Impact Evaluation of the TYRO Couples Project
Phase: NA
Conditions: Couples
Sponsor: Midwest Evaluation & Research

 
 
 
 
 
TYRO Couples Project Study 
 
Impact Evaluation Study Protocol and Analysis Plan 
 
 
NCT05267236 
 
 
 
August 22, 2024 
 
 

 
 
 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.  

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
1 
Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan: “The Evaluation of TYRO Couples in 
Ohio” 
A. HMRE grant recipient 
HMRE grant recipient name: The RIDGE Project, McClure, OH 
Project leads: Cathy and Ron Tijerina 
Email address: catherine@theridgeproject.com; ron@theridgeproject.com  
B. Evaluator 
Evaluator’s organization: Midwest Evaluation and Research, Emporia, Kansas 
Evaluator lead: Michelle Jackson 
Email address: michelle.jackson@midwestevaluation.com  
 
 
 
 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
2 
Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan 
The Evaluation of TYRO Couples in Ohio 
Program overview 
The nationally recognized TYRO Couples curriculum was developed by RIDGE Executive Directors, Ron 
and Catherine Tijerina, out of their own personal experience with incarceration. TYRO Couples is just one 
program in the suite of programs offered by The RIDGE Project that strengthen families, individuals, and 
organizations by providing evidence-based material that transforms and empowers others. The word 
“TYRO” means novice, learner, apprentice, someone learning something new and is from the Latin word 
‘tiro’ meaning a young soldier, a recruit. TYRO Couples contains ten lessons, referred to as workshops. The 
curriculum educates participants about what healthy relationship skills are in addition to providing 
training and opportunity to practice healthy relationship skills for individuals and couples. 
The RIDGE Project was awarded a Healthy Marriage and Responsible Education (HMRE) grant in 2020 to 
compare two delivery modes of the TYRO Couples curriculum using  a randomized controlled trial (RCT) 
study design. The standard in-person delivery mode is being compared to the newly implemented on-
demand delivery mode where participants view curriculum content through pre-recorded videos and 
proceed through the content at their own pace. The on-demand delivery and in-person delivery both 
have 12 lessons of the same content. For the on-demand mode, instructors were filmed teaching the 
content as taught in-person.  
Informed by the self-efficacy and learner control theory, the purpose of this study is to assess the extent 
to which TYRO Couples training delivered in an on-demand format has an impact on economic stability 
outcomes among all participants as well as marriage/intimate partner relationships among participants 
who report being in a relationship. Originally coined by Bandura in 1977, self-efficacy is the concept that 
describes an individual’s belief in his or her capability to independently accomplish the various tasks 
needed to achieve a desired outcome. Therefore, implementing prison-based interventions that help to 
increase individuals’ and couples’ self-efficacy in developing and maintaining healthy marriage and 
intimate relationships that expands to securing employment and maintaining employment relationships is 
important. TYRO equips individuals, institutions, and organizations with skills they need to be overall 
responsible citizens but specifically parents, partners, reliable employees, and positive role models. TYRO 
provides individuals with a clear picture of what responsibility looks like and how they can achieve success 
in their jobs, communities, and within their own families.  
A. Research questions 
This section presents the primary and secondary research questions that will be assessed in the impact 
evaluation of the TYRO Couples curriculum service delivery format on participants.  
1. 
Primary research questions   
 For this impact evaluation, the intervention that will be tested is the delivery format of the TYRO Couples 
curriculum. The standard in-person delivery format will be compared to the newly developed on-demand 
format. TYRO Couples will be provided either in an on-demand (tablet) format, where program 
participants access the TYRO Couples curriculum in a self-directed learning environment to go at their 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
3 
own pace, or in the standard in-person delivery format, where participants receive the TYRO Couples 
curriculum from a facilitator in a group classroom setting. In this study, participants in the on-demand 
method of delivery are considered the treatment group while those in the standard in-person delivery 
format are considered the comparison group (also referred to as the counterfactual group).  
Testing the delivery format of TYRO Couples is important for several reasons. First, more research is 
needed to better understand which prison-based learning methods are more effective on economic 
stability and marriage/intimate partner relationship. Although there are some previous studies of best 
practices for prison-based learning, there are no studies, to our knowledge, that examine the effectiveness 
of on-demand learning on economic and relationship and outcomes among couples affected by 
incarceration.  This study is not only looking at impacts on couples, but more broadly focuses on 
outcomes impacting both individuals or couples, as being in a relationship is not required to be in the 
study. Therefore, partner relationship behavior and attitudes items are not asked of the entire sample so 
that any assessment of the impact of TYRO on these outcomes would be underpowered. Relationship 
behaviors and attitudes are included as exploratory secondary research questions.  
Second, previous studies suggest that on-demand learning can be a helpful tool that empowers learners 
to digest the course material at their own pace. Learner control is a theory that derives from several 
motivational theoretical underpinnings, including attribution theory, motivation theory, and information 
processing theory (Chou & Liu, 2005). Previous research guided by learner control theory suggests that 
self-guided, on-demand learning is positively related to greater learner satisfaction and higher levels of 
learning compared with those who did not use this format (Chou & Liu, 2005).1 The on-demand mode of 
the TYRO curriculum is a new way of delivering content that may be more effective than the standard in-
person delivery mode. This study will build on the research around the viability of long-term use of 
technology, specifically tablets, in the prison system.  
The primary research questions are as follows: 
1. What is the impact of the on-demand delivery (treatment) compared to the in-person delivery 
(counterfactual) of the TYRO Couples curriculum on employment attitudes six months after 
program enrollment? 
 
2. What is the impact of the on-demand delivery (treatment) compared to the in-person delivery 
(counterfactual) of the TYRO Couples curriculum on financial attitudes six months after program 
enrollment? 
2. 
Secondary research question 
1. For participants who report being in a relationship, what is the impact of the on-demand delivery 
(treatment) compared to the in-person delivery (counterfactual) of the TYRO Couples curriculum 
on marriage/intimate partner relationship behaviors six months after program enrollment? 
2. For participants who report being in a relationship, what is the impact of the on-demand delivery 
 
1 Source: Chou, S., & Liu, C. (2005). Learning effectiveness in a web-based virtual learning environment: 
A learner-control perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 65 - 76. 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
4 
(treatment) compared to the standard in-person delivery (counterfactual) of the TYRO Couples 
curriculum on marriage/intimate partner relationship attitudes after program completion? 
 
 
3. 
Primary and secondary outcome measures 
For this impact evaluation study, the intervention that will be tested is the delivery format of the TYRO 
Couples curriculum. The research questions are framed to determine if program participants who are 
randomly assigned to  the TYRO Couples curriculum through an on-demand format will derive more 
benefits compared to those who are assigned to the TYRO Couples curriculum in a standard, in-person 
format.  
Primary research questions are applicable to the entire population in the study and will be measured six 
months after the intervention has ended. This study focuses on employment and financial attitudes as the 
primary research questions. Finding and maintaining a job, which is one of the top priorities participants 
will have after release, has been noted in criminal justice research to reduce former prisoners’ chances of 
reoffending (Visher, Debus, and Yahner, 2008).  Subsequent secondary research questions focusing on 
relationships are only applicable to the study population who report being in a relationship. However, all 
research questions are relevant to the TYRO Couples Curriculum as well as consistent with the study’s 
logic model.    
Outcome measures in this study were created for this evaluation and are not based on already-
validated scales. Using the local evaluation baseline survey, we will generate a correlation matrix 
between items in a given construct to ensure that theoretically related items are also empirically 
related in our data set. Items that are not strongly correlated with other items in a construct will be 
removed as necessary. Factor analysis will be used to ensure that all construct items hang together 
(using an alpha of 0.60 or higher as the threshold). We will then create a composite measure by taking 
an average of the scores on each non-missing item in the construct. For composite measures, a 
change score will be calculated between a participant’s pre-program composite score and six-month-
post-enrollment follow-up composite score. If construct items do not meet the 0.60 to threshold, that 
outcome will be removed. An alpha value of 0.60 is the minimally acceptable value that will be used 
for scale construction.  
We will create a composite score by taking the average of multiple individual items. For these 
composite measures, our plan is to use 20% as a threshold for allowable missing items. This plan is 
contingent on the final distribution of missing data in our dataset. With a 20% threshold, if a 
respondent is missing more than 1 item used for creating the employment construct or more than 2 
items for creating the financial construct, the respondent will be assigned a missing value for that 
construct. We will not impute truly missing values for outcomes. To create a construct score, the 
average will be divided by the number of non-missing values in the construct. 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
5 
Table 1. Description of outcome measures used to answer impact analysis primary research 
questions 
Research 
question 
# 
Outcome 
name 
Description of the outcome measure and its 
properties 
Source of the 
measure 
Timing of measure 
1 
Employment 
Attitudes 
The outcome measure is a scale (value range of 
1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) 
calculated as the average of eight survey items 
related to employment attitudes. 
 
Sample item: 
I have the skills I need to get a decent job.  
Local evaluation 
follow-up-
survey 
Six months after 
program enrollment 
2 
Financial 
Attitudes 
The outcome measure is a scale (value range of 
1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) 
calculated as the average of seven survey items 
related to financial attitudes. 
 
Sample item: 
I am overwhelmed when I think about my 
financial situation.  
Local evaluation 
follow-up-
survey 
Six months after 
program enrollment 
 
 
Table 2. Description of outcome measures used to answer impact analysis secondary research 
questions 
Research 
question 
# 
Outcome 
name 
Description of the outcome measure and its 
properties 
Source of the 
measure 
Timing of 
measure 
1 
Relationship 
Behaviors 
The outcome measure is a scale (value range 1=never 
to 4=often) calculated as the average of seven survey 
items related to the frequency of healthy intimate 
partner/spouse relationship behaviors.  
 
Sample item:  
When my partner/spouse and I had a seriouse 
disagreement, we discussed our disagreements 
respectfully.  
 
Note: skip logic is built into the survey. If a 
participant is not currently in a committed 
relationship, he or she will be asked to move to the 
next section of the survey.  
Local evaluation 
follow-up survey 
 
Six months 
after program 
enrollment 
2 
Relationship 
Attitudes 
The outcome measure is a scale (value range of 
1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) calculated 
as the average of eight survey items related to 
intimate partner/spouse attitudes and expectations 
 
Sample item:  
Local evaluation 
post-survey 
After program 
completion 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
6 
Research 
question 
# 
Outcome 
name 
Description of the outcome measure and its 
properties 
Source of the 
measure 
Timing of 
measure 
My partner and I can handle any conflicts that come 
up in our relationship.  
 
Note: skip logic was built into the survey in Oct 2023. 
If a participant is not currently in a committed 
relationship, he or she will be asked to move to the 
next section of the survey. 
 
B. Description of the focal population and the intervention and counterfactual 
conditions 
This section provides a brief description of the focal populations, the intervention being evaluated, and 
the services that are intended as the comparison to the intervention, including any service-as-usual 
resources available. In addition, it includes a description of the services actually received by the 
intervention and comparison groups. 
1. 
 Focal population(s) 
The focal populations for the study are incarcerated males and females who are at least 18 years of age 
and within 9 months of release from prison in six central Ohio facilities: Ohio Reformatory for Women, 
Richland Correctional Institution, Franklin County Community Based Correctional Facility, Lorain 
Correctional, North Central Correctional, and the Worth Center (for women). These facilities are located in 
central, north central, northeastern, and northwestern Ohio.  
2. 
Intended intervention condition(s) 
Treatment condition 1: On-demand TYRO Couples curriculum offered asynchronously via tablet at an 
individuals’ self-directed pace. 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
7 
Intended components. The curriculum, TYRO Couples, is a comprehensive program that teaches self-
efficacy and is designed to prepare individuals for healthy relationships (both personal and professional), 
strengthen relationships, enhance parenting skills, and create a harmonious workplace and family dynamic 
upon reentry to the community. The combination of employment, financial, and relationship components 
within the TYRO suite helps set participants up to be more successful after release from prison and lessen 
the likelihood of recidivating.   
The intervention is the TYRO Couples curriculum delivered in an on-demand, tablet format. Participants 
do the lessons at their own pace over a six-week period. The on-demand delivery format has the same 
number of lessons as the standard in-person delivery format and contains the same content. Activities in 
the on-demand delivery format are the same as those in the in-person delivery mode. However, activities 
were adapted to fit the on-demand learning path using different engagement tactics to replace class 
discussion and group activities, which are part of the standard delivery model. For example, to modify the 
activities for the on-demand mode, actors were filmed portraying the same interactive activities that were 
taught in the in-person lessons.  
Intended content. The content of the TYRO Couples curriculum focuses on how to understand your 
partner’s perspective, how to avoid destructive conflict, and how to communicate effectively that is 
applicable to both the workplace and personal relationships. TYRO Couples prepares individuals for 
healthy relationships, strengthens existing relationships, enhances parenting skills, and creates a 
harmonious workplace and family dynamic. TYRO Couples offers a holistic approach to building healthier, 
happier families and leaders in their homes, communities, and workplaces. TYRO Couples teaches self-
efficacy, whether that is in personal relationships or the ability to job search, secure employment, build job 
skills, or maintain employment relationships. Participants embark on a transformative journey towards 
deeper connection, effective communication, thriving careers, and empowered parenting.   
The content, whether delivered in-person or on-demand, is designed to help individuals learn the skills to 
have healthy relationships, regardless of their current relationship status or desire to be in a relationship. 
Individuals learn to identify cycles of unhealthy relationship behaviors and how to replace those behaviors 
with healthy habits. Self-awareness, self-regulation, dream-pursuit, healthy communication, conflict 
resolution skills, and relational investment metrics are taught to help inspire participants to desire a 
healthy relationship regardless of marital status. Most participants have been in previous, unhealthy 
relationships that ended and a small percentage are in a current relationship. As of grant year four and 
taking into consideration everyone who enrolled into the study and completed an Applicant 
Characteristics Survey (ACS), over 50% of participants who responded to the item stated that they did not 
have a current partner. In addition, about 29% reported being romantically involved or in a committed 
relationship, and 17% reported being involved in an on-again off-again relationship (among those who 
responded to the survey item). Final numbers for the analytic sample of RCT participants will be included 
in the final report. By teaching participants self-improvement guided by self-awareness and self-
regulation, they learn what it takes to develop a strong, thriving, healthy and permanent relationship. 
Planned dosage and implementation schedule. Target dosage for TYRO Couples on-demand is 24 total 
hours of curriculum received asynchronously via tablet at an individuals’ self-directed pace over a 6-week 
period. Participants must complete a quiz for every one of the 12 lessons and answer 100% of the 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
8 
questions correctly in order to move onto the next lesson. There is one quiz per lesson totaling 12 quizzes. 
Each quiz contains four questions per lesson totaling 48 questions for the course. The learning 
management system (LMS) platform, Thinkific, tracks participant progress, completion percentage of each 
lesson, questions answered, and overall time spent for the course.  
Delivery mode. Content is delivered on-demand online via tablet; participants watch the curriculum at 
their own pace in a designated room where all on-demand participants can check out a tablet. The on-
demand course is filmed and designed to be taken in order so the participant cannot watch the next 
lesson until the previous one is watched and the quiz is successfully completed.  
Staff characteristics, education, and training. Content is delivered without facilitators present; this is a pre-
recorded, video-based, interactive, and progressive/sequential program that requires retention of 
knowledge by a series of assignments and quizzes built into the curriculum that must be passed before 
moving to the next section so participants can receive their certificate. The authors of the program are the 
virtual facilitators for the on-demand videos. 
3.    Intended counterfactual condition(s) 
Treatment condition 2-Counterfactual Group (Standard, in-person TYRO Couples curriculum delivered in a 
group classroom setting 
Intended components. The curriculum, TYRO Couples, is a comprehensive program designed to prepare 
individuals for healthy relationships, strengthen relationships, enhance parenting skills, and create a 
harmonious workplace and family dynamic.  
The counterfactual condition is the standard, in-person TYRO Couples curriculum, with lessons that are 
taught in small groups in a classroom setting over a six-week period.  
Intended content. The content of the TYRO Couples curriculum is how to understand your partner’s 
perspective, how to avoid destructive conflict, and how to communicate effectively. TYRO Couples 
prepares individuals for healthy relationships, strengthens relationships, enhances parenting skills, and 
creates a harmonious workplace and family dynamic. TYRO Couples offers a holistic approach to building 
healthier, happier families and leaders in their homes, communities, and workplaces. Participants embark 
on a transformative journey towards deeper connection, effective communication, thriving careers, and 
empowered parenting.  
Planned dosage and implementation schedule. Target dosage for TYRO Couples in-person is 24 total hours 
of curriculum, which includes 12 in-person classes of two hours each, with two classes per week, over a 
six-week period.  
Delivery mode. In-person group lessons provided at the facility by one professional or trained peer 
facilitator in every session. 
Staff characteristics, education, and training. Facilitators are male and female and at minimum hold a high 
school diploma plus professional licenses or have some college attendance; over 70% of facilitators have 
bachelor’s or graduate degrees. All will have received four days of initial training and approximately one 
month of on-the-job shadowing of a trained facilitator. Facilitators receive two days of recertification 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
9 
training on an annual basis in addition to a minimum of one additional professional training per year (e.g., 
trauma-informed care, addiction and recovery, data management, motivational interviewing). 
Table 3. Description of intended intervention and counterfactual components and focal populations 
Component 
Curriculum and content 
Dosage and schedule 
Delivery 
Focal 
population 
Intervention: On-demand delivery format 
On-demand, 
asynchronous 
delivery of 
curriculum 
via tablet 
TYRO Couples is a healthy 
relationships curriculum. 
Content includes 
understanding your 
partner’s perspective, 
avoiding destructive 
conflict, and 
communicating effectively. 
24 curriculum hours 
received 
asynchronously via 
tablet at an 
individual’s self-
directed pace over a 
6-week period 
Pre-recorded, 
video-based, 
interactive 
programming 
available on 
demand via a 
checked-out tablet 
used in a 
designated space 
Incarcerated 
male and 
female 
participants 
who are at 
least 18 years 
of age and 
within 9 
months of 
release 
Counterfactual: In-person delivery format 
In-person 
delivery of 
curriculum in 
group setting 
TYRO Couples is a healthy 
relationships curriculum. 
Content includes 
understanding your 
partner’s perspective, 
avoiding destructive 
conflict, and 
communicating effectively. 
24 curriculum hours 
delivered over 12 two-
hour classes; 2 classes 
a week for 6 weeks 
In-person group 
lessons provided at 
the facilities by one 
professional or 
trained peer 
facilitator in every 
session 
Incarcerated 
male and 
female 
participants 
who are at 
least 18 years 
of age and 
within 9 
months of 
release. 
 
Table 4. Staff characteristics, education, training, and development to support intervention and 
counterfactual components  
Component 
Staff characteristics, education, and initial 
training 
Ongoing staff training  
Intervention: On-demand delivery format 
TYRO Couples, 
Healthy 
Relationship 
Skills (on-
demand) 
Content is delivered without facilitators present; 
workshops are recorded by the creators of the 
curriculum. There is no ongoing staff training; 
however, this is a pre-recorded, video-based, 
interactive, and progressive/sequential program 
that requires retention of knowledge by a series 
of assignments and quizzes built into the 
curriculum to receive a certificate.  
Content is delivered without facilitators present 
as pre-recorded sessions by the creators of the 
curriculum, so there is no ongoing staff training 
for this delivery method. 
Counterfactual: In-person delivery format 
TYRO Couples, 
Healthy 
Facilitators are male and female and, at a 
minimum, hold a high school diploma plus 
Facilitators receive two days of recertification 
training on an annual basis in addition to a 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
10 
Component 
Staff characteristics, education, and initial 
training 
Ongoing staff training  
Relationship 
Skills (in-person) 
professional licenses or some college. Over 
70% of staff have bachelor’s or graduate 
degrees. All will have received four days of 
initial training and approximately one month of 
on-the-job shadowing of a trained facilitator. 
minimum of one additional professional 
training per year (e.g., trauma-informed care, 
addiction and recovery, data management, 
motivational interviewing).  
 4. Services actually received by the intervention and control/comparison groups 
For this randomized controlled trial (RCT) study, the evaluation team will use a combination of 
administrative nFORM data and site visit interview data to measure the services that were actually 
received by study participants in both study groups. Fidelity and dosage will be assessed using workshop 
series and attendance records on nFORM that are kept up to date by RIDGE program staff on an ongoing 
basis. Any unplanned adaptations or contextual challenges that had an effect on program implementation 
for either study group will be assessed through staff interviews during site visits. Because the authors of 
the program are also the instructors filmed for the on-demand delivery format, we can assume fidelity 
among both formats. The LMS platform, Thinkific, tracks participant progress, completion percentage of 
each lesson, questions answered, and overall time spent for the course that will allow for measuring 
dosage of those in the on-demand delivery group. For more information on planned implementation 
research questions that will provide context for the impact estimates, please see the accompanying 
implementation analysis plan. 
C. Study design 
This section provides a brief description of the study design and the process for creating intervention and 
comparison groups. 
1. 
Evaluation enrollment and assignment to study conditions 
This study will utilize an RCT design to compare two sets of participants: those who were randomly 
assigned to  the standard in-person delivery mode of the TYRO curriculum and those who were randomly 
assigned to the on-demand delivery mode of the TYRO  curriculum.  
Recruitment and study sample enrollment targets. Participants are recruited from Ohio Department of 
Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) prisons. The following facilities are participating service sites for the 
RCT; it is not anticipated that additional service sites will be added before the end of study enrollment, 
but additional facilities may be considered if enrollment targets are not being met with these sites. All 
study sites enroll participants into both the on-demand and in-person study groups. 
• 
Community-based Correctional Facility (CBCF) – Franklin County 
• 
Ohio Reformatory for Women 
• 
Richland Correctional Institution 
• 
North Central Correctional Institution 
• 
Lorain Correctional Institution 
• 
The Worth Center (for women) 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
11 
Participants are considered active in the study for six months, from the time that they enroll in the 
program to the completion of the six-month post-enrollment follow-up survey. 
The target analytic sample size for the impact study is 768 participants, with study groups being equal in 
size, for a target of 384 in-person participants and 384 on-demand participants. 
Participant eligibility criteria. Individuals are eligible to participate in the program if they are incarcerated 
adults aged 18 years or older and within nine months of release from prison. All program enrollees who are 
receiving services at a site that has been authorized by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 
Corrections (ODRC) to use tablets (and so can offer both delivery formats) for this program are eligible for 
the impact evaluation after giving informed consent to be randomly assigned to a study group. Approvals 
are for a specific tablet that the state of Ohio has granted a contract to provide technology services and 
devices into prisons across the state. Each warden (head of the specific institution) must approve the 
program delivered via tablet in their specific institution. This design allows for more equal opportunity for 
participants to be assigned to either delivery format. It also puts less burden on The RIDGE Project to meet 
enrollment numbers at numerous locations in order to get a sufficient sample to randomize. Program 
participants who have other commitments that prevent them from being able to participate in the in-
person workshops are not eligible for random assignment; these participants are still offered TYRO Couples 
programming, but they are not part of the impact study sample. This within-facility design offers The 
RIDGE Project the opportunity to serve those in need without ever having to deny eligible applicants. In 
instances where unexpected situations arise, such as technological issues with the tablets, participants can 
opt out of the treatment group and receive in person services if it is more convenient or preferable to 
them. This would remove the participant from the study, but still allow the participant to continue with the 
TYRO curriculum. Having sites offer both delivery formats is invaluable for program delivery.    
Consent Process. Project staff follow a protocol that was approved by Solutions IRB, Inc. to solicit informed 
consent. Because the planned evaluation involves human subjects, The RIDGE Project understands 
program implementation requires both IRB approval and participant informed consent. Midwest 
Evaluation and Research (MER) has an established relationship with Solutions IRB, having secured more 
than 20 IRB approvals and renewals for evaluations it has conducted during the past five years. The 
original study and data collection plans for TYRO Couples were initially approved by Solutions IRB on 
3/31/2021 and have been annually reviewed and approved three times on 3/15/2022, 3/4/2023, and 
3/2/2024. IRB approval for TYRO Couples was recently renewed and will be renewed again in March 2025. 
Additionally, revisions to the study and/or data collection plan were submitted to the IRB as amendments 
and were approved on 4/15/2022, 2/23/2022, and 8/23/2023. 
Informed consent procedures take place before random assignment and are the same for all study 
participants, regardless of ultimate study group assignment. To secure informed consent, after 
participants attend an orientation/enrollment session (in-person), the data manager, case manager, or 
facilitator describes the impact evaluation process and the risks and benefits of study participation. 
Individuals are then provided with a paper consent form that reiterates what program staff have explained 
about the study and provides contact information for the evaluation team or Solutions IRB, should they 
have any questions. Individuals indicate consent or refusal to participate in the study by signing the paper 
consent form, which is scanned and uploaded to MER’s secure Dropbox by RIDGE program staff for the 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
12 
evaluation team to keep in their records.  
Consent or refusal can also be indicated through the local evaluation baseline survey. The first item on the 
evaluation baseline survey reads: “By answering this question and typing my name below, I am 
acknowledging that I have been presented information about this study and am providing my voluntary 
consent to participate in the study described. I also understand that I can quit participating at any time 
and can skip any questions in this survey that I do not wish to answer without consequence, and further, I 
understand that all my answers are confidential and will not be shared with anyone outside of the 
research team.” This item assures that the study information has been presented to participants and they 
know their rights as human subjects in a research study. Should someone decide that they no longer want 
to participate in the study, they can indicate on the local evaluation baseline survey and refuse to 
participate any further in the evaluation.  
Random Assignment Process 
After informed consent has been obtained, random assignment occurs. Random assignment takes place 
after one or two in-person orientation sessions, giving participants time to complete enrollment 
paperwork, provide consent, and take baseline surveys. During the one or two-in person orientation 
sessions, no curriculum content is covered until participants begin either the in-person or on-demand 
delivery format. Participants are randomized into the in-person or on-demand delivery format prior to the 
class starting, typically in one to two weeks. The participants attend classes one and two and are told at 
the beginning of class two whether they will be taking the course in person or via tablet.   
The unit of randomization for this study is the individual. Participants are randomly assigned to a study 
group using the last single digit of their inmate number, a six-digit identifier assigned by the facility based 
on an inmate’s chronological intake order. Because it is assigned by the facility, program staff and 
researchers have no influence in deciding who ends up in each study group, leaving it completely at 
random. With this method, half of the inmate population bears an even number, and the other half bears 
an odd number. The inmate number remains with the participant, which can also be used to look up their 
incarceration status within the ODRC facilities. Within a given cohort, participants with an odd last digit 
will be assigned to one study group, while participants with an even last digit will be assigned to the other 
study group. The intended probability of assignment to either study group is 50-50. 
Which study group aligns with even/odd numbers varies randomly by cohort (e.g., odd numbers may be 
assigned to the on-demand format in one cohort but to the in-person format in the next cohort). Cohorts 
are formed around the length of time it takes to complete the program on a rolling basis based on 
demand. Evaluation staff use a random number generator in Excel to randomly vary what even or odd last 
digits mean for each upcoming cohort. The Excel spreadsheet with the results of the random number 
generator is shared with the RIDGE data manager via a secure Dropbox link. The data manager then 
prepares a sealed envelope with the random assignment information needed for each cohort’s 
orientation, to be opened by the facilitator at the end of the orientation sessions when consent has been 
obtained. The facilitator then informs participants which group they have been assigned to based on the 
last digit of their inmate number. Once participants have been informed of their group assignment, they 
are considered part of the RCT study sample. The data manager enters study group assignments into the 
nFORM system. This process repeats with each new cohort in the RCT. 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
13 
2. 
Data collection 
The data for this impact evaluation comes from surveys of study participants. Participants are surveyed at 
three different time points throughout the study-baseline, post-survey, and six-month post-enrollment 
follow-up. The process and timing for data collection are the same for all study participants, regardless of 
study condition assignment. Wave 1 of data collection, which includes completion of the nFORM 
Applicant Characteristics Survey, the nFORM Healthy Marriage Adult Program Entrance Survey, and the 
local evaluation baseline survey, happens during orientation before any primary workshop hours have 
been delivered. Wave 2 of data collection, which includes the nFORM Healthy Marriage Adult Program 
Exit Survey and the local evaluation post-survey, happens six weeks after program enrollment for both 
study groups. Wave 2 of data collection happens immediately following the final primary workshop 
session for the in-person group, but since the on-demand mode is self-paced, the amount of time that 
has elapsed between curriculum completion and wave 2 of data collection six weeks post-enrollment can 
vary for on-demand group participants. For example, if a participant in the on-demand delivery group 
completes the TYRO curriculum two weeks after enrollment, then four weeks will have elapsed between 
program completion and administration of the exit survey.  
Wave 3 of data collection, which includes the local evaluation 6-month post-enrollment follow-up survey, 
is intended to be collected six months after program enrollment, with data collection efforts focused on 
five to seven months after program enrollment. However, the timing of the follow-up survey data 
collection can vary, with some participants taking the survey later than expected (e.g., an email with a 
survey link is opened and completed months after it was delivered) or earlier than expected (in the case of 
Franklin CBCF participants who complete their follow-up survey immediately upon release; see below). 
The tracking process typically begins at least 60 days prior to when a participant is due for a follow-up 
survey. This allows time for new contact attempts when email addresses are undeliverable and mailings 
are returned to the sender. The incarcerated population also tends to be a difficult population to get in 
touch with for various reasons. Someone just released from prison may be focusing on housing and 
employment needs or their contact information is outdated since they were enrolled into the program.  
Waves 1 and 2 of all surveys are administered on paper with participants in person, due to technology 
restrictions in the prison facilities. Paper surveys are entered onto nFORM and Qualtrics (for the local 
evaluation surveys) within 72 hours of completion by RIDGE staff who have been certified in protecting 
human research participants. Paper surveys are securely transported by program staff to the RIDGE offices 
where they are entered and kept in locked storage. 
The process for follow-up data collection (Wave 3) differs from the other two waves. The MER survey 
tracking team begins attempts to contact study participants approximately five months after program 
enrollment using email and text messages as the primary contact methods. Participants are sent a QR 
code and hyperlink that directs them to the self-administered formatted follow-up survey accessed 
through Qualtrics. Participants can also complete the follow-up survey over the phone with a member of 
the MER survey tracking team if they prefer. If initial contact attempts are not successful, the survey 
tracking team will reach out to secondary contacts that participants have identified and provided contact 
information for during the study enrollment process. Contact attempts continue for 60 days (until 7 
months after program enrollment), after which point the survey tracking team stops efforts to collect 
follow-up surveys. At this point, program staff are provided a list of participants that the tracking team is 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
14 
unable to get in contact with. If program staff come in contact with any of the participants on the archived 
list, they will direct the participants to the follow-up survey. Otherwise, all tracking efforts are complete at 
that point. All participants who complete a follow-up survey receive a $50 incentive. 
To increase follow-up response rates and with the approval of OFA, alternative follow-up data collection 
procedures were developed by the RIDGE and evaluation teams for one service site that enrolls most of 
the impact study participants at about 78%, Franklin CBCF. Many impact study participants from the 
Franklin CBCF service site go on to participate in a Department of Labor initiative immediately following 
their release from prison. As part of this initiative, participants are bussed from the Franklin CBCF to an 
American Jobs Center. TYRO Couples RCT participants who are part of this initiative are invited to 
complete a paper follow-up survey on the Thursday prior to the bus taking participants to the American 
Jobs Center the following Monday morning. Eligible participants who completed the survey will be 
handed a physical $50 gift card upon boarding the bus. This follows guidelines of prisons where no 
monetary incentives can be administered on the premises. To be eligible for the follow-up survey, 
participants must have a signed consent form on file and have taken either the nFORM entrance survey or 
the local evaluation baseline survey. Evaluation staff will coordinate with program staff to ensure only 
those who are eligible for the follow-up survey are offered it. Paper surveys will be sealed in an envelope 
where they are given to a team member certified in protecting human research participants to enter the 
surveys into Qualtrics. Paper surveys are to be kept in locked storage at RIDGE offices and will be stored 
for a minimum of three years before being destroyed in accordance with IRB guidelines. This process is 
set to begin in May 2024. 
Table 5. Key features of the data collection  
Study group 
Data source 
Timing of data 
collection 
Mode of data 
collection 
Party 
responsible for 
data collection 
Start and end 
date of data 
collection 
Intervention 
(on-demand) 
Survey Wave 1 
(nFORM 
baseline and 
local 
evaluation 
baseline 
surveys) 
Immediately 
following informed 
consent and 
randomization 
during orientation 
(within 1-2 weeks of 
enrollment) 
In-person paper survey RIDGE Staff 
April 11, 2023  – 
November 30, 
2024 
Survey Wave 2 
(nFORM exit 
and local 
evaluation 
post-surveys) 
 
Six weeks after 
program enrollment 
In-person paper survey RIDGE Staff 
May 23, 2023 (or 
February 2023 for 
pilot cohort) – 
January 11, 2025 
Survey Wave 3 
(Local 
evaluation 
follow-up 
survey) 
Six months after 
program enrollment;  
Between three to six 
months after 
program enrollment 
at Franklin CBCF 
Online via a QR code 
or email link; over the 
phone;  
in person paper survey 
if in the eligible 
Franklin CBCF group 
MER Staff  
or RIDGE 
facilitator if in the 
eligible Franklin 
CBCF group 
October 2023 – 
May 31, 2025 for 
all locations aside 
from Franklin 
CBCF; 
For Franklin 
CBCF- May 2024-
May 31, 2025 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
15 
Study group 
Data source 
Timing of data 
collection 
Mode of data 
collection 
Party 
responsible for 
data collection 
Start and end 
date of data 
collection 
Counterfactual 
(in-person) 
Survey Wave 1 
(nFORM 
baseline and 
local 
evaluation 
baseline 
surveys) 
Immediately 
following informed 
consent and 
randomization 
during orientation 
In-person paper survey RIDGE Staff 
April 11, 2023 (or 
January 2023 for 
pilot cohort) -
November 30, 
2024 
Survey Wave 2 
(nFORM exit 
and local 
evaluation 
post-surveys) 
 
Six weeks after 
program enrollment, 
immediately 
following the last 
primary workshop 
session 
In-person paper survey RIDGE Staff 
May 23, 2023 (or 
February 2023 for 
pilot cohort) – 
January 11, 2025 
Survey Wave 3 
(Local 
evaluation 
follow-up 
survey) 
Six months after 
program enrollment; 
Between three to six 
months after 
program enrollment 
at Franklin CBCF 
Online via a QR code 
or email link; over the 
phone;  
in person paper survey 
if in the eligible 
Franklin CBCF group 
MER Staff  
or RIDGE 
facilitator if in the 
eligible Franklin 
CBCF group 
October 2023 – 
May 31, 2025; 
For Franklin 
CBCF- May 2024-
May 31, 2025 
 
3. 
CONSORT diagram 
The CONSORT diagram for this impact study (where random assignment occurs after consent) can be 
found in the appendix to this plan. The data used to complete the CONSORT diagram were pulled on July 
22, 2024. 
D. 
Analysis 
This section describes the plans for defining the analytic sample, assessing baseline equivalence, cleaning 
data, handling missing data, and addressing potential crossover and contamination. It also describes the 
analytic models for estimating program impacts and planned sensitivity analyses. 
1. 
Data preparation 
Raw data sets will be cleaned and prepared for analysis using the R Studio statistical software. nFORM 
survey responses and participant information (e.g., study group assignment) will be downloaded using the 
Data Export feature of nFORM, and local evaluation survey responses will be exported from Qualtrics as 
Excel files. All exports will be imported into R and cleaned separately before data sets are merged into a 
final, wide format file for analyses using nFORM Client ID as the unique identifier for matching 
observations. Planned procedures for data cleaning and handling missing data are detailed below. 
Inconsistent or seemingly inaccurate data 
To address participant feedback about the relevance of some local evaluation survey items, evaluators 
added skip logic to local evaluation surveys in October 2023 for relationship attitudes and behaviors 
(which are used in a secondary research question because they are not applicable to the entire sample). 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
16 
Measures for primary research questions only use items that are applicable to the entire study population. 
However, secondary exploratory research questions include items that are not applicable to the entire 
study population as not all study participants report being in a committed relationship.  
See Figure A.4. for a full breakdown of survey items, including which had skip logic added.  
In addition, preliminary analyses showed relationship questions had 25-28% of missing responses. After 
the skip logic was added, participants who reported not being in a committed relationship were permitted 
to skip questions about relationship behaviors, and participants who reported not being currently 
employed were permitted to skip some questions about employment behaviors. Some participants may 
have responded to these questions at baseline but not been shown the same questions at follow-up due 
to the added skip logic. For example, a participant might have been in a relationship at the time of the 
baseline survey completion, but not at the time of the follow-up survey completion. 
Because technology restrictions in prison facilities require the administration of paper surveys, it is 
possible for respondents to answer questions in violation of skip/display logic if they misunderstand the 
instructions on the paper survey. To err on the side of retaining as much of the sample as possible, we will 
not deem a response invalid if the participant response to a skip logic question incorrectly (answering 
“no” instead of “yes”) but then proceeds to answer the follow-up question accurately.   
Participants who report inconsistencies in the number or age of their child(ren) between nFORM and local 
evaluation surveys at the same time point will have their answers be assigned as the response they gave 
on the nFORM ACS or entrance survey.  
Outlier values, defined as extremely low or extremely high values that are likely introduced to the dataset 
due to an input error, for variables such as participant’s age, children’s age, and income, which 
participants manually input, will be recoded to the 99th percentile for the sample if necessary. We will top-
code any values above the 99th percentile with the average of all values below this threshold.  
Duplicate data 
In the case of duplicate data, where one participant has taken the same local evaluation survey more than 
one time, we plan to take the following approach: 
- 
Check for incorrectly entered Client IDs that inaccurately flag surveys as duplicates. Using the 
name and/or DOB fields on the local evaluation survey, we will check that responses that appear 
to be duplicates were in fact collected from the same participant multiple times (i.e., are true 
duplicates). Common instances of this occurring could be if a participant did not finish a survey 
and re-took it later on, or if they took the follow-up survey twice for the incentive. If the survey is 
not a true duplicate, we will correct Client IDs as necessary. 
- 
For surveys identified as true duplicates, we will check for completeness. If one duplicate survey is 
complete while the other is not, we will use the most complete survey to minimize item non-
response. 
- 
If both duplicate surveys are equally complete, we will use the first response that a participant 
submitted, as indicated by the Recorded Date field on the Qualtrics data export. This approach is 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
17 
only applicable to the follow-up survey. Because program staff enter paper survey data into 
Qualtrics, there should not be duplicate baseline and post-surveys.  
Missing data 
Survey nonresponse 
Because outcome measures for this impact study are constructed from survey items from both nFORM 
and the local evaluation surveys, survey nonresponse on either the nFORM baseline survey, local 
evaluation baseline survey, nFORM exit survey, local evaluation post survey, or local evaluation follow-up 
survey can lead to sample attrition. Survey response rates are monitored on an ongoing basis through bi-
weekly CQI reports produced by the evaluation team using the nFORM Survey Completion Summary 
operational report and Qualtrics response data export feature. Response rates are calculated by dividing 
the number of participants who responded to each survey by the number of participants who were 
eligible to respond to the that survey up to that time point. If CQI reports show that survey response rates 
are below intended targets, the CQI team brainstorms and implements strategies to increase response 
rates to minimize sample attrition caused by survey nonresponse. Reasons for survey nonresponse, to the 
degree that they are known, will be reported in the CONSORT diagram. Individuals with survey 
nonresponse at the follow-up time point will not be included in the analytic sample; the analysis for each 
outcome will use complete case data. 
Item nonresponse 
Item nonresponse can also lead to sample attrition for particular outcome measures if participants skip 
survey items that are aligned with the research questions for this study. Item nonresponse is calculated by 
dividing the number of participants who respond to a survey item by the number who were eligible and 
able to answer a question based on skip/display logic. As stated in the data preparation section above, 
respondents taking paper surveys may violate skip/display logic, and invalid responses will be dropped 
before item-level response rates are calculated. We will also note what proportion of the sample skipped 
out of the relationship and employment attitude questions to give context to the item nonresponse.  
Constructed outcome measures 
Each of the outcomes for the primary research questions for this study are constructed averages using 
multiple, related survey items. Sufficiently high item nonresponse among items used to construct 
outcome measures will lead to sample attrition for that outcome. The evaluation team plans to use an 
80% threshold as the cutoff for constructed measures; respondents who answer less than 80% of survey 
items associated with a constructed measure will be dropped from the analysis for that outcome. The 
constructed average for each participant who has answered at least 80% of associated survey items will be 
calculated by dividing the sum of their survey answers by the number of items they answered. For 
example, if a participant answers 8 out of 10 survey items associated with a construct, their average for 
that outcome measure will be the sum of their 8 answers divided by 8. The evaluation team does not plan 
to use imputation for multi-item constructed outcomes with 20 percent or fewer missing items. A 
sensitivity analysis will be conducted to see if and how results would change with a 70% threshold cutoff 
instead of an 80% cutoff. 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
18 
2. 
Attrition and analytic sample 
The analytic sample for each outcome construct identified in Table 2 will consist of study participants who 
have a non-missing value at baseline and follow-up time points for that construct (complete case). The 
size of the analytic sample may vary by outcome measure based on the prevalence of item non-response 
missing data at the baseline and follow-up surveys for the items used to create those composite 
measures. For attitudinal outcomes related to economic stability, and finances, all respondents with 
complete case data will be included in the analytic sample. For relationship behavior outcomes, 
participants will be included in the analytic sample if they report being in a committed relationship at the 
time the survey was administered (i.e., do not choose ‘no’ for the skip logic question ‘Are you currently in 
a committed romantic relationship?’). Because this skip logic was added to the local evaluation surveys 
belatedly (in October 2023), this condition will only apply to those respondents who took a survey with 
this skip logic. For those respondents who took a survey before this relationship skip logic was added, all 
participants who have complete case data will be included in the analytic sample in response to the 
secondary research question. 
All outcome measures for this study are constructed averages calculated using a number of theoretically 
and empirically related survey items. As mentioned in the previous section, a respondent who answers 
some but not all survey items in a given outcome construct will have their outcome value assigned as 
missing if they do not respond to at least 80% of the items in the construct. We will not impute missing 
baseline or outcome data for our analyses. Based on the recommendation from ACF, we will use the 
cautious attrition threshold from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) to assess whether attrition can be 
considered high or low.  
Assessment of baseline equivalence 
Per the  WWC’s standards, we will use effect sizes (i.e., standardized mean differences), to examine the 
baseline equivalence between the study groups. Effect size is defined as the difference between the 
intervention group mean and the comparison group mean, divided by the pooled standard deviation. We 
will calculate the effect size for demographic characteristics (such as gender, age, and race/ethnicity, as 
reported on the nFORM Applicant Characteristics Survey) and each baseline outcome of interest 
depending on the type of variable: Hedge’s g, for continuous variables; and Cox’s index, for dichotomous 
variables. We can determine baseline equivalence by comparing each outcome’s effect size using the 
WWC standard, which suggests that if the corresponding effect size is 0.05 or less in absolute value, it is 
considered “small,” and we can conclude that it satisfies baseline equivalence without statistical 
adjustment. However, if the effect size falls between 0.05 and 0.25, it is considered “moderate,” and it will 
require a statistical adjustment to meet baseline equivalence (we will use statistical adjustments such as 
regression adjustments or matching/weighting). Lastly, in the case that the effect size is greater than 0.25, 
it will be considered “large”, which shows that the differences at baseline are too large to meet WWC 
standards, even with statistical adjustments. In that case, we will apply appropriate caveats to any 
interpretation of the results. 
Condition crossover 
At the primary RCT enrollment site, Franklin CBCF, condition crossover is not possible due to restrictions 
put in place when designing the implementation of the two delivery formats. If a participant who was 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
19 
assigned to the on-demand group attempts to attend the in-person classes, the facilitators will not allow 
them to sit in on in-person classes and will remind them that they are to complete the curriculum via 
tablet in the designated classroom. Tablets must be checked out to be used in the designated space, and 
a program staff member will be present to verify that participants who attempt to check out a tablet have 
been assigned to the on-demand group. 
Other facilities participating in the RCT may not have the same restrictions in place to prevent condition 
crossover. In all participating facilities, facilitators have been trained on the design of the study and 
understand the importance of enforcing adherence to the condition to which a participant has been 
assigned. The evaluation team has a record of which study group each participant should have been 
assigned to based on the last digit of the inmate number and the randomization schema for each cohort, 
so cross-over to a different treatment condition can be flagged, and the prevalence of condition crossover 
will be disclosed in the final report. 
3. 
Analytic approach 
Modeling approach 
Due to the nature of the continuous dependent variables of interest, we plan to fit a model using linear 
regression for all primary and secondary analyses for this study. We will model curvatures to ensure that 
the model is still linear in the parameters by doing re-expressions of the independent variables to fit a 
curve. We will also check the adequacy of the model to meet the remaining assumptions of a linear model 
(normality, multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, and independence) by reviewing the diagnostic plots and 
transforming our variables accordingly, if necessary. However, based on the nature of the survey data we 
will be using, we do not anticipate needing to fit a nonlinear model. 
Analyses will be conducted using the R Studio statistical software package. The basic model for this 
impact evaluation will include a dummy variable for intervention group assignment, equal to 1 if a 
participant was randomly assigned to receive the curriculum on-demand via tablet, and a participant’s 
score at baseline as the main predictors of each outcome measure at follow-up. To enhance the precision 
of the impact estimates, we plan to include several other covariates in our models. For all outcome 
analyses, we will control for participant age, gender, and race, as well as the timing of a participant’s 
follow-up survey (number of days between program enrollment and follow-up survey completion). We 
will also consider including a facility indicator to denote which site the participant received services at. 
Additionally, we will include any demographic variables that were shown to be significantly different 
between study groups during baseline equivalency analysis. For the healthy relationship attitudes 
outcome, we also plan to include relationship status at baseline as a covariate. This will only be available if 
a participant reports being in a relationship at baseline and at follow-up.  
Table 6. Covariates included in impact analyses 
Covariate 
Description of the covariate 
Age 
Age (in years) as of the baseline data collection, as reported on the ACS 
Gender 
Self-reported gender identification as of the baseline data collection, as reported on the 
ACS 
Race 
Self-reported racial identification as of the baseline data collection, as reported on the 
ACS 

             Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
               Mathematica® Inc. 
20 
Covariate 
Description of the covariate 
Timing of follow-up 
survey 
Number of days between program enrollment date and date of follow-up survey 
completion to control for variation in survey timing 
Relationship status 
(relationship attitude 
and behavior outcomes 
only) 
Relationship status (1 = in a committed relationship, 0 = not in a committed relationship) 
as of the baseline data collection, as reported on the ACS 
4. 
Sensitivity analyses for primary research questions 
We plan to conduct several sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our results. First, and as 
mentioned earlier in the plan, we will conduct a sensitivity analysis to see if and how our outcome 
construct measures change if we use 70% as a threshold for non-missing items instead of 80% as a 
threshold. 
Next, we will conduct an analysis to see how outcome construct measures change if we use mean 
imputation to replace missing items in the multi-item scales used to create our outcome variables. This is 
the mean based on observed values from the rest of the sample for that item. The current plan is not to 
use any imputation for outcome measures, including constructed outcomes from multiple survey items, 
and instead to make the denominator for the calculation of the average score be equal to the number of 
non-missing items in that construct. 
Finally, we plan to conduct a sensitivity analysis regarding the timing of the follow-up survey. Given 
changes in follow-up data collection protocol at Franklin CBCF, we anticipate that some respondents will 
have taken their paper follow-up survey earlier than intended. The sensitivity analysis will repeat our 
analyses using only people who completed their follow-up survey within the intended data collection 
window (5-7 months post-enrollment).  
5. 
Analyses addressing secondary research questions 
The analytic approach for answering the secondary research question about partner relationship 
behaviors will be the same as the approach taken for the primary research questions. 
 
 

          Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
            Mathematica® Inc. 
1 
Enrolled: 354 
Provided consent: 320 
Completed nFORM entrance survey: 301 
Completed OLLE pre-survey: 213 
 
Number of pre/entrance responses by primary outcome  
Employment attitudes (n = 213) 
 
Item non-response (n = __) 
• 
Did not see survey questions (n = __) 
• 
Saw but did not answer survey questions (n = __) 
Financial attitudes (n = 213) 
• 
Saw but did not answer survey questions (n = __) 
 
Eligible for post/exit (n = 320) 
To be eligible, a participant must have provided consent 
Completed post/exit (n = 229 nFORM exit, 143 OLLE post) 
Data collection: April 11, 2023-July 22, 2024 
Reasons for non-completes (n=34) (that can be accounted for) 
Consent revoked (n = __), declined survey (n = __), deceased (n = 4), 
dropped out (n = 30), moved (n = __), incarcerated (n = __) 
 
Number of post/exit responses by secondary outcome  
Marriage/intimate partner relationship behaviors (n = 301) 
 
Item non-response (n = __) 
• 
Did not see survey questions (n = __) 
• 
Saw but did not answer survey questions (n = __) 
Marriage/intimate partner relationship attitudes (n = 113) 
• 
Saw but did not answer survey questions (n = __) 
Figure A.3. CONSORT diagram for individual clients, for studies in which consent occurred before assignment 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
An individual is eligible for the evaluation if they are incarcerated in a participating correctional 
facility in Ohio, nine months away from release, receiving services at a site that offers both 
TYRO curriculum delivery methods, have no conflicts that make them unable to participate in 
either delivery format and provide informed consent to be part of the study. 
Date of enrollment data: 7/22/24 
Date of survey data: 7/22/24 
Randomized (n = 703) 
Date(s) of random assignment: April 11, 2023 – Nov 30, 2024 
Enrolled at site not participating in RCT (n = 356)* 
Did not agree to be in study (n = __)* 
Missing record of consent (n = __) 
*still eligible to receive services, just not in RCT 
Assigned to treatment (n =349) 
Assigned to comparison (n = 354) 
Enrolled: 349 
Provided consent: 320 
Completed nFORM entrance survey: 290 
Completed OLLE pre-survey: 223 
 
Number of pre/entrance responses by primary outcome  
Employment attitudes (n = 223) 
 
Item non-response (n = __) 
• 
Did not see survey questions (n = __) 
• 
Saw but did not answer survey questions (n = __) 
Financial attitudes (n = 223) 
• 
Saw but did not answer survey questions (n = __) 
 
Eligible for post/exit (n = 320) 
To be eligible, a participant must have provided consent  
Completed post/exit (n = 192 nFORM exit, 147 OLLE post ) 
Data collection: April 11, 2023-July 22, 2024 
Reasons for non-completes (n = 41) (that can be accounted for) 
Consent revoked (n = 4), declined survey (n = __), deceased (n = 1), dropped out (n 
=36), moved (n = __), incarcerated (n = __) 
 
Number of post/exit responses by secondary outcome  
Marriage/intimate partner relationship behaviors (n = 290) 
 
Item non-response (n = __) 
• 
Did not see survey questions (n = __) 
• 
Saw but did not answer survey questions (n = __) 
Marriage/intimate partner relationship attitudes (n = 114) 
• 
Saw but did not answer survey questions (n = __) 

          Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
            Mathematica® Inc. 
2 
Eligible for 6-month post-enrollment follow-up (n = 190) 
To be eligible, a participant must have provided consent and taken either 
the nFORM baseline or local evaluation baseline survey 
 
Completed follow-up (n = 52 ) 
Data collection: July 1, 2023-July 22, 2024 
Reasons for non-completes (n = 1) (that can be accounted for) 
Consent revoked (n = __), declined survey (n = __), deceased (n = __), 
dropped out (n = 4), moved (n = __), incarcerated  (n = 1) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eligible for 6-month post-enrollment follow-up (n = 206) 
To be eligible, a participant must have provided consent and taken either 
the nFORM baseline or local evaluation baseline survey 
 
Completed follow-up (n = 64) 
Data collection: July 1, 2023-July 22, 2024 
Reasons for non-completes (n = 1) (that can be accounted for) 
Consent revoked (n = __), declined survey (n = __), deceased (n = __), 
dropped out (n = 7), moved (n = __), incarcerated (n = 1) 
 
 

          Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
            Mathematica® Inc. 
3 
Figure A.4. Survey items linked to research questions 
 
 
Measure 
 
 
Item Response 
Are these items 
linked to a 
primary research 
question? 
Are these items 
linked to a secondary 
research question? 
Partner relationship beliefs 
8 items 
 
 
 
Added skip logic allows participants to  
only respond to these items if they 
indicate that they are currently in a 
committed relationship. 
 
 
 
No 
 
No 
Partner relationship 
attitudes/expectations 
8 items 
 
Yes 
 
Partner relationship behaviors 
2 sets of questions: 
7 items 
11 items 
Yes 
(only the first set of items 
containing 7 items) 
Finance attitudes 
7 items 
 
Shown to all participants 
Yes 
No 
Finance behaviors 
4 items 
No 
No 
Employment attitudes 
8 items 
Shown to all participants 
Yes 
No 
Employment behaviors 
5 items 
Added skip logic allows participants to  
only respond to these items if they 
indicate that they are currently 
employed. 
 
No 
 
No 
Parenting attitudes 
8 items 
 
 
Added skip logic allows participants to 
only respond to these items if they 
indicate that they have at least one 
child. 
 
 
No 
 
 
No 
 
Parenting behaviors 
Based on child’s age 
11 items (>age 6 & =< age 12), 9 items (< 
age 1 & =<6), 11 items (for child =<1) 
Co-Parenting attitudes 
5 items 
 
 

          Impact Evaluation Analysis Plan Template for HMRE Grant recipients: The RIDGE Project 
            Mathematica® Inc. 
4 
 
References 
Bandura, A (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review. 84 (2), 191–215. 
 
Chou, S., & Liu, C. (2005). Learning effectiveness in a web-based virtual learning environment: 
A learner-control perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 65 - 76.  
 
Visher, C., Debus, S., & Yahner, J. (2008). Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of releasees in three states. Urban 
Institute Justice Policy Center. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/32106/411778-Employment-
after-Prison-A-Longitudinal-Study-of-Releasees-in-Three-States.PDF