intake after receiving only one call-in notice, but there is some indication that information on the use of sanction warning notices entered to this system was incomplete. Earlier staff estimates indicated that only about half of all those called in attended their first appointment.
9. In the New Jersey programs, clients who failed to respond to the first call-in notice were sent a second call-in notice, followed if necessary by a "case conference" appointment letter. If the client did not respond to this sequence of notices, the case was referred to the IM worker for imposition of a sanction. In Chicago, clients were sent just two call-in notices before the case was referred to the IM worker for sanction.