Print

This program aimed to improve employment outcomes and the reliable payment of child support among noncustodial parents.

Skip to:  Effectiveness ratings   |   Sample characteristics   |  Studies of this intervention

This program aimed to improve employment outcomes and the reliable payment of child support among noncustodial parents.

The CSPED provided noncustodial parents with case management, employment services, enhanced child support services, parenting classes, and domestic violence services. Each participant was assigned a case manager to assess needs and monitor progress. Employment services included job search assistance; job-readiness training; and assistance with job placement, job retention, and rapid reemployment following job loss. Participating sites were also encouraged, though not required, to provide job skills training, vocational training, education related to employment, and supportive services. 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. Domestic violence services included screening, assessments, and referrals. The program also provided 16 hours of parenting classes that covered personal development, responsible fatherhood, and relationship skills. Participants were noncustodial parents who were being served by the child support program and were either not regularly making child support payments or were expected to have difficulty with payments because of lack of employment. Most services were provided within a one-year period.

This program took place in 18 sites across 8 states (California, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin).

Year evaluation began: 2013
Implementing organization(s): Local child support agencies and their partners
Populations and employment barriers: Parents, Noncustodial parents
Intervention services: Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Supportive services, Training, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, On-the-job training, Work readiness activities, Job search assistance, Job development/job placement
Setting(s): Tested in multiple settings

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

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

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 favorable $669 per year 0.032 4278
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $-42 per year -0.002 6911
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support 0% (in percentage points) 0.000 10158
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 1% (in percentage points) 0.017 6912
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $41 per year 0.015 10161
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $88 per year 0.032 6912
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?

Sample characteristics

Back to top
State or region:
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

Studies of this intervention

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