Study Details | Pathways to Work

25370-Child Support Noncus

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED)

Population and employment barriers:

Parents (Noncustodial parents)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (On-the-job training), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

At intake, child support staff at local child support agencies screened noncustodial parents to determine if they met eligibility requirements. Eligible people were those already being served by the child support program that had established paternity. To be eligible, participants could not be paying child support regularly or had to be at risk of not paying child support because of lack of steady employment. Additional eligibility criteria varied by grantee. After confirming eligibility, staff obtained consent, collected baseline data, and randomly assigned each person. Random assignment occurred by grantee to ensure an equal number of intervention and comparison group members within and across grantees. Staff conducted random assignment from the last quarter of 2013 to September 2016. The analytic sample contained 10,161 people: 5,086 in the intervention group and 5,075 in the comparison group.

Time period of study:

Random assignment began in the fourth quarter of 2013 and ended on September 30, 2016. The study followed people for two years.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Child support orders, compliance, and payments; parenting attitudes and skills; criminal justice system involvement; emotional well-being; and economic hardship

Study funded by:

Office of Child Support Enforcement, ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Results

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

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	12,295.50	12,785.20	489.72	2014 dollars	4,278
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 2	High	11,155.50	11,131.60	-23.93	2016 dollars	6,911
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, monthly	Month 12	High	67.03	66.70	-0.33	Percentage points	4,121
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	53.46	54.89	1.43	Percentage points	10,158
Increase short-term employment	Longest employment spell, annual	Year 1	High	6.26	6.18	-0.08	Months	4,014
Increase short-term employment	Months employed, annual	Year 1	High	6.70	6.67	-0.03	Months	4,278
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 8	High	53.52	53.73	0.21	Percentage points	6,912
Increase long-term employment	Longest employment spell, follow-up period	Year 1–2	High	3.85	3.91	0.06	Quarters	6,903
Increase long-term employment	Quarters employed, follow-up period	Year 1–2	High	4.25	4.34	0.09	Quarters	6,903
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	150.00	141.00	-9.00	2015 dollars	10,158
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	1,203.00	1,259.00	56.00	2015 dollars	10,158
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of public assistance benefits, annual	Year 1	High	1,315.00	1,333.00	18.00	2015 dollars	10,158
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of UI payments, annual	Year 1	High	195.00	202.00	7.00	2015 dollars	10,158
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	108.04	112.32	4.28	2015 dollars	8,831
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average monthly UI benefits, annual	Year 1	High	16.28	16.79	0.51	2015 dollars	10,156
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Months of Medicaid participation, annual	Year 1	High	4.91	5.06	0.15	Months	5,358
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 2	High	110.00	117.00	7.00	2016 dollars	10,158
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 2	High	7.52	7.93	0.41	2016 dollars	6,912
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Average monthly UI benefits, annual	Year 2	High	9.49	10.41	0.92	2016 dollars	6,912
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Months of Medicaid participation, annual	Year 2	High	4.49	4.78	0.29	Months	3,584

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.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. 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 intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention 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 participants were noncustodial parents. Most (90 percent) were male, and the average age was about 35. Forty percent of participants were Black, 33 percent were White, and 22 percent were Hispanic or Latino of any race. About one-quarter lacked a high school diploma or equivalent certificate, whereas 32 percent had at least some postsecondary education (including a vocational diploma). About one-third (32 percent) were in compliance with their child support orders in the year before random assignment. Average earnings in the year before random assignment were around $8,000.

Age

Mean age

35 years

Sex

Female	10%
Male	90%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	40%
White	33%
Asian	1%
American Indian or Alaska Native	1%
More than one race	3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	22%

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

Married	14%
Parents	100%
Noncustodial parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

55%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	32%
Had a high school diploma or GED	74%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	26%

Specific employment barriers

Were formerly incarcerated	65%
Were military veterans	7%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Local child support agencies and their partners

Program history:

The program was a demonstration launched in 2012 by the Office of Child Support Enforcement in ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, using authority under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act.

Intervention services:

The CSPED provided noncustodial parents with case management, parenting classes, domestic violence services, enhanced child support services, and employment services. Programs were required to provide 16 hours of parenting classes with peer support that covered personal development, responsible fatherhood, parenting skills, relationship skills, and domestic violence. Domestic violence services included screening, assessments, and referrals. Enhanced child support services included expedited review of child support orders, order modifications, reductions in arrears owed to the state, and temporary suspension of the use of some enforcement tools. For employment services, programs were required to provide job search assistance; job readiness training; and assistance with job placement, job retention, and rapid reemployment following job loss. Programs were also encouraged, though not required, to provide job skills training, vocational training, education related to employment, and supportive services. Most services were provided in the year following random assignment.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

The comparison group received regular child support services.

Service receipt duration:

Participants received nearly all CSPED services within 12 months, with most occurring in the first 6 months.

Intervention funding:

Office of Child Support Enforcement, ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $2,491 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $141 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $2,350 per person. This represents how much more it cost to provide intervention services compared to comparison services.

These figures are based on cost information reported by study authors. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Cancian, Maria, Daniel R. Meyer, and Robert G. Wood (2019). Benefit-cost analysis findings from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/csped_benefit_cost_report.pdf.

Cancian, Maria, Daniel R. Meyer, and Robert G. Wood (2019). Final impact findings from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED), Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Available at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resource/csped-final-impact-report/.

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

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.

Study of Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED)

25370-Child Support Noncus

Study design

Design:

Study group formation:

Time period of study:

Primary outcome domains examined:

Other outcome domains examined:

Study funded by:

Results

Sample characteristics

Age

Sex

Participant race and ethnicity

Family status

Participant employment and public benefit status

Participant education

Specific employment barriers

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Program history:

Intervention services:

Mandatory services:

Comparison services:

Service receipt duration:

Intervention funding:

Cost information:

Study publications