兰德-Cost-Analysis-of-an-Adolescent-Pregnancy-Prevention-Program-In_48页_302kb

Cost Analysis of the CAS-Carrera In-School Model in Tulsa

Core Content

This report presents a detailed cost analysis of the Children's Aid Society's Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program (CAS-Carrera) in-school model implemented in Union Public Schools (UPS) in Tulsa, Oklahoma, during the 2014-2015 school year. The study focuses on the cost of delivering the program to 880 students in grades 6 through 9, capturing a snapshot of annual implementation costs. The program is a comprehensive, multicomponent intervention that includes education, employment, mental and physical health services, Family Life and Sexuality Education (FLSE), Self Expression, and sports-related activities.

The in-school model integrates these program components into the regular school day through advisory and elective periods, managed by a network of staff. The report highlights that while cost estimates for the after-school model are available, the in-school model has only preliminary estimates, which this study aims to fill.

Key Findings

• Total Annual Cost: The total cost to implement the CAS-Carrera in-school model for 880 students in 2014-2015 was $3,123,321.
• On-Budget Costs: The total on-budget cost was $2,889,182, which accounts for 84% of the total cost.
• Off-Budget/In-Kind Costs: Off-budget and in-kind costs totaled $234,139, representing 7% of the total cost.
• Personnel Costs: Personnel costs made up the largest portion of the on-budget costs, at 84%.
• Cost Per Student: The on-budget cost per student was $3,283, which is $1,965 less than the reported after-school model cost per student in 2015 dollars.

Cost Breakdown by Category

Program Overview

CAS-Carrera is a signature program of the Children's Aid Society (CAS), known for its holistic approach to adolescent well-being. It aims to prevent teen pregnancy while also improving academic performance, reducing risky behaviors, and promoting personal development. The program includes seven key components:

1. Education: SAT preparation, tutoring, and individualized academic plans.
2. Employment (Job Club): Weekly classes on employment topics, financial literacy, and part-time jobs.
3. Family Life and Sexuality Education (FLSE): Weekly sessions on medically accurate sexuality education.
4. Mental Health Services: Weekly Power Group discussions led by social workers to improve self-esteem and socialization.
5. Medical and Dental Services: Free vision and dental screenings through local provider partnerships.
6. Self Expression: Activities in performing and visual arts.
7. Lifetime Individual Sports: Sports that promote self-discipline throughout the life cycle.

Implementation Context

The in-school model in Tulsa is a partnership between UPS and the Community Service Council (CSC), with funding from the George Kaiser Family Foundation and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. The program began in the 2011-2012 school year, and this analysis covers the 2014-2015 academic year. The program operates in three secondary school buildings, targeting 880 students out of approximately 4,660 in grades 6 through 9.

Demographics

• Gender Distribution:
  • CAS-Carrera Participants: 51% female, 49% male.
  • UPS Population (Grades 6–9): 47% female, 53% male.
• Race/Ethnicity Distribution:
  • CAS-Carrera Participants: 19% African-American, 20% White, 2% Asian, 37% Hispanic/Latino.
  • UPS Population (Grades 6–9): 17% African-American, 37% White, 7% Asian, 28% Hispanic/Latino.

The program targets "at-promise" students, identified by school administrators and 5th-grade teachers based on criteria such as academic performance, social-emotional needs, and potential for positive outcomes. The program aims to maintain a balanced cohort of 220 students per grade level, with an initial overenrollment to account for expected attrition.

Limitations

• The study does not account for start-up costs or cumulative costs over multiple years.
• Disaggregated administrative costs and school-level expenditures were not available.
• Health care utilization and other service-related outcomes were not measured, leading to potential underestimation of resource needs.
• The cost estimates are specific to the Tulsa site and may not be directly transferable to other locations due to differences in labor costs, facility availability, and other structural factors.

Conclusion

This cost analysis provides a comprehensive view of the resources needed to implement the CAS-Carrera in-school model in Tulsa. It is intended to support replication and policymaking in the district and potentially in other school districts and community organizations. The findings can be combined with evaluation data to conduct future cost-benefit analyses. However, due to the study's limitations, the results should be interpreted with caution and in the context of similar program structures and environments.