unproductive 3 1 2 1 5 1 554 197 751 Data preparation There were eight questions on the survey that included an specify’ option. The ‘other verbatim answers given at these questions were examined and, where possible, allocated to one of the existing answer codes at that question. Where a number of respondents had given similar answers that could not be allocated into one of the existing codes a new code was created. Once fieldwork had finished and all data had been coded an SPSS dataset, including all 251 interviews, was created. The dataset included all questionnaire data, and some sample information (anonymised case ID, sample type, date of application to court, date of first hearing at court, name of court, participant type, case application type and gender). Additional derived variables were created using SPSS syntax. Matching of the SPIP, PIP and Comparison Samples The main purpose of the sample surveys (SPIP, PIP; and non-PIP comparison group) is as a source of data from which estimates can be derived of the impacts of the various models of SPIP/PIP on parental and child outcomes. In order to isolate out the impact of the programme from all other possible causes of differences in outcomes between the groups, the three groups have been matched. The matching ensures that the three groups are very similar in terms of a wide range of baseline characteristics around the circumstances of families at the point at which they approached the courts for assistance regarding their contact arrangements: contact and maintenance arrangements, relationship quality and previous court experience; socio-demographic profile of families at the point of separation; and length of separation. The intention of the matching is to weight both the SPIP sample and the original non-PIP comparison sample so that all three groups have the same baseline profile. Nevertheless, because the sample size of the SPIP group in particular is relatively small, achieving a good match is difficult. To deal with this the impacts presented in this report have been for any residual observed differences between the groups. The main steps involved are described below. Step 1: Weighting of the SPIP sample to put the Plus attenders and non-attenders into their correct proportions
unproductive 3 1 2 1 5 1 554 197 751 Data preparation There were eight questions on the survey that included an ‘other specify’ option. The verbatim answers given at these questions were examined and, where possible, allocated to one of the existing answer codes at that question. Where a number of respondents had given similar answers that could not be allocated into one of the existing codes a new code was created. Once fieldwork had finished and all data had been coded an SPSS dataset, including all 251 interviews, was created. The dataset included all questionnaire data, and some sample information (anonymised case ID, sample type, date of application to court, date of first hearing at court, name of court, participant type, case application type and gender). Additional derived variables were created using SPSS syntax. Matching of the SPIP, PIP and Comparison Samples The main purpose of the sample surveys (SPIP, PIP; and non-PIP comparison group) is as a source of data from which estimates can be derived of the impacts of the various models of SPIP/PIP on parental and child outcomes. In order to isolate out the impact of the programme from all other possible causes of differences in outcomes between the groups, the three groups have been matched. The matching ensures that the three groups are very similar in terms of a wide range of baseline characteristics around the circumstances of families at the point at which they approached the courts for assistance regarding their contact arrangements: contact and maintenance arrangements, relationship quality and previous court experience; socio-demographic profile of families at the point of separation; and length of separation. The intention of the matching is to weight both the SPIP sample and the original non-PIP comparison sample so that all three groups have the same baseline profile. Nevertheless, because the sample size of the SPIP group in particular is relatively small, achieving a good match is difficult. To deal with this the impacts presented in this report have been for any residual observed differences between the groups. The main steps involved are described below. Step 1: Weighting of the SPIP sample to put the Plus attenders and non-attenders into their correct proportions