Strong Fathers, Stronger Families Program Evaluation
Phase: NA
Conditions: Fathers
Sponsor: Midwest Evaluation & Research

 
 
Strong Fathers, Stronger Families 
Healthy Marriage and Responsible 
Fatherhood Program Evaluation 
Study Protocol 
Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT06907719 
8/2/2023 
 

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 Strong Fathers, Stronger Families-Midsouth (SFSF-Midsouth) FIRE Project conducted by 
the Structured Employment Economic Development Corporation (Seedco) builds upon 
Seedco’s regional capacity and track record accumulated since 2004 and adapts ten years of 
experience operating an ACF-funded Responsible Fatherhood Program in New York City to 
meet the needs of fathers in the Memphis, TN metropolitan region.   
Sustained long term employment of parents is one of the key driving factors affecting child 
well-being. Fatherhood programs may not have the lasting effects program planners and policy 
makers expect to see, as participants who have successfully completed a program and started 
a job often do not maintain employment. This inability to sustain employment has a ripple 
effect across other components of fatherhood, including parenting or partnership relationships. 
Needs: Seedco’s targeted geographic community for the proposed SFSF-Midsouth program is 
Shelby County and Tipton County in Tennessee and Crittenden County in Arkansas (the 
Greater Memphis Metropolitan region). This region is distinguished by high rates of poverty, 
concentrations of African American populations, and a largely urban center surrounding the 
Greater Memphis Metropolitan area. These communities are among the poorest in the region, 
with resources and opportunities further constrained by racial disparity. Participants served via 
this funding face a challenging economic climate and many face societal and emotional 
barriers. Seedco’s needs analysis confirmed what the agency already knows from its 
experience serving many fathers, families, and local residents— that these individuals grapple 
with poverty, incarceration, crime, and single parenthood, or family instability. In short, this 
region needs and deserves a quality HMRF program.   
Services: The SFSF-Midsouth Program will provide economic stability, healthy relationship, 
and parenting/fatherhood education via evidence-based curricula in combination with intensive 
case management to participants based on the results of a needs assessment completed at 
program enrollment. 
Population: The SFSF-Midsouth Program proposes to serve low-income fathers who face 
barriers to engagement with their children. These participants will be primarily young fathers, 
including biological, expectant, and adoptive fathers, stepfathers, and acknowledged father 
figures. Recruitment will focus on at-risk young fathers, low-income fathers, and active-duty 
military and veteran fathers living in Shelby County, TN, Tipton County, TN, and Crittenden 
County, AR. Specific numbers to be served are in the chart below:  
PROGRAM PARTICIPATION TARGETS 
Milestone 
Year 1 
4/1/21- 
9/29/21 
Year 2 
9/30/21- 
9/29/22 
Year 3 
9/30/22- 
9/29/23 
Year 4 
9/30/23- 
9/29/24 
Year 5 
9/30/24- 
9/29/25 
Total 
Individuals Screened 
225 
450 
450 
450 
450 
2,025 
Participants Enrolled 
175 
350 
350 
350 
350 
1,575 
Participants who attend at 
least one primary workshop 
175 
350 
350 
350 
350 
1,575 

Participants who attend at 
least 50% of primary 
workshops 
165 
330 
330 
330 
330 
1,485 
Participants Graduating 
Healthy Relationship & 
Parenting Curricula (attend 
at least 90% of primary 
workshops) 
158 (90%) 
315 (90%) 
315 (90%) 
315 (90%) 
315 (90%) 
1,418 
Participants who attend 
100% of primary workshops 
118 
236 
236 
236 
236 
1062 
Participants Placed in Jobs 
105(60%) 
210 (60%) 
210 (60%) 
210 (60%) 
210 (60%) 
945 
Job Retention- 30 days 
87 (50%) 
175 (50%) 
175 (50%) 
175 (50%) 
175 (50%) 
787 
Job Retention- 60 days 
70 (40%) 
140 (40%) 
140 (40%) 
140 (40%) 
140 (40%) 
630 
Job Retention- 90 days 
50 
100 
100 
100 
100 
450 
Job Retention- 180 days 
40 
80 
80 
80 
80 
360 
Return Post-Graduation for 
Long-Term Case 
Management 
87 
175 
175 
175 
175 
787 
 
Memorandum of changes to the Evaluation Study.  
• 
SEEDCO Midsouth will aim to serve the same number of individuals in the descriptive 
study as in the RCT with a different estimated minimum effect size for the descriptive 
study. (Evaluation enrollment targets remain unchanged) 
• 
The one-year local evaluation follow-up survey will no longer be collected and has been 
removed from the evaluation plan. 
• 
The previously administered OLLE pre- and post-surveys will not be administered, as 
the measures needed to answer R1, R2, and R3 come from nFORM. 
 
2. EVALUATION GOALS 
Please briefly describe key goals of your evaluation and what you hope to learn below. 
The goals of the evaluation activities are to 1) Support the effective implementation of the 
SFSF- Midsouth FIRE Program with a rigorous Implementation Evaluation and a high-quality 
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) process, and 2) to conduct a rigorous Descriptive 
Study evaluation that answers the key research questions. The research questions seek to 
understand if participants report significantly better parenting relationship behaviors, 
coparenting behaviors, and economic stability outcomes after program participation.  
 
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 
Evaluating the extent to which the 
program is being implemented as 
intended, including program enrollment 
and retention outcomes. 
Evaluating the extent to which the 
evaluation is being implemented as 
intended, including study enrollment, 
consent, and survey response rates. 
 
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 
3/31/2025 
3/31/2025 
Definition 
All participants across all grant years 
with no pilot program 
All participants across all grant years 
with no pilot program 
 
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 
Data collection (pre- and post-surveys) 
Note: Prior to April 2021, SEEDCO was aiming to conduct 
an impact evaluation. Data collected during this time will 
still be used for the descriptive evaluation.  
4/1/2021 
3/31/2025 
Development and submission of Descriptive Evaluation 
Plan document 
6/1/2023 
7/30/2023 
IRB Amendment Approval of descriptive study activity 
changes 
7/24/2023 
7/28/2023 

Note: The original impact study, including a descriptive 
pilot period before randomization, was approved by the IRB 
in 2021 and was renewed annually in 2022 and 2023. The 
IRB approval indicated here is for an amendment 
describing the changes in study activities. 
Study Registration 
7/28/2023 
7/31/2023 
 
* 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 
The primary overall research questions for this descriptive evaluation, which will be 
assessed utilizing pre- and post-surveys from nFORM, focus on program services and 
seeks to understand, “Is Strong Fathers, Stronger Families program participation associated 
with better participant outcomes?”  This overall line of inquiry is operationalized by focusing 
on specific short-term outcomes to determine if parenting, co-parenting, and economic 
stability outcomes are improved after program participation.  
No 
Research Question 
Implementation or 
Outcome? 
I1 
Are participants offered primary workshops and support services 
as intended (fidelity)? 
Implementation 
I2 
How many primary workshops do participants attend (dosage), 
and how does this vary by workshop characteristics (e.g., timing 
and length of sessions) and participant characteristics (e.g., age, 
employment status, relationship status)? 
Implementation 
R1 
Do SFSF-Midsouth participants experience significant increases 
in Co-parenting Relationship outcomes after program 
participation? 
Primary Outcome 
R2 
Do SFSF-Midsouth participants experience significant increases 
in Parenting Relationship outcomes after program 
participation? 
Primary Outcome 
R3 
Do SFSF-Midsouth participants experience significant increases 
in economic stability outcomes after program participation? 
Primary 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. 
 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
 
 
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 
 
SFSF 
primary 
workshop 
curricula (40 
hours) 
Low-income, 
minority, young 
fathers (and father 
figures) in the 
Greater Memphis 
area 
Pre-
intervention 
Improved co-
parent 
relationships 
Confirmatory 
R2 
 
SFSF 
primary 
workshop 
curricula (40 
hours) 
Low-income, 
minority, young 
fathers (and father 
figures) in the 
Greater Memphis 
area 
Pre-
intervention 
Improved 
parenting 
relationships  
Confirmatory 
R3 
SFSF 
primary 
workshop 
curricula 
Low-income, 
minority, young 
fathers (and father 
figures) in the 
Greater Memphis 
area 
Pre-
intervention 
Improved 
economic 
stability 
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 
Existing Research 
Contribution to the 
Evidence Base 
Interest to the Program 
and/or Community 
R1 
 
Research with fathers in 
fatherhood programs has 
shown that co-parenting is a 
multidimensional construct 
with both positive and 
negative components, often 
made more challenging by the 
presence of new intimate 
relationships for co-parents. 
At the same time co-parenting 
programming has been shown 
to impact attitudes and beliefs 
about co-parents. One of the 
major areas of tension 
between co-parents is often 
financial support of the child. 
This study has the 
potential to show 
how employment 
support services, 
combined with 
fatherhood 
programming, 
affects participant 
co-parenting 
relationships  
Seedco has a strong interest 
in learning how to best 
provide services to fathers 
that improve co-parenting 
relationships. 
R2 
 
The research on father -child 
relationships in low-income 
and fragile families is limited 
and few have examined the 
impact when fathers live 
separately from their child and 
were not married at the time of 
birth. It has been shown that 
couple-oriented programs, 
such as those provided in 
fatherhood programs, can 
have an impact on father 
involvement.  
This study has the 
potential to show 
how employment 
support services, 
combined with 
fatherhood 
programming, 
affects participant 
parenting 
relationships. 
Seedco has a strong interest 
in learning how to best 
provide services to fathers 
that improve parenting 
relationships.  
R3 
Previous research has explored 
the potential impact of 
combining employment support 
services with fatherhood 
programming on participant 
economic stability. These 
services have been shown to 
help fathers acquire new skills, 
improve their resumes, and 
navigate the job market 
This study has the 
potential to show 
how employment 
support services, 
combined with 
fatherhood 
programming, 
affects participant 
economic stability. 
By addressing both 
employment and fatherhood-
related challenges 
simultaneously, these 
integrated programs can offer 
comprehensive support and 
foster positive outcomes. 
Fathers participating in such 
programs are more likely to 
find stable employment, 

effectively. By increasing their 
employment opportunities, 
participants can secure stable 
jobs with better wages, benefits, 
and long-term prospects. 
 
experience increased job 
satisfaction, and have higher 
earning potential. This, in 
turn, contributes to their 
economic stability* and the 
overall well-being of their 
families and communities. 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
*Data on financial well-being and economic stability is collected via surveys administered to the 
participants. The Applicant Characteristics Survey (ACS) survey asks questions on employment 
status. Additionally, the enrollment tab on nFORM displays information on primary reasons for 
enrollment including to find a job. Similarly, in the client outcome tab, participants can be filtered 
based on varied employment status. nFORM Entrance and Exit survey also collect information on 
economic stability. These measures provide a sound understanding of the participant’s rationale for 
joining the program as well as measuring how effective the program has been to improve 
participant’s economic stability.   
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. 
See Appendix A for Theory of Change Logic Model 
The appended logic model specifies a theory of change for delivering fatherhood curriculum and post-
employment services to SFSF participants. Service delivery processes specified in the model are linked to 
the desired outcome. Model specification incorporates a descriptive study design to determine if participants 
report significantly improved primary outcomes after program 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 SFSF Program. Solving each problem identifies three broad service delivery goals 
to maximize participation benefits for study groups as explained below: 
• 
Goal 1 - Deliver primary workshop hours and support services: Program participants will receive the 
Blueprint and 24/7 Dad curricula, in combination with employment support services and case 
management through Seedco, but only after receiving an orientation about the SFSF and giving project 
staff informed consent to participate in study activities.  
• 
Goal 2 - Conduct Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) to ensure full implementation of 
program: 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 primary or support SFSF services 
delivered to program participants 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 outcomes that are 
desired for program participants after they receive primary workshop hours, case management support 
services, and employment support services. 

 
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 
Primary workshops, support services, and case management services were 
offered to all participants as needed, with fidelity to the program model.  
I2 
Participants received primary workshop hours (dosage) as intended, with 90% of 
enrollees receiving at least 90% of primary hours. 
R1 
 
Participants will experience better co-parenting relationships outcomes after 
program participation. 
R2 
 
Participants will experience better parenting relationships outcomes after 
program participation. 
R3 
Participants will experience better economic stability outcomes after program 
participation. 
* 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 
Assessment of fidelity to 
program model by tracking 
programmatic activities on 
nFORM. 
Ensuring full program implementation to 
ensure that the intervention that is being 
measured is actually being delivered.  
I2 
Assessment of dosage by 
measuring the number of 
primary workshop hours 
received and exploration of 
Ensuring sufficient dosage is being delivered 
to adequate number of participants and 
exploring what characteristics are associated 
with greater workshop participation. 

variation by workshop and 
participant characteristics 
R1 
 
Pre to post outcome 
assessment of program 
participation for improved 
co-parenting relationships 
Significant improvement in co-parenting 
relationship outcomes from pre to post 
estimates the maximum amount of benefit that 
can be attributed to Seedco services in the 
absence of a counterfactual.  
R2 
 
Pre to post outcome 
assessment of program 
participation for improved 
parenting relationships. 
Significant improvement in parenting 
relationship outcomes from pre to post 
estimates the maximum amount of benefit that 
can be attributed to Seedco services in the 
absence of a counterfactual.  
R3 
Pre to post outcome 
assessment of program 
participation for improved 
economic stability. 
Significant improvement in economic 
stability outcomes from pre to post estimates 
the maximum amount of benefit that can be 
attributed to Seedco 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. 
Seedco and the local evaluator, Midwest Evaluation and Research (MER) began the process 
of collaboration prior to the release of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for this 
project.  This included multiple working meetings to discuss the project and the goals that 
Seedco had for the project, with a specific emphasis on what they had learned as a funded 
OFA grantee over the last two cohort cycles and what they would like to do differently.  This 
included a discussion of enhancements to the program they believed would enhance 
participant outcomes, and the resource requirements of these enhancements. Several viable 
and relevant research question options were developed prior to the FOA and when the FOA 
was released the team had additional meetings to discuss the program that would be 
proposed to meet the goals and objectives of Seedco and OFA and how well the research 
question alternatives developed in advance worked with this program outline.  Using this 
extended collaborative process, the research questions were designed that were most relevant 
and feasible. 
The basis for ongoing coordination between Seedco 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 during the evaluation planning phase, MER worked 
in consort with Seedco 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 Seedco 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 Seedco organizational and project leadership, the 
MER Evaluation team, and front-line staff representatives (e.g., Facilitators, Case Managers).  
In addition to CQI team meetings, overall project team meetings occur monthly (at a minimum), with 
project leaders across MER and Seedco 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, employed with Seedco. 
The Data Manager functions to bridge the gap between organizations. They will interact with 
Seedco 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 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 Seedco).  
MER has experience operating prior evaluations using this described 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, Seedco 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 
McKenna LeClear 
Midwest Evaluation and Research 
Senior Research Consultant 
Dr. Saloni Sharma 
Midwest Evaluation and Research 
Evaluation Project Manager 

Darrell K. Scott 
Seedco 
SFSF-Midsouth Program 
Director 
* 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. 
 
Dr. Saloni Sharma will serve as the Evaluation Project Manager and will lead the effort to conduct a 
descriptive study and a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) process for the grant. Dr. Sharma 
has over 5 years of experience in Public Policy research prior to her time at MER.  
 
Darrell K. Scott will serve as the SFSF Project Director and provide oversight to the Seedco 
Data Manager and Seedco Intake Specialist. He possesses the requisite managerial and 
analytic skills to successfully fill this position. The Data Manager and Seedco Intake Specialist 
will work closely with the evaluator and community partners on-site to complete data 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, 
minority, young 
fathers (and father 
figures) in the 
Greater Memphis 
area 
No difference, all 
program participants will 
be eligible to be study 
participants 
The sample will be identified 
and recruited by the program 
staff.  The project has 
identified multiple referral 
sources including: 
HopeWorks 
A Step Ahead Foundation 
Father 

St. Andrew AME Church 
Neighborhood Christian 
Center 
Families Matter 
The RISE Foundation 
Children & Family Services 
Maximus 
Equus 
Shelby County Community 
Services Agency 
Tennessee Voices for 
Children 
The Excel Center 
Church Health Center 
Christ Community Health 
Center 
Cocaine Alcohol Awareness 
Program 
Synergy 
Dorothy Day House 
 
 
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? 
Seedco will work with local referral partners and other CBOs 
to ensure that there are sufficient sample sizes, 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 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  
two data collections at baseline and post-test while 
participants are beginning or still engaged in service.  
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. 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
Construct  
Measure   
Instrument  
Reliability and 
Validity  
(if standardized 
instrument, you provide 
a citation for the 
instrument)  
Program fidelity  
Percent of enrolled participants 
who received each of the 
following: 1) primary 
workshops, 2) employment 
supports, 3) substantive 
service contacts, 4) referrals  
Number of substantive service 
contacts and referrals per 
participant 
nFORM MIS  
 
Dosage  
Number of primary workshop 
hours received, percent of 
target hours received 
Subgroup exploratory analysis 
of how dosage varies by 
workshop and participant 
characteristics 
nFORM MIS  
 

Co-parenting 
Relationships 
Composite measure that takes 
the average of 5 survey items 
related to positive co-parenting 
interactions with the mother of 
participant’s youngest child 
(continuous, scale from 1-5 
where 1 is strongly disagree 
and 5 is strongly agree) . 
Improvement will be measured 
by a participant’s change 
score, calculated by subtracting 
their pre-program composite 
score from their post-program 
composite score. 
nFORM 
Community-Based 
Fathers Survey 
(A13: d-h)  
Reliability and validity 
will be assessed with a 
correlation matrix and 
factor analysis  
Parenting 
Relationships  
Daily hours spent with 
youngest child in past 30 days 
(change score from pre-
program to post-program) 
 
Frequency of reaching out to 
youngest child in past 30 
days (change score from pre-
program to post-program) 
Composite measure that takes 
the average of 10-11 survey 
items related to positive 
parenting behaviors with 
youngest child (continuous, 
scale from 1-5 where 1 is 
Never, 2 is 1 to 2 days per 
month, 3 is 3 or 4 days per 
month, 4 is 2 or 3 days per 
week, and 5 is every day or 
almost every day) . 
Improvement will be measured 
by a participant’s change 
score, calculated by subtracting 
their pre-program composite 
score from their post-program 
composite score. 
nFORM 
Community-Based 
Fathers Survey 
(A2b, A2c, A5a-d: 
a-k)  
Reliability and validity 
will be assessed with a 
correlation matrix and 
factor analysis  
Economic Stability 
Difficulty paying bills 
(categorical, scale from 1 to 4 
where 1 is never and 4 is very 
often). Improvement will be 
measured by change score in 
participant’s reported difficulty, 
calculated by subtracting their 
nFORM 
Community-Based 
Fathers Survey 
B4, B3, B3a. 
N/A (individual items 
will not be combined) 

post-program value from their 
pre-program value. 
Has savings account at end of 
program, among those who 
came into the program with no 
savings account 
Has checking account at end of 
program, among those who 
came into the program with no 
checking account 
 
10.2 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, Seedco 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 conducts 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) where the Data Manager will describe the evaluation process, the risks and benefits of 
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. 
 
9.2. 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 
 
Pre-Test (Wave 1) 
Collected immediately following informed consent 
and study enrollment – during orientation session 
or first workshop 

Post-Test (Wave 2) 
Collected after the completion of core 
curriculum/primary workshop programing – during 
the last workshop session – approximately 8 
weeks after 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. 
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? 
nFORM 
Entrance 
Survey 
Wave 1 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online data 
collection 
platform 
Data Manager 
will proctor 
data collection 
and assist 
participants as 
necessary 
 
N/A 
nFORM Exit 
Survey 
Wave 2 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online data 
collection 
platform 
Data Manager 
will proctor 
data collection 
and assist 
participants as 
necessary 
 
N/A 
 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
 
9.3.  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. 

 
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 subjects 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 descriptive evaluation including the evaluation 
tools, timing, and data collection processes. 
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. 
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 local evaluation project lead will be responsible for downloading data from 
nFORM 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.  
As new staff come on board with projects or project staff turnover (or need refresher training), 
recorded training material can be shared and accessed with follow-up one on one training with the 
local evaluation project lead and/or the MER Line of Business Lead, as necessary. 
 
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 revised descriptive study design will be submitted for IRB approval in late July 2023 in 
order to receive official approval by August 2023. 
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 
Participant direct entry and staff 
direct entry (facilitator and case 
managers) 
* 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 
* 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? 
nFORM 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below