Study Details | Pathways to Work

3361-Study of Noncustodia

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition, suggesting the findings can be attributed to the program.

Program: Noncustodial Parent (NCP) Choices PEER Curriculum Enhancement Pilot

Characteristics of study participants:

Cash assistance recipients, Noncustodial parents, Parents, Public benefits recipients

Services provided:

Case management, Financial education, Job placement, Job readiness, Job search assistance, Peer mentoring, Post-employment participant follow-up, Transportation assistance, Unpaid work experience/internships, Work supports

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

All individuals had a court order to appear for NCP Choices on a specific day. Evaluators randomly assigned calendar days to be PEER days or comparison group days. Individuals whose court order occurred on a PEER day were assigned to the program group, and those whose court order occurred on a comparison day were assigned to the comparison group. The study enrolled 162 people into the program group and 168 into the comparison group between June 2010 and January 2011.

Time period of study:

The authors report outcomes for participants enrolled in the study between June 2010 and January 2011. Impacts were measured about 6 to 13 months after assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Criminal justice, Parenting and co-parenting

Study funded by:

The Texas Office of the Attorney General funded the study.

Results

View table definitions

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Program group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Total earnings, follow-up period	Approximately months 1-6	High	1,460.00	1,878.00	418.00	2010 dollars	330
Increase short-term employment	Percent of time employed, follow-up period	Approximately months 1-6	High	42.10	50.20	8.10	percentage points	330
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly AFDC/TANF benefits for associated custodial parent(s), follow-up period	Approximately months 1-10	High	8.00	11.00	3.00	2011 dollars	330
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly Food Stamp/SNAP benefit for associated custodial parent(s), follow-up period	Approximately months 1-13	High	501.00	534.00	33.00	2011 dollars	330
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly Unemployment Insurance payment, follow-up period	Approximately months 1-9	High	5.30	23.20	17.90	2011 dollars	330
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Percent of months with Unemployment Insurance payments, follow-up period	Approximately months 1-9	High	0.40	0.40	0.00	percentage points	330
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Percent of time associated custodial parent(s) received AFDC/TANF, follow-up period	Approximately months 1-10	High	3.80	5.20	1.40	percentage points	330
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Percent of time associated custodial parent(s) received Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Approximately months 1-13	High	75.30	74.90	-0.40	percentage points	330

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Means are not displayed when not reported or not aligned with the impact estimates. For example, if the impact estimate is regression-adjusted but only unadjusted means are reported in the study, the unadjusted means are not displayed as they are not aligned with the adjusted impact estimate.

Impact estimates are not shown when the estimate units cannot be converted to natural units.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the program. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the program, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the program produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

All noncustodial parents in the study were male. Their average age was between 33 and 34 years old. About two-thirds of participants were Hispanic (68 percent), and one-quarter were Black. Twenty-five percent were employed at the start of the program. In addition, 53 percent had experienced a decrease in earnings of at least 85 percent within the previous two years.

Age

Mean age

34 years

Sex

Male

100%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	25%
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.

Family status

Parents	100%
Noncustodial parents	100%

Employment and public benefit status

Were employed	25%
Were unemployed	75%
Public benefits recipients	100%
Cash assistance recipients	100%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Texas Office of the Attorney General Child Support division and local workforce development boards

Program history:

The NCP Choices PEER Curriculum Enhancement Pilot is an extension of the NCP Choices program, which began in 2005. This PEER extension began in 2010.

Program services:

The NCP Choices PEER curriculum enhancement served unemployed or underemployed noncustodial parents whose children were receiving or had received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Medicaid benefits. NCP Choices seeks to increase child support payments and reduce TANF participation among custodial parents by improving employment and earnings outcomes of noncustodial parents; the PEER curriculum enhancement was designed to support these goals. Individuals participated in a number of workshops covering financial responsibility, parenting and co-parenting skills, and financial education. Workshops included multiple program group members, a facilitator, and a peer coach. All individuals also received standard NCP Choices services, which included assessments, case management, job search assistance, support services, and employment retention support.

Mandatory services:

Participation in PEER was mandated by court orders and people who did not participate nor pay their child support payments could be jailed.

Comparison services:

Members of the comparison group received standard NCP Choices services but not the PEER curriculum enhancement.

Service receipt duration:

Participants were still receiving services at the time the study was published.

Program funding:

Not known

Study publications

Schroeder, Daniel, and Amna Khan (2011). Non-custodial parent choices - PEER pilot: Impact report, Austin, TX: Ray Marshall Center. Available at http://raymarshallcenter.org/files/2005/07/NCP_Choices_PEER_Sep2011final.pdf.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

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

Study of Noncustodial Parent (NCP) Choices PEER Curriculum Enhancement Pilot