Study Details | Pathways to Work

3354-Study of Parents to

Study quality: Low

Low

Reason for the rating: This study received a low study quality rating because the implementation of the randomized controlled trial was compromised and it does not adjust estimated impacts for potentially important differences between the program and comparison groups.

Program: Parents to Work!

Characteristics of study participants:

At least a high school diploma or equivalent, Noncustodial parents, Parents, Unemployed

Services provided:

Basic skills/bridge programs, Case management, Housing supports and subsidies, Job development, Job placement, Job readiness, Job search assistance, On-the-job training, 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:

Eligible noncustodial parents (NCP) were randomly assigned to Parents to Work! or a comparison group. To be eligible for random assignment, NCPs had to be underemployed, employed part time, employed seasonally, or employed at less than a living wage; not be a full-time student; not currently receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; be without physical or mental disabilities that would affect employment; and be free from substance abuse problems that would hinder employment. The intake methods included referrals from child support enforcement officers and courts, walk-in referrals, referrals from establishment workers, criminal justice referrals, referrals based on an ad hoc report from an administrative child support enforcement database, and other methods. The probability of random assignment varied by intake method. The authors wrote, “As a result, a disproportionate number of comparison group cases were drawn from the ad hoc report. This allowed a greater percentage of cases that were referred by workers and the court to be assigned to the treatment [program] group. This helped gain support for the program.” The implication is that the authors deliberately created a random assignment process in which individuals referred by workers and the court had a greater probability of assignment to the program group and that those drawn from an ad hoc report had a lower probability of assignment to the program group.

Time period of study:

Enrollment in the study occurred from August 2008 through March 2010. The data used in the analysis were collected up to 24 months after enrollment.

Pathways to Work only reports results from studies with a study quality rating of high or moderate.

Sample characteristics

Age

Mean age

36 years

Sex

Female	6%
Male	94%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	46%
White, not Hispanic	31%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	15%
American Indian or Alaska Native	4%
Another race	1%
Unknown, not reported, or other	3%

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	18%
Were unemployed	82%

Education

Had a high school diploma or GED	83%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	17%
English learners	3%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	6%
Had a mental illness	3%
Had a substance abuse disorder	1%
Were involved with the justice system	49%
Were experiencing homelessness	8%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Arapahoe/Douglas Works

Program services:

Participants worked with employment specialists who provided services, including individual employment plans, job-preparedness training, resume preparation, job referrals, and on-the-job training. Participants also received assistance with housing and transportation and benefited from coordination among child support services, the workforce program, and the court.

Mandatory services:

Most participants were not required to participate; noncustodial parents (who made up nearly one-quarter of participants) on probation and parole were required to participate to avoid returning to jail.

Comparison services:

Comparison condition members were eligible for Colorado's ordinary child support services and enforcement mechanisms.

Study publications

Pearson, Jessica, Lanae Davis, and Jane Venohr (2011). Parents to Work!, Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research. Available at https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/publications/parents-to-work-program-outcomes-and-economic-impact/.

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.

Return to top

Study of Parents to Work!