Texas NCP Choices: Workforce Development for Non Custodial ParentsNon-Custodial Parents
Daniel Schroeder
N ti l A i ti f W lf R h dNational Association for Welfare Research and Statistics, 49th Annual Workshop
Albany, NYJuly 13th, 2009
Overview
Backgroundg
NCP Choices Program
Comparison Group Design, Selection
Results
Summary / Implicationsy p
Next Steps
Background: Previous ProgramsSeveral previous programs have attempted to engage low-income non-custodial parents (NCPs) in workforcelow income non custodial parents (NCPs) in workforce development services.
R lt h b i l S ti l tResults have been equivocal: Sometimes employment and earnings are increased, and sometimes child support payments are increased
Generally, the problem with these programs is related to either implementation or to recruitment, enrollment,to either implementation or to recruitment, enrollment, and retention of participants
Programs with voluntary participation are not typicallyPrograms with voluntary participation are not typically very successful
NCP Choices Pilot ProgramNCP Choices was implemented as a pilot starting in 2005 in four sites2005 in four sites
Serves low-income non-custodial parents (NCPs) of t f TANF i i t h d li tcurrent or former TANF recipients who are delinquent
in their child support payments
NCPs are brought before a child support judge and given a choice of either:
paying their child support,paying their child support,participating in NCP Choices, orgoing to jail
Critical Program Features
Consequences for non-participation
Co-location of workforce services in court
Case-management
Communication among partners
CHOICES Services offered:CHOICES Services offered:Job referralsSupport servicesShort-term trainingShort term trainingSubsidized employment/work experienceGED, ESL classesRetention assistance and career advancement planning p g
NCP Choices Pilot Sites
DallasDallas countyFort Worth
LubbockLubbock county
WacoMcLennan county
Tarrant county
Beaumont
El PasoEl Paso county
BeaumontOrange, Jefferson countie
HoustonHoustonHarris county
San AntonioBexar county
Texas CityGalveston, Brazoria counties
6
Original Pilot site
Expansion site
Brownsville Cameron countyEdinburg, McAllen, Weslaco
Hidalgo county
Comparison Group DesignAn experimental design, with random assignment of NCPs to be ordered into the program or not wouldNCPs to be ordered into the program or not, would have been ideal
Si d i t i f ibl iSince random assignment was infeasible, a quasi-experimental comparison group design was used instead
For each NCP in the program, a multivariate “nearest-neighbor” was selected for inclusion in comparisonneighbor was selected for inclusion in comparison group
Outcomes for NCP Choices clients and comparisonOutcomes for NCP Choices clients and comparison group then computed for estimating impact
Before comparison group selection (1 of 2)
NCP Choices All NCPs
All NCPs in target counties N=751 N=168 851All NCPs in target counties N 751 N 168,851
NCP age (years) 34.1 37.5 **
NCP male 96.5% 99.0% **
NCP number of active CS cases 1 6 1 2 **NCP number of active CS cases 1.6 1.2
Time since first observed NCP earnings (quarters) 20.5 18.7 **
NCP employed at program entry 40.1% 49.2% **
Percent of time NCP employed over 4 years prior to program 40.6% 50.8% **Percent of time NCP employed over 4 years prior to program 40.6% 50.8%
NCP average quarterly earnings over 4 years prior to program $1,912 $3,919 **
NCP experienced earnings dip of at least 20% within prior 2 years 50.5% 24.8% **
Time since CS first collected on this case (months) 33.3 32.9 **Time since CS first collected on this case (months) 33.3 32.9
Time since CS last collected on this case (months) 8.1 4.3 **
Percent of time CS collection was made in prior year 21.4% 50.8% **
Any CS collection made via federal offset in prior year 14.4% 13.7% **y CS co ect o ade a ede a o set p o yea % 3 %
Before comparison group selection (2 of 2)
NCP Choices All NCPs
All NCPs in target counties (continued) N=751 N=168,851Percent of time TANF received by associated CP(s) in prior year 17.5% 4.7% **Any Choices participation in year prior to program 1.7% .7% **Any ES participation in year prior to program 4.5% 1.8% **Any FSE&T participation in year prior to program 1.7% .4% **Any WIA participation in year prior to program 2.8% .8% **Any Project RIO participation in year prior to program 2 4% 6% **Any Project RIO participation in year prior to program 2.4% .6% **Capias issued for arrest of NCP in 6 months prior to program 21.7% 1.6% **Approximate arrears balance at program entry $33,256 $11,887 **Total current support obligation (PP1) at program entry $510 $332 **Total current support obligation (PP1) at program entry $510 $332Total arrears obligation (PP2) at program entry $123 $74 **
Those experiencing an earnings dip N=379 N=70,562Time since earnings dip occurred (quarters) 4.6 4.8 **Percent of earnings which earnings dip represents 85.3% 76.8% **
Comparison Group SelectionPool of potential comparison group was restricted to NCPs in same counties as the demonstrationNCPs in same counties as the demonstration
Exact matches were required on: county, gender, h th i di f 20%whether an earnings dip of 20% or more was
experienced, and time of entry
Weighted multivariate distance was computed on remaining variables, with greater weight given to those dimensions that more strongly differentiate the twodimensions that more strongly differentiate the two groups
One nearest neighbor chosen for each NCP ChoicesOne nearest-neighbor chosen for each NCP Choices participant, and the resulting groups follow
After comparison group selection (1 of 2)
NCP ChoicesComparison Group
All NCPs N=751 N=751
NCP age (years) 34.1 33.6
NCP male 96.5% 96.5%
NCP number of active CS cases 1.6 1.6
Time since first observed NCP earnings (quarters) 20.5 21.2
NCP employed at program entry 40.1% 39.8%
Percent of time NCP employed over 4 years prior to program 40.6% 42.3%
NCP average quarterly earnings over 4 years prior to program $1,912 $1,947
NCP experienced earnings dip of at least 20% within prior 2 years 50.5% 50.5%
Time since CS first collected on this case (months) 33.3 33.8
Time since CS last collected on this case (months) 8.1 7.9
Percent of time CS collection was made in prior year 21.4% 21.5%
Any CS collection made via federal offset in prior year 14.4% 12.1%
After comparison group selection (2 of 2)
NCP ChoicesComparison Group
All NCPs N=751 N=751Percent of time TANF received by associated CP(s) in prior year 17.5% 14.6%Any Choices participation in year prior to program 1.7% 2.4%Any ES participation in year prior to program 4 5% 2 7%Any ES participation in year prior to program 4.5% 2.7%Any FSE&T participation in year prior to program 1.7% .7%Any WIA participation in year prior to program 2.8% 2.5%Any Project RIO participation in year prior to program 2.4% .8% *Any Project RIO participation in year prior to program 2.4% .8%Capias issued for arrest of NCP in 6 months prior to program 21.7% 21.7%Approximate arrears balance at program entry $33,256 $28,562Total current support obligation (PP1) at program entry $510 $452Total arrears obligation (PP2) at program entry $123 $111
Those experiencing an earnings dip N=379 N=379Time since earnings dip occurred (quarters) 4.6 4.7Percent of earnings which earnings dip represents 85.3% 84.9%
Results: Workforce Development
Any Workforce Development, 1st year
82.5%90.0%
60.0%70.0%80.0%
7 6%20 0%30.0%40.0%50.0%
7.6%
0.0%10.0%20.0%
NCP Choices Comparison Group
Over 82% participated in workforce development (a 10-foldincrease; p<.01)
Results: Capias (Warrant)Capias (warrant) issued for arrest of NCP
19.6%
20.0%
12.7%15.0%
5.0%
10.0%
0.0%NCP Choices Comparison Group
A 54% increase in rate of capias issuance (6.9 pct points, p<.01), but this is not the best measure of jailing rate…
Results: Child Support CollectionsPercent of time any child support collected
45.5%42.8%
%
50.0%
30.5% 32.4%
30.0%
40.0%
10.0%
20.0%
0.0%NCP Choices Comparison Group
Year 1 Years 2-3
A 49% increase in frequency of collections in year 1 (p<.01)
Results: Child Support Collections
Monthly average child support collections
$176$161
$130$160$180
$122 $130
$$100$120$140$
$20$40$60$80
$0$20
NCP Choices Comparison Group
Year 1 Years 2-3
A 44% increase in amount of collections, year 1 ($54 per month,p<.01)
Year 1 Years 2 3
Results: Child Support Consistency
Consistent payment of CS, 3 out of 3 months
30.4%35.0%27.2%
19.5%23.4%
20.0%25.0%30.0%
35.0%
5.0%10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
0.0%
5.0%
NCP Choices Comparison Group
Year 1 Years 2-3
40% increase in consistency of collections, year 1 (8 pct points,p<.01)
Year 1 Years 2 3
Results: Employment
Percent of time NCP employed
48.4%43.8% 41 1%50.0% 41.1%
37.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
10.0%
20.0%
0.0%NCP Choices Comparison Group
Year 1 Years 2-3
18% increase in employment rate in year 1 (7.3 pct points, p<.01)
Year 1 Years 2 3
Results: Earnings of the Employed
Avg quarterly earnings, among employed NCPs
$2 838
$3,435 $3,303 $3,298$3,500 $2,838
$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500
$500$1,000$1,500$2,000
$0$500
NCP Choices Comparison Group
Year 1 Years 2-3
Initial decrease in earnings of employed NCPs disappearsIn later years
Year 1 Years 2 3
Results: Unemployment ClaimsNCP files unemployment claim within 1 year of
program entry
6.6%7 0%
program entry
3 0%5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
3.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
0.0%
1.0%
NCP Choices Comparison Group
A 55% decrease in unemployment insurance claims filed (3.6pct points, p<.01)
Results: Welfare (TANF) Receipt
Percent of time CP(s) receiving TANF
8 0%
9.6%10.0% 8.0%
6.7%7.7%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
2.0%
4.0%
0.0%NCP Choices Comparison Group
Year 1 Years 2-3
An 17% decrease in TANF receipt among associated custodialparents in year 1 (1.6 pct points, p<.01)
Year 1 Years 2 3
Summary and ImplicationsNCP Choices met most of its program goals:
NCP Choices clients far more likely to participate in workforce development
Increased frequency, amount, and consistency of child support payments
Increased employment rates; reduced earnings levels of the employed, but effect goes away in later yearsthe employed, but effect goes away in later years
Reduced rate of filing unemployment claims
Reduced TANF receipt among custodial parents
Next Steps
Presently working on final report that expands the evaluation to include six additional sites that started in 2007
Ultimately, given the success so far, the goal is to expand the program statewide
Future evaluation will include a modification of the program to target low-income NCPs in p g gestablishment cases, in hopes of serving them before they get behind on their CS payments
Contact
Daniel Schroeder (512) [email protected]@
Latest report available:http://www.utexas.edu/research/cshr/pubs/pubs.htm
Updated impacts to be posted in Sep 2009p p p p