Supplement B baseline

ATTACHMENT B:
QUESTION-BY-QUESTION JUSTIFICATION
AND SURVEYS REFERENCED
FOR THE CSPED BASELINE SURVEY

Attachment B

Table B.1. Baseline Child Support Survey: Question-by-Question Justification
How Question Will be Used
Question

Source

Descriptor

Covariate

Subgroup

Predictor of
Participation

Outcome

Rationale

Introduction
Introduction
(i1–7)

Obtaining consent.

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics

B.2

Race and
ethnicity (B1–
B2)

OMB

X

X

X

Country of
birth (B3)

BSF

X

X

X

X

Age arrived in
US (B4)

BSF

X

X

Marital Status
(B5)

OMB tailored
for CSPED

Highest level of
education (B6)

CBRA,
tailored for
CSPED

X

X

X

X

X

X

Program impacts may be moderated by demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics. Thus, these variables are
important for use as covariates and to form subgroups. In
addition, these variables will be used to describe the
characteristics of the population served by CSPED and to predict
participation in CSPED services.

Biological Child Roster
Number of
biological
children (C1)

PACT

Child’s name
(C2-C4)

BSF

X

The number of biological children will be used to predict
participation in CSPED services and to determine the number of
children about whom the information in the subsequent childspecific questions of this survey will be collected.
This information will be used to fill in the child’s name in later
survey questions and to identify the child for subsequent study
follow-ups.

Attachment B

Table B.1. Baseline Child Support Survey: Question-by-Question Justification (continued)
How Question Will be Used
Question

Source

Descriptor

Covariate

Subgroup

Predictor of
Participation

Outcome

Rationale

B.3

Child’s gender
(C6)

PACT

X

X

X

X

Research has shown that parents’ behaviors are associated with
the gender of their children. For example, the birth of a son
increases fathers’ labor supply and wages more than the birth of
a daughter (Lundberg and Rose 2002), so fathers’ investments in
children appear to be larger for sons than daughters. For nevermarried mothers, the birth of a son is associated with higher
increases in the speed of marriages to the child’s father than it is
the birth of a daughter (Lundberg and Rose 2003). Among
parents married at the time of the child’s birth, fathers are more
likely to live with sons than daughters at the child’s first birthday
(Lundberg, McLanahan, and Rose 2007). Some studies suggest
that adolescent girls receive less attention from fathers than do
sons (Harris and Morgan 1991) and that nonresident fathers’
involvement with girls is more likely to decline over time
(Manning and Smock 1999). However, other studies find the
opposite or no association between child gender and father
involvement (Seltzer 1991).

Child’s date of
birth or age
(C7–C8)

PACT

X

X

X

X

This demographic information can be used to confirm the child’s
identity at study follow-ups. Research has also found evidence
that father involvement can vary with the child’s age (Hofferth et
al. 2002, Seltzer 1991, Veum 1993), suggesting that child age
will be a useful covariate.

Mother or
father’s name
(C9-C11)

PACT

X

X

This information will be used to identify the child’s mother or
father to fill in the mother’s or father’s name in later survey
questions. Identifying the mother or father of each child is
particularly important, since it allows us to identify noncustodial
parents who experience multiple partner fertility, which is
associated with diminished noncustodial parent contact with the
child (Manning and Smock 2000; Manning, Stewart, and Smock
2003). Multiple partner fertility will be used to describe the
characteristics of study participants and as a covariate in the
impact analysis.

Whether
mother and
father were
married or
living together
when child
born (C13 and
C14)

BSF

X

X

Nonresident fathers who were married to the child’s mother at
the time of the child’s birth are more likely to be involved with
their children than other nonresident fathers (Seltzer 1991).

Attachment B

Table B.1. Baseline Child Support Survey: Question-by-Question Justification (continued)
How Question Will be Used
Question

Source

Descriptor

Covariate

Subgroup

Predictor of
Participation

B.4

Paternity was
voluntarily
acknowledged
(C15)

BSF

X

X

X

Court
established
paternity (C16)

BSF

X

X

X

Whether ever
lived with child
(C17)

FFCWS
tailored for
CSPED

X

X

X

X

Number of
nights stayed
with child in
last month
(C18–C19)

FFCWS
tailored for
CSPED; WFNJ
tailored for
CSPED

X

X

X

X

Who has
primary
responsibility
for child (C20aC20b)

FFCWS
tailored for
CSPED

X

X

X

Outcome

Rationale
Establishing paternity is an important step in ensuring that unwed
fathers provide financial support for their children. We expect
that legal establishment of paternity will be a strong predictor of
father involvement and especially of fathers’ financial support of
children, since paternity establishment triggers child support
orders. Voluntary paternity establishment may be an indicator of
the father’s desire to be involved with and assume responsibility
for the child, and may also be associated with the quality of the
parents’ relationship at the time of the child’s birth. We expect
that this measure will be predictive of subsequent relationships
between co-parents and between fathers and their children.
For parents who live with their children, some amount of parentchild contact is almost inevitable, while nonresidential parents are
likely to have little or no contact with their children (Minton and
Pasley 1996, Seltzer 1991). Therefore, we expect that the
noncustodial parent’s baseline residence status will be a strong
predictor of involvement with the child at follow-up. Furthermore,
residential status at baseline is a useful variable for defining
subgroups. For example, to examine whether child support
programs had larger effects on residential or nonresidential
parents or affected different outcomes for residential versus
nonresidential parents.

Attachment B

Table B.1. Baseline Child Support Survey: Question-by-Question Justification (continued)
How Question Will be Used
Question

Source

Descriptor

Covariate

Subgroup

Predictor of
Participation

Outcome

Any contact
with child in
last month
(C21)

EHS tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

X

X

In-person
contact with
child in last
month (C22)

EHS tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

X

X

Assessment of
relationship
quality (C23)

EHS tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

X

X

Status of
relationship
with
mother/father
(D2–D3)

BSF tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

X

X

Lives with
mother/father
(D4)

BSF tailored
for CSPED

X

X

Nights in past
30 days stays
with
mother/father
(D5)

PACT tailored
for CSPED

X

X

Whether
custodial
mother/father
has a romantic

WFNJ tailored
for CSPED

X

X

Rationale
A key goal of parenting programs is to increase parental
involvement with children. The extent of parent-child interaction
at baseline is expected to be an important predictor of
subsequent parental involvement. In addition, other studies have
found that parent-child baseline contact is a useful variable to
create subgroups for analysis. For instance, an evaluation of the
Parents’ Fair Share program found larger impacts on father
involvement in sites with the lowest levels of baseline contact
(Miller and Knox 2001).

Relationships

B.5

Child support programs may improve noncustodial parents’
relationship skills and co-parenting relationships, increasing the
likelihood that parents are involved with the other parent of at
least one of their children at follow-up. Including measures of
noncustodial parents’ relationships with the other parent at
baseline in the analyses will increase the precision of the
estimates of the impact of child support programs on parents’
romantic relationships. A father’s romantic relationship with the
child’s mother may also be a key predictor of his contact with his
children (Tach, Mincy, and Edin 2010), and children born to
married parents may experience higher levels of parental
involvement than children born to non-married parents (Selzer,
1988). Thus, a noncustodial parent’s relationship with the other
parent at baseline could also be an important covariate in
estimating impacts on noncustodial parent involvement. Finally,
program impacts might differ by relationship status and
relationships status might predict program participation.
Noncustodial parent’s baseline residence status will be used as a
predictor of involvement with the child at follow-up and to
describe the characteristics of the participants in the study at
baseline.

Fathers’ involvement with their nonresidential children is
significantly lower when mothers are involved with new partners
(Guzzo 2009; Tach, Mincy, and Edin 2010). We propose to collect
this information at baseline to improve the precision of our

Attachment B

Table B.1. Baseline Child Support Survey: Question-by-Question Justification (continued)
How Question Will be Used
Question

Source

Descriptor

Covariate

Subgroup

Predictor of
Participation

Outcome

partner she/he
lives with (D6)

Rationale
estimates of noncustodial parent involvement at follow-up.

FFCWS

X

X

X

Child support programs might improve relationships between
noncustodial parents and the other parent of their children.
Relationship quality may also be predictive of father engagement
(Fagan and Palkovitz 2011).

Quality of the
collaborative
co-parenting
relationship
(D8)

PAM

X

X

X

X

The quality of the co-parenting relationship is predictive of future
father involvement (Carlson, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn 2008;
Sobolewski and King 2005). Including a measure of the quality of
co-parenting at baseline in the impact analyses will improve the
precision of our impact estimates, both for co-parenting quality at
study follow-ups and other outcomes of interest. Finally, the
quality of the co-parenting relationship might predict program
participation.

Whether child
support order
is in place (D9)

BSF tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

A key goal of CSPED is to promote responsible parenting,
including noncustodial parents’ material support of their children.
Financial support of children through formal and informal
monetary payments and in-kind purchases will be important
measures of CSPED’s impact. By including a measure of financial
support at baseline in the impact analyses, we will improve the
precision of our impact estimates. Finally, child support status
might predict program participation.

Formal and
informal
support paid to
mother in last
month (D10–
D16)

BSF, FFCWS
tailored for
CSPED

Barriers to
parent
involvement
(D17-D18)

EHS tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

X

B.6

Quality of
relationship
with
mother/father
(D7)

X

The geographic distance between nonresident fathers and their
children is negatively associated with father involvement
(Manning and Smock 1999, Seltzer 1991, Veum 1993), so parentchild distance will be a useful covariate. CSPED might have
smaller impacts on noncustodial parent involvement when
parents live a larger distance from their child. In addition, barriers
to noncustodial parent involvement might also be barriers to
program participation.

Attachment B

Table B.1. Baseline Child Support Survey: Question-by-Question Justification (continued)
How Question Will be Used
Question

Subgroup

Predictor of
Participation

B.7

Source

Descriptor

Covariate

Whether parent
has other
romantic
partner (D19D20)

PACT, WFNJ
tailedored for
CSPED

X

X

X

Parents’
relationship
status with
partner (D21)

BSF tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

Whether parent
lives with
partner (D22)

BSF tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

Number of
nights parent
spent with
partner in past
30 days (D23)

CSPEDdeveloped

X

X

X

Whether
partner has
children under
age 18 (D24)

PACT tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

Whether
partner’s
children stayed
with partner
and respondent
in last 30 days
(D25)

PACT tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

Outcome

Rationale
Having a spouse or a cohabiting partner is associated with more
favorable labor market outcomes for men (Cohen 2002, Cornwell
and Rupert 1997, Nock 1998) and economic benefits for women
(Light, 2002), so noncustodial parents’ relationships with new
partners are expected to be predictive of later economic
outcomes.
Having a new partner may also be associated with less
involvement by fathers in the lives of their children from prior
relationships (Carlson, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn 2008;
Manning and Smock 1999; Seltzer 1991; Tach, Mincy, and Edin
2010).
Finally, relationships between noncustodial parents and new
partners might also predict program participation.

Noncustodial parent involvement with the children of a new
partner might be a predictor of current and future involvement of
the noncustodial parent with his/her own children, and it can also
be a predictor of program participation.

Attachment B

Table B.1. Baseline Child Support Survey: Question-by-Question Justification (continued)
How Question Will be Used
Source

Descriptor

Covariate

Subgroup

Predictor of
Participation

Outcome

Rationale

Paid work in
last month (E1)

WFNJ tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

X

X

Date of last
employment
(E2)

WFNJ tailored
for CSPED

X

X

Earnings and
hours worked
in last month
(E3–E9)

WFNJ tailored
for CSPED,
RWTW
tailored for
CSPED

X

X

X

X

A key goal of child support programs is to improve noncustodial
parents’ economic self-sufficiency. Noncustodial parents’ current
employment status, earnings, and barriers to employment are
expected to be key predictors of similar economic outcomes at
follow-up. It is also possible that the effects of CSPED on
noncustodial parents’ economic outcomes will vary according to a
parent’s baseline labor market experience. For example, the
Parents’ Fair Share program increased earnings only among men
with the least labor market experience (Miller and Knox 2001).
Employment, earnings, health insurance coverage and use of
public benefits might also be related to program participation.

Barriers to
employment
(E10)

FFCWS, BSF
tailored for
CSPED

X

X

X

X

Food stamp
benefits
received (E11)

ACS tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

X

Health
insurance
coverage (E12)

ACS tailored
for CSPED

X

X

X

X

Question
Economic Stability

B.8

Attachment B

Table B.1. Baseline Child Support Survey: Question-by-Question Justification (continued)
How Question Will be Used
Question

Source

Descriptor

Covariate

Rent or own
home (E13)

WFNJ

X

X

Co-residence
with parents or
grandparents
(E14-E15)

CSPEDdeveloped

X

X

Anticipated
housing
stability (E16E17)

HII

X

X

Subgroup

Predictor of
Participation
X

X

Outcome

Rationale
Housing instability, including homelessness, eviction, frequent
moves, involuntary moves due to being unable to pay rent or
mortgage, and living with others without paying rent, is
experienced by a considerable share of urban men, especially
those who have been incarcerated (Geller and Curtis 2011).
Housing instability is especially prevalent amongst low-income
families with children, and women who have been incarcerated
experience greater difficulties securing employment and housing
than those who have not (Phinney et al, 2007). Understanding the
housing circumstances of the CSPED sample will help capture the
extent of their disadvantages. Housing instability has also been
cited as a barrier to employment (Miller and Knox 2001), and so
can be an important covariate in models of CSPED’s impact on
noncustodial parents economic well-being. Finally, housing
instability might predict program participation.

Father/Mother Background and Well-Being

B.9

Co-residence
with own
parents during
childhood (F1)

FFCWS

X

X

Own
father/mother’s
involvement in
childhood (F2)

PACT

X

X

Quality of
relationship
with own
father/mother
(F3)

PACT

X

X

Men’s relationships with their own fathers are associated with
their understanding of the fatherhood role (Forste, Bartkowski,
and Jackson 2009; Roy 2006). We propose to include these
measures as covariates in the impact models for both men and
women.

Attachment B

Table B.1. Baseline Child Support Survey: Question-by-Question Justification (continued)
How Question Will be Used
Question

Source

Descriptor

Covariate

B.10

Depressive
symptoms (F4)

PHQ-8

X

X

Parental stress
and selfassessment as
a parent (F5F5b)

PSI

X

X

Subgroup

X

Predictor of
Participation

Outcome

Rationale

X

X

Parental depression has been shown to have adverse
consequences for child outcomes (Downey and Coyne 1990,
Gelfand and Teti 1990). To measure depressive symptoms, we
will use eight items from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), which was designed as a diagnostic instrument for depression
but can also be used to measure subthreshold depressive
disorder in the general population (Martin et al. 2006). The PHQ-9
has been shown to be reliable and valid in diverse populations
and has been used in clinical settings to measure symptom
improvement and monitor treatment outcomes (Kroenke, Spitzer,
and Williams 2001; Löwe et al. 2004). Findings from telephone
administrations of the instrument have been shown to be similar
to in-person assessments (Pinto-Meza et al. 2005). The PHQ-8,
which includes eight of the nine items from the PHQ-9; has been
shown to be a useful measure of depression in population-based
studies (Kroenke et al. 2009).

X

X

Parental stress is an indicator of parents’ own well-being and is
also correlated with parental engagement and the quality of the
co-parenting relationship (Bronte-Tinkew, Horowitz, and Carrano
2010). Thus, this measure of parenting stress will be used as
both an outcome and a useful covariate for increasing the
precision of other impact estimates. Additionally, whether the
noncustodial parent has experienced aggravation in the parenting
role will be a useful variable to create subgroups, as those
parents who have been aggravated may both be more motivated
to participate in order to improve their relationships and may
have the potential for greater improvements in outcomes at
follow-up. Finally, parental stress can be a predictor of program
participation.

Attachment B

Table B.1. Baseline Child Support Survey: Question-by-Question Justification (continued)
How Question Will be Used
Question

Source

Descriptor

Covariate

Locus of
control and
future
orientation (F6)

FFCWStailored
for CSPED,
PACT

X

X

Ever convicted
of a crime (F7)

SVORI

X

X

Longest/most
recent
incarceration
(F8-F10)

SVORI
tailored for
CSPED

X

X

Current parole
or probation
(F11)

SVORI
tailored for
CSPED

X

X

Subgroup

Predictor of
Participation

Outcome

Rationale

x

X

Disadvantaged noncustodial parents may feel helpless to change
their circumstances and pessimistic about the future. If programs
help noncustodial parents acquire new skills or improve their
circumstances, through employment for example, they may
develop greater feelings of self-efficacy and the ability to plan for
the future.

X

X

Recent research suggests that a history of incarceration and
involvement with the criminal justice system may be fairly
common among fathers in the CSPED target population (Pettit and
Western 2004). Parental incarceration has major negative effects
on child and family well-being, reducing the financial support and
other types of support parents can provide to their children and
families. Previously-incarcerated men face unique challenges in
securing work and housing (Geller and Curtis 2011, Pager 2003),
as do previously incarcerated women (Phinney et al, 2007).
Criminal history information can be used as covariates in the
impact analyses to improve the precision of our impact estimates.
Finally, parole or probation status might predict program
participation.

B.11

Motivation to Participate in Program
Motivators to
apply to
program (G1)

PACT tailored
for CSPED

X

X

Importance of
program
participation to
respondent
(G2)

PACT tailored
for CSPED

X

X

Participation is a common challenge in programs serving lowincome couples (Avellar et al. 2011; Dion et al. 2010). Past
research has shown that factors such as motivation to change and
perceived benefits of services are associated with subsequent
participation (Dumas et al. 2007, Eisner and Meidert 2011, Nock
et al. 2006, Nock et al. 2007). We will collect this information to
estimate the impact on those who receive services as well as the
impact of being offered services.

Contact Information
A1–7
H1–11k

Sources:

Contact information is necessary to locate the respondent for the
follow-up data collection to take place 12 months later.

Parents and Children Together (PACT), Building Strong Families Study (BSF), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act COBRA Subsidy
Study (CBRA), Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study (FFCWS), Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (EHS), Work First
New Jersey (WFNJ), Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM), Rural Welfare-to-Work Demonstration Evaluation (RWTW), Housing Instability
Index (HII), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Parenting Stress Index (PSI), Serious Violent Offender Reentry Initiative Evaluation
(SVORI), Youthbuild, the American Community Survey (ACS).

Attachment B

SURVEYS REFERENCED
The list below contains brief descriptions of the eight surveys referenced in the CSPED
baseline survey, as well as locations of the surveys referenced. Descriptions were compiled from
websites about the surveys and descriptions of Mathematica studies were gathered from project
summaries. When necessary, we modified questions drawn from these surveys to make them easier
to understand or to have the questions align more closely with the CSPED baseline survey’s goals.
1.

Parents and Children Together (PACT)

Mathematica’s OMB-approved Parents and Children Together (PACT) impact and evaluation
study assesses innovative approaches to helping fathers increase involvement in the lives of their
children and achieve economic stability. Similarly to the PACT study, the CSPED study uses a
random assignment design to examine the effects of parenthood and employment services provided
to low-income parents. Thus, the CSPED data collection instruments were designed to draw heavily
on the PACT study instruments, which will facilitate comparisons of program outcomes between
the two studies. .
Intake processes for the CSPED study are also closely modeled after the PACT study. In
addition, the CSPED and PACT studies use an MIS to perform random assignment and to track
program participation, and both studies include qualitative interviews with program staff, a web
survey of staff and community partners, baseline data collection with parents via telephone survey,
and a 12-month follow-up survey on various outcomes related to family and economic well-being.
The PACT baseline data collection instrument served as the starting point for the CSPED
baseline data collection instrument. The CSPED evaluation team reviewed each question within the
PACT instrument and made modifications. These modifications fall into three general categories:


Minor wording modifications The CSPED target population varies slightly from the

PACT sample population in that noncustodial mothers are included in the CSPED
study. For this reason, gendered pronouns and question wording were modified
throughout the instrument to accommodate noncustodial mothers in addition to
fathers. Other minor wording changes were also made to reflect programmatic
variations, areas of analytical focus, clarify target behaviors, and maximize the reliability
and validity of data collected from the target CSPED population.


Deletion of items excluded from analysis In order to reduce respondent burden, the
CSPED evaluation team removed any baseline items that would not be used for
analysis of the CSPED baseline survey. Examples include items about respondent
religiosity, country of origin and disability status.



Addition of items required for analysis Several items were added in order to better
understand program effects on participant outcomes. Examples include questions
about employer-provided health insurance coverage, additional detail about the
respondent’s living situation, and a self-assessment of the respondent as a parent.

Surveys are available from Mathematica upon request.

B.12

Attachment B

2.

Building Strong Families Study (BSF)

The United States Department of Health and Human Services/Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) initiated the Building Strong Families (BSF) project to help interested and
romantically involved low-income, unwed parents build stronger relationships and thus enhance
their child’s well being and their own future. The BSF evaluation being conducted by Mathematica is
designed to test the effectiveness of these programs for couples and children. BSF data collection
included a baseline information form to collect demographic and socioeconomic data along with
two follow-up surveys. The follow-up surveys included questions related to mother-father
relationships, family structure, fathers’ involvement in child rearing, parent-child relationships and
the home environment, family functioning, child well-being and development, and parental wellbeing.
Surveys are available from Mathematica upon request.
3.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act COBRA Subsidy Study (CBRA)

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, Mathematica’s American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) COBRA Subsidy study examines the effect of the availability of an
ARRA COBRA premium subsidy on the take-up of COBRA coverage and other health and
employment outcomes. As part of the study, Mathematica will conduct a survey of COBRA-eligible
individuals drawn from state Unemployment Insurance recipients. The CBRA survey asks questions
related to respondents’ demographic characteristics, employment history, receipt of social services,
and health insurance.
Surveys are available from Mathematica upon request.
4.

Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study (FFCWS)

The Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study is a longitudinal study of a cohort of nearly
5,000 children born between 1998 and 2000 from birth through age five. Approximately one-third
of the children were born to unmarried parents. Interviews were conducted with both mothers and
fathers covering a range of topics including attitudes, relationships, and parenting behavior.
Study protocols and codebooks can be found here: http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/documentation.asp
5.

Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project (EHS)

The Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project was a national, large-scale, random
assignment evaluation of Early Head Start. The study included interviews with both mothers and
fathers about child and family functioning when children were 14 months through 36 months of
age. One branch of the study focused on low-income fathers’ involvement in their children’s lives.
Study protocols can be found here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_resrch/index.html

B.13

Attachment B

6.

Work First New Jersey (WFNJ)

Mathematica evaluated the effects of New Jersey’s initiative to help welfare recipients’ transition
from welfare to work. WFNJ interviewed sample members annually for five years documenting
changes in household composition, income, employment, and other indicators of well-being.
Surveys are available from Mathematica upon request.
7.

Rural Welfare-to-Work Demonstration Evaluation (RWTW)

Mathematica’s Rural Welfare-to-Work Strategies Demonstration Evaluation used random
assignment to assess innovative approaches to helping welfare-dependent and other low-income
families in rural areas to enter, maintain, and advance in employment and to secure family wellbeing. Data collection included a baseline information form to collect demographic and
socioeconomic data on sample members and two follow-up surveys to collect detailed employment
history data as well as information on various outcomes related to individual and family well-being.
Surveys are available from Mathematica upon request.
8.

Evaluation of the Serious Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)

The Evaluation of the Serious Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) was a multi-year,
multi-site evaluation funded by National Institute of Justice. The impact evaluation was designed to
measure the impact of enhanced reentry programming on post-release outcomes. As part of the
evaluation, interviews were conducted at four points in time.
Surveys are available from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data.
9.

YouthBuild

Mathematica’s YouthBuild study is an evaluation of youth and community development
programs targeted towards out-of-school youth from low-income families. The evaluation measures
core program outcomes, including educational attainment, postsecondary education planning,
employment, earnings, delinquency, involvement with the criminal justice system, and social and
emotional development. Mathematica, as a subcontractor to MDRC, is designing and implementing
a web survey of YouthBuild grantees and three mixed-mode surveys of youth that will take place 12,
30 and 48 months after random assignments.
Surveys are available from Mathematica upon request.
10. Parenting Alliance Measure (PAM)
The PAM is a parental assessment designed to provide assessment of parental perceptions of
the strength of their parenting alliance. The PAM is a screening tool suitable for family counselors,
joint custody evaluations, identification of issues with parenting skills, and is also used to assess the
impact of intervention programs.
Assessments are available for purchase from PAR, Inc.

B.14

Attachment B

11. Patient Health Questionnaire Screeners (PHQ)
The PHQ is a clinical tool designed to provide clinicians with screening and diagnostic tools for
mental health disorders. All PHQ instruments have been tested in clinical settings, and are designed
to improve recognition rates of depression and anxiety.
Assessments are available from Pfizer at www.phqscreeners.com.
12. The American Community Survey (ACS)
The ACS is an ongoing survey of American households. It is administered annually using a
multi-mode design and collects demographic, employment, disability, health, and spending data in
order to inform federal and state funding decisions.
Surveys are available from the United States Census.
13. Housing Instability Index (HII)
The HII is a tool created for the Safe Housing Assistance with Rent Evaluation (SHARE)
study, a CDC-funded evaluation designed to learn about the connection between domestic violence
and housing. The HII provides information about vulnerability, quality of life and health outcomes
associated with housing stability.
The index is available through the National Alliance to End Homelessness.
14. The Parenting Stress Index (PSI)
The PSI is designed to identify dysfunctional parenting and identify sources of stress within a
family unit. This empirically validated measure has been tested across languages and cultures and can
be used as a diagnostic and predictive tool for future parental behavior problems.
Assessments are available for purchase from PAR, Inc.

B.15

Attachment B

REFERENCES
Avellar, Sarah M., Robin Dion, Andrew Clarkwest, Heather Zaveri, Subuhi Asheer, Kelley
Borradaile, Megan Hague Angus, Timothy Novak, Julie Redline, and Marykate Zukiewicz.
“Catalog of Research: Programs for Low-Income Fathers.” Washington, DC: Mathematica
Policy Research, June 2011.
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Horowitz, A., and Carrano, J. “Aggravation and Stress in Parenting: Associations
with Coparenting and Father Engagement Among Resident Fathers.” Journal of Family Issues, vol.
31, 2010, pp. 525–555.
Call, V.R.A., and T.B. Heaton. “Religious Influence on Marital Stability.” Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, vol. 36, 1997, pp. 382–392.
Carlson, M. J., S.S. McLanahan, and J. Brooks-Gunn. “Coparenting and Nonresident Fathers’
Involvement with Young Children After a Nonmarital Birth.” Demography , vol. 45, 2008,
pp. 461–88.
Cohen, P.N. “Cohabitation and the Declining Marriage Premium for Men.” Work and Occupations,
vol. 29, 2002, pp. 346–363.
Cornwell, C., and P. Rupert. “Unobservable Individual Effects, Marriage and the Earnings of Young
Men.” Economic Inquiry, vol. 35, 1997, pp. 285–294.
Dion, Robin, Sarah M. Avellar, and Elizabeth Clary. “Implementation of Eight Programs to
Strengthen Unmarried Parent Families.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, May
2010.
Downey G., and J.C. Coyne. “Children of Depressed Parents: An Integrative Review.” Psychological
Bulletin, vol. 108, 1990, pp. 50–76.
Dumas, J.E., Nissley-Tsiopinis, J., and Moreland, A.D. “From Intent to Enrollment, Attendance,
and Participation in Preventative Parenting Groups.” Journal of Child and Family Studies, vol. 16.,
no. 1, 2007, pp. 1–26.
Eisner, M. and U. Meidert. “Stages of Parental Engagement in a Universal Parent Training
Program.” Journal of Primary Prevention, vol. 34, 2011, pp. 951–963.
Ellison, C.G., J.D. Boardman, D.R. Williams, and J.S. Jackson. “Religious Involvement, Stress, and
Mental Health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit Area Study.” Social Forces, vol. 80, 2001, pp.
215–249.
Fagan, J., and M. Barnett. “The Relationship Between Maternal Gatekeeping, Paternal Competence,
Mothers’ Attitudes About the Father Role, and Father Involvement.” Journal of Family Issues, vol.
24, 2003, pp. 1020–1043.
Fagan, J., and R. Palkovitz. “Coparenting and Relationship Quality Effects on Father Engagement:
Variations by Residence, Romance.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 73, 2011, pp. 637-653.

B.16

Attachment B

Forste, R., J.P. Bartkowski, and R.A. Jackson. “‘Just Be There for Them’: Perceptions of Fathering
Among Single, Low-Income Men.” Fathering, vol. 7, 2009, pp. 49–69.
Gelfand, D.M., and D.M. Teti. “The Effects of Maternal Depression on Children.” Clinical Psychology
Reviews, vol. 10, 1990, pp. 329–353.
Geller, A., and M.A. Curtis. “A Sort of Homecoming: Incarceration and the Housing Security of
Urban Men.” Social Science Research, vol. 40, 2011, pp. 1196–1213.
Guzzo, K.B. “Maternal Relationships and Nonresidential Father Visitation of Children Born
Outside of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 71, 2009, pp. 632–649.
Harris, K. M., and S.P. Morgan. “Fathers, Sons, and Daughters: Differential Paternal Involvement in
Parenting.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 53, 1991, pp. 531–544.
Hofferth, S.L., J. Pleck,J.L. Stueve, S. Bianchi, and L. Sayer. “The Demography of Fathers: What
Fathers Do.” In Handbook of Father Involvement: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by C.S. TamisLeMonda and N. Cabrera. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
Johnson, E.S., and F. Doolittle. “Low-Income Parents and the Parents’ Fair Share Program: An
Early Qualitative Look at Improving the Ability and Desire of Low-Income Noncustodial
Parents to Pay Child Support.” In Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement,
edited by I. Garfinkel, S. McLanahan, D.R. Meyer, and J.A. Seltzer. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1998.
Johnson, Waldo E., Jr. “Paternal Involvement Among Unwed Fathers.” Children and Youth Services
Review, vol. 23, 2001, pp. 513-536.
Kroenke, Kurt, Robert L. Spitzer, and Janet B.W. Williams. “The PHQ-9: Validity of a Brief
Depression Severity Measure.” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 16, no. 9, 2001, pp. 606–
613.
Kroenke, Kurt, Tara W. Strine, Robert L. Spitzer, Janet B.W. Williams, Joyce T. Berry, and Ali H.
Mokdad. “The PHQ-8 as a Measure of Current Depression in the General Population.” Journal
of Affective Disorders, vol. 144, no. 1, 2009, pp. 163–173.
Light, Audrey. “Gender Differences in the Marriage and Cohabitation Income Premium.”
Demography, vol. 41, no. 2, 2004, pp. 263-284.
Löwe, B., J. Unützer, C.M. Callahan, A.J. Perkins, and K. Kroenke, “Monitoring Depression
Treatment Outcomes with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9.” Medical Care, vol. 42, no. 12,
2004, pp. 1194–1201.
Lundberg, S., S. McLanahan, and E. Rose. “Child Gender and Father Involvement in Fragile
Families.” Demography, vol. 44, 2007, pp. 79–92.
Lundberg, S., and E. Rose. “The Effect of Sons and Daughters on Men’s Labor Supply and Wages.”
Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 84, 2002, pp. 251–268.

B.17

Attachment B

Lundberg, S., and E. Rose. “Child Gender and the Transition to Marriage.” Demography, vol. 40,
2003, pp. 333–349.
Manning, W.D., and P.J. Smock. “New Families and Nonresident Father-Child Visitation.” Social
Forces, vol. 78, 1999, pp. 87–116.
Manning, W.D., and P.J. Smock. “‘Swapping’ Families: Serial Parenting and Economic Support for
Children.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 62, 2000, pp. 111–122.
Manning, W.D., S.D. Stewart, and P.J. Smock. “The Complexity of Fathers’ Parenting
Responsibilities and Involvement with Nonresident Children.” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 24,
2003, pp. 645–667.
Martin, A., W. Reif, A. Klaiberg, and E. Braehler, “Validity of the Brief Patient Health Questionnaire
Mood Scale (PHQ-9) in the General Population.” General Hospital Psychiatry, vol. 28, no. 1, 2006,
pp. 71–77.
Miller, C., and V. Knox. “The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children.”
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, November 2001.
Minton, C., and K. Pasley. “Fathers’ Parenting Role Identity and Father Involvement: A
Comparison of Nondivorced and Divorced, Nonresident Fathers.” Journal of Family Issues, vol.
16, 1996, pp. 26–45.
Nelson, T.J., S. Clampet-Lundquist, and K. Edin. “Father Involvement Among Low-Income,
Noncustodial African-American Fathers in Philadelphia.” In Handbook of Father Involvement:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by C.S. Tamis-LeMonda, and N. Cabrera. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
Nock, M.K., Ferriter, C., and Holmberg, E. “Parent Beliefs about Treatment Credibility and
Effectiveness: Assessment and Retention of Subsequent Treatment Participation.” Journal of
Child and Family Studies, vol. 16, 2007, pp. 27–38.
Nock, M.K., and V. Photos. “Parent Motivation to Participate in Treatment: Assessment and
Prediction of Subsequent Participation.” Journal of Child and Family Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, 2006,
pp. 345–358.
Nock, S.L. Marriage in Men’s Lives. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Pager, D. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 108, 2003, pp. 937–975.
Pettit, B. and B. Western. “Mass Imprisonment and the Life Course: Race and Class Inequality in
U.S. Incarceration.” American Sociological Review, vol. 69, 2004, pp. 151–169.
Phinney, Robin, Sheldon Danziger, Harold Pollack, and Kristen Seefeldt. “Housing Instability
Among Current and Former Welfare Recipients.” Americal Journal of Public Health, vol. 95, no. 5,
2007, pp. 832-837.

B.18

Attachment B

Pinto-Meza A., A. Serrano-Blanco, M.T. Peñarrubia, E. Blanco, and J.M. Haro, “Assessing
Depression in Primary Care with the PHQ-9: Can It Be Carried Out over the Telephone?”
Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 20, no. 9, 2005, pp. 738–742.
Roy, K.M. “Father Stories: A Life Course Examination of Paternal Identity Among Low-Income
African American Men.” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 27, 2006, pp. 31–54.
Ryan, R., Kalil, A., and Ziol-Guest, “Longitudinal Patterns of Non-Resident Fathers’ Involvement:
The Role of Resources and Relations.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 70, 2008, pp. 962–977.
Seltzer, J.A. “Children’s Contact with Absent Parents.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, (1988): 663677.
Seltzer, J.A. “Relationships Between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father’s Role After
Separation.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 53, 1991, pp. 79–101.
Sobolewski, J.M., and V. King. “The Importance of the Coparental Relationship for Nonresident
Fathers’ Ties to Children.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 67, 2005, pp. 1196–1212.
Tach, L., R. Mincy, and K. Edin. “Parenting as a ‘Package Deal’: Relationships, Fertility, and
Nonresident Father Involvement Among Unmarried Parents.” Demography, vol. 47, 2010, pp.
181–204.
Veum, J.R. “The Relationship Between Child Support and Visitation: Evidence from Longitudinal
Data.” Social Science Research, vol. 22, 1993, pp. 229–244.

B.19