Study Details | Pathways to Work

3346-Parents' Fair Share

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: Parents’ Fair Share (PFS)

Population and employment barriers:

Parents (Noncustodial parents)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (On-the-job training, Work experience)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

To be eligible for the PFS program, noncustodial fathers had to satisfy the following criteria: (1) be under- or unemployed, (2) have child support orders in place but not currently be making regular payments, and (3) have children for whom they owed support who were currently or formerly Aid to Families with Dependent Children welfare recipients. The study went through two stages of random assignment. In the first stage, lists of nonpaying noncustodial fathers in welfare-related cases who appeared to meet the PFS eligibility rules were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) two-thirds were assigned to a group subject to extra outreach, and (2) one-third was assigned to a group subject to the standard child support enforcement procedures. Only the parents assigned to the extra outreach group were brought to a case review or hearing, at which their eligibility and appropriateness for PFS were identified. In the second stage, half of those assessed as eligible and appropriate for PFS were randomly assigned and referred to the PFS program group; the other half of those eligible were randomly assigned to the comparison group subject to standard child support enforcement practices and were not eligible for PFS between March 1994 and June 1996.

Time period of study:

The study began in 1994 and reported results two years after the random assignment (in 1996).

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

None

Study funded by:

Funders of Parents’ Fair Share included the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Pew Charitable Trusts, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, U.S. Department of Labor, Smith Richardson Foundation, Ford Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, and the Northwest Area Foundation.

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	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	8.00	1995 dollars	5,611
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	1,371.00	1995 dollars	553
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 2	High	159.00	1996 dollars	5,020
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	0.00	percentage points	553
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 4	High	0.00	percentage points	5,611
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 8	High	0.10	percentage points	5,020

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

Characteristics are available for the early cohort of people only (randomly assigned from March 1994 to June 1995). The majority of the noncustodial parents referred to PFS were fathers (98 percent), of whom about 64 percent were African American, with most of the rest evenly divided between White (17 percent) and Hispanic (17 percent) men. The average age of the sample was 31 years, and nearly two-thirds were never formally married. The sample members generally had low levels of educational attainment; very few (about 2 percent) of the fathers had education beyond high school, and 48 percent did not have a high school diploma or general education diploma. In all, 17 percent of people in the sample were employed at the time of random assignment.

Age

Mean age

30 years

Sex

Female	2%
Male	98%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	64%
White	17%
Unknown, not reported, or other	2%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	17%

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%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	2%
Had a high school diploma or GED	52%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	48%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

There were a number of providers by site. Lead state agencies tended to be state-level Departments of Human Services. Lead local agencies could be local Departments of Human Services or nonprofit organizations. Programs were implemented in community organizations, such as Goodwill. Additional local providers partnered with the implementing organizations.

Program history:

The PFS program was piloted in 1992 (two-year pilot) and the full-scale evaluation (reported here) began in 1994.

Intervention services:

The PFS program services had four core components: (1) peer support that was built around a curriculum called Responsible Fatherhood; (2) employment and training activities—including job search assistance and opportunities for education and skills training, as well as occupational training, on-the-job training, and paid work experiences; (3) enhanced child support enforcement; and (4) mediation services for parents to resolve their differences. Participants also received case management services.

Mandatory services:

Parents were ordered to participate by the court. Failure to participate would result in referral to child support enforcement.

Comparison services:

People who were assigned to the comparison group were subject to standard child support enforcement practices. They were not eligible for PFS services yet were free to participate in other services in their community on their own initiative.

Service receipt duration:

The study does not explicitly describe the service receipt duration.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Pew Charitable Trusts, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, U.S. Department of Labor, Smith Richardson Foundation, Ford Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, and the Northwest Area Foundation

Study publications

Miller, Cynthia and Virginia Knox. (2001). The challenge of helping low-income fathers support their children: Final lessons from Parents’ Fair Share. New York: MDRC. Available at: https://www.mdrc.org/publication/challenge-helping-low-income-fathers-support-their-children.

Doolittle, Fred, Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller, and Sharon Rowser (1998). Building opportunities, enforcing obligations: Implementation and interim impacts of Parents’ Fair Share, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_38.pdf.

Martinez, John M., and Cynthia Miller (2000). Working and earning: The impact of Parents’ Fair Share on low-income fathers’ employment, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_618.pdf.

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 Parents’ Fair Share (PFS)