Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

  • -0.23,1.00

Summary

The NCP Choices PEER Curriculum Enhancement Pilot, a court-ordered program, provided noncustodial parents whose children were receiving public assistance (or who had previously received public assistance) with a parenting, relationship skills, and financial education curriculum (known as the PEER Curriculum Enhancement) in addition to job-readiness and job-search services at the local one-stop career center; only the PEER Curriculum Enhancement was tested to determine its effectiveness.

The Office of the Attorney General partnered with the Texas Workforce Commission and Title IV-D court (part of the state child support enforcement system) to administer the program with the goal of helping parents become more responsible parents and preventing them from falling behind on child support payments. Noncustodial parents were offered eight weekly, two-hour group workshops covering financial responsibility, parenting and co-parenting skills, and financial education. Group workshops included other noncustodial parents; a facilitator; and a peer coach, who was an NCP Choices program graduate who maintained employment and met child support obligations.

The NCP Choices PEER Curriculum Enhancement Pilot was a mandatory program. Participants entered the program as a result of a court order. Noncustodial parents who were noncompliant with their child support orders were given the choice of participating in the program instead of going to jail or paying their child support arrears in full. Noncustodial parents ordered into the NCP Choices PEER Curriculum Enhancement were exempt from participation in workshop sessions if they obtained employment before the start date of the first session and if job requirements prevented them from attending sessions. All participants also received standard NCP Choices services, which included job search assistance, supportive services, assessments, and employment retention support. Workforce Development Boards in Hidalgo County, El Paso, and the Beaumont/Port Arthur region of Texas operated the program.

The NCP Choices PEER Curriculum was an extension of the original NCP Choices program that began in 2005. The effectiveness of the NCP Choices PEER Curriculum when compared with NCP Choices indicates the effect of the services that are unique to the NCP Choices PEER Curriculum, or how much better the addition of the PEER Curriculum meets participants’ needs than NCP Choices. The NCP Choices PEER Curriculum provided a parenting, relationship skills, and financial literacy curriculum in addition to job-readiness and job-search services, whereas NCP Choices only offered job-readiness and job-search services. The NCP Choices PEER Curriculum was one of two pilots that were designed to expand the original NCP Choices Program that began in 2005; the other pilot examined was the NCP Establishment Pilot.

3361-Non-Custodial Parent
Populations and employment barriers: Parents, Noncustodial parents, Male

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below?
View the "Table help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

View table help

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support $0 per year 0.000 0
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support 0% (in percentage points) 0.000 0
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $242 per year 0.088 330
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1
Back to top

Implementation details

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
25%
Unknown, not reported, or other
7%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
68%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

State(s) where implemented

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Canada

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Back to top