90 00888

  

I UCATION

    

PC87-4-6-SOR

   
   
    

Pregnant and Parenting Minors
and California Schools

Helen H. Cagampang, William H. Gerritz,
and Gerald C. Hayward

April 1987 (revised April 1989)

hwaw €32? Garrafiamm

Directors f
James W. Guthrie ‘
University of California ‘émz? z u»;- Lillii‘iiigf’gifi

Berkeley

Michael W. Kirst
Stanlord University

 

 

PC87-4-6-SOR

Pregnant and Parenting Minors
and California Schools

Helen H. Cagampang, William H. Gerritz,
and Gerald C. Hayward

April 1987 (revised April 1989)

Helen H. Cagampang is an associate policy analyst with PACE.
William H. Gerritz is an associate policy analyst with PACE.

Gerald C. Hayward is senior visiting lecturer in education at the University of California,
Berkeley and director of the Sacramento PACE Center.

This paper was sponsored and published by Policy Analysis for California Education,
PACE. PACE is funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and directed jointly
by James W. Guthrie and Michael W. Kirst. The analyses and conclusions in this paper
are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Hewlett Foundation.

The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful criticisms and assistance
of the following individuals: Kim Connor and Kathryn Duke of the
Senate Office of Research; Gwendolyn Doebbert, Kathy Hicks, and
Mitch Dishero of the State Department of Health; Vicki Warner of
Enterprises Management and Development (EMD), Inc. and Jacob
Adams, Joshua Hirschstein, Linda Humphrey, and Darren Wong of
PACE.

Additional copies of this paper, PC87-4-6-SOR, are available by sending $4.00 per
copy, plus sales tax (7%) and handling ($1.50, 1-2 copies, $4.50, 6-10 copies) to:

PACE
School of Education
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720

CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

PC87—4-6-SOR
Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)
Berkeley, California
April 1987 (Revised April 1989)

11'

 

 

 

SENATE (HWHCE (H: RESEARCH

Elisabeth K. Kersten, Director

January 8, 1990

T0: The Honorable Members of the California State
Legislature and Other Interested Parties

Dear Members:

The attached report is a revised version of the report
entitled Preqnant and Parentinq Minors and California Schools
prepared for the Senate Office of Research by Policy Analysis
for California Education (PACE) in April 1987. In their
updated report, PACE significantly revised the original
estimates describing the number of pregnant and parenting
adolescents in California.

The purpose of the study was threefold--to determine the
number of pregnant and parenting teens in California, to
assess using a survey methodology how many teens were served
by school district programs and to develop projections of the
number of pregnant and parenting teenagers in future years.

The revised study utilizes 1985 birth and program cost data
and presents the following findings:

0 California had 51,700 teenage mothers and 20,000 pregnant
teenagers-—a total of 71,700 pregnant and parenting
teenagers in 1985. (Teenagers are defined as 18 years or
younger.)

0 Approximately 18,500 pregnant and parenting teenagers were
served by school district programs (only 25.8 percent of
the eligible population), leaving an estimated 53,200
teenagers unserved in 1985. School district programs
typically offer specialized educational classes, child
care/development services and other support services for
pregnant and parenting teenagers so they can complete high
school.

L 1100 J STREET 0 SUITE 650 0 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 0 (916) 445-1727

 

__J

m «
”u E"
. «Q»

 

—2_

o The cost to "close the gap" in services to pregnant and
parenting teenagers and their children ranges from
approximately $358 to $574 million per year. These costs
include comprehensive programs for all eligible students
from the time of pregnancy through graduation.

o In terms of future projections, the PACE report projects
that by 1992 California will have 74,400 pregnant and
parenting teenagers, a 3.8 percent increase from 1985.

Although the estimates of pregnant and parenting teenagers in
this revised report are significantly lower than the original
study, the findings demonstrate that California has a
significant and persistent problem with teenage pregnancy and

that current school district services are not sufficient to
meet the identified need.

In addition, to the data presented by the revised report,
PACE has developed some new data describing the number of
pregnant and parenting teenagers for 1988 which is not
reflected in their revised study. These data provide
estimates of the number of infants and children of teenage
mothers and the number of pregnant and parenting teenagers

age 19 years and younger. Related cost data have also been
developed for 1988.

For more information about the revised PACE study or newly

available 1988 data developed by PACE, please call Kim Connor
at 445-1727.

Sincerely,
ELISABETH KERSTEN

EKKC:dt
Attachment

 

 

“a” )0; #0r
A by my,

              

 

u v 1. v
L " .. V\ 1 ‘ ~
_ .m ‘ y
A
x
-3
i

3
g: , 3 ‘. {1
J .. m -.

           

Executive Summary

This survey and analysis is part of a larger study, A Study to Determine How to Organize
and Expand Public School Programs to Reduce Dropout Rates for High Risk Students:
Pregnant and Parenting Adolescents, undertaken by the California Senate Office of Research
and funded in part by the National Conference of State Legislators and the United States Office
of Educational Research and Improvement The Senate Office of Research contracted with
Policy Analysis for California Education to examine existing secondary sources such as
available records of the California State Department of Education and the California State
Department of Health; to conduct a mail survey of junior and senior high schools to estimate
the numbers of pregnant minors, adolescent mothers, and associated dropout rates; to conduct
a telephone survey of unified and high school districts to identify existing programs, describe
existing delivery systems, and solicit suggestions for program improvement; and to assess
implementation costs of a comprehensive program.

Highlights of our findings include:
Program Types

Sixty-one percent of students enrolled in pregnant minor and teen mother programs are
enrolled in classroom-oriented programs operated in either a comprehensive high school, a
continuation high school, or at a dedicated site. Of these, over 80 percent are served in
continuation schools or at dedicated sites.

The second most prevalent program type, pull-out programs, includes about 30 percent of
the students, mainstreams students into academic classes, and provides a special class or
classes for one or more periods per day. In these classes, which are generally housed in
comprehensive or continuation high schools, pregnant students or students with children
normally attend classes with regular students for all but one or two periods per day.

Educational Services

Virtually all respondents reported that their programs included academic instruction,
consumer education, nutrition education, child development education, child abuse prevention
education, and family planning information. A lesser, but still substantial number of programs
(over 80 percent) reported providing vocational or employment training and alcohol and drug

abuse prevention information. Slightly more than half of the programs include education for
fathers/boy friends.

Health Services

Health services were also provided in most programs with free breakfasts and/or lunches

being provided to program participants in four of five programs. Nutrition supplements were
made available to students participating in three of every four programs. In slightly over half
of the programs students receive prenatal medical care or medical care for the newborn.

Counseling

Four in five programs offered counseling with a credentialed counselor and home visits as
part of their program. Support groups were a feature of 72 percent of the programs. Adoption
counseling, peer counseling, and family-based counseling were services provided in about half
of the programs.

Transportation

A little over one-half of the programs provided transportation to and from school but only
about one in six had outreach programs designed to identify eligible but unserved students.

Child Care

In programs serving teenage mothers, respondents reported that 71 percent of the programs
offered child care services to all the students enrolled. Another 13 percent reported that
although child care was offered for some students, not all students could be served. Finally,
16 percent of those responding reported no provision for child care in their programs.

Time in Programs _

Fifty-nine percent of students stayed in programs for less than one year and over a third
remained less than six months. In contrast, only 11 percent of students remained in programs
for more than two years. These figures are particularly significant in light of the high
proportion of teenage mothers who are 16 years of age or younger and who will require at least
two years to complete high school.

Participation by Age

Over two-thirds of enrolled students are between the ages of 15 and 17. One student in
eight is age 14 years or younger, and 17 percent of students are age 18 or older.

Participation by Ethnicity

Asians constitute 1.9 percent of teen mothers and represent eight percent of pregnant
minor/teen mother (PM/I'M) program enrollment. Black teens account for 15 percent of births
to girls younger than age 20 and represent 24 percent of enrollment in PM/TM programs.
Hispanics account for 42.3 percent of births to females under age 20 and represent 42 percent
of enrollment in PM/T M programs. Whites account for 37.1 percent of live births to females
less than 20 years of age and represent 21 percent of enrollment in PM programs.

iv

Participants by Academic Level

One-third of students were at least one year behind grade level. One student in five was

enrolled in college preparatory courses. Only one student in eight was believed likely to
graduate from high school on time.

Program Obstacles

Respondents repeatedly listed high levels of student absenteeism, inadequate transportation
between home and school, and insuflicient child care as the three greatest program obstacles.
Absenteeism was also linked to insufi‘icient room for child care and too few child care hours.

Fewer than one student in five had adequate child care provided by PM/TM programs. Toddler
care was rarely available.

Suggested Improvements

Enhanced provision for child care and additional support for transportation services head
the list of suggested improvements. Expanded on-site counseling and health services were
also frequently mentioned as critical needs.

Live Births

For all age groups, except 14- to 15-year-olds, rates have decreased dramatically since
1970. The only exception is for the very youngest, 10- to 14—year-olds, where the rate
increased slowly but continuously. In 1985 approximately 51,700 school-age mothers will
live in California. That number is projected to grow to approximately 53,400 by 1992. Even
though age-specific birth rates are declining for those age 16 and above, schools should
anticipate an increasing demand for teen mother programs.

Unmet Need

Birth rates are increasing for 14- and lS—year-olds, those who have the longest period of
time before graduation.

The long decline in student population is coming to an end, and the baby boomlet is now
moving into junior high school.

In 1985—86, pregnant minor and teen mother programs enrolled only 25.8 percent of the
estimated population of 71,700 pregnant minors and teen mothers in California.

Just to maintain the current level of services, California will need 800 more "slots" by 1992
to accommodate its youngest mothers’ increasing birth rate and larger cohorts.

Additional services for 55,900 students would be required if all students were to receive
services.

Costs by Component

Child Care is by far the largest cost component of a comprehensive program, representing
on average about 70 percent of the total cost of the program. Child care costs are extremely
variable, and there is no statewide standard cost for child development programs. Some
exemplary programs are expensive, while some low-cost programs are exemplary. The
average child development program stafi‘ed by credentialled personnel costs $4,000 per child,
per school year. Programs operated by school districts are somewhat more expensive
(averaging about $5,000 per child per school year) while those operated by private, non-profit
agencies tend to be less expensive.

Program managers estimated that the student service component of a comprehensive
program would typically cost $1,000 to $2,000 per student per year.

Transportation costs are typically the smallest portion of the three cost centers of a
comprehensive program. They are, like child care and support services, highly variable. The
variation is primarily dependent on the area and type of transportation available. In an urban
area with plentiful public transportation, the costs of portal~to-portal transportation may be less
than $150 per year; in rural or suburban areas with limited transportation, the costs may be
much higher, approaching four to five times that amount Somewhere between $500 to $750
appears to be a reasonable estimate, although some respondents noted that if infants were
involved, the cost of liability insurance in their areas would become prohibitive.

Aggregate Cost Estimates

Given the degree of program variability, an average cost figure masks the variation in
program costs and comprehensiveness. We estimate a cost range of from $5,000 to $8,000
per student per year, within which most districts would be able to offer a comprehensive
program.

Between $358 million to $574 million dollars per year would be needed In I 985 to provide
comprehensive programs for all eligible students (including those served by SAPID and PM
programs) from time of pregnancy to graduation.

vi

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................... 111

Policy Analysis for California Education ....................................................... xi

Introduction ......................................................................................... 1
SECTION 1

Current California Programs
for Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers

S urve y ............................................................................................... 2
Survey Methodology .............................................................................. 2
Reliability of Survey Results ..................................................................... 3
Survey Results ..................................................................................... 4
Program Organization ......................................................................... 4
Program Services .............................................................................. 5
Enrollment Patterns ........................................................................... 6
Student Characteristics ........................................................................ 6
Obstacles to Existing Programs and Suggested Improvements .......................... 7
SECTION 2
Determining Unmet Need
Methodology ....................................................................................... 9
Estimating the Cumulative Population of Teen Mothers .................................. 9
Linked Live Births ............................................................................ 9
Adjustments for Birth Order ................................................................ 10
Cumulative Population of Teen Mothers ................... _ .................................... 10
Unmet Need ....................................................................................... 11
Current Patterns of Live Birth Rates ............................................................ 12
Projected Patterns of Teen Parenting ........................................................... 14
SECTION 3

Projecting Program Costs

Methodology ...................................................................................... 17
Program Cost Centers ............................................................................ 19

Child Care ..................................................................................... 19

Support Services ............................................................................. 20

Transportation ................................................................................ 20
State Costs of Comprehensive Programs ...................................................... 21

SECTION 4
Summary Of Findings

Program Types .................................................................................... 23
Educational Services .............................................................................. 23
Health Services .................................................................................... 23
Counseling ......................................................................................... 23
Transportation ..................................................................................... 24
Child Care ......................................................................................... 24
Time in Programs ................................................................................. 24
Participation by Age .............................................................................. 24
Participation by Ethnicity ........................................................................ 24
Participants by Academic Level ................................................................. 24
Program Obstacles ................................................................................ 25
Suggested Improvements ........................................................................ 25
Live Births ......................................................................................... 25
Unmet Need ....................................................................................... 25
Costs by Component ............................................................................. 25
Aggregate Cost Estimates ........................................................................ 26

List of Tables
TABLE 1: Percent of Students Enrolled in California Programs for Pregnant
Minors and Teenage Mothers: Distribution by Program Type,
1985-86 School Year .......................................................... 27

TABLE 2: Services Provided by California Programs for Pregnant Minors and
Teenage Mothers, 1985-86 School Year .................................... 28

TABLE 3: Length of Time Students Remain in California Programs for Pregnant
Minors and Teenage Mothers, 1985-86 School Year ...................... 29

TABLE 4: Enrollment Sizes of California Programs for Pregnant Minors and
Teenage Mothers, 1985-86 School Year .................................... 3O

viii

TABLE 5: Estimated Percent of Students Enrolled in California Programs for

Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers, Distribution by Age,
1985-86 School Year .......................................................... 31

TABLE 6: Percent of Students Enrolled in California Programs for Pregnant

Minors and Teenage Mothers, Distribution by Ethnicity, 1985-86
School Year ..................................................................... 32

TABLE 7: Academic Backgrounds of Students Enrolled in California Programs
for Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers, 1985-86 School Year ...... 33

TABLE 8: Responses to the Question: What Obstacles Interfere With Your

P ro g ra m ? ........................................................................ 34

TABLE 9: Responses to the Question: If You Had Resources to Expand Your
Program, What Services Would You Improve or Add? ................... 35
Appendix A ................................................................................... 36

ix

Policy Analysis for California Education

Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE, is a university-based research center
focusing on issues of state educational policy and practice. PACE is located in the Schools of
Education at the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University. It is funded by the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and directed jointly by James W. Guthrie and Michael
W. Kirst. PACE operates satellite centers in Sacramento and Southern California. These are
directed by Gerald C. Hayward (Sacramento) and Allan R. Odden (University of Southern
Cali omia).

PACE efforts center on five tasks: (1) collecting and distributing objective information
about the conditions of education in California, (2) analyzing state educational policy issues and
the policy environment, (3) evaluating school reforms and state educational practices, (4)
providing technical support to policy makers, and (5) facilitating discussion of educational
issues.

The PACE research agenda is developed in consultation with public officials and staff. In
this way, PACE endeavors to address policy issues of immediate concern and to fill the short-
term needs of decision makers for information and analysis.

PACE publications include Policy Papers, which report research findings, the Policy

Forum, which presents views of notable individuals; and Update, an annotated list of all PACE
papers completed and in progress.

Advisory Board

Mario Camara Sharon Schuster
Partner Executive Vice President
Cox, Castle & Nicholson American Association of University Women
Robert Maynard Eugene Webb
Editor and President Professor, Graduate School of Business
The Oakland Tribune Stanford University
A. Alan Post Aaron Wildavsky
California Legislative Analyst, Professor of Political Science
Retired University of California, Berkeley

xi

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Pregnant and Parenting Minors and
California Schools

Report of Survey Results

Introduction

This survey and analysis is part of a larger study, A Study to Determine How to
Organize and Expand Public School Programs to Reduce Dropout Rates for High Risk
Students: Pregnant and Parenting Adolescents, undertaken by the California Senate Office
of Research and funded in part by the National Conference of State Legislators and the
United States Office of Educational Research and Improvement. The Senate Office of
Research contracted with Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) to examine
existing secondary sources such as available records of the California State Department of
Education and the California State Department of Health; to conduct a mail survey of junior
and senior high schools to estimate the numbers of pregnant minors, adolescent mothers,
and associated dropout rates; to conduct a telephone survey of unified and high school
districts to identify existing programs, describe existing delivery systems, and solicit
suggestions for program improvement; and to assess implementation costs of a
comprehensive program.

The report is organized in four sections. Section one reports results from a
comprehensive survey of program managers in comprehensive California programs for
pregnant and parenting teens. Section two projects unmet need. Section three analyzes
currently available cost information and projects statewide costs. Section four summarizes
findings.

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Section 1
Current California Programs
for Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers

Survey

During December 1986 and January 1987, telephone interviews were conducted with
three of every five head teachers or program managers in California’s pregnant minor and
teenage mother programs that were identified through a survey (described below) of all
school districts. The interviews covered five general topics:

- Program organization

- Program services

. Enrollment patterns

0 Student characteristics

0 Obstacles to existing programs and suggested program improvements

This section contains an explanation of the survey methodology followed by descriptive
results of the survey.

Survey Methodology

Although a partial list of pregnant minor and teenage mother programs was made
available to PACE, it became clear that the existing listing, although a substantial
improvement over prior efforts, was incomplete. In addition, sampling problems were
compounded by the fact that programs were housed in a wide variety of educational and
social service institutions with no uniformity in program nomenclature. As a consequence,
PACE modified the original survey design and employed a two—step sampling procedure
that used a mail survey to locate programs and establish a more comprehensive listing.
PACE then followed up with telephone interviews among a large and representative sample
to determine program characteristics.

In October 1986, a questionnaire was mailed to each of the state’s 1,028 school
districts and 58 county offices of education. The questionnaire requested information about
the existence of pregnant minor and teenage mother programs. By December 15, 1986,
763 questionnaires had been returned, a return rate of 67 percent. More significantly, the
return rate for high school and unified school districts exceeded 90 percent, and since the
vast bulk of schools offering services to this population reside in unified and high school
districts, this high response rate enabled us to establish a comprehensive list of existing

2

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

programs. In addition, to ensure that we had not missed substantial numbers of programs,
PACE called a sample of nonrespondents to further assure that the list was indeed
comprehensive. We were unable to identify any additional programs by this technique,
further assuring us that the list from which we were working was comprehensive. A
complete list of programs in the state was created by matching returned questionnaires
against a list of programs identified by E.M.D., Inc.

The questionnaire responses enabled PACE to identify 247 programs. In order to make
generalizations that could be attributable to the population of programs in their entirety,
PACE established a target number of 140 programs, or well over half of those existing. A
total of 144 telephone interviews were completed. Interviews were conducted during the
school day with each program’s head teacher or manager. In less than two percent of the
cases, program heads refused to respond to questions. In fact, respondents were eager to
discuss their students and programs and cooperated fully with our interviewers. A copy of
the telephone questionnaire is included in Appendix A.

The telephone questionnaire was designed in October 1986 and pilot tested in
November. Most pilot tests were conducted by telephone, but in order to increase
reliability, several face-to-face interviews were also completed. Substantial changes were
made in the original questionnaire, primarily because respondents were unable to
adequately answer questions about their 1985—86 students, and as the extraordinary variety
of current programs became evident, the section of the questionnaire that inquired about
program characteristics was expanded. '

Reliability of Survey Results

The high response rate to the original questionnaire from high school and unified
school districts and the follow-up we completed assures us that the first problem of
sampling, that is, identifying the appropriate universe, has been addressed. This rate of
return for a mailed questionnaire is quite high. Furthermore, in assessing nonrespondents
we discovered that most of the unretumed questionnaires had been sent to rural districts
with small enrollments, which because of size are highly unlikely to have programs. It
seems likely that if programs were missed through our methodology, the number would be
quite small, most likely less than ten.

The second problem normally associated with sampling, that is, the representative
nature of the sample itself, is addressed by sampling a large percentage of existing
programs representing a cross section of the state. In this case, PACE sampled 144 of the
identified 247 programs, or 58.3 percent. The large number of sampled programs and the
comprehensiveness of our efforts ensured that those programs contacted for interviews
represented a random sample of California schools. Including proportions of rural,
suburban, and urban districts as well as large and small districts equivalent to the

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

nonsampled schools, assures us that the techniques utilized allow us to generalize to the
state as a whole.

Survey Results

The survey is organized into five subsections. The first is program organization in
which respondents were asked to answer questions best describing their programs
(Appendix A, question 1). The second subsection asked respondents to list the services
provided in the program, including child care (Appendix A, questions 8 and 9). The third
subsection examines types and numbers of students served (Appendix A, questions 2
through 6). The fourth subsection explores student age, course-taking patterns, and
ethnicity. The final subsection lists obstacles that interfered with the program and
suggestions made for additional services that could be provided with additional resources.

Program Organization

Program heads were asked a general question about how their program was organized.
Five1 organizational patterns were selected:

- Classroom oriented program located in a continuation high school

- Classroom oriented program located in a comprehensive high school
- Classroom oriented program located at its own site

- Pull-out program in a regular or continuation high school

- Case management program operated by another public agency

Of these types, over 90 percent fell into two categories—special day classes and pull—
out programs.

C lassroom-Oriented Programs. Table 1 lists the program types as well as the
percentage of programs and percentage of students enrolled in each type. The first three
program types, special day classes located in (1) comprehensive high schools, (2)
continuation high schools, and (3) at dedicated sites, cumulatively represent the dominant
program type, with over 60 percent of the respondents citing this as the mode that is most
descriptive of their programs. Since these programs are similar in program approach, it is
appropriate to group them as one category. We estimate that 61 percent of students

 

1 This item originally included six categories, with the sixth bein independent study programs in which
students study at home and report to a teacher or counselor. Wh e there may be large numbers of students
engaged in inde ndent study, independent study Without other components does not consutute a pro and
was not a part 0 our sample. Several respondents reported indepen ent study as a part of their overa
program.

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

enrolled in programs are enrolled in special day classes operated in either a comprehensive
high school, a continuation high school, or at a dedicated site. Of these, over 80 percent
are served in continuation schools or at dedicated sites. It is also important to note that
special day Classes vary appreciably in size, with day classes operated in comprehensive

high schools typically being substantially smaller than those operated in continuation high
schools or at dedicated sites.

Pull-Out Programs. The second most prevalent program type listed by 30 percent of
respondents mainstreams students into academic classes and provides a special class or
classes for one or more periods per day. In these classes, which are generally housed in
comprehensive or continuation high schools, pregnant students or students with children
normally attend classes with regular students for all but one or two periods per day.

During these pull-out periods students learn about child development and parenting, and
may be offered counseling services.

The next section will describe program services in five categories: education, health,
counseling, transportation, and child care.

Program Services

Table 2 presents information on the variety of services available in these programs.
First are educau'onal services. Virtually all programs included academic instruction,
consumer education, nutrition education, child development education, child abuse
prevention education, and family planning information. A lesser, but still substantial
number of programs (over 80 percent) provided vocational or employment training and
alcohol and drug abuse prevention information. Slightly more than half of the programs
included education for fathers/boy friends.

Health services were also provided in most programs with free breakfasts and/or
lunches being provided to program participants in four of five programs and nutrition
supplements made available to students participating in three of every four programs. In
slightly over half of the programs students receive prenatal medical care or medical care for
the newborn.

The second category of services deals with counseling. Four in five programs offered
counseling with a credentialed counselor and home visits. Support groups were a feature
in 72 percent of the programs. Adoption counseling, peer counseling, and family-based
counseling were services provided in about half of the programs.

The final category of services we examined was transportation and outreach. A little
over half of the programs provided transportation to and from school either through direct
transportation services or through vouchers, but only about one in six had outreach
programs designed to identify eligible but unserved students.

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Child Care has been identified as an essential component of services to adolescent
mothers. In programs serving teenage mothers, respondents reported that 71 percent of the
programs offered child care services to all the students enrolled. Another 13 percent
reported that although child care was offered for some students, not all students could be
served. Finally, 16 percent of those responding reported no provision for child care in
their programs.

Enrollment Patterns

Table 3 displays the length of time students remain in pregnant minor/teenage mother
(PM/I'M) programs and summarizes responses to the question, “On average, how long do
students remain in your program?” The majority of students, 59 percent, stayed in
programs for less than one year; over a third remained less than six months. In contrast,
only 11 percent of students remained in programs for more than two years. These figures
are particularly significant in light of the high proportion of teenage mothers who are 16
years of age or younger and who will require at least two years to complete high school.

Enrollment in programs for pregnant minors and teenage mothers is presented in
Table 4. Program sizes varied substantially. While 11 percent of programs enrolled 15 or
fewer students, more than a third-—34 percent—enrolled 61 or more students. Two—thirds
of the programs enrolled more than 30 students.

Sing ..

Tables 5—7 shift the focus away from programs to students. Table 5 displays the
estimated distribution of students by age. Over two-thirds of enrolled students are between
the ages of 15 and 17. One student in eight is age 14 years or younger, and 17 percent of
students are age 18 or older.

The ethnicities of program students are presented in Table 6 and compared with
statewide ethnic distributions for teen mothers. Asians constitute 1.9 percent of teen
mothers and represent eight percent of PM/TM program enrollment. Black teens account
for 15 percent of births to girls younger than age 20 and represent 24 percent of enrollment
in PM/I‘ M programs. Hispanic females account for 42.3 percent of births to females under
20 years of age and represent 42 percent of enrollment in PM/I‘M programs. Whites
account for 37.1 percent of live births to females less than age 20 and represent 21 percent

of enrollment in PM programs.

Table 7 summarizes the academic background of program participants. Before
becoming pregnant, an estimated 16 percent of students had already dropped out.
However, since head teachers in teenage mother programs were unlikely to be
knowledgeable about their students’ prior personal history, the 16percent figure likely
underestimates the true proportion of girls who had already dropped out. One-third of

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

students were at least one year behind grade level. One student in five was enrolled in

college preparatory courses. Only one student in eight was believed likely to graduate from
high school on time.

The next section examines obstacles to existing programs and suggested improvements
if additional resources were to be made available.

Obstacles to Existing Progsams and Suggesged Improvemgngs

Each respondent was asked two open-ended questions: “What obstacles interfere with
your program?” and “If you had resources to expand your program, what services would
you improve or add?” Tables 8 and 9 display the most frequently encountered answers to
these two questions. Together, these answers provide mirror images of recurrent and
mutually reinforcing program impediments as identified by program directors.

A large number of respondents cited inadequate funding as a major problem.
Respondents repeatedly listed high levels of student absenteeism, inadequate transportation
between home and school, and insufficient child care as the three greatest program
obstacles. These problems appear to be closely linked. For example, the second most
frequently requested program improvement was transportation, specifically mini-buses that
could provide door-to-door service. Students often were absent because no transportation
was provided or because the bus schedules were inconvenient or the stops too far apart.
Indeed, many teenage mothers with children were not allowed on conventional school
buses because insurance firms would not cover infants or toddlers.

Absenteeism was also linked to insufiicient room for child care and too few child care
hours. Fewer than one student in five had adequate child care that was provided by
PM/TM programs, and toddler care especially was rarely available. Most programs were
housed in conventional classrooms which lacked the kitchens, playgrounds, and play
equipment necessary for child care. Repeatedly, respondents argued that additional child
care space, materials, facilities, and hours would improve attendance and reduce dropout
rates. Many respondents asserted that without improved access to child care, all other
proposed program improvements would accomplish little.

Table 8 also lists other program obstacles such as lack of support from the community
members and school authorities, inadequate outreach programs to identify and recruit
unserved students, and grandparents who prefer to keep their children and grandchildren at
home.

The responses to the open-ended question displayed in Table 9, “If you had resources
to expand your program, what services would you improve or add?” not surprisingly
echoed the concerns expressed regarding obstacles. Enhanced provision for child care and
additional support for transportation services head the list. Expanded on-site counseling

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

and health services are also frequently mentioned as critical needs. Respondents noted that
adolescents in these programs must cope with the stresses and issues confronting regular
students but also must adapt to the demands of children, fathers, and grandparents. Many
respondents claimed that cutbacks following Proposition 13 had severely reduced the
availability of counseling and preventive mental health services that allowed PM/I‘M
students to remain in school. Many teenage mothers have limited access to health care, an
important service since both they and their babies become ill more frequently and remain
sick longer than older mothers. Respondents argued that increased on-site health services
would improve both student and child health and therefore decrease absenteeism.

The next section estimates the current unmet need for programs for pregnant and
parenting teens.

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Section 2
Determining Unmet Need

Methodology

Unmet need for services has been calculated in the following way. It assumes that all
parenting teens between ages 10 and 18 will receive services through pregnancy (until
graduation) and corresponds to the comprehensive service level?-

The number of students needing, but not receiving, services (the unmet need) is
calculated by subtracting the number of students in pregnant minor and teen mother
programs in 1985 from the number of parenting teens between the ages of 10 and 18 in
California in 1985. The former number was estimated by extrapolating from the numbers
of students served in 1985 in surveyed programs to the state as a whole (see Section 1,
Survey Methodology). We estimate that approximately 18,500 students received services
in 1985. The number of students needing but not receiving services (the unmet need) was
estimated in the following manner.

Estimating the Cumulative Population of Teen Mothers

The total number of teen mothers between 10 and 18 years old in any year is equal to
the sum of the prior year’s teen mothers in each age group, minus those who were age 18
the year before, plus the current year’s teen mothers in each age group.

Pn=(Pn-1' Pn-118)+ 'Bnlo'18

where Pn = teen mothers in year n, and Bn14 = births to 14-year-olds in year It. The

calculation must be repeated for a five-year period in order to include girls who became
mothers in junior high school. For example, any year’s total number of 17—year-old
mothers must include 17-year—olds who became mothers when they were 12, 13, and so
forth. The number of live births must be adjusted for infant deaths and for second and
subsequent births in order to obtain an unduplicated count of teen mothers.

Linked Live Biflhs

Age-specific live births were reduced by the average of annual infant deaths for mothers
between ages 10 and 14 for the years (1978—1983) in which data were available. Annual

 

2 We focus in this report on programs and services that enable teen mothers to complete high school. Thus,
even thou h l9-7ear-olds are customarily included in statistics reportijnag populations of teen mothers, we have
excluded em from our estimates. In our judgment, an mconsequen number of 19-year-olds attend
secondary school.

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

deaths range between 11 and 24 for the youngest age group (State Department of Health
Services, California Birth Cohort: 1978—1983). Data linking infant deaths to births were
available for all mothers between ages 15 and 19, but not for individual age cohorts.
Therefore, we divided infant deaths equally across cohorts 1n order to estimate incidence of
infant deaths for each cohort.

Ln: Bn15 __ 2(Dn15—19)

where Ln = live births linked to infant deaths in year 11, 8,115 = births to mothers 15 years
old in year n, and Dn15'19 = infant deaths to mothers in this age group in year n.

Since it is likely that younger mothers experience infant death more frequently than do
older mothers, this method underestimates the number of parenting teens between ages 10
and 18, and thus constitutes a conservative estimate of unmet need.

MW

Different proportions of live births were first births in the years for which calculations
were made. Births to girls between ages 10 and 14 were assumed to be first births. Births
to 15- to 18-year-olds (Department of Health Services, Vital Statistics of California 1983,
March 1986, Table 2-4) were adjusted by the following rates for the years indicated

lea; W Tom Bm' Rat; Adjustment Factor
1980 41.2 52.0 41.2/52.0
1981 42.1 53.1 42.1/53.1
1982 40.7 52.0 407/520
1983 39.3 50.6 39.3/50.6

Cumulative Population of Teen Mothers

In 1985, 32,221 babies were born to California mothers between 10 and 18 years of
age (Department of Health Services, Vital Statistics of California I 985, Table 2-11). Of
those, an estimated 580 did not survive the first year, leaving a population of 31,600
infants and teen mothers. About 20 percent of the infants had older siblings. Correcting
for birth order, then, we estimate that there were 25,600 new teen mothers in California in
1985. In addition to the new mothers, 26,200 teens who became mothers for the first time

10

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

in earlier years were still of school age. The cumulative population of teen mothers in 1985
is estimated to be 51,700.

Accounting only for teen mothers seriously underestimates the number of teens who
need services in any given year. Programs, after all, are intended for pregnant and

parenting teens, not merely those who are parents. Unfortunately, the number of pregnant
teens is difficult to estimate.3

At the least, we must account for teens who become pregnant in one year and give birth
in the following year. In any one calendar year, under normal circumstances, only those
who become pregnant in January, February, or March will be both pregnant and parenting
in the same year. All others are appropriate clients for Pregnant Minor/Teen Mother
programs in both years. In 1985, then, the client group would include both those who
gave birth in 1985 and 75 percent of those giving birth in 1986 (i.e., 75 percent of 33,000
= 25,000). But only 80 percent of births to mothers between ages 15 and 18 are first
births, so corrected for birth order, the additional client group numbers 20,000.

The total client population for PM/I'M programs in 1985, then, is the cumulative sum
of teen mothers between 10 and 18 years of age (51,700) and pregnant teens in the same
age groups (20,000), or 71,700 individual teens.

Unmet Need

The extent of unmet need depends on the anticipated level of services. If California
intends to assist teen mothers from pregnancy to graduation, then all students not now in
special programs for pregnant and parenting teens constitute the group requiring services.
In 1985—86, approximately 18,500 students received services in pregnant minor, teen
parent, and School Age Parent and Infant Development (SAPID) programs. (Some of
these same students received services from Adolescent Family Life (AFL), programs
funded through the Maternal and Child Health Branch of the Department of Health
Services. To avoid duplication, AFL clients are not included in the estimated 18,500
students who receive services, unless they also attend other programs.) In addition, these
AFL programs served students who were not in school. There are approximately 4,500
clients currently served by AFL programs. As we have demonstrated, approximately
71,700 pregnant and parenting teens lived in California in 1985. Additional services for
53,200 students would be required if all students were to receive services.4

 

3 Another large grou deserves notice ——hose pregnant teens whose pregnancies, for whatever reason, do not
result in live buths. though information about this group is less than ecrse, teens who expenence a
pregnancy which does not culminate in live birth, may requneservrces th to avord another pregnancy and to
complete school. For the purposes of this paper, we are focusmg on those teens whose pregnancres do
culminate in live births.

4 If California ovides services to egnant teens for a minimum len of time durin their pre nancy and for
three months ter delive , as mostlgrograms currently do, then servings for an addiugonal 7,00 girls would
have been required in 198%.

l l

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Summary of Unmet Need
1985
Teen Mothers 51,700
Pregnant Teens 201319
Total 71,700
PM/SAPID Served —18.§QQ
Unmet Need 53,200

Current Patterns of Live Birth Rates

As has been characteristic of California for some time, live birth rates for teen mothers
varied widely among California counties in 1984, the most recent year for which live birth
data has been published. This dramatic variation suggests that statewide aggregates often
mask substantial county-by-county differences. In 1984, 14 of 58 counties reported no
live births to girls age 14 and under, and another 17 reported fewer than five. In 15
counties, however, the live birth rate exceeded California’s rate of 1.1 live births per
thousand girls between 10 and 14 years old. In two counties, the rate was more than two
times the state average and in one county, four times the state average.

For 15-year-olds, the live birth rate for California was 13.4 per thousand. For that age
group, eight counties reported no births, 16 reported fewer than five, and 21 reported rates
higher than that of the state as a whole. While the live birth rate for lS-year-olds was 12
times greater than for l4-year-olds, the rate for 16—year-olds—31 per thousand—was two—
and-a-half times that of their schoolmates one year younger. Only two counties reported no
births to l6—year—olds, while 11 reported fewer than five. Twenty-two counties reported
birth rates higher than the state live-birth rate for 16-year-olds.

For every one hundred 17-year-old females, five became mothers in 1984. Only one
county reported no births to 17-year—olds; seven reported fewer than five, and 24 reported a
live-birth rate lower than the state’s. For l8-year-olds, the live birth rate was 66.2 per
thousand; one county reported no live births, and three reported fewer than five. As the
accompanying figure displays, 26 counties’ rates exceeded this age group’s state rate.

0 In 1984, 18 of Califomia’s 58 counties (31%) reported birth rates higher than
the state’s in at least three of the five age groups for school-age teen mothers,
10—14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

- Forty percent of live births to Californians 10—14 years old and 37 percent of
births to 15—year—olds occurred in Los Angeles County. By comparison, 33
percent of Califomia’s female 10- to 14-year-olds and 32 percent of its 15-year-
olds live in Los Angeles County.

1’?

.-

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Age-Specific Live Birth Ratess
California, 1984

Age of Mother
1 14 u m 1_7 _1§
California 1.1 13.4 31.0 50.3 66.2
Number of Counties
O births 14 8 2 1 1
< 5 births 17 16 11 7 3
> state rate 15 21 22 23 26

0 In four counties (Amador, Modoc, Trinity, and Tuolumne) the birth rate was too
low to be calculated for teens age 17 and younger, but it approached the state
average for 18-year-olds.

- Only four counties (Alpine, Mariposa, Mono, and Sierra) reported five or
fewer births to girls age 18 or younger in 1984.

- In six counties (Alameda, Humboldt, Nevada, San Francisco, San Luis
Obispo, and Santa Barbara) younger teens were more likely to have babies than
in the state as a whole, but older teens were increasingly less likely to do so. In
San Francisco for the last five years, for example, births to 14- and 15-year-olds
exceeded the state rate but for 16- to 18-year-olds were progressively lower than
the state’s.

0 The distribution of live births to California teenagers by race of mother in 1984
was 42.3 percent white Hispanic, 37.1 percent white non-Hispanic, 15.0 percent
black, 3.1 percent other, 1.9 percent Asian, and 0.4 percent not stated

 

5 Age-specific live birth rates are per 1,000 females in specified age groups. Source: California Department
of Health Services, Health Data and Statistics Branch, Live Births by A e of Mother, Cagfornia Counties,
1970—1984, August 1986. Age Specific Live Birth Rates. California aunties, 1970—8 , A ugust 1986.

13

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

(Department of Health Services, “General Fertility Rates and Age Specific Live
Birth Rates by Age of Mother, California Counties 1984,” November 1986).

How have age-specific live birth rates changed over time? For all age groups, except
14- to lS-year-olds, rates have decreased dramatically since 1970. For example, in 1970
there were 36.8 live births per thousand l6-year-olds, while in 1984 the rate was 31 per
thousand, a difference of 1,025 live births, corrected for differences in cohort size. For
18-year-olds, the rate was 100 per thousand in 1970 and 66.2 in 1984. During the 15-year
period, rates fluctuated for all age groups but declined more frequently than increased. The
only exception is for the very youngest, 10- to 14-year—olds, where the rate increased
slowly but continuously. The Department of Health Statistics reported the birth rate
actually increased 10 percent for this age group between 1983 and 1984:

In 1984 the number of live births to California women 10—14 years of age
increased from 853 in 1983 to 927, an increase of 8.7 percent. The age-
specific population for this group decreased from 886,900 women in
1983 to 867,185 women in 1984. With the decrease of 2.2 percent in the
population size and the increase of 8.7 percent in the number of births, the
ASBR increased 10.0 percent over the 1983 rate of 1.0 to 1.1 in 1984 . . .
(Department of Health Services, Health Data and Statistics Branch,
November 1986)

Projected Patterns of Teen Parenting

Using 1970 as the base year, and projecting birth rates for 1985 to 1992, births rates
decline noticeably. Using 1980 as the base year (thereby weighting recent experience more
heavily), rates decline more slowly. Although birth rates for all but the youngest teens
have declined steadily in the past decade, a more conservative assumption of a slower
decline in birth rates appears to be justified because the proportion of the childbearing
population is increasingly composed of recent immigrants from Latin America and
Southeast Asia.5 The number of immigrants continues to increase; the newcomers also
demonstrate higher rates of fertility than more established groups. Both immigrant groups
contain a large proportion of people from rural areas, who traditionally have larger families
and begin childbearing at younger ages. Births to girls of Hispanic and Southeast Asian
origin can be expected to remain high, offsetting lower birth rates in other groups.

Although political conditions in war-tom nations are unlikely to stabilize sufficiently in
the near term to affect the magnitude of migration to the United States, the new US
immigration law may slow the rate of increase. As a result, age—specific birth rates may

 

5 Birth rates from 1985 to 1992 for each age cohort were estimated using a seven year rollin avera e of age-
Epecific blflh rates for 1980 to 1986. The number of females in each a _e cohort from 10 to 1 (Cali omia

epartment of Frnance, Annual Population PIOJCCUOIIS, 1986) was mu uplied by age-specrfrc birth rates to
obtain the prOJected numberof lrve births. Prqlecuons were reduced for infant deaths and birth order as
previously described to obtain the estimated number of teen mothers in future years.

14

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

decline as the prOportion of Hispanics in each age group increases less rapidly than in the
recent past.

Using projected birth rates and the Department of Finance‘s cohort population
projections, we estimate that in 1990, when the population of females between ages 10 and
18 is at its lowest point, approximately 51,500 schooLage mothers will live in California.
An additional 19,400 pregnant teens will be part of the total client population of 70,900
pregnant and parenting teens. By 1992, because of an increase in the population of females
between ages 10 and 18, the number of school-age mothers is projected to grow to 53,400
and the number of pregnant teens to 21,000, bringing the total client population to 74,400.

Estimated Client Population
1992
Teen Mothers 53,400
Pregnant Teens 21 ,000
Total 74,400

Even though age-specific birth rates are declining for those age 16 and above, schools
should anticipate a continuing demand for teen mother programs.

- Birth rates are increasing for 14- and 15-year-olds, those who have the longest
period of time before graduation.

- The long decline in student population is coming to an end, and the baby boomlet is
now moving into junior high school. The impact of that group will begin to be felt
in 1989. By 1992 the female population between ages 10 and 14 will be 25 percent
larger than the same cohort in 1985.

. In 1985—86, pregnant minor and teen mother programs enrolled only 25.8 percent of
the estimated population of 71,700 pregnant minors and teen mothers in California.

- To maintain the current level of short term services, California will need 800 more
“slots” by 1992 to accommodate its youngest mothers’ increasing birth rate and
larger cohorts.

- Using the same assumptions, 74,400 pregnant and parenting teens between 10 and
18 will live in California in 1992.

- Political pressures that currently restn'ct provision of birth control information and

devices to elementary and junior high girls will not likely be resolved in the
intervening period. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that births to the very youngest

15

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

members of the fertile group will continue to increase, both absolutely and as a
percent of the age group. The number of second and subsequent births would be
likely to decline, on the other hand, if teen mothers received more support in
completing school.

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Section 3
Projecting Program Costs

Methodology

PACE used preliminary information from the California Child Care Resource and
Referral Network survey of costs of child care (1987), a telephone survey of a
representative sample of program managers, and discussions with a small number of
school district business managers. There are two central conclusions to be drawn from our
review of available cost information about programs for pregnant minors and teen mothers:
(1) costs are extremely variable on virtually every dimension, and (2) neither the State
Department of Education nor school program directors nor school business officials have
reliable cost information about these programs. Problems in gaining reliable and useful
estimates are caused by a variety of factors:

1. Programs budget their activities and services in idiosyncratic ways; therefore,
reported costs from program to program are rarely comparable.

2. In-ldnd contributions from a wide array of sources including private, non-profit
and tax-funded health and social welfare services were incorporated extensively in
virtually all programs we contacted. The amount of these in-kind contributions,
which were in many cases substantial, was difficult to assess and when reported,
was not done so in a uniform way.

3. Since 1981—82, state funding for pregnant minor programs was incorporated
within the district’s revenue limit, making it virtually impossible at either the state or
local level to track the resources available for them.

4. For the most part, program managers were unable to answer specific questions
about their program costs, and even more unable to determine revenue sources.
While they were very knowledgeable about their programs, they had little sense of
the total funding picture

5. The business managers we talked with were unable to provide us with specific
information about the relative program components. District budgets most
frequently do not deal with that level of detail.

6. The tremendous variation in the types of services offered and the levels of

service provided was also a substantial problem in making generalizations about
program costs. Costs varied on almost every conceivable dimension: region, size,

17

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

in-kind contributions, district contribution, availability of public transportation,
proximity to other resources, and most particularly by the degree or the level of
service provided.

7. The often unique situational interaction of program components added to the
difficulty in making generalizations about program costs. For example, although
school-based child—care centers tend to be more expensive than centers located in
nonschool settings, locating centers on school campuses often results in a reduction
in home-to-school transportation.

8. The variety of delivery systems and revenue sources further complicates the
picture. The three state-funded programs for pregnant minors and teen mothers are
funded in two different ways: from each district’s general fund or by categorical or
competitively awarded grants.

Pregnant minor programs, known by various names throughout California, are funded
from school district revenue limits, general fund revenue each district receives per student
day of attendance. Independent study programs, sometimes known as home and hospital
programs, provide another way for young parents to obtain an education. Like PM/I‘M
programs, independent study is funded by revenue limits.

School Age Parenting and Infant Development (SAPID), administered by the State
Department of Education, has been awarded by competitive process to 61 districts. SAPID
grants provide start-up funding, parenting classes, counseling and child care located at
school sites. SAPID programs are frequently child development labs in which both
parenting and nonparenting students study child development, parenu'ng education, and
child care methods. SAPID provides a comprehensive program for enrolled students, who
may remain with the program, in some cases, until graduation or age 21. Most SAPID
programs allow the mother to remain until her child is two years old.

AFL programs, administered by the Maternal and Child Health Branch of the
Department of Health Services, were also awarded by a competitive process to 30
California programs. AFL is a case management program that assists teen parents in
obtaining a multitude of services from many agencies, includin g school systems. AFL
programs are administered by a variety of agencies, including school districts, private
programs, and county health departments. They are intended to leverage funds fiom a
variety of sources to assist teen mothers.

Although there were difficulties in getting relevant and accurate cost information from
the sites, there was no similar problem in getting the respondents to agree on the most
important and expensive components of comprehensive programs: child care, support
services, and transportation. The next section examines those cost centers.

18

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Program Cost Centers

. There are essentially two major variables that affeCt costs for programs for pregnant
rmnors and teen parents. The first is the time spent in the program. Ideally, students
would stay in a program from time of pregnancy to graduation from high school. On the
other hand, if the state provides services to pregnant teens for a minimum length of time
durrn g their pregnancy and for three months after delivery, as most programs currently do,
then the number of students annually being served is substantially less. PACE estimates
that for 1985—86 under the first assumption, program services would be required for an
additional 55,900 students. However, if the programs are only for the minimal period of
time, the additional students annually needing to be served is 7,000.

The second major cost determinant is the comprehensiveness of the program.
Comprehensrve programs provide child care, support services, and transportation services
for pregnant and parenting teens. Programs that provide these important services tend to

have a higher school retention rate. Programs that do not provide these three services wish
they did.

Before we examine these areas of service, a caveat is in order. Underlying this
discussion is the assumption that if programs for pregnant minors and teen mothers
contribute to a reduction in the high school dropout rate, education expenditures will
increase by virtue of the additional average daily attendance generated by students who
return to high school and remain there. We are concerned here with costs incurred over
and above the cost associated with the delivery of the regular school curriculum.

931mm

Child care is by far the largest cost component of a comprehensive program,
representing on average about 70 percent of the total cost of the program. Child care costs
are extremely variable and there is no statewide standard cost for child development
programs; some exemplary programs are expensive, while some low-cost programs also
are exemplary. The average child development program staffed by credentialled personnel
costs $4,000 per child per school year. Programs operated by school districts are
somewhat more expensive (averaging about $5,000 per child per school year) while those
operated by private, nonprofit agencies tend to be less expensive. Quality child
development programs, although relatively expensive, are reported by respondents to our
survey to be essential components in successful programs. They reported that if programs
are to offer maximum support for school completion, child development centers should be
located on or very near the school mothers attend. This reduces home-to-school
transportation costs and reduces family stress associated with long trips with small babies.
Most importantly, respondents noted, adequate convenient child care relieves a major
worry that inhibits regular school attendance as well as school performance.

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Although quality child development costs appear high, they are also cost effective.
David Weikert of High/Scope Foundation in Ypsilanti, Michigan, demonstrated the long-
term cost effectiveness of comprehensive child development programs. For 18 years
Weikert and his team of investigators followed matched samples of children identified at
three years old as being at-risk of school failure. One group received no preschool
services. The others were enrolled in comprehensive programs. Children who participated
in the comprehensive program were healthier, graduated from high school at substantially
higher rates, and attended college significantly more frequently than children who had not
participated. Participants were significantly less likely to require special education, had
fewer encounters with the law, and became teen mothers less frequently.

Su rvi

Support services typically include case management; personal, family, and career
counseling; health services; and nutrition. The availability of support services varies
widely from program to program and area to area. In the programs we surveyed, support
services are generally provided in two ways: either through school-based programs,
including SAPID, or through separately funded case management programs. Some
individual teachers we interviewed provided support services within the context of their
parent education programs and without special funding. This is not always the case,
however, and respondents noted that a more formal program can better ensure that
program participants can continue and hopefully complete their education. Several of the
districts we contacted noted the effectiveness of the Adolescent Family Life Program
(AFL), funded through the State Department of Health and created to provide case
management services for teens from pregnancy to high school graduation or even beyond.
AFL programs typically operate in close conjunction with schools and other community
service agencies to focus and coordinate resources on this hi gh—risk group of teenagers.

Support service costs are highly variable, depending on a large number of factors,
including program size, prevailing wage rates, extent of services, and cost of living. Costs
associated with support services are difficult to estimate as well. Many programs, SAPID
for instance, provide support services within the context of the program and ordinarily do
not analyze the portion of their expenditures devoted to these activities. In addition,
support services also include in-kind donations of space and personnel that are difficult to
assess. Program managers estimated that the student service component of a
comprehensive program would typically cost $1,000 to $2,000 per student per year.

W

Respondents noted that portal-to-portal transportation led to markedly improved
attendance rates. They also reported that in those cases in which districts opted (because of
financial problems) to reduce transportation expenditures, attendance in their programs
subsequently fell. Respondents overwhelmingly reported that transportation was an

20

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

essential component of a high-quality comprehensive program and that its absence severely
curtailed access to these programs.

Transportation costs are typically the smallest portion of the three cost centers of a
comprehensive program. They are, like child care and support services, highly variable.
The variation is primarily dependent on the area and type of transportation available. In an
urban area with plentiful public transportation, costs of portal-to—portal transportation may
by less than $150 per year“, in rural or suburban areas with limited transportation, costs may
be much higher, approaching four to five times that amount. Somewhere between $500 to
$750 appears to be a reasonable estimate, although some respondents noted that if infants
were involved, the cost of insurance in their areas became prohibitive.

State Costs of Comprehensive Programs

Adding the three cost components, a typical comprehensive program would cost
somewhere between $5,000 and $8,000 per student per year. The problem, of course, is
that few programs appear to be typical. The most striking generalization one can make
about these programs is their variability. Some specific examples can serve to illuminate
this finding.

Programs we contacted provided child care in a variety of ways. In one small program
located in a suburban area, babies who are not yet crawling are cared for in part of the
mothers’ classroom. A classified, rather than certificated, worker cares for the infants
while mothers attend school. Licensing regulations permit this arrangement because
mothers and a certificated teacher are in the same room with the infants. There is no
provision for child care after babies begin crawling, however. Another school-based
program in a rural northern area provides child care in a portable on the school site, once
again with classified personnel. As with the program previously described, the district’s
revenue limit covers costs for both child care and the student’s education. Respondents
noted that a limited program of child care is preferable to a program located away fiom the
school site, and certainly preferable to no child care program at all. However, neither is
optimal. The first program does not ensure the service component most highly associated
with school completion: child care until graduation. The second does not provide for one
of the benefits of an on-site comprehensive child development program frequently
mentioned by program managers: an on-site laboratory for parenting education.

One program we contacted provided continuity between its transportation component
and its child care program. The same individuals drove the programs’ school buses and
worked as aides in the child development center. Certificated staff provided planning and
educational programs. The same level of service was provided in another program serving
students from several high school districts. Part—time professionals provided their special

21

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

expertise: a community worker and a registered nurse assisted parent education teachers
and a child-care worker in a multi-funded child development program to provide
comprehensive services. In that program, the Regional Ocupational Program provided
portal-to-portal transportation, because students also enrolled in business education. Yet
another child development program was more traditionally organized and self-contained
Located on the high school campus, it was conducted by full-time credentialed teachers,
who, for the most part, worked independently of district and site administrators. Students
in that program obtained support services from a local Adolescent Family Life program,
which also provided transportation vouchers.

It should be noted at the outset that given the kind of program variability described
above, establishing an aggregate cost figure based on the average would mask the variation
in program cost and comprehensiveness at the site. We have opted to estimate a range of
from $5,000 to $8,000 per student per year, within which most districts would be able to
offer a comprehensive program.

Between $358 million to $574 million dollars per year would be needed in 1985 to
provide comprehensive programs for all eligible students (including those served by
SAPID and PM programs) from time of pregnancy to graduation.

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Section 4
Summary of Findings

Highlights of our findings include:

Program Types

Sixty-one percent Of students enrolled in pregnant minor and teen mother programs are
enrolled in classroom-oriented programs operated in either a comprehensive high school, a
continuation high school, or at a dedicated site. Of these, over 80 percent are served in
continuation schools or at dedicated sites.

The second most prevalent program type, pull-out programs, includes approximately
30 percent of the students, mainstreams students into academic classes, and provides a
special class or classes for one or more periods per day. In these classes, which are
generally housed in comprehensive or continuation high schools, pregnant students or
students with children normally attend classes with regular students for all but one or two
periods per day.

Educational Services

Virtually all respondents reported that their programs included academic instruction,
consumer education, nutrition education, child development education, child abuse
prevention education, and family planning information. A lesser, but still substantial
number of programs (over 80 percent) reported providing vocational or employment
training and alcohol and drug abuse prevention information. Slightly more than half of the
programs include education for fathers/boy friends.

Health Services

Health services were also provided in most programs with free breakfasts and/or
lunches being provided to program participants in four of five programs. Nutrition
supplements were made available to students participating in three of every four programs.

In slightly over half of the programs students receive prenatal medical care or medical care
for the newborn.

Counseling

Four in five progams offered counseling with a credentialed counselor and home visits
as part Of their program. Support groups were a feature Of 72 percent Of the programs.

23

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Adoption counseling, peer counseling, and family-based counseling were services
provided in about half of the programs.

Transportation

A little over half of the programs provided transportation to and from school but only
about one in six had outreach programs designed to identify eligible but unserved students.

Child Care

In programs serving teenage mothers, respondents reported that 71 percent of the
programs offered child-care services to all the students enrolled. Another 13 percent
reported that although child care was offered for some students, not all students could be
served. Finally, 16 percent of those responding reported no provision for child care in
their programs.

Time in Programs

Fifty—nine percent of students stayed in programs for less than one year and over a third
remained less than six months. In contrast, only I 1 percent of students remained in
programs for more than two years. These figures are particularly significant in light of the
high proportion of teenage mothers who are 16 years of age or younger and who will
require at least two years to complete high school.

Participation by Age

Over two-thirds of enrolled students are between the ages of 15 and 17. One student in
eight is age 14 years or younger, and 17 percent of students are age 18 or older.

Participation by Ethnicity

Asians constitute 1.9 percent of teen mothers and represent eight percent of pregnant
minor/teen mother (PM/I'M) program enrolhnent. Blacks account for 15 percent of births
to girls younger than age 20 and represent 24 percent of enrollment in PM/I‘M programs.
Hispanics account for 42.3 percent of births to females under 20 years of age and represent
42 percent of enrollment in PM M programs. Whites account for 37.1 percent of live
births to females less than age 20 and represent 21 percent of enrollment in PM/I‘M
programs.

Participants by Academic Level

One-third of students were at least one year behind grade level. One student in five was
enrolled in college preparatory courses. Only one student in eight was believed likely to
graduate from high school on time.

2-4

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Program Obstacles

Respondents repeatedly listed high levels of student absenteeism, inadequate
transportation between home and school, and insufi‘icient child care as the three greatest
program obstacles. Absenteeism was also linked to insuflicient room for child care and too
few child care hours. Fewer than one student in five had adequate child care provided by
PM/TM programs. Toddler care was rarely available.

Suggested Improvements

Enhanced provision for child care and additional support for transportation services
head the list of suggested improvements. Expanded on—site counseling and health services
were also frequently mentioned as critical needs.

Live Births

For all age groups, except 14- to lS-year-olds, rates have decreased dramatically since
1970. The only exception is for the very youngest, 10- to 14-year-olds, where the rate
increased slowly but continuously. In 1991—92 approximately 53,400 school—age mothers
will live in California. Even though age-specific birth rates are declining for those age 16
and above, schools should anticipate a continuing demand for teen mother programs.

Unmet Need

Birth rates are increasing for 14- and lS-year-olds, those who have the longest period
of time before graduation.

The long decline in student population is coming to an end, and the baby boomlet is
now moving into junior high school.

In 1985-86, pregnant minor and teen mother programs enrolled only 25.8 percent of
the estimated population of 71,700 pregnant minors and teen mothers in California.

Just to maintain the current level of services, California will need 800 more “slots” by
1992 to accommodate its youngest mothers’ increasing birth rate and larger cohorts.

Additional services for 55,900 students would be required if all students were to
receive services.

Costs by Component
Child Care is by far the largest cost component of a comprehensive program,

representing on average about 70 percent of the total cost of the program. Child care costs
are extremely variable, and there is no statewide standard cost for child development

25

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

programs. Some exemplary programs are expensive, while some low-cost programs are
exemplary. The average child development program staffed by credentialled personnel
costs $4.000 per child per school year. Programs operated by school districts are
somewhat more expensive (averaging about $5,000 per child per school year) while those
operated by private, nonprofit agencies tend to be less expensive.

Program managers estimated that the student service component of a comprehensive
program would typically cost $1,000 to $2,000 per student per year.

Transportation costs are typically the smallest portion of the three cost centers of a
comprehensive program. They are, like child care and support services, highly variable.
The variation is primarily dependent on the area and type of transportation available. In an
urban area with plentiful public transportation, the costs of portal-to-portal transportation
may be less than $150 per year, in rural or suburban areas with limited transportation, the
costs may be much higher, approaching four to five times that amount. Somewhere
between $500 to $750 appears to be a reasonable estimate, although some respondents
noted that if infants were involved, the cost of liability insurance in their areas would
become prohibitive.

Aggregate Cost Estimates

Given the degree of program variability, an average cost figure masks the variation in
program costs and comprehensiveness. We estimate a cost range of from $5,000 to
$8,000 per student per year, within which most districts would be able to offer a
comprehensive program.

Between $358 million to $574 million dollars per year would be needed in 1985 to
provide comprehensive programs for all eligible students (including those served by
SAPID and PM programs) from time of pregnancy to graduation.

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

TABLE 1

Percent of Students Enrolled in California Programs

for Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers:
Distribution by Program Type,
1985-86 School Year

 

Listed Above 7

27

Percentage Percentage
of of Students
Program Tvpe Programs in Program
Students Attend a Classroom-Oriented Program
Located at a Comprehensive High School 25 13
Students Attend a Classroom-Oriented Program
Located at a Continuation High School 13 26
Students Attend a Classroom-Oriented Program
Located at a Dedicated Site 24 24
Students are Mainstreamed for Academic
Classes but Attend Pregnant Minor or
Teenage Mother Classes One or More
Periods per Day 30 29
Students Participate in Case Management
Programs Not Operated by Public Schools 1 2
Students Participate in Program Not
7

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

TABLE 2

Services Provided by California Programs
for Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers,
1985-86 School Year

 

Percentage of Programs
Providing the
Services Provided Services
mm Academic Instruction 96
Vocational/Employment Training 83
Nutrition Education 98
Consumer Education 95
Family Planning Information 93
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Information 88
Child Development Education 99
Child Abuse Prevention Education 98
Instruction to Fathers/Boy Friends 56
m: Nutrition Supplements 75
Free Breakfasts and/or Lunches 81
Prenatal Medical Care 47
Newborn Medical Care 46
Counseling: With a Credentialed Counselor 78
Peer Counseling 50
Support Groups 72
Family-based Counseling 44
Adoption Counseling 56
Home Visits 79
Transp_ortation: To and from School 52
Outreach to Eligible Students 17

28

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

TABLE 3

Length of Time Students Remain in California Programs
for Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers,
1985-86 School Year

Percentage
Length of Time of Students
1 to 6 months 34
7 to 12 months 25
13 to 18 months 10
19 to 24 months 20
more than 24 months 11

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

TABLE 4

Enrollment Sizes of California Programs for
Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers,
1985-86 School Year

Enrollment Percentage
Size‘ of Promms
11 to 15 11
16 to 30 22
31 to 60 33
61 or more 34

30

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

TABLE 5

Estimated Percent of Students Enrolled in California Programs
for Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers:
Distribution by Age,

1985-86 School Year

Percentage of
of Students

L m
age 14

or younger 13
age 15 to 17 70
age 18

or older 17

31

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

TABLE 6

Percent of Students Enrolled in California Programs
for Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers:
Distribution by Ethnicity,
1985-86 School Year

Ethnicity
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White

Other

32

Percentage
of Students

11mm
8

24
42

21

Percentage
of Teen

Mothers

1.9
15.0
42.3
37.1

3.5

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

TABLE 7

Academic Backgrounds of Students Enrolled in California Programs
for Pregnant Minors and Teenage Mothers,
1985-86 School Year

Percentage
of Students
Academic Characteristics in Program
Students had already dropped
out of school before becoming
pregnant 16
Students one or more years
behind grade level 32
Students enrolled in a college
prep program 19
Students considered likely to
graduate from high school
on time 13

L4
(.24

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

Responses

39

39

28

26

26

19

12

11

TABLE 8

Responses to the Question:

What Obstacles Interfere With Your Program?

Obstacle
funding level too low
inadequate transportation between home and school
insufficient room for child care
high level of student absenteeism
not enough child care
public apathy and lack of community support
unavailability of birth control
no outreach program for unserved students
unsupportive school administrators
inadequate food
unmotivated students
grandparents who want children/grandchildren home

language barrier

PREGNANT AND PARENTING MINORS AND CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS

TABLE 9

Responses to the Question:

If You Had Resources to Expand Your Program,
What Services Would You Improve or Add?

Number of
Respondents

67
43
37
36
35
27
23
2O
19
19
16
14
13

12

WW

provide more child care

provide more transportation

add more physical space for child care

provide expanded counseling services

increase on-site health services

have more teachers and/or aides

include counseling for pregnancy prevention

offer more parenting and child development classes
purchase more insxzructional materials

offer home visits

offer more services for fathers

provide a continuous program through graduation
offer more career counseling and vocational instruction
extend outreach

add play equipment for children

bl
U‘l

APPENDIX A

PACE
Survey of California Programs
tor Pregnant Minors and Parenting Teens
December, 1986 '

 

Program Code Interviewer

Contact Person Date

 

Primary Telephone Number __

Alternate Number __ _

Program Name

 

Program Address

 

 

Hello, I'm with the University of California at Berkeley. i would
like to ask you the questions that were contained in the letter. The questions will take about
minutes. Is now a convenient time? If not, ask fora cal/back time.

 

 

1. First, I would like to ask you a general question about how your program is organized.
Which of the following descriptions best lits your program?
_ a. a classroom oriented program located at a continuation high school

 

 

b. a classroom oriented program located at a regular high school

 

 

c. a classroom oriented program with its own site

 

/
d. a pull-out program for students in a regular or continuation high school (students .
are mainstreamed lor the majority of the day but attend classes for one or more
periods)

 

 

e. an independent study program in which students study at home and report on a
regular basis to a public school teacher and/or counselor

 

 

t. a case management program operated by some public agency other than a school
district or county office of education

 

 

9. other

 

h. Use this space to describe combination programs and include numbers which
preceed each type of program listed above

 

36

2. Does your program serve pregnant minors? yes no

 

3. Does your program serve teen-age mothers? yes_ no __
If yes. how long after delivery are mothers eligible to-be in your program?

 

4. On average, about how long do girls stay in your program?

 

5. a) Does your program monitor and/or support students untilthey have completed high
school? (Distinguish between occasional monitoring by previous teachers and formal
programs in which all students are routinely monitored and necessary support offered. Use
the space below to describe formal programs.)

yes_ no __

 

 

 

6. I would like to ask you some questions about the number of girls in your program. (it the
respondent manages two or more programs, ask her to report combined numbers.)

a. How many girls are currently enrolled" in your program?

b. How many girls participated in your program last year?

c. Do you have the capacity to serve more girls? yes no
If yes, how many?

d. Are you aware of girls in your area who could participate in your program but do not?
yes_ no If yes, how many would you estimate?

.2"

 

 

7. Now I would like to ask you some questions about the girls who participate in this year's,
program. -

a. How many of this year‘s students were aged14 years or younger?

b. How many of this year's students were aged 18 years or older?

 

c. How many of this year's students were one or more years behind grade level?
d. How many of this years students were in a college prep program?

e. How many of this year's students had already dropped out of school before becoming
pregnant?

t. How many of this year's students do you think will graduate on time from high school?

9. How many of this year's students would describe themselves as Asian?

——.

h. How many of this years students would describe themselves as black?

i. How many of this year's students would describe themselves as Hispanic?

j. How many of this year's students would describe themselves as white?

 

—_

 

k. How many of this year's students have more than one child?

l. How many of this year's students do you expect will place their children for adoption?

 

8. Now l would like to ask you some questions about the services girls receive in your

program. Does your program provide: ( If yes, probe sub-heads)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. academic instruction no_ yes_ / direcf_ refer_
b. vocational/employment training no_ yes_ /direct_ refer_
0. educational and career guidance no_ yes_ / direct_ refer_
d. parenting education no_ yes_ /direct_ refer
child development -no__yes_ /direct__ refer
_child abuse prevention no_yes_ /direcf__ refer
consumer skills no_yes_ /direct_ refer
9. family planning information no_ yes_ /direcf_ refer_
f. health services no_ yes_ /direct_ refer_
_ alcohol and drug abuse ,
prevention/intervention no_ yes_ /d/'recf_ refer_ V, ""
nutrition education no_ yes_ /direct_ refer_
nutrition supplements no_ yes_ /direct_ refer_
free breakfasts and lunches no_ yes_ /direcf__ refer_
prenatal medical care no_ yes_ /direct_ refer_
newborn medical care no_ yes_ /direct_ refer_
g. individual counselling no_yes_ /direct_ refer_
with a credentialed counselor no_ yes_ /direct_ refer_
peer counselling no_ yes_ /direct_ refer_
support groups no_ yes_ /direcf_. refer_
family-based counselling no_ yes_ /direct_ refer_
adoption counselling no_ yes_ /direcf_ refer_
h. services to fathers/boy friends no_ yes_ /direct__ refer_
i. home visits no_ yes_ /d/rect__ refer_

j. transportation to and from school no yes /direct refer
by bus " ‘ " _
with vouchers

 

k. seek out students who are eligible for the program (outreach)
__ students who are currently enrolled no_ yes_ /direct_ refer_
__ students who have dropped out no_ yes_ /direct_ re!er_

 

I. Are there any services you provide which have not already been described?

 

 

Ask only for teenage mother programs
9. I would like to ask you some questions about child care.

a. For approximately what percent of your students does your program provide child care?
percent. If not 100%, go to b.
b. If a student does not find child care in your program, where does she find child care?

c. Has a lack of child Care ever prevented a student from participating in your program?
yes_ no __ ‘ '
d. Ask only if response to c. was yes. Approximately how many times has this occurred in
the past year?

 

 

 

11. What obstacles interfere with your program?

 

 

 

 

12. It you had resources to expand your program, what services would you improveor—add?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. Do you have any questions you'd like to ask me?

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. Your contributions will help state
legislators improve services for your students.

39

 

   
      
 

u“;- L

Mm

   
 
 

W x "
er ;
33”” ,Wfifi‘

v13": 3:) I "’C ‘-

   

     
     
  
 

   
   

   

‘ x {’
\:§.».’ 2 v r _ (j-
. . 2 ~. . . {
“ ‘ " my»), ,'.. ' ' -¢ .
‘ \w \3,,‘, a. u a. «)M\W~¢.{Lfia¢ spamm- , :
w" u r
\ ' . . x m \, “mam. ,. .fl.m..,—.amm.
«‘ w» 493:. ”ham“ - “1-9 u- »;a- . 4n. . , 2, \ (

 

 

A» ~»..,,,u.«,mm.z

      
    

 

‘ ~“A€‘:~"*"n r.” up,” w,

       
   

5e aw»... a. ..,w........ , ,.

   

     
 

 

   

 

 

 

..., V m m... ‘
‘ ‘ ‘ fl . ‘Aflxn ¢\ , u . UV 1 v r .
‘ P V i ‘9 ~ 1 o . ' (“a wl s. .
' ~ . , , - - a . >1 u k x
‘ ¢ - v , . 3 — .
. M mm V.
v '
' . -g»
>' , A 1 An (A ‘ ‘ -
‘ b l .1 - .r. ‘
ve :, ~
' ' ‘ i : + .,
I x _ .

1

     

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Cllfll: