Goodwill of Central Texas: Fatherhood Works Program Evaluation
Phase: NA
Conditions: Fathers
Sponsor: Midwest Evaluation & Research

 
Goodwill of Central Texas: Fatherhood Works 
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood 
Program Evaluation 
 
Study Protocol 
 
January 9, 2025 
 
Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05292963 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 2 
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. 
Children’s healthy physical, emotional, and social development is strongly influenced by their 
family circumstances. Research has shown that engaged, supportive fathers and father figures can 
promote children’s healthy development, while poverty can have significant long-term negative 
impacts on child development and educational attainment. Fathers and families in the Central 
Texas area, which includes Travis, Williamson, Hays, and Bastrop counties, face an increasingly 
high cost of living and rising poverty rates that make it difficult to meet their basic needs. The 
Central Texas area has a need for services that support low-income fathers to achieve greater 
economic stability, strengthen relationships, and be effective, nurturing parents. 
Goodwill of Central Texas (GCT) aims to help low-income (<200% FPL) fathers and father 
figures 18 years of age or older in the Austin metropolitan area fulfill their roles and responsibilities 
through the Fatherhood Works Program (FWP). All FWP participants will receive a range of support 
services tailored to individuals’ needs related to financial planning, career counseling, job search 
assistance, and occupational skills training. For delivering primary curriculum, GCT will partner with 
Any Baby Can, an experienced local nonprofit parenting skills training provider, to offer the 
evidence-based, skills-based Nurturing Fathers (NF) curriculum with workshops designed to teach 
parenting and nurturing skills to men. GCT will offer the NF curriculum in both virtual and in-person 
formats. GCT will also partner with SAFE Alliance, another local nonprofit training provider, to 
virtually offer the Creating a Safe Home primary curriculum designed to promote safe home 
environments. 
2. EVALUATION GOALS 
Please briefly describe key goals of your evaluation and what you hope to learn below. 
The key goal of this descriptive evaluation is to assess the extent to which participation in the 
Fatherhood Works Program is positively associated with improved attitudes and behaviors among 
low-income fathers and father figures in Central Texas. Research questions will focus on whether 
attitudes and behaviors related to parenting, partner relationships, and employment change after 
participation in primary program services. 
3. EVALUATION ENROLLMENT  
Please provide the expected start and end dates for program and evaluation enrollment 
using the tables below. 
IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION 
Please leave blank if not conducting an implementation study. 
 
Program Enrollment 
Study Enrollment 
Start Date 
05/01/2021 
05/01/2021 
End Date 
07/15/2025 
07/15/2025 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 3 
Definition 
Program implementation metrics using 
data from nFORM (e.g., workshop hours 
received, enrollment, retention, etc.), site 
visit findings, CQI process findings 
Same as program enrollment 
 
DESCRIPTIVE EVALUATION 
Please leave blank if not conducting a descriptive outcome evaluation. 
 
Program Enrollment 
Study Enrollment 
Start Date 
05/01/2021 
05/01/2021 
End Date 
07/15/2025 
06/15/2024 
Definition 
Eligible low-income fathers and father 
figures in the Central Texas area, 18 
years of age or older, with children 
under the age of 24 
All participants who consent to be part 
of the evaluation study 
 
4. EVALUATION TIMELINE 
Please include a timeline for key activities of the evaluation below. 
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 
3/09/2021 
Development and submission of descriptive 
evaluation plan document 
7/25/2022 
8/25/2022 
Evaluation Tools Development 
10/1/2020 
10/15/2021 
IRB Approval 
3/22/2021 
3/29/2021 – initial 
approval 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 4 
4/6/2022 – amendment 
approval 
CQI Team Formed and Meeting bi-weekly 
5/20/2021 
7/1/2025 
Training for CQI Team 
3/15/2021 
3/28/2021 
Ongoing as needed 
Training for all Program Staff on Research 
Methods and process 
3/15/2021 
4/12/2021 
Ongoing as needed 
Implementation Evaluation Data Collection  
4/15/2021 
6/15/2025 
Evaluation Program Staff Training 
3/15/2021 
Ongoing as needed 
Preliminary Implementation Report Submitted 
6/31/2022 
6/31/2022 
Descriptive Study Data Collection 
 
 
- 
Randomization 
- 
- 
- 
Baseline 
4/15/2021 
3/31/2024 
- 
Post Test 
7/8/2021 
5/31/2024 
- 
Follow-up 
4/15/2022 
6/15/2025 
Final Implementation Report Submitted 
9/1/2025 
9/29/2025 
Final Report Submitted 
9/1/2025 
9/29/2025 
 
 
 
EVALUATION PLAN 
1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
1.1. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
Research questions in this study are framed by a descriptive evaluation design that will be 
used to measures changes in participant outcomes after participation in the Fatherhood Works 
Program. Analyses will measure the differences in primary and secondary outcomes from 
orientation to one year after program enrollment. Primary outcomes refer here to changes in 
parenting and co-parenting behaviors. Secondary outcomes refer here to the attitudes that 
theoretically facilitate and reflect behaviors. Implementation analyses seek to demonstrate 
whether or not participants are receiving the intended amounts of FWP services. 
Commented [JL1]: Is this date correct? 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 5 
No 
Research Question 
Implementation or 
Outcome? 
I1 
To what extent is the Nurturing Fathers curriculum offered to 
and received by program participants? 
Implementation 
I2 
To what extent are additional primary workshops offered to and 
received by program participants? 
Implementation 
I3 
To what extent did the CQI team carry out the steps in the CQI 
plan each program year? 
Implementation 
R1 
How did parenting behavior measures change from program 
enrollment to 1 year after enrollment? 
Primary Outcome 
R2 
How did parenting attitude measures change from program 
enrollment to immediately following program completion? 
Secondary Outcome 
R3 
How did co-parenting behavior measures change from 
program enrollment to 1 year after enrollment? 
Primary Outcome 
R4 
How did employment attitude measures change from program 
enrollment to 1 year after enrollment? 
Secondary Outcome 
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 
Populatio
n 
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 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 6 
suggestive 
evidence 
R1 
Primary 
program 
services which 
include: 
Nurturing 
Fathers 
parenting 
course, 
Creating a 
Safe Home 
domestic 
violence 
seminar, and a 
Workforce 
Advancement 
workshop 
Low-
income 
fathers/ 
father 
figures 
who are 
18+ years 
of age with 
children up 
to 24 
years 
Pre-
intervention 
outcome 
scores 
Participants 
will report 
improved 
parenting 
behaviors 1 
year after 
enrolling in 
FWP primary 
services 
Confirmatory 
R2 
Primary 
program 
services which 
include: 
Nurturing 
Fathers 
parenting 
course, 
Creating a 
Safe Home 
domestic 
violence 
seminar, and a 
Workforce 
Advancement 
workshop 
Low-
income 
fathers/ 
father 
figures 
who are 
18+ years 
of age with 
children up 
to 24 
years 
Pre-
intervention 
outcome 
scores 
Participants 
will report 
improved 
parenting 
attitudes 
immediately 
following FWP 
primary 
services 
Confirmatory 
R3 
Primary 
program 
services which 
include: 
Nurturing 
Fathers 
parenting 
course, 
Creating a 
Safe Home 
domestic 
violence 
seminar, and a 
Low-
income 
fathers/ 
father 
figures 
who are 
18+ years 
of age with 
children up 
to 24 
years 
Pre-
intervention 
outcome 
scores 
Participants 
will report 
improved co-
parenting 
behaviors 1 
year after 
enrolling in 
FWP primary 
services 
Confirmatory 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 7 
Workforce 
Advancement 
workshop 
R4 
Primary 
program 
services which 
include: 
Nurturing 
Fathers 
parenting 
course, 
Creating a 
Safe Home 
domestic 
violence 
seminar, and a 
Workforce 
Advancement 
workshop 
Low-
income 
fathers/ 
father 
figures 
who are 
18+ years 
of age with 
children up 
to 24 
years 
Pre-
intervention 
outcome 
scores 
Participants 
will report 
improved 
employment 
attitudes 1 
year after 
enrolling in 
FWP primary 
services 
Confirmatory 
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 
Topic 
Existing Research 
Contribution to the 
Evidence Base 
Interest to the 
Program and/or 
Community 
R1 
Nurturing Fathers is an 
evidence-based 
curriculum that has 
been proven effective at 
building skills needed 
for healthy family 
relationships and child 
development. 
Determine to what extent 
participation in a program 
that uses Nurturing 
Fathers curriculum, in 
combination with other 
workshop programming, 
is associated with 
changes in parenting 
behaviors among low-
income fathers and father 
figures in Central Texas. 
Healthy parenting 
behaviors support 
children to achieve more 
positive outcomes, both 
short- and long-term, 
and promote adult 
wellbeing. 
R2 
Nurturing Fathers is an 
evidence-based 
curriculum that has 
Determine to what extent 
participation in a program 
that uses Nurturing 
Healthy parenting 
attitudes facilitate 
healthy parenting 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 8 
been proven effective at 
building skills needed 
for healthy family 
relationships and child 
development. 
Fathers curriculum, in 
combination with other 
workshop programming, 
is associated with 
changes in parenting 
attitudes among low-
income fathers and father 
figures in Central Texas. 
behaviors, which in turn 
support children to 
achieve more positive 
outcomes, both short- 
and long-term, and 
promote adult wellbeing. 
R3 
Nurturing Fathers is an 
evidence-based 
curriculum that has 
been proven effective at 
building skills needed 
for healthy family 
relationships and child 
development. 
Determine to what extent 
participation in a program 
that uses Nurturing 
Fathers curriculum, in 
combination with other 
workshop programming, 
is associated with 
changes in co-parenting 
behaviors among low-
income fathers and father 
figures in Central Texas. 
Healthy co-parenting 
behaviors support 
children to achieve more 
positive outcomes, both 
short- and long-term, 
and promote adult 
wellbeing. 
R4 
Nurturing Fathers is an 
evidence-based 
curriculum that has 
been proven effective at 
building skills needed 
for healthy family 
relationships and child 
development. 
Determine to what extent 
participation in a program 
that uses Nurturing 
Fathers curriculum, in 
combination with other 
workshop programming, 
is associated with 
changes in employment 
attitudes among low-
income fathers and father 
figures in Central Texas. 
Healthy employment 
attitudes support children 
to achieve more positive 
outcomes, both short- 
and long-term, and 
promote adult wellbeing. 
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. 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 9 
     The appended logic model specifies a theory of change for delivering virtual and in-person 
primary services and standard support services as part of the Fatherhood Works Program. Service 
delivery processes specified in the model are linked to the desired outcomes for healthy family 
relationships. Model specification incorporates a descriptive study design to measure change in 
primary and secondary participant outcomes from program enrollment to one year after enrollment. 
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 Fatherhood Works Program. 
Solving each problem identifies three broad service delivery goals to maximize participation 
benefits for study groups as explained below: 
• 
Goal 1 – Deliver primary curricula workshops to Fatherhood Works Program 
participants: Project participants will be offered three primary curricula through Goodwill of 
Central Texas and their facilitation partner Any Baby Can, in combination with support 
services and case management. The Nurturing Fathers curriculum will help to develop 
participants’ skills and healthy attitudes to engage in healthy parenting and co-parenting 
behaviors. The Creating a Safe Home seminar will help to build participant knowledge about 
domestic violence and child neglect to reduce these behaviors. The Workforce 
Advancement workshop will help to develop participants’ job search skills and increase to 
the likelihood of securing stable, gainful employment. Participant engagement in the primary 
curricula and local evaluation surveys will take place after receiving the FWP orientation and 
providing project staff with informed consent to participate in study activities. 
• 
Goal 2 – Deliver support services to Fatherhood Works Program participants: Project 
participants will be offered support services, including case management, transportation 
supports, and referrals to additional services within and external to Goodwill. These support 
services are intended to increase the likelihood that participants will benefit from primary 
services and to reduce barriers to program retention. 
• 
Goal 3 - Conduct Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) efforts to ensure full 
implementation of program services: Reports prepared and presented to the CQI Team 
by evaluators in the CQI process will use a series of performance indicators to track key 
outputs over time to identify any primary or support FWP services delivered to study groups 
that might fall short of the intended amounts to be offered (i.e., fidelity standards) and 
received (i.e., dosage thresholds) by them. 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 program participants after they receive primary and support services. 
Secondary outcomes are the improved attitudes that facilitate and reflect participant engagement in 
healthy parenting and employment behaviors. Primary outcomes are the healthier parenting and 
co-parenting behaviors exhibited by participants that ultimately define the benefits of Fatherhood 
Works Program participation. 
4. HYPOTHESES 
For each specified research question, state the hypothesized result(s) and briefly describe why 
these results are anticipated. 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 10 
Research 
Question 
Hypothesized Result  
R1 
Participants will report healthier parenting behavior one year after enrolling in 
the Fatherhood Works Program. 
R2 
Participants will report healthier parenting attitudes immediately following the 
Fatherhood Works Program. 
R3  
Participants will report healthier co-parenting behavior one year after enrolling  
in the Fatherhood Works Program. 
R4 
Participants will report healthier employment attitudes one year after enrolling 
in the Fatherhood Works Program. 
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 
R1 
For this descriptive evaluation, 
healthy parenting behavior will be 
measured at the time of program 
enrollment and one year after 
program enrollment, and analyses 
will determine if changes in parenting 
behavior outcomes are statistically 
significant. 
This study is interested in whether 
Fatherhood Works Program 
participation is associated with 
improved outcomes for participants, 
so a descriptive study is sufficient for 
measuring differences in participant 
outcomes over time. 
R2 
For this descriptive evaluation, 
healthy parenting attitudes will be 
measured at the time of program 
enrollment and immediately following 
program completion, and analyses 
will determine if changes in parenting 
attitude outcomes are statistically 
significant. 
This study is interested in whether 
Fatherhood Works Program 
participation is associated with 
improved outcomes for participants, 
so a descriptive study is sufficient for 
measuring differences in participant 
outcomes over time. 
R3 
For this descriptive evaluation, 
healthy co-parenting behavior will 
be measured at the time of program 
enrollment and one year after 
program enrollment, and analyses 
This study is interested in whether 
Fatherhood Works Program 
participation is associated with 
improved outcomes for participants, 
so a descriptive study is sufficient for 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 11 
will determine if changes in co-
parenting behavior outcomes are 
statistically significant. 
measuring differences in participant 
outcomes over time. 
R4 
For this descriptive evaluation, 
healthy employment attitudes will 
be measured at the time of program 
enrollment and one year after 
program enrollment, and analyses 
will determine if changes in 
employment attitude outcomes are 
statistically significant. 
This study is interested in whether 
Fatherhood Works Program 
participation is associated with 
improved outcomes for participants, 
so a descriptive study is sufficient for 
measuring differences in participant 
outcomes over time. 
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 GCT (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 with GCT 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 GCT 
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 GCT organizational and project leadership, the 
MER Evaluation team, and front-line staff representatives (e.g., Program Administrator, Career 
Case Managers). 
In addition to CQI team meetings, overall project team meetings occur monthly (at a minimum), with 
project leaders across MER and GCT 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 Data Manager, who is a MER 
employee, embedded with GCT. The Data Manager functions to bridge the gap between 
organizations. They will interact with GCT staff daily while completing their job duties and play a 
leadership role in the recurring meetings outlined above. See Section 8 below for more details 
about this role and others. Both the meetings and the roles outlined above will continue throughout 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 12 
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 GCT).  
MER has experience operating prior 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, GCT 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 
Principal Investigator 
Charlene Brickner, MA 
Midwest Evaluation and 
Research 
Lead Evaluation Consultant and 
Evaluation Project Manager 
Charlene Brickner, MA 
Midwest Evaluation and 
Research 
CQI Data Manager 
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.   
 
Charlene Brickner will serve as the Lead Evaluation Consultant and Evaluation Project Manager. 
She will lead the efforts to conduct a descriptive study and the Continuous Quality Improvement 
(CQI) process for the grant.  
 
Charlene Brickner will also serve as the CQI Data Manager. Prior to joining MER, Ms. Brickner 
served as a research assistant with the Children’s Learning Institute in Houston. The CQI Data 
Manager will work closely with the grantee and community partners on-site to complete data 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 13 
collection and management activities for the impact 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 
Low-income fathers 
and father figures 
18 years of age or 
older with children 
24 years or 
younger in the 
Central Texas area 
No difference, all 
program participants 
will be part of the 
study sample 
GCT and community 
partners will recruit 
potential participants in 
the target population. GCT 
will determine eligibility as 
part of their intake and 
screening process. 
Father/Father 
Figure 
 
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? 
GCT and their community partners will recruit program 
participants, and GCT will provide incentives for workshop 
completion and successful program referrals. GCT has 
implemented organizational strategies to increase program 
enrollment, including prioritizing referrals to Fatherhood 
Works for all eligible walk-in clients. GCT also meets 
quarterly with its community partners to talk about progress 
toward meeting referral targets. The CQI process will 
address issues regarding program recruitment, enrollment, 
and completion to ensure targets are met. 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 14 
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 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. 
Program Participation – GCT will provide a series of 
incentives for workshop completion, employment retention, 
and successful referrals to the program, up to $200. 
Evaluation Participation – The program participation 
incentive for reaching 100% of primary workshop hours 
includes exit survey completion. No incentive will be given 
for entrance survey completion. A $50 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 
Parenting 
Behavior 
1 item: hours spent with 
children in last 30 days 
(interval); 1 item: 
frequency reaching out to 
children (categories, 5-
point scale); 7 items: 
frequency engaging in 
key behaviors 
(categories, 5-point 
scale) 
nFORM Community-
Based Fathers Survey 
(A2b, A2c, A5b: b-d, f-i) 
nFORM 
Parenting 
Attitudes 
7 items: frequency of key 
attitudes (categories, 5-
point scale) 
nFORM Community-
Based Fathers Survey 
(A3: a-g) 
nFORM 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 15 
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 
 
 
Employment 
Attitudes 
2 items: level of 
agreement with attitudes 
related to acquiring a job 
and providing for a 
family.  
OLLE (Online Local 
Evaluation) Survey  
Jurkiewicz, T. & 
Friedman, L. (2020). 
Impact Evaluation of 
The TYRO Champion 
Dads Project in Dallas, 
Texas: Final Impact 
Evaluation Report for 
Anthem Strong 
Families. Midwest 
Evaluation and 
Research.  
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. 
Because the planned evaluation involves human subjects, GCT understands program 
implementation requires both IRB approval and participant informed consent. 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. IRB clearance will be 
submitted for approval and obtained during the planning period.  
To secure informed consent, participants will attend an orientation / enrollment session (in 
person or virtual) where the Data Manager will describe the evaluation process and the risks 
and benefits of the project. An IRB-approved Q&A video can be played during orientation to 
provide more information about the evaluation study as needed. 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 with any questions or to withdraw 
from the study. Informed consent will take place prior to 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  
Timing of Data Collection 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 16 
(e.g., baseline, short-term follow-up, long-
term follow-up) 
 
Baseline 
Collected immediately following informed consent 
and study enrollment – during orientation session 
or first workshop 
Post-test 
Collected after the completion of the primary 
services programming – during the last workshop 
session or exit session – approximately 7 to 13 
weeks after enrollment depending on delivery 
schedule 
1 year follow-up (post-baseline) 
Collected approximately one year after study 
enrollment/baseline 
 
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. 
Survey 
Timing of 
Data 
Collection 
(baseline, 
wave of data 
collection) 
Method of 
Data 
Collection 
Who Is 
Responsible 
for Data 
Collection? 
Will Methods 
or Collection 
Procedures 
Differ by 
Study 
Group? 
Will data 
access 
require data 
sharing 
agreement? 
On-Line 
Local 
Evaluation 
(OLLE) and 
nFORM 
Baseline 
Surveys 
Baseline 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online data 
collection 
platform 
Data 
Manager will 
proctor data 
collection and 
assist 
participants 
as necessary 
No 
N/A 
OLLE and 
nFORM Post-
Test Surveys 
Post-Test 
(approx. 7 to 
13 weeks 
after 
enrollment) 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online data 
collection 
platform 
Data 
Manager will 
proctor data 
collection and 
assist 
participants 
as necessary 
No 
N/A 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 17 
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 
Research 
Staff/ 
participant 
tracking team 
No 
N/A 
 
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 was submitted for IRB approval in early March 2021 and received official approval 
to begin enrollment and data collection in March 2021. Amendments to the original application 
were approved in April 2022 and will be submitted as necessary based on programmatic or 
evaluation changes. 
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).  

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 18 
Database Name 
Data Entered 
Process for Data Entry 
nFORM 
Performance measurement 
data, local evaluation 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 
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 using Data Export 
function 
nFORM ID, name, date of birth 
Qualtrics 
Yes, Excel or comma-
separated 
nFORM ID, name, date of birth 
* 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 
 
Please describe any plans for study registration with an appropriate registry (e.g., 
clinicaltrials.gov, socialscienceregistry.org, osf.io, etc.). 

 
 
Evaluation Plan  
Page | 19 
MER will register this descriptive study with clinicaltrials.gov.