Fresno Area Workforce Development Board Family-Focused, Interconnected, Resilient, Essential Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Program Evaluation
Phase: NA
Conditions: Fathers
Sponsor: Midwest Evaluation & Research

Fresno FAWDB Fire Program 
Evaluation 
 
Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05239754 
 
Study Protocol 
 
1/16/2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

PROGRAM BACKGROUND 
1. PROGRAM SUMMARY 
Please provide a brief summary of your grant project including the needs to be addressed, 
the services provided, and the population served. 
The Fresno region of California, at both the city and county levels, is a region impacted by high 
rates of poverty and unemployment. Prior research suggests that poverty is often inextricably linked 
to high crime rates. High crime rates can then lead to high rates of incarceration, thereby 
contributing to chronic father absenteeism and the breakdown of healthy families. The purpose of 
the Fresno Fatherhood program is to employ a comprehensive and holistic healthy marriage, 
responsible parenting and economic stability education and related services to at-risk adult 
community fathers (i.e., 18 and older) who have children aged 24 years or younger and reside in 
areas of high poverty. While the program does not plan on serving only fathers who are housed in 
treatment facilities, non-custodial, or justice involved, the grantee (FAWIC) expects that many will 
have these characteristics.  
 
The core services of Fresno Fatherhood include: healthy marriage, responsible parenting, and 
economic stability education and services.  These services will be delivered by using a primary 
workshop focused on fatherhood skills using the National Fatherhood Initiative’s 24/7 Dad 
evidence-based/evidence-informed curricula; job readiness services, including career exploration 
and planning; job-driven employment services, including development of skills tied to demand jobs 
in growth sectors of the local economy; job placement assistance; intensive case management and 
service navigation support; mentoring to encourage and support fathers in applying the knowledge 
and skills they acquire through the project: supplemental workshops focused on life skills, financial 
literacy and personal development; and referrals to a full array of support services through both 
grant-funded and leveraged resources. FAWIC will provide parenting and relationship instruction 
via a primary workshop to 63 fathers in year 1 and 125 annually in years 2-5. 
 
The purpose of the Fresno Fatherhood program evaluation is to determine whether Fresno 
Fatherhood program participants experience significant improvements in outcomes around 
parenting, co-parenting, employment, job readiness, and financial stability. Understanding the 
ways in which the Fresno Fatherhood program is effective in supporting healthy parenting and 
financial stability outcomes is extremely important for providers to replicate evidence-based 
practices for other at-risk father populations. 
2. EVALUATION GOALS 
Please briefly describe key goals of your evaluation and what you hope to learn below. 

The goals of the Fresno Fatherhood evaluation project are to determine whether Fresno 
Fatherhood program participants will experience significant improvements in the following 
areas: 
 
• 
Parenting attitudes and behaviors 
• 
Co-parenting behaviors 
• 
Financial stability attitudes and behaviors 
• 
Employment attitudes and behaviors 
3. EVALUATION ENROLLMENT  
Please provide the expected start and end dates for program and evaluation enrollment 
using the tables below. For impact studies, please indicate expected start and end dates 
for each study group. 
IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION 
Please leave blank if not conducting an implementation study. 
 
Program Enrollment 
Study Enrollment 
Start Date 
4/1/2021 
4/1/2021 
End Date 
3/31/2025 
3/31/2025 
Definition 
All participants in 1st year of study with 
no pilot program 
All participants enrolled in study  
 
DESCRIPTIVE EVALUATION 
Please leave blank if not conducting a descriptive outcome evaluation. 
 
Program Enrollment 
Study Enrollment 
Start Date 
4/1/2021 
4/1/2021 
End Date 
7/1/2025 
5/10/2024 
Definition 
All participants in 1st year of study with 
no pilot program 
All participants enrolled in study  
 
4. EVALUATION TIMELINE 

Please include a timeline for key activities of the evaluation below. Example of activities 
may include IRB submission, staff training, waves of data collection, analysis period, and 
report writing and submission. 
Evaluation Activity 
Start Date 
End Date 
Additional Evaluation staff hiring and onboarding 
1/15/2021 
2/15/2021 
Evaluation staff training 
1/22/2021 
2/20/2021 
Evaluation Kickoff meeting and orientation with all 
program staff 
2/10/2021 
2/10/2021 
IRB training and certification by all program and 
evaluation staff 
10/1/2020 
2/28/2021 
Development and submission of Evaluation Plan 
document 
1/15/2021 
2/19/2021 
Evaluation Tools Development 
10/1/2020 
3/15/2021 
IRB Approval 
3/1/2021 
3/15/2021 
CQI Team Formed and Meeting bi-weekly 
3/15/2021 
7/1/2025 
Training for CQI Team 
3/15/2021 
3/28/2021 
Training for all Program Staff on Research 
Methods and process 
3/15/2021 
3/28/2021 
Evaluation Data Collection  
4/1/2021 
5/10/2025 
- 
 Baseline Data 
4/1/2021 
5/10/2024 
- 
Post Test Data 
5/15/2021 
7/1/2024 
- 
Follow-up Data 
4/1/2022 
5/31/2025 
Implementation Evaluation Activities related to I1 – 
I3 questions i.e. CQI Team meetings to review 
reports around monitoring service data and 
cleanliness of data, etc. 
4/1/2022 
8/15/2025 
Final Report Submitted 
9/1/2025 
9/29/2025 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 

EVALUATION PLAN 
1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
1.1. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
Please state the research questions(s) that the evaluation intends to answer and for each 
research question indicate the type: implementation or outcome.  
o Implementation Questions: Identifying whether a program has been successful 
in attaining desired implementation goals (e.g., reaching intended target 
population, enrolling intended number of participants, delivering training and 
services in manner intended, etc.)  
o Outcome Questions: Identifying whether program is associated with intended 
outcomes for participants (e.g., do participants’ knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, 
or awareness change?)   
No 
Research Question 
Implementation or 
Outcome? 
I1 
To what extent were services offered and provided as intended? 
Implementation 
I2 
To what extent is the Fresno Fatherhood curriculum and services 
offered to and completed by participants? 
Implementation 
I3 
To what extent did the CQI Team carry out the steps in the CQI 
Plan each program year? 
Implementation 
R1 
Will Fresno Fatherhood program participants experience significant 
increases in healthy parenting attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
after completing the Fresno Fatherhood program? 
Outcome 
R2 
Will Fresno Fatherhood program participants experience significant 
increases in healthy parenting behaviors one year after program 
enrollment? 
Outcome 
R3 
Will Fresno Fatherhood program participants experience significant 
increases in healthy co-parenting behaviors one year after 
program enrollment? 
Outcome  
R4 
Will Fresno Fatherhood program participants experience significant 
increases in healthy employment attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
after completing the Fresno Fatherhood program? 
Outcome  

R5 
Will Fresno Fatherhood program participants experience significant 
increases in healthy employment behaviors one year after 
program enrollment? 
Outcome  
R6 
Will Fresno Fatherhood program participants experience significant 
increases in healthy financial attitudes/beliefs/expectations after 
completing the Fresno Fatherhood program? 
Outcome  
R7 
Will Fresno Fatherhood program participants experience significant 
increases in healthy financial behaviors one year after program 
enrollment? 
Outcome  
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
1.2. OUTCOME RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
For each outcome research question listed above, whether a descriptive or impact design, 
summarize the inputs (e.g., program components, program supports, implementation 
features, etc.), target population (e.g., the population for which the effect will be estimated) 
and the outcomes (e.g., child well-being, father-child engagement, etc.) that will be 
examined to answer the research question(s). Comparisons for descriptive evaluations may 
reflect circumstances before the grant, pre-treatment, or pre-determined benchmark from 
other studies with similar interventions. 
Research 
Question 
Number 
Should 
correspond 
to the 
number 
indicated 
in Table 
1.1 above 
 
Intervention 
Program 
component or 
set of 
activities that 
the evaluation 
will test or 
examine 
Target 
Population 
Population 
for which the 
effect of the 
treatment will 
be estimated 
Comparison  
What the 
intervention will 
be compared to 
(e.g., pre-
intervention for 
descriptive 
designs) 
Outcome 
Changes that are expected to 
occur as a result of the 
intervention  
Confirmatory  
or 
Exploratory? 
Confirmatory: 
those upon 
which 
conclusions 
will be drawn 
Exploratory: 
those that 
may provide 
additional 
suggestive 
evidence 
R1 
Interventions 
to be tested 
are the 
combination 
of the 
curriculum 
and services 
provided: 
24/7 Dad 
curriculum, 
Community 
fathers 
(ages 18 
and older), 
who have 
children 
ages 24 and 
younger and 
reside in 
communities 
Pre-intervention 
responses will 
be compared 
with responses 
collected  
immediately 
following 
program 
completion 
We expect that program 
participants will experience a 
significant increase in healthy 
parenting 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
after completing the Fresno 
Fatherhood program. 
Exploratory 

Job 
Readiness 
and Post-
Employment 
support 
with high 
rates of 
poverty. 
(post-
intervention). 
R2 
Interventions 
to be tested 
are the 
combination 
of the 
curriculum 
and services 
provided: 
24/7 Dad 
curriculum, 
Job 
Readiness 
and Post-
Employment 
support 
Community 
fathers 
(ages 18 
and older), 
who have 
children 
ages 24 and 
younger and 
reside in 
communities 
with high 
rates of 
poverty. 
Pre-intervention 
responses will 
be compared 
with responses 
collected 1-year 
post-enrollment 
(follow up). 
We expect that program 
participants will experience a 
significant increase in healthy 
parenting behaviors one year 
after program participation. 
Exploratory 
R3 
Interventions 
to be tested 
are the 
combination 
of the 
curriculum 
and services 
provided: 
24/7 Dad 
curriculum, 
Job 
Readiness 
and Post-
Employment 
support 
Community 
fathers 
(ages 18 
and older), 
who have 
children 
ages 24 and 
younger and 
reside in 
communities 
with high 
rates of 
poverty. 
Pre-intervention 
responses will 
be compared 
with responses 
collected 1-year 
post-enrollment 
(follow up). 
We expect that program 
participants will experience a 
significant increase in healthy 
co-parenting behaviors one 
year after program 
participation. 
Exploratory 
R4 
Interventions 
to be tested 
are the 
combination 
of the 
curriculum 
and services 
provided: 
24/7 Dad 
curriculum, 
Job 
Readiness 
Community 
fathers 
(ages 18 
and older), 
who have 
children 
ages 24 and 
younger and 
reside in 
communities 
with high 
Pre-intervention 
responses will 
be compared 
with responses 
collected  
immediately 
following 
program 
completion(post-
intervention). 
We expect that program 
participants will experience a 
significant increase in healthy 
employment 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
after completing the Fresno 
Fatherhood program. 
Exploratory 

and Post-
Employment 
support 
rates of 
poverty. 
R5 
Interventions 
to be tested 
are the 
combination 
of the 
curriculum 
and services 
provided: 
24/7 Dad 
curriculum, 
Job 
Readiness 
and Post-
Employment 
support 
Community 
fathers 
(ages 18 
and older), 
who have 
children 
ages 24 and 
younger and 
reside in 
communities 
with high 
rates of 
poverty. 
Pre-intervention 
responses will 
be compared 
with responses 
collected 1-year 
post-enrollment 
(follow up). 
We expect that program 
participants will experience a 
significant increase in healthy 
employment behaviors one 
year after program 
participation. 
Exploratory 
R6 
Interventions 
to be tested 
are the 
combination 
of the 
curriculum 
and services 
provided: 
24/7 Dad 
curriculum, 
Job 
Readiness 
and Post-
Employment 
support 
Community 
fathers 
(ages 18 
and older), 
who have 
children 
ages 24 and 
younger and 
reside in 
communities 
with high 
rates of 
poverty. 
Pre-intervention 
responses will 
be compared 
with responses 
collected 
immediately 
following 
program 
completion 
(post-
intervention). 
We expect that program 
participants will experience a 
significant increase in healthy 
financial 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
after completing the Fresno 
Fatherhood program. 
Exploratory 
R7 
Interventions 
to be tested 
are the 
combination 
of the 
curriculum 
and services 
provided: 
24/7 Dad 
curriculum, 
Job 
Readiness 
and Post-
Community 
fathers 
(ages 18 
and older), 
who have 
children 
ages 24 and 
younger and 
reside in 
communities 
with high 
rates of 
poverty. 
Pre-intervention 
responses will 
be compared 
with responses 
collected 1-year 
post-enrollment 
(follow up). 
We expect that program 
participants will experience a 
significant increase in healthy 
financial behaviors one year 
after program participation. 
Exploratory 

Employment 
support 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
2. BACKGROUND 
For each outcome research question listed in 1.1, whether descriptive or impact design, briefly 
summarize the previous literature or existing research that informs the stated research question 
and how the evaluation will expand the evidence base. Explain why the research questions are 
of specific interest to the program and/or community. Only a short summary paragraph 
description is needed below. Additional documentation, such as a literature review, may be 
appended to this document. 
Research 
Question 
Existing Research 
Contribution to the Evidence 
Base 
Interest to the Program 
and/or Community 
R1 
Many fathers lack 
the skills to engage 
in healthy 
parenting, co-
parenting, partner 
relationship, and 
financial behaviors. 
There is limited 
research about the 
effectiveness of 
fatherhood and 
employment 
support services on 
parenting and 
financial stability 
outcomes among 
at-risk, community 
fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
Results from the Fresno 
Fatherhood evaluation project 
will help us better understand 
the ways in which fatherhood 
and employment support 
services can contribute to 
healthy parenting 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
among at-risk, community 
fathers in the Fresno, CA 
region. 
Findings will help providers 
have a better understanding of 
evidence-based practices that 
enhance healthy parenting 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
among at-risk, community 
fathers in the Fresno, CA 
region. 
R2 
Many fathers lack 
the skills to engage 
in healthy 
parenting, co-
parenting, partner 
relationship, and 
financial behaviors. 
There is limited 
research about the 
effectiveness of 
fatherhood and 
employment 
support services on 
Results from the Fresno 
Fatherhood evaluation project 
will help us better understand 
the ways in which fatherhood 
and employment support 
services can contribute to 
healthy parenting behaviors 
among at-risk, community 
fathers in the Fresno, CA 
region. 
Findings will help providers 
have a better understanding of 
evidence-based practices that 
enhance healthy parenting 
behaviors among at-risk, 
community fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 

parenting and 
financial stability 
outcomes among 
at-risk, community 
fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
R3 
Many fathers lack 
the skills to engage 
in healthy 
parenting, co-
parenting, partner 
relationship, and 
financial behaviors. 
There is limited 
research about the 
effectiveness of 
fatherhood and 
employment 
support services on 
parenting and 
financial stability 
outcomes among 
at-risk, community 
fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
Results from the Fresno 
Fatherhood evaluation project 
will help us better understand 
the ways in which fatherhood 
and employment support 
services can contribute to 
healthy co-parenting 
behaviors among at-risk, 
community fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
Findings will help providers 
have a better understanding of 
evidence-based practices that 
enhance healthy co-parenting 
behaviors among at-risk, 
community fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
R4 
Many fathers lack 
the skills to engage 
in healthy 
parenting, co-
parenting, partner 
relationship, and 
financial behaviors. 
There is limited 
research about the 
effectiveness of 
fatherhood and 
employment 
support services on 
parenting and 
financial stability 
outcomes among 
at-risk, community 
fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
Results from the Fresno 
Fatherhood evaluation project 
will help us better understand 
the ways in which fatherhood 
and employment support 
services can contribute to 
healthy employment 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
among at-risk, community 
fathers in the Fresno, CA 
region. 
Findings will help providers 
have a better understanding of 
evidence-based practices that 
enhance healthy employment 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
among at-risk, community 
fathers in the Fresno, CA 
region. 

R5 
Many fathers lack 
the skills to engage 
in healthy 
parenting, co-
parenting, partner 
relationship, and 
financial behaviors. 
There is limited 
research about the 
effectiveness of 
fatherhood and 
employment 
support services on 
parenting and 
financial stability 
outcomes among 
at-risk, community 
fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
Results from the Fresno 
Fatherhood evaluation project 
will help us better understand 
the ways in which fatherhood 
and employment support 
services can contribute to 
healthy employment 
behaviors among at-risk, 
community fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
Findings will help providers 
have a better understanding of 
evidence-based practices that 
enhance healthy employment 
behaviors among at-risk, 
community fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
R6 
Many fathers lack 
the skills to engage 
in healthy 
parenting, co-
parenting, partner 
relationship, and 
financial behaviors. 
There is limited 
research about the 
effectiveness of 
fatherhood and 
employment 
support services on 
parenting and 
financial stability 
outcomes among 
at-risk, community 
fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
Results from the Fresno 
Fatherhood evaluation project 
will help us better understand 
the ways in which fatherhood 
and employment support 
services can contribute to 
healthy financial 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
among at-risk, community 
fathers in the Fresno, CA 
region. 
Findings will help providers 
have a better understanding of 
evidence-based practices that 
enhance healthy financial 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
among at-risk, community 
fathers in the Fresno, CA 
region. 
R7 
Many fathers lack 
the skills to engage 
in healthy 
parenting, co-
parenting, partner 
relationship, and 
financial behaviors. 
There is limited 
research about the 
effectiveness of 
Results from the Fresno 
Fatherhood evaluation project 
will help us better understand 
the ways in which fatherhood 
and employment support 
services can contribute to 
healthy financial behaviors 
among at-risk, community 
Findings will help providers 
have a better understanding of 
evidence-based practices that 
enhance healthy financial 
behaviors among at-risk, 
community fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 

fatherhood and 
employment 
support services on 
parenting and 
financial stability 
outcomes among 
at-risk, community 
fathers in the 
Fresno, CA region. 
fathers in the Fresno, CA 
region. 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
3. LOGIC MODEL 
Clearly demonstrate how the research question(s) (and the related implementation features 
and/or participant outcomes) link to the proposed logic model and the theory of change for the 
program. You may append a copy of your logic model to this document. 
 Appendix B presents a logic model to specify a theory of change for delivering the services 
and supports provided by the Fresno Fatherhood program. Service delivery processes specified in 
the model are linked to the desired outcomes for parenting, co-parenting, and economic stability. 
Model specification incorporates a descriptive study design to describe the secondary and primary 
outcomes of the Fresno Fatherhood curriculum by comparing pre- and follow-up survey responses 
after participation.  
 
Service delivery processes: Key aspects of service delivery processes in the theory of 
change—goals, inputs, activities, and outputs—articulate the experiences that are designed to 
solve specific problems for those who agree to participate in the Fresno Fatherhood program. As a 
result, three broad service delivery goals are identified to maximize participation benefits as 
explained below: 
• 
Goal 1 - Deliver core curricula as primary services to participants: The primary, core 
curricula that participants receive through the Fresno Fatherhood program is the 24/7 Dad 
curriculum. Participants who receive the primary curriculum will understand that they will 
receive 24/7 Dad curriculum to develop their skills to engage in healthy behaviors of 
parenting, co-parenting, and financial stability.  
 
• 
Goal 2 – Deliver employment support services as secondary services to participants: 
Candidates who receive employment support services will understand that they will receive 
services that include: job readiness support services to develop their soft job skills training 
and remove barriers to employment (e.g., transportation, bus passes, childcare referrals, 
etc.), as well as post-employment support services to help successfully transition 
participants into steady employment. Secondary services will also help participants to 
develop their skills to engage in healthy behaviors for parenting, co-parenting, and 
economic stability. 
 
• 
Goal 3 – Provide job readiness/placement and other supportive follow up services as 
secondary services to participants: Candidates who receive job readiness/placement and 
other support services will understand that they will receive services that will help them 
obtain and maintain ongoing employment. The ongoing follow up support is important to 

ensure that participants will increase their ability to financially provide for their children and 
families.  
 
• 
Goal 4 - Conduct Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) to ensure full 
implementation of RISE services to both study groups: Reports prepared and 
presented to the CQI Team by evaluators will use a series of performance indicators to 
track key outputs over time to identify any Fresno Fatherhood services that is delivered to 
participants that might fall short of the intended amounts to be offered (i.e., fidelity 
standards) and received (i.e., dosage thresholds). The CQI Team will then work with project 
staff to develop and implement performance interventions to address any outputs that need 
improvement to ensure the services offered to and received by participants meet the 
intended amounts by the end of each program year. 
Desired Outcomes: Outcomes specified in the logic model theorize the primary and secondary 
outcomes that are desired for participants in each study group after they receive Fresno 
Fatherhood primary and secondary services. Secondary outcomes are the improved attitudes and 
expectations that indicate and reflect participant engagement in parenting, co-parenting, and 
financial stability. Primary outcomes are the healthy behaviors exhibited by participants for 
parenting, co-parenting, and economic stability that ultimately define the benefits of Fresno 
Fatherhood program participation. Outcomes specified in the logic model are confirmatory since it 
is expected that participation in the Fresno Fatherhood curriculum will result in positive increases 
in primary and secondary outcomes related to parenting, co-parenting, and financial stability.  
4. HYPOTHESES 
For each specified research question, state the hypothesized result(s) and briefly describe why 
these results are anticipated. 
Research 
Question 
Hypothesized Result  
I1 
We expect that services will be offered and provided as intended. 
I2 
We expect that Fresno Fatherhood curriculum and services will be offered to and 
completed by participants. 
I3 
We expect that the CQI Team will carry out the steps in the CQI Plan during each 
program year. 
R1 
Fresno Fatherhood program participants will experience significant positive 
increases in healthy parenting attitudes/beliefs/expectations immediately 
following program completion. 
R2 
Fresno Fatherhood program participants will experience significant positive 
increases in healthy parenting behaviors one year after program enrollment. 
R3 
Fresno Fatherhood program participants will experience significant positive 
increases in healthy co-parenting behaviors one year after program enrollment. 

R4 
Fresno Fatherhood program participants will experience significant positive 
increases in healthy employment attitudes/beliefs/expectations immediately 
following program completion. 
R5 
Fresno Fatherhood program participants will experience significant positive 
increases in healthy employment behaviors one year after program enrollment. 
R6 
Fresno Fatherhood program participants will experience significant positive 
increases in healthy financial attitudes/beliefs/expectations immediately 
following program completion. 
R7 
Fresno Fatherhood program participants will experience significant positive 
increases in healthy financial behaviors one year after program enrollment. 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
5. RESEARCH DESIGN 
For each research question, briefly describe why the research design proposed will answer 
each research question(s). State whether the proposed evaluation is a descriptive or impact 
evaluation and justify why the proposed research design is best suited to answer the research 
question(s).  
Research 
Question 
Design 
Justification 
I1 
Implementation: Ongoing 
monitoring of the number of 
services offered and provided 
as intended. 
Ongoing monitoring of service data will 
help to ensure that services are being 
offered and provided in alignment with the 
program design, Monitoring of this data is 
beneficial, such that we will have more 
confidence in the results of the study. 
I2 
Implementation: Ongoing 
monitoring of the level of 
Fresno Fatherhood curriculum 
and services offered to and 
completed by participants. 
Ongoing monitoring of service data and 
program participation completion rates will 
help to ensure that services are being 
offered and completed by participants as 
intended. Monitoring of this data is 
beneficial, such that we will have more 
confidence in the hypothesized results of 
the study. 
I3 
We expect that the CQI Team 
will carry out the steps in the 
CQI Plan during each program 
year. 
Incorporating a CQI process will allow the 
program to identify problems, solutions, 
and implementation interventions with 
respect to meeting specific enrollment and 
completion targets throughout program 
implementation. Further, the CQI process 
will also allow the CQI team to test the 

effectiveness of interventions. This process 
will help the program produce more robust 
results for the program and the study. 
R1 
Descriptive: Pre to  post 
assessment will examine the 
association of Fresno 
Fatherhood program 
participation on healthy 
parenting 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations  
immediately following program 
completion.  
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their parenting 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations from pre to 
post assessment estimates the maximum 
amount of benefit that can be attributed to 
Fresno Fatherhood services in the absence 
of a counterfactual. 
R2 
Descriptive: Pre to follow-up 
assessment will examine the 
association of Fresno 
Fatherhood program on healthy 
parenting behaviors one year 
after program enrollment.  
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their parenting behaviors from pre to 
follow-up assessment estimates the 
maximum amount of benefit that can be 
attributed to Fresno Fatherhood services in 
the absence of a counterfactual. 
R3 
Descriptive: Pre to follow-up 
assessment will examine the 
association of Fresno 
Fatherhood program on healthy 
co-parenting behaviors one 
year after program enrollment.  
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their co-parenting behaviors from pre to 
follow-up assessment estimates the 
maximum amount of benefit that can be 
attributed to Fresno Fatherhood services in 
the absence of a counterfactual. 
R4 
Descriptive: Pre to post 
assessment will examine the 
association of Fresno 
Fatherhood program on healthy 
employment 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
immediately following program 
completion.  
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their employment 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations from pre to 
post assessment estimates the maximum 
amount of benefit that can be attributed to 
Fresno Fatherhood services in the absence 
of a counterfactual. 
R5 
Descriptive: Pre to follow-up 
assessment will examine the 
association of Fresno 
Fatherhood program on healthy 
employment behaviors one 
year after program enrollment. 
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their employment behaviors from pre to  
follow-up assessment estimates the 
maximum amount of benefit that can be 
attributed to Fresno Fatherhood services in 
the absence of a counterfactual. 
R6 
Descriptive: Pre to post 
assessment will examine the 
association of Fresno 
Fatherhood program on healthy 
financial 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations 
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their financial 
attitudes/beliefs/expectations from pre to 
post assessment estimates the maximum 
amount of benefit that can be attributed to 

immediately following program 
completion. 
 
Fresno Fatherhood services in the absence 
of a counterfactual. 
R7 
Descriptive: Pre to follow-up 
assessment will examine the 
association of Fresno 
Fatherhood program on healthy 
financial behaviors one year 
after program enrollment.  
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their financial behaviors from pre to 
follow-up assessment estimates the 
maximum amount of benefit that can be 
attributed to Fresno Fatherhood services in 
the absence of a counterfactual. 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
6. ONGOING GRANTEE AND LOCAL EVALUATOR COORDINATION 
Describe how the grantee and local evaluator collaboratively worked together to identify the 
research question(s) and research design to ensure its feasibility and relevance. Describe how 
the grantee and local evaluator will continue to work together throughout the evaluation to 
proactively address unforeseen challenges as they arise and ensure the rigor and relevance of 
the evaluation and its findings. Describe how the grantee and local evaluator will coordinate 
dissemination efforts. Describe how these processes will occur while maintaining the 
independence of the evaluation. 
The basis for ongoing coordination between FAWIC (the grantee) and MER (the local evaluator) is 
regular communication, by way of recurring meetings and daily interactions with embedded staff. 
Throughout the original proposal process, and now during the evaluation planning phase, MER 
worked in consort with FAWIC to design a study with research questions that are appropriate to the 
intervention. MER guides the process, given our experience designing and running evaluations, 
and FAWIC provides expertise on their community, target population, and program/curricula 
specifics. 
 
Recurring meetings will include a bi-weekly project CQI Team meeting. Under the leadership of the 
Data Manager and Lead MER Evaluator, the CQI Team reviews data from the nFORM and local 
evaluation systems to identify and mitigate implementation or data issues, and closely examine 
trends and accomplishments. This team includes FAWIC organizational and project leadership, the 
MER Evaluation team, and front-line staff representatives (e.g., Case Managers).  
 
In addition to CQI Team meetings, overall project team meetings occur monthly (at a minimum), 
with project leaders across MER and FAWIC in attendance, to ensure the partnership remains 
strong and that coordination across organizations is on track. This recurring, ongoing meeting 
structure is conducive to close coordination, ensuring that challenges can be quickly addressed, 
and promising strategies can be efficiently maximized.  
 
One of the key components of this coordination effort is the CQI Data Manager, who is an 
employee of FAWIC. The CQI Data Manager functions to bridge the gap between MER and 
FAWIC. They will interact with FAWIC staff daily while completing their job duties and play a 
leadership role in the recurring meetings outlined above. See Section II.D. above for more details 
about this role and others. Both the meetings and the roles outlined above will continue throughout 
the entire project period, providing opportunities to ensure the rigor and relevance of the evaluation 

and its findings, and to discuss and coordinate dissemination efforts (which will also be shared 
across MER and FAWIC).  
MER has experience operating prior descriptive evaluations using this exact process.  
 
Clearly outlining roles and responsibilities maintains the independence of the evaluation. That is, 
the evaluation team helps identify and illuminate areas of concern or improvement (for the program 
and the evaluation), but the program staff have responsibility for implementing improvements and 
providing direct services to participants. In this way, FAWIC and MER acknowledge our shared 
interest in and responsibility for a well-executed project and evaluation, but that MER is also an 
independent and external organization with a high level of integrity and is not responsible for nor 
invested in the specific outcomes of the program. This allows for close coordination without 
allowing for co-dependence, or for personal interests to influence evaluation findings.  
7. LEAD STAFF 
Define the roles of lead staff for the evaluation from both organizations below. 
Name 
Organization 
Role in the Evaluation 
Dr. Matthew Shepherd 
Midwest Evaluation and 
Research (MER) 
Principal Investigator 
McKenna LeClear 
MER 
Senior Research Consultant 
Jennifer Leveille 
MER 
Evaluation Project Manager 
Tim Giles 
Fresno Area Workforce 
Investment Corporation 
(FAWIC) 
CQI Data Manager 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
Articulate the experience, skills, and knowledge of the staff for the evaluation (including whether 
they have conducted similar studies in this field), as well as their ability to coordinate and 
support planning, implementation, and analysis related to a comprehensive evaluation plan. 

Dr. Matthew Shepherd will serve as the Principal Investigator for this grant.  As such, he has 
corporate responsibility for all evaluation activities.  Dr. Shepherd has over 25 years’ experience in 
program design and implementation, applied research, program evaluation, policy analysis, and 
evaluative technical assistance.   
 
McKenna LeClear will serve as the Senior Research Consultant and provide oversight for HMRF 
evaluation activities as needed. Ms. LeClear has 5 years of evaluation research experience and 
oversees numerous other HMRF evaluations for MER. 
 
Jennifer Leveille will serve as the Evaluation Project Manager. Ms. Leveille has experience 
managing and conducting research and evaluation projects for other youth and adult HMRE 
programs. Ms. Leveille will lead the effort to conduct a descriptive study and a Continuous Quality 
Improvement (CQI) process for the grant. 
  
Tim Giles will serve as the CQI Data Manager for this project.  He possesses the managerial and 
analytic skills to successfully serve in this position. The CQI Data Manager will work closely with the 
grantee and community partners on-site to complete data collection and management activities for 
the descriptive study and a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) process. 
8. SAMPLE 
8.1. TARGET POPULATION(S) 
For each target population identified in Section 1.2, please describe the target population(s), 
and explicitly state whether the population(s) differs from those who will be broadly served by 
the grant. Describe how the target population will be identified. Explicitly state the unit of 
analysis (e.g., non-residential father, unmarried couple). 
Description of 
Target Population 
How is the 
population different 
from those who will 
be broadly served by 
the grant? 
How will the target 
population be identified? 
Unit of 
Analysis 
Target population is 
community fathers 
(ages 18 and 
older), who have 
children ages 24 
and younger and 
reside in 
communities with 
high rates of 
poverty. 
No difference, all 
program participants 
will be study 
participants. 
The sample will be 
identified and recruited by 
community partner 
referrals and program 
staff.  
Community 
adult fathers 
 
 

8.2. METHODS TO PROMOTE SUFFICIENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 
Please describe methods to promote sufficient program participation in the table below. 
What methods will you use to 
ensure sufficient sample is 
recruited, enrolls, and 
participates in the program? 
FAWIC and their community partners will recruit program 
participants, and Fresno Fatherhood will provide incentives for 
program retention and completion. The CQI process will 
address issues regarding program recruitment and enrollment 
to ensure targets are met. 
Who will be responsible for 
recruiting the evaluation 
sample? 
The evaluation sample will not differ from the program 
population, in that all participants will be invited to participate in 
the evaluation. Enrollment into the evaluation will be conducted 
by the CQI Data Manager who will conduct the informed 
consent process and proctor the baseline data collection 
efforts. 
Please describe any 
incentives to be offered for 
program participation and/or 
completion and/or data 
collection and/or 
participation in the 
evaluation. 
Evaluation Participation – No incentives will be used for the 
first two data collection waves at baseline and post-test while 
participants are beginning or still engaged in services. A $50 
incentive in the form of a Giftogram gift card will be given to 
participants who complete the 1-year follow-up survey. 
9. DATA COLLECTION 
9.1. CONSTRUCTS AND MEASURES 
Clearly articulate the constructs of interest, measures to evaluate those constructs, and specific 
data collection instruments. Provide any information on the reliability and validity of the data 
collection instruments. For standardized instruments, you may provide the citation for the 
instrument. 
Construct 
Measure  
Instrument 
Reliability and Validity 
(if standardized instrument, you 
provide a citation for the instrument) 
Parenting 
Attitudes 
7 items: 
frequency of key 
attitudes 
(categories, 5-
point scale) 
nFORM 
Community-
Based Fathers 
Survey (A3: a-g) 
nFORM entrance to exit 
Parenting 
Behavior 
1 item: hours 
spent w/ children 
in last 30 days 
(interval); 1 item: 
nFORM 
Community-
Based Fathers 
Survey (A2b, 
nFORM entrance to OLLE follow-up 

frequency reach 
out to children 
(categories, 5 
point scale); 7 
items: frequency 
engage in key 
behaviors 
(categories, 5-
point scale) 
A2c, A5b: b-d, f-
i) 
Co-Parenting 
Behavior 
11 items: 
frequency of 
agreement with 
key co-parenting 
behaviors 
(interval, 5-point 
scale) 
nFORM 
Community-
Based Fathers 
Survey (A13: a-
k) 
nFORM entrance to OLLE follow-up 
Financial 
Behavior 
2 items: yes or 
no questions for 
having a 
checking/savings 
account 
(categories, 
yes/no response 
choices) 
nFORM 
Community-
Based Fathers 
Survey (B3 – 
B3a) 
nFORM entrance to OLLE follow-up 
Financial 
Attitudes 
7 items: levels of 
agreement with 
key financial 
attitudes 
(categories, 5-
point scale) 
OLLE (Online 
Local 
Evaluation) 
Survey:  
OLLE pre to post 
 
Employment 
Behavior 
1 item: yes or no 
do you have an 
updated resume 
to give 
employers 
(yes/no 
response 
choices) 
nFORM 
Community-
Based Fathers 
Survey (B2) 
nFORM entrance to OLLE follow-up 
Employment 
Attitudes 
8 items: levels of 
agreement with 
key employment 
attitudes 
(categories, 5-
point scale) 
OLLE (Online 
Local 
Evaluation) 
Survey:  
OLLE pre to post 
. 

* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
9.2. CONSENT 
Describe how and when program applicants will be informed of the study and will have the 
option of agreeing (i.e., consenting to) or declining to participate in the study. 
To secure informed consent, participants will attend an orientation/enrollment session (in 
person) where the Data Manager will describe the evaluation process, the risks, and benefits 
of participating in the project. Those people that wish to participate in the evaluation will 
complete an informed consent process and sign an informed consent document / form.  All 
participants will receive a copy of the consent form with contact information for evaluation staff 
and how to contact the IRB if needed. Informed consent will take place prior to program 
enrollment and the collection of evaluation data. 
9.3. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION 
If the evaluation will collect multiple waves of data, describe the timing of these waves below. 
When describing follow-up periods, specify whether the follow-up period will be post-baseline, 
post-random assignment, or post-program completion. 
Wave of Data Collection  
(e.g., baseline, short-term follow-up, long-
term follow-up) 
Timing of Data Collection 
 
Baseline 
Collected immediately following informed consent 
and enrollment – during the orientation session or 
first workshop  
Post-Test 
Collected after the completion of core curriculum 
programming -during the last workshop session – 
approximately 4 weeks after enrollment. 
1 year Follow-up (post-baseline) 
Collected approximately one year after program 
enrollment/ baseline. Participants who did not 
complete the program will still be eligible for a 
follow-up survey as long as they consented to be 
in the study and took a baseline survey. 
For each measure, describe how data will be collected detailing which data collection measures 
will be collected by which persons, and at what point in the programming or at what follow-up 
point. 

Measure 
Timing of 
Data 
Collection 
(baseline, 
wave of data 
collection) 
Method of 
Data 
Collection 
Who Is 
Responsible 
for Data 
Collection? 
Impact 
Evaluations 
Only:  
Will Methods 
or Collection 
Procedures 
Differ by 
Study 
Group? 
Administrative 
Data Only: 
Will data 
access 
require data 
sharing 
agreement? 
Online Local 
Evaluation 
(OLLE) 
Baseline 
Survey 
Baseline 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online 
Qualtrics data 
collection 
platform 
Case Manager 
and/or 
facilitator will 
proctor data 
collection and 
assist 
participants as 
necessary 
N/A 
N/A 
nFORM 
Community 
Fathers 
Entrance 
Survey 
Baseline 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online nFORM 
data collection 
platform 
Case Manager 
and/or 
facilitator will 
proctor data 
collection and 
assist 
participants as 
necessary 
N/A 
N/A 
OLLE Post-
Test Survey 
Post-Test 
(approx. 4 
weeks after 
enrollment) 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online 
Qualtrics data 
collection 
platform 
Case Manager 
and/or 
facilitator will 
proctor data 
collection and 
assist 
participants as 
necessary 
N/A 
N/A 
nFORM 
Community 
Fathers Exit 
Survey 
Post-Test 
(approx. 4 
weeks after 
enrollment) 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online nFORM 
data collection 
platform 
Case Manager 
and/or 
facilitator will 
proctor data 
collection and 
assist 
participants as 
necessary 
N/A 
N/A 

OLLE 1 Year 
Follow-up 
Survey 
1 year after 
enrollment / 
baseline 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online data 
collection 
platform and 
link – or – 
Phone 
interview data 
collection with 
evaluation staff 
MER survey 
tracking team 
member 
N/A 
N/A 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
9.4.  ENSURING AND MONITORING DATA COLLECTION 
Describe plans for training data collectors and for updating or retraining data collectors about 
procedures. Detail plans to regularly review data that have been submitted and to assess and 
swiftly address problems. 
This evaluation will utilize both post-program surveys (completed at the completion of core 
programing) and follow-up surveys collected one year after enrollment / baseline.  The methods for 
these data collections differ.  The primary driver for post-program survey completion is high rates of 
program retention.  This data point will be collected during the last workshop session – after (but 
during the same session of) the completion of the nFORM post-program data collection.  As such 
only those individuals who complete the program and who are at the data collection session will 
participate in the post-program data collection.  All program participants, even those who do not 
complete the program, will be sent a 1-year follow-up survey if they consent to be part of the 
evaluation and have taken a baseline survey. 
All program staff and evaluation staff will undergo a rigorous set of trainings to prepare for the 
evaluation.  All staff receive an overview and introductory training to present the goals and 
objectives of the evaluation effort and its importance to the overall project. Next, all staff receive 
training on human subject’s protection and are required to pass a certification test on the subject 
matter.  All staff will also receive a detailed training on the details of the evaluation including the 
evaluation tools, timing, and data collection process and the role and importance of data accuracy. 
In addition, the data manager and the primary local evaluation staff will undergo a rigorous training 
process to better understand the context of HMRF research, training on data collection procedures 
they will be responsible for, and training on the nFORM system and use of nFORM data in a CQI 
process. MER is creating networks of CQI data managers and Evaluation Project Managers across 
the 12 projects that we are evaluating so that all staff have access to experienced data managers 
and evaluation staff who have done this work previously.  This training takes the form of weekly 
training sessions that are currently under way. 
Members of the CQI Team will also receive specific training on the MER CQI process that has 
been developed prior to the launch of data collection or program services. As described elsewhere 
MER is assisting the program staff in implementing a robust CQI process that will focus on 
retention as one of the primary areas of program improvement and as such we are anticipating 
relatively modest levels of attrition for this data collection. 

On a bi-weekly basis the data manager, the local evaluation staff and MER technical specialists will 
be responsible for downloading data from the nFORM and MER On-Line Local Evaluation (OLLE) 
systems for processing and presentation to the CQI Team for tracking and monitoring performance 
measurement outcomes (recruitment, enrollment, dosage, completion, referrals, etc.) so that near 
real time adjustments can be made to program implementation to ensure compliance with program 
goals and objectives.  
All MER training is currently being recorded and as new staff come on board with projects, project 
staff turnover, or there is a need for refresher training, recorded training material can be shared and 
accessed with follow-up one-on-one training with the primary Lead Evaluator. 
10. IRB/PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS 
Please describe the process for protection of human subjects, and IRB review and approval of 
the proposed program and evaluation plans. Name the specific IRB to which you expect to 
apply.  
Solutions IRB, a private commercial Association for the Accreditation of Human Research 
Protection Programs Inc. (AAHRPP) fully accredited Institutional Review Board, will ensure that this 
study is approved before any research activities take place. MER has had 14 research studies 
approved by Solutions IRB over the past four years, has completed over 15 annual check-in 
reports, and has submitted timely amendments when changes to studies needed to take effect.  
 
All submissions are completed online, so turnaround for a new study approval is between 24 to 72 
hours, though the full approval process can take approximately one to two weeks depending on the 
number of questions and requested revisions that the IRB makes. In the IRB application 
submission, we will include descriptions of project staff, locations of study sites, the funding source, 
incentives, summary of activities, participant population, recruitment plans, risks and benefits, 
confidentiality of data, and the informed consent process along with all materials to be used in the 
study such as participant forms and surveys.  
 
This project will be submitted for IRB approval in early March 2021 to receive official approval to 
begin enrollment and data collection beginning in April 2021. 
11. DATA 
11.1. 
DATABASES 
For each database used to enter data, please describe the database into which data will be 
entered (i.e., nFORM and/or other databases), including both performance measure data you 
plan to use in your local evaluation and any additional local evaluation data. Describe the 
process for data entry (i.e., who will enter the data into the database).  
Database Name 
Data Entered 
Process for Data Entry 
nFORM 
Performance Measurement 
Data  
Entered directly by participants, 
and by program staff 

Qualtrics 
Local evaluation data, 
participant outcomes (OLLE 
survey) 
Entered directly by participants, 
and by MER evaluation staff 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
11.2. 
DATA REPORTING AND TRANSFER 
For each database provided in the table above, please indicate the ability to export individual-
level reports to an Excel or comma-delimited format and whether identifying information is 
available for linking to data from other sources. 
Database Name 
Ability to Export Individual 
Reports? 
What identifying information is 
available to facilitate linking to 
other data sources? 
nFORM 
Yes 
nFORM Client ID, Name, DOB 
Qualtrics 
Yes 
nFORM Client ID, Name, DOB 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
11.3. 
CURRENT SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY STANDARDS 
For each database provided in Section 11.1, please Indicate the ability to be able to encrypt 
data access during transit (for example, accessed through an HTTPS connection); be able to 
encrypt data at rest (that is, when not in transit), have in place a data backup and recovery plan; 
require all users to have logins and passwords to access the data they are authorized to view; 
and have current anti- virus software installed to detect and address malware, such as viruses 
and worms. 
Database Name 
Ability to 
encrypt 
data during 
transit?  
Ability to 
encrypt at 
rest?  
Data 
Backup and 
Recovery 
Plan? 
Require all 
users to 
have logins 
and 
passwords? 
Current Anti-
Virus Software 
Installed? 
Qualtrics 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below