Impact Evaluation of the TYRO Champion Dads Project in Dallas, Texas
Phase: NA
Conditions: Fathers
Sponsor: Midwest Evaluation & Research

 
 
TYRO Champion Dads 
 
Study Protocol 
 
12/9/2024 
 
Clinicialtrial.gov ID:  
NCT05256992 
 
 
 

 
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. 
Services delivered by the TYRO Champion Dads (TCD) Project are designed to 
address the skills fathers may need to promote healthy relationships and economic stability in 
their families. The target population for this project is low-income fathers who identify as 
Hispanic or Latino, are 18 years of age or older, have no open criminal cases (can be 
deferred), and have at least one child up to 24 years of age. The primary components of the 
TCD project are:  
1. Education-based curricula—TYRO Dads and Core Communication—are delivered as 
primary services to improve the parenting, co-parenting, partner relationship, and 
financial skills of all TCD participants. Participants assigned to the treatment group also 
receive the Ray of Hope curriculum to mitigate risk factors for domestic violence. 
2. Support services are offered through case management and Anthem’s Mini Clinic 
workshops to increase the likelihood that TCD participants benefit from primary 
services. Participants can walk in during normal business hours without an appointment 
to address an array of additional self-perceived needs not met by primary services with 
a menu of classes delivered on site or referrals. 
3. Cycles of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) are carried out by the CQI Team 
to ensure that program and evaluation target goals are being met. 
 
2. EVALUATION GOALS 
Please briefly describe key goals of your evaluation and what you hope to learn below. 
This impact evaluation aims to determine if the addition of the Ray of Hope curriculum 
is effective at improving outcomes among those program participants who are randomly 
assigned to the treatment group. Both treatment and control groups will receive standard TCD 
services under a shared condition, but only treatment group participants will be offered the 
additional Ray of Hope curriculum focused on mitigating risk factors related to domestic 
violence. 
Standard TYRO Champion Dads (TCD) services deliver TYRO Dads and Core 
Communication curricula to help fathers build the skills necessary to engage in behaviors that 
promote healthy relationships and economic stability in their families. Standard TCD services 
were adapted from the TYRO Suite of curricula—TYRO Dads, Couples Communication I, and 
Couples Communication II –- which were developed by a Christian, non-profit organization in 
Ohio called The RIDGE Project, for delivery in a classroom setting, as part of their mission to 
improve functioning of families affected by the incarceration of a father.  
Standard TCD services use facilitators trained by the RIDGE Project to deliver TYRO 
Dads curriculum in its standard form and the Core Communication curriculum which is adapted 
from the Couples Communication I curriculum (participants do not receive any form of Couples 
Communication II). The TYRO Dads curriculum uses cognitive restructuring to present life 

 
Page | 3 
lessons to help participants understand, accept, and implement a healthy model of parenthood 
by resolving key issues—emotional, employment, financial, relationship, and others—that 
prevent them from meeting their familial obligations. The Core Communication curriculum 
helps participants develop the basic communication, cooperation, and conflict management 
skills necessary for successful relationships of all types, such as work, family, and others.  
Standard services in the TYRO Champion Dads (TCD) Project directly address healthy 
relationships and economic stability for the families of participants, but not the dynamics of 
domestic violence that might be present in families. As a result, fathers in the target population 
may benefit from additional curriculum focused on attitudes and behaviors associated with 
domestic violence and risk-related factors. Because family trauma is traditionally considered a 
private matter in the Latino community, domestic violence or related risk factors may not be 
adequately detected or addressed by the social service system among this population in 
particular (Cabrera et. al, 2015). 
Anthem Strong Families (ASF) is offering the Ray of Hope curriculum as a supplement 
to standard TCD services to better meet the needs of populations that may have unmet needs 
to address domestic violence in their families. The Ray of Hope curriculum is designed to help 
participants develop communication and conflict management skills like Core Communication 
and Couples Communication I but is also evidence-based and adds a sharp focus on the 
dynamics of domestic violence and related risk factors. 
 
This impact evaluation will compare outcomes between study groups related to co-
parenting behaviors, parenting behaviors, parenting attitudes, and partner relationship 
behaviors (study goals 4-7 below). This evaluation will also include an implementation study 
(study goals 1-3 below). 
Goal 1: determine if enrollment targets for the TCD Project were achieved for the treatment and control 
groups. 
Goal 2: determine if the intended amounts of standard TCD services (TYRO Dads, Core 
Communication) were offered to and received by the control group. 
Goal 3: determine if the intended amounts of enhanced TCD services (TYRO Dads, Core 
Communication, Ray of Hope curricula) were offered to and received by the treatment group. 
Goal 4: determine if treatment group participants who receive enhanced TCD services report healthier 
parenting attitudes compared to control group participants who receive only standard TCD services 
immediately following TCD program completion. . 
Goal 5: determine if treatment group participants who receive enhanced TCD services report healthier 
partner relationship behaviors compared to control group participants who receive only standard TCD 
services 6 months after TCD enrollment. 
Goal 6: determine if treatment group participants who receive enhanced TCD services report healthier 
parenting behavior compared to control group participants who receive only standard TCD services 6 
months after TCD enrollment. 
Goal 7: determine if treatment group participants who receive enhanced TCD services report healthier 
co-parenting behavior compared to control group participants who receive only standard TCD services 6 
months after TCD enrollment. 
 
3. EVALUATION ENROLLMENT  

 
Page | 4 
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 
04-01-2021 
05-20-2022  
End Date 
03-01-25 
03-01-25 
Definition 
Fathers who are 18+ years of age, have 
no open criminal cases (can be 
deferred), with children up to 24 years 
old 
Fathers who are 18+ years of age, have 
no open criminal cases (can be 
deferred), with children up to 24 years 
old AND agree to participate in the 
study after informed consent 
 
 
IMPACT EVALUATION  
Please leave blank if not conducting an impact evaluation. 
 
Program Enrollment 
Study Enrollment 
 
 
Treatment Group 
Comparison Group 
Start Date 
04-01-2021 
05-20-2022 
05-20-2022 
End Date 
06-30-2025 
11-30-2024 
11-30-2024 
Definition 
Fathers who are 18+ 
years of age, have no 
open criminal cases (can 
be deferred), with 
children up to 24 years 
old 
Fathers who are 18+ 
years of age, have no 
open criminal cases (can 
be deferred), with 
children up to 24 years 
old AND agree to 
participate in the study 
after informed consent 
AND were not referred to 
the program due to 
involvement in a domestic 
violence case 
Fathers who are 18+ 
years of age, have no 
open criminal cases (can 
be deferred), with 
children up to 24 years 
old AND agree to 
participate in the study 
after informed consent 
AND were not referred to 
the program due to 
involvement in a domestic 
violence case 
 
 

 
Page | 5 
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 
Hire Evaluation Staff: Project Manager (Senior 
Consultant), CQI Data Manager (CQI-DM) 
1/15/2021 
2/15/2021 
Evaluation Staff Training: Performance Data 
Measurement and Management (PDMM), CQI 
Process, Study Activities, Evaluation Plans 
1/22/2021 
3/12/2021 
Kickoff Meeting: introduce evaluation team to 
project staff and orient them to study activities  
2/3/2021 
2/28/2021 
IRB Certification: evaluation and project staff 
complete human subjects training  
10/1/2020 
2/28/2021 
Evaluation Plan: evaluation and project staff 
develop and submit evaluation plan  
1/15/2021 
2/19/2021 
Survey Tools: evaluation staff develop OLLE 
Pre/Follow-up Surveys (nFORM items at baseline 
included on OLLE Follow-up) 
10/1/2021 
2/28/2021 
IRB Approval: evaluation staff develop and submit 
relevant documents to Solutions IRB  
3/1/2021 
3/15/2021 
CQI Team: form team and conduct ongoing bi-
weekly meetings to start CQI Process 
3/15/2021 
7/1/2025 
CQI Training: train the CQI-DM and CQI Team 
about PDMM and the CQI Process 
1/22/2021 
3/19/2021 
Study Activities Training: present to project staff an 
IRB approved study protocol for consent, 
enrollment, and data collection. 
3/1/2021 
3/28/2021 
Implementation Evaluation: collect nFORM data to 
track delivery of intended service amounts  
05/1/2021 
05/01/25 
Baseline Surveys: ACS, nFORM Entrance, OLLE 
Pre  
5/1/2021  
05/31/24 for local 
evaluation surveys; 
nFORM surveys will 
continue as required by 

 
Page | 6 
federal funder until 
conclusion of program 
services 
Exit Surveys: nFORM Exit, OLLE Post 
8/1/2021  
08/01/24 
Follow-up Surveys: OLLE Follow-up (with items 
from nFORM Entrance) 
5/1/2022 
05/31/25 
Preliminary Implementation Report Submitted 
5/31/2022 
6/31/2022 
1st Manuscript submitted for publication 
7/1/2025 
12/31/2025 
Final Report Submitted 
04/1/2024 
06/01/2025 for first draft 
with final report to be 
submitted before the 
conclusion of the grant 
cycle 
* 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?)   
 
Research questions in this study are framed by a Random Control Trial (RCT) 
design that will be used to determine if TCD Project participants who receive enhanced 
TCD services (treatment) derive more benefits than those who receive only standard 
TCD services (control), and they guide two types of analyses in this study—impact and 
implementation (see Table 1.1 below). Impact analyses estimate the primary benefits of 
participation for different service conditions six months after TCD enrollment. Primary 
benefits refer to outcomes that indicate improved attitudes and behavior for healthy 

 
Page | 7 
family relationships (parent, co-parent, and partner). However, strong conclusions can 
only be drawn about the benefits of participation when impact estimates are made after 
full or nearly full implementation of TCD services. Conclusions are more difficult to draw 
for impact estimates that are made when participants do not receive the intended 
service amounts. Consequently, implementation analyses place impact estimates in the 
appropriate context for interpretation by considering the extent to which TCD services 
are fully implemented for participants in both study groups. 
 
Table 1.1: Research questions by type for the impact study, implementation and outcome  
No 
Research Question 
Implementation or 
Outcome? 
I1 
To what extent were the enrollment targets for the TCD Project 
achieved for the treatment and control groups? 
Implementation 
I2 
To what extent were the intended amounts of standard TCD 
services (TYRO Dads, Core Communication curricula) offered 
to and received by the control group? 
Implementation 
I3 
To what extent were the intended amounts of enhanced TCD 
services (TYRO Dads, Core Communication, Ray of Hope 
curricula) offered to and received by the treatment group? 
Implementation 
I4 
To what extent did the CQI Team carry out the steps in the CQI 
Plan each program year? 
Implementation 
R1 
What is the impact of enhanced TCD services (treatment) 
compared to standard TCD services only (control) on healthy 
parenting attitudes  immediately following program 
completion? 
Outcome 
R2  
What is the impact of enhanced TCD services (treatment) 
compared to standard TCD services (control) only on healthy 
partner relationship behaviors 6 months after TCD 
enrollment? 
Outcome 
R3 
What is the impact of enhanced TCD services (treatment) 
compared to standard TCD services only (control) on healthy 
parenting behavior 6 months after TCD enrollment? 
Outcome 
 R4 
What is the impact of enhanced TCD services (treatment) 
compared to standard TCD services only (control) on healthy 
co-parenting behavior 6 months after TCD enrollment? 
Outcome 
R5 
Does the impact of the Ray of Hope hours vary by ethnicity? 
Secondary outcome 

 
Page | 8 
* 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 
Intervention 
 
Target 
Population 
 
Comparison  
 
Outcome 
 
Confirmatory  
or 
Exploratory? 
R1 
Ray of Hope 
curriculum (10 
hours) that 
focuses on 
domestic 
violence and 
related risk 
factors  
Latino fathers: 
low-income, 
18+ years, no 
open criminal 
cases (or 
deferred), 
children up to 
24 years 
Parenting 
attitudes for 
the treatment 
group to the 
control group  
immediately 
after completing 
TCD program. 
Healthier 
parenting 
attitudes for 
the Treatment 
Group that 
receives 
enhanced 
services. 
Confirmatory 
R2 
Ray of Hope 
curriculum (10 
hours) that 
focuses on 
domestic 
violence and 
related risk 
factors 
Latino fathers: 
low-income, 
18+ years, no 
open criminal 
cases (or 
deferred), 
children up to 
24 years 
Partner 
relationship 
behaviors for 
the treatment 
group to the 
control group 6 
months after 
TCD 
enrollment. 
Healthier 
partner 
relationship 
behaviors for 
the Treatment 
Group that 
receives 
enhanced 
services. 
Confirmatory 
R3 
Ray of Hope 
curriculum (10 
hours) that 
focuses on 
domestic 
violence and 
related risk 
factors 
Latino fathers: 
low-income, 
18+ years, no 
open criminal 
cases (or 
deferred), 
children up to 
24 years 
Parenting 
behavior for 
the treatment 
group to the 
control group 6 
months after 
TCD 
enrollment. 
Healthier 
parenting 
behavior for 
the Treatment 
Group that 
receives 
enhanced 
services. 
Confirmatory 
R4 
Ray of Hope 
curriculum (10 
hours) that 
focuses on 
Latino fathers: 
low-income, 
18+ years, no 
open criminal 
Co-parenting 
behavior for 
the treatment 
group to the 
Healthier co-
parenting 
behavior for 
the Treatment 
Confirmatory 

 
Page | 9 
domestic 
violence and 
related risk 
factors 
cases (or 
deferred), 
children up to 
24 years 
control group 6 
months after 
TCD 
enrollment. 
Group that 
receives 
enhanced 
services. 
* 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 
Topic 
Existing Research 
Contribution to the 
Evidence Base 
Interest to Program 
and/or Community 
R1: Healthy 
Parenting 
Attitudes 
Participants in 
fatherhood 
programming, 
particularly those in the 
target population, may 
not be receiving 
sufficient supports to 
address domestic 
violence and related risk 
factors in their families 
 
Determine whether using 
curriculum to directly 
address the negative 
attitudes, expectations, 
and behaviors 
associated with domestic 
violence can enhance 
program participation 
benefits related to 
parenting attitudes 
among the target study 
population  
Inform practitioners 
about whether the 
dynamics of domestic 
violence can be 
addressed directly with 
curriculum when trying 
to build parenting skills 
among program 
participants 
R2: Healthy 
Partner 
Relationship 
Behaviors 
Participants in 
fatherhood 
programming, 
particularly those in the 
target population, may 
not be receiving 
sufficient supports to 
address domestic 
violence and related risk 
factors in their families 
 
Determine whether using 
curriculum to directly 
address the negative 
attitudes, expectations, 
and behaviors 
associated with domestic 
violence can enhance 
program participation 
benefits related to 
partner relationship 
behaviors among the 
target study population  
Inform practitioners 
about whether the 
dynamics of domestic 
violence can be 
addressed directly with 
curriculum when trying 
to build healthy partner 
relationship skills 
among program 
participants 
R3: Healthy 
Parent Behavior 
Participants in 
fatherhood 
programming, 
particularly those in the 
target population, may 
not be receiving 
sufficient supports to 
address domestic 
Determine whether using 
curriculum to directly 
address the negative 
attitudes, expectations, 
and behaviors 
associated with domestic 
violence can enhance 
program participation 
Inform practitioners 
about whether the 
dynamics of domestic 
violence can be 
addressed directly with 
curriculum when trying 
to build healthy 

 
Page | 10 
violence and related risk 
factors in their families 
 
benefits related to 
parenting behaviors 
among the target study 
population  
parenting skills among 
program participants 
R4: Healthy Co-
parent Behavior 
Participants in 
fatherhood 
programming, 
particularly those in the 
target population, may 
not be receiving 
sufficient supports to 
address domestic 
violence and related risk 
factors in their families 
 
Determine whether using 
curriculum to directly 
address the negative 
attitudes, expectations, 
and behaviors 
associated with domestic 
violence can enhance 
program participation 
benefits related to co-
parenting behaviors 
among the target study 
population  
Inform practitioners 
about whether the 
dynamics of domestic 
violence can be 
addressed directly with 
curriculum when trying 
to build healthy co-
parenting skills among 
program participants 
* 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. 
 MER and Anthem Strong Families worked together to create a logic model to 
specify a theory of change for delivering standard and enhanced TCD services. Service 
delivery processes specified in the model are linked to the desired outcomes that promote 
healthy family relationships and economic stability. Model specification incorporates an 
RCT study design to conceptualize service delivery to make impact estimates for the TCD 
Project by comparing primary and secondary participant outcomes between study groups 
after random assignment. Treatment group participants receive enhanced TCD services 
and control group participants receive standard TCD services. 
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 TCD Project. 
Solving each problem identifies three broad service delivery goals to maximize 
participation benefits for study groups as explained below: 
• Goal 1 - Deliver standard TCD services to the Control Group: Candidates 
randomly assigned to the control group will understand they receive standard TCD 
services to develop their skills to engage in healthy behaviors for parenting, co-
parenting, partner relations, employment, and financial management but only after 
receiving an orientation about the TCD Project and giving project staff informed 
consent to participate in study activities. Then, TYRO Dads and Core 
Communication will be delivered to the control group as well as support services 
through case management and the ASF Mini-Clinic, as needed 

 
Page | 11 
• Goal 2 - Deliver enhanced TCD services to the Treatment Group: Candidates 
randomly assigned to the treatment group will understand they receive enhanced 
TCD services to develop their skills to engage in healthy behaviors for parenting, co-
parenting, partner relations, employment, financial management and address the 
dynamics of domestic violence, but only after receiving an orientation about the TCD 
Project and giving project staff informed consent to participate in study activities. 
Then, the Ray of Hope curriculum will be delivered only to the treatment group as 
well as the TYRO Dads and Core Communication curricula and support services 
through case management the ASF Mini-Clinic, as needed, under a shared 
condition with the control group. 
• Goal 3 - Conduct Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) to ensure full 
implementation of standard and enhanced TCD services for 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 TCD 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 
outcomes that are desired for participants in each study group after they receive either 
standard or enhanced TCD services. All outcomes specified in the logic model are 
theorized to be more positive for parents assigned to the treatment group because they 
receive enhanced TCD services, whereas the control group receives standard TCD 
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  
R1 
The treatment group will report healthier parenting attitudes than the control group  
immediately after completing the TCD program.  
Both study groups receive TYRO Dads and Core Communication curricula under a 
shared condition to build healthy parenting skills, but only the treatment group 
receives the Ray of Hope curriculum, which directly addresses the dynamics of 
domestic violence and related risk that can negatively impact healthy family 
relationships.  

 
Page | 12 
R2 
The treatment group will report healthier partner relationship behaviors than the 
control group six months after TCD enrollment. 
Both study groups receive TYRO Dads and Core Communication curricula under a 
shared condition to build healthy communication skills, but only the treatment group 
receives the Ray of Hope curriculum, which directly addresses the dynamics of 
domestic violence and related risk that can negatively impact healthy family 
relationships. 
R3 
The treatment group will report healthier parenting behavior than the control group 
six months after TCD enrollment. 
Both study groups receive TYRO Dads and Core Communication curricula under a 
shared condition to build healthy parenting skills, but only the treatment group 
receives the Ray of Hope curriculum, which directly addresses the dynamics of 
domestic violence and related risk that can negatively impact healthy family 
relationships. 
R4 
The treatment group will report healthier co-parenting behavior than the control 
group six months after TCD enrollment. 
Both study groups receive TYRO Dads and Core Communication curricula under a 
shared condition to build healthy co-parenting skills, but only the treatment group 
receives the Ray of Hope curriculum, which directly addresses the dynamics of 
domestic violence and related risk that can negatively impact healthy family 
relationships. 
* 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 
R1 
Random assignment will 
isolate the effect on 
parenting attitudes 
from the Ray of Hope 
curriculum delivered to 
the treatment group. 
Healthy parenting attitudes are compared 
between study groups where the only difference 
between them is whether participants receive the 
Ray of Hope curriculum because both groups will 
receive TYRO Dads, Core Communication, and 
support services under a shared condition. 
R2 
Random assignment will 
isolate the effect on 
partner relationship 
behaviors from the Ray 
of Hope curriculum 
Healthy partner relationship behaviors are 
compared between study groups where the only 
difference between them is whether participants 
receive the Ray of Hope curriculum because 
both groups will receive TYRO Dads, Core 

 
Page | 13 
delivered to the 
treatment group. 
Communication, and support services under a 
shared condition. 
R3 
Random assignment will 
isolate the effect on 
parenting behavior 
from the Ray of Hope 
curriculum delivered to 
the treatment group. 
Healthy parenting behavior will be compared 
between study groups where the only difference 
between them is whether participants receive the 
Ray of Hope curriculum because both groups will 
receive TYRO Dads, Core Communication, and 
support services under a shared condition. 
R4 
Random assignment will 
isolate the effect on co-
parenting behavior 
from the Ray of Hope 
curriculum delivered to 
the treatment group. 
Healthy co-parenting behavior are compared 
between study groups where the only difference 
between them is whether participants receive the 
Ray of Hope curriculum because both groups will 
receive TYRO Dads, Core Communication, and 
support services under a shared condition. 
* 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 ASF (the grantee) and MER (the local 
evaluator) is regular, systematic communication through a structure comprised 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 ASF 
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 ASF 
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 ASF 
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 ASF in attendance, to ensure the 
partnership remains strong and that coordination across organizations is on track. This 

 
Page | 14 
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 a MER employee embedded with ASF The Data Manager functions to bridge the gap 
between organizations. They will interact with ASF 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 ASF.  
MER has a great deal of experience conducting impact studies with RCT designs 
using this exact process for other projects funded by the OFA. 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, ASF 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. IMPACT EVALUATIONS ONLY: METHODS TO DEVELOP STUDY GROUPS 
If the research design includes the comparison of two or more groups (e.g., a program group 
and a comparison group), please specify how the groups will be formed and describe the 
programming for which each will be eligible and how they differ below. The control/comparison 
group and the program/treatment group should be assigned using a systematic approach 
appropriate to the research design. Note: If the research question(s) and study design do not 
necessitate comparisons, this issue does not need to be addressed. 
Specify how the groups will be 
formed. 
Study groups will be formed using IRB approved 
procedures for random assignment after enrollment 
into the TCD. After soliciting informed consent, 
participants who agree to participate in the study 
provide case managers with signed consent forms. 
After documenting consent, the CQI Data Manager 
randomly assigns participants to achieve an even 
distribution across the treatment and control groups. 
Assignments are made and then recorded onto the 
nFORM data collection system by selecting cards 

 
Page | 15 
that are organized into a stack that equals the 
number of parents who attended an orientation and 
now wish to receive TCD services and participate in 
the impact study. Cards in the stack have equal 
amounts of even and odd numbers depicted on 
them and one is drawn for each study participant. 
Selections into either the treatment or control group 
depended on whether a participant receives an even 
or odd number. 
Please describe the 
comparison/control group 
experience – that is, the types of 
services available to the 
comparison/control group. 
Fathers assigned to the control group do not receive 
enhanced TCD services. Instead, they receive the 
same standard services—TYRO Dads and Core 
Communication—and support services as treatment 
group parents under a shared condition (see the 
theory of change logic model mentioned above). 
Standard TCD service experiences for the control 
group should be the same as the treatment group. 
Parents assigned to both groups are offered the 
same number, schedule, and duration of workshop 
offerings for TYRO Dads and Core Communication 
curricula and attend them together, so they 
experience the same instructional practices that 
deliver the same curricula content. 
How will the control/comparison 
group experience differ from the 
program group’s experience? 
Only the treatment group receives the Ray of Hope 
curriculum as a service enhancement to directly 
address the dynamics of domestic violence and 
related risk in families (see the theory of change 
logic model for dosage and schedule). 
Please list any other services 
that are similar to the services 
your program offers and are 
available in the areas where your 
program will operate.  
Anthem Strong Families (ASF) is the only non-profit in 
its designated service area offering a complete level of 
extensive fatherhood education and support services to 
community fathers and spouses of children up to 24 years 
old free of charge. There are other smaller ministries or 
service providers that target fathers of newborns offering 
periodic workshops for new dads but none on a 
continuous basis as ASF. The service area for ASF is 
adjacent to Tarrant County/Ft. Worth, TX., home of the 
longest existing fatherhood coalition in Texas that 
provides services to Tarrant County and DFPS Region 3-
W.  
Are there plans to offer the 
program to individuals in the 
control/comparison group in the 
future? If so, please indicate 
when they will be offered to 
participate in the intervention. 
No. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Page | 16 
 
7.1. RANDOM ASSIGNMENT TO DEVELOP STUDY GROUPS 
If groups will be constructed by random assignment, please describe the process of random 
assignment and how random assignment will be monitored to prevent crossover of those 
assigned to specific study groups (e.g., individuals assigned to the comparison group who 
receive treatment) by addressing the questions below. 
 
Who will conduct random 
assignment? 
Eligible fathers who wish to participate in the study are randomly 
sorted into a treatment or control group by the CQI data 
manager or by case managers under supervision of the CQI 
Data Manager. The CQI Data Manager is trained by Senior staff 
and overseen by a Senior Consultant from MER. 
When does random 
assignment occur (e.g., 
before or after enrollment)? 
Orientation attendees who express interest in TCD services 
return the following week to enroll at their respective recruitment 
sites. Those who are also willing to participate in the impact 
study provide signed consent forms before they are assigned to 
study groups. After consent is documented, parents are 
randomly sorted into either a treatment or control group. 
How and when are study 
participants informed of their 
assignment status? 
Participants will be informed of their assignment status 
immediately after randomization. 
Will groups be stratified in 
any way to ensure balance 
between treatment and 
control? If yes, what 
characteristics or methods 
will be used? 
No. 
What strategies will be used 
to ensure there is no re-
assignment or non-random 
assignment to the treatment 
group? 
A C2 (i.e., client profile) is entered onto nFORM to create a 
client profile for eligible parents who attend orientations for the 
TCD Project. Parents who return to participate in the study have 
their study group assignment entered onto nFORM. Only parents 
assigned to the treatment group as noted on nFORM can 
register and attend Ray of Hope workshops. Study group 
assignment cannot be changed once it has been noted on 
nFORM. 

 
Page | 17 
What strategies will be used 
to minimize crossovers? 
The nFORM system produces an operational report that 
specifies study group assignment for all parents who agree to 
participate in the study. Study group assignment as noted on 
nFORM will be examined with the relevant operational report 
during CQI-Team meetings to make sure participants receive the 
services specific to their study group. 
Who will be responsible for 
monitoring random 
assignment compliance? 
The CQI Data Manager is responsible for monitoring random 
assignment compliance by case managers during study 
enrollment under the guidance of other CQI Team members. The 
distribution of participants across study groups will be monitored 
by the CQI Team using the relevant operational reports on 
nFORM. 
What methods will be used to 
monitor the comparability of 
the study groups? 
nFORM data will be used to produce enrollments into study 
groups to assess their comparability. Baseline equivalency 
analyses will determine whether there are statistically significant 
differences between study groups. 
 
 
8. 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 
Lead Evaluation Consultant/ 
Evaluation Project Manager 
Shuntay Ward 
Midwest Evaluation and 
Research 
CQI Data Manager 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 

 
Page | 18 
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 Lead Evaluation Consultant and Evaluation Project Manager 
to provide day-to-day oversight for the HMRF evaluation activities. McKenna has five years of 
program evaluation research experience and has served as the lead evaluation consultant for 
seven other HMRE evaluations in the current grant cycle. She will lead the effort to conduct an 
impact study and a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) process for the grant. 
Shuntay Ward will serve as the CQI Data Manager. The CQI Data Manager will be responsible 
for accurate and timely data collection, report generation, and assistance with Continuous 
Quality Improvement (CQI) throughout the process of the grant. Shuntay Ward served as the 
CQI Data Manager for an HMRF project in the previous funding cohort called the TYRO 
Champion Dads Project. 
 
 
9. SAMPLE 
9.1. 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 
Latino fathers who 
are low-income, 18+ 
years of age, have 
no open criminal 
cases (can be 
deferred), with 
children up to 24 
years old 
No difference, all 
program participants 
will be study 
participants. 
The sample will be 
identified and recruited by 
community partner referrals 
and program staff.  
Individual 
father 
 

 
Page | 19 
9.2.  IMPACT EVALUATION ONLY: SAMPLE SIZE 
If an impact evaluation is proposed, state the intended sample size (overall and by year), 
estimated attrition, and the anticipated size of the analytic sample (for both program/treatment 
and control/comparison groups). If the estimated analytic sample is expected to vary by 
outcome measure (e.g., outcomes measured using administrative records vs. survey data), you 
may copy the table below and label accordingly. 
Year 
Estimated Sample Size  
(# of individuals randomly assigned) 
Estimated Size of Analytic Sample 
(# of individuals at analysis) 
Treatment 
Comparison 
Treatment 
Comparison 
Year 1 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
Year 2 
70 
70 
49 
49 
Year 3 
162 
162 
113 
113 
Year 4 
162 
162 
113 
113 
Year 5 
50 
50 
35 
35 
TOTAL 
443 
443 
310 
310 
 
9.3. RCTS ONLY: POWER ANALYSIS 
For each confirmatory outcome, please provide power analyses demonstrating proposed 
sample sizes will be able to detect expected effect sizes for the outcomes targeted. Refer to 
previous studies of similar interventions for estimates of the required sample to inform power 
analyses. Note: If an impact evaluation is not proposed, this issue does not need to be 
addressed. You may use the table below to report the assumptions used in your power 
calculations, as well as the resulting minimum detectable impact for your confirmatory outcomes 
or provide them in the space below. 
 
Outcome 1 
Outcome 2 
Outcome 3 
Outcome 
4 
Outcome 
Name 
Healthier 
Parenting 
Attitudes 
Healthier 
Partner 
Relationship 
Behavior 
Healthier 
Parenting 
Behavior 
Healthier 
Co-
Parenting 
Behavior 
Continuous or 
binary? 
continuous 
continuous 
continuous 
continuous 

 
Page | 20 
Level of 
significance 
(e.g., 0.05 
percent) 
0.05 
0.05 
0.05 
0.05 
Number of 
sides of test 
(one- or two-
tailed) 
One-tailed 
One-tailed 
One-tailed 
One-tailed 
Power (e.g., 
80 percent) 
80% 
80% 
80% 
80% 
Total number 
of individuals 
in analytic 
sample  
620 
620 
620 
620 
If binary, enter 
mean of 
outcome 
variable 
 
 
 
 
If continuous 
outcome, enter 
the standard 
deviation of 
the outcome 
(>0) 
 
 
 
 
Proportion of 
individual-level 
(or within-
group) 
variance 
explained by 
covariates 
 
 
 
 
For cluster 
RCTs: 
intraclass 
correlation 
coefficient 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
For cluster 
RCTs: 
proportion of 
group-level 
variance of 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
N/A 

 
Page | 21 
outcome 
explained by 
covariates 
Minimum 
detectable 
impact 
 
 
 
 
Minimum 
detectable 
effect size 
0.2 
0.2 
0.2 
0.2 
 
If you did not provide report your assumptions using the table above, please enter them here. 
 
9.4. 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? 
Recruitment into TCD services and the study relies heavily 
on referrals from community partners who serve eligible 
parents. However, referrals also result from walk-ins to the 
ASF mini clinic, the ASF website that presents available 
services, advertising by ASF about the TCD Project, and 
word of mouth from TCD participants. Recruitment targets 
fathers but also accepts mothers who are: at least 18 years 
of age with no open criminal cases (can be deferred), 
largely low-income, interested in TCD services, and willing 
to be randomly assigned to either study group after 
informed consent. 
Who will be responsible for 
recruiting the evaluation 
sample? 
Case Managers under the supervision of the CQI Data 
Manager through community partnerships formed by 
Charles Dillon, Project Director. 
Please describe any 
incentives to be offered for 
program participation and/or 
completion and/or data 
collection and/or 
participation in the 
evaluation. 
Attendance Incentives: 
• $25.00 e-gift card for attendance at workshops 1 – 3. 
• $25.00 e-gift card for attendance at workshops 4 – 6 
• $25.00 e-gift card for attendance at workshops 7 – 9 
• $25.00 e-gift card for attendance at workshops 10 – 12 
Program completion incentives: 
• $150.00 e-gift card for program completion plus TYRO 
Champion T-shirt, Champion Dad T-shirt, TYRO Pin and 
Certificate of Completion 

 
Page | 22 
• ASF also offers various wristbands displaying positive personal 
characteristics at various times based on participant engagement 
and group input. 
 Survey Completion Incentives: 
• $50.00 Giftogram gift card for OLLE Follow-up Survey 
 
 
10. DATA COLLECTION 
10.1. 
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. 
Measure  
Sample  
Variable Type  
Data 
source(s)  Variable Name  
Definition  
Co-
parenting 
relationship 
behaviors 
Has at least one 
child age 24 or 
younger  
Continuous 
(range from 1 to 
5 where 1 is 
strongly disagree 
and 5 is strongly 
agree) 
nFORM 
entrance,  
OLLE 
follow-up  
Copar_Beh  
Average of 11 
survey items that 
relate to positive 
interactions with 
the mother of 
participant’s 
youngest child  
Parenting 
relationship 
behaviors  
Has at least one 
child age 24 or 
younger, saw child 
within past month  
Continuous 
(range from 1 to 
5 where 1 is 
never and 5 is 
every day or 
almost every 
day) 
nFORM 
entrance,  
OLLE 
follow-up 
Par_Beh  
Average of 10 to 
11 survey items 
(depending on 
child age) that 
relate to 
frequency of 
positive 
interactions with 
participant’s 
youngest child  
Parenting 
relationship 
attitudes 
Has at least one 
child age 24 or 
younger, saw child 
within past month  
Continuous 
(range from 1 to 
5 where 1 is 
always and 5 is 
never) 
nFORM 
entrance, 
nFORM 
exit  
Par_Att 
Average of 6 
survey items that 
relate to 
frequency of 
feelings about 
participant’s 
youngest child  
Parenting 
relationship 
behaviors 
Has at least one 
child age 24 or 
Continuous 
(range from 1 to 
5 where 1 is 
nFORM 
entrance, , 
Parent_Fight 
Reported 
frequency of 

 
Page | 23 
younger, saw child 
within past month 
never and 5 is 
every day or 
almost every 
day) 
OLLE 
follow-up 
fighting with 
child 
Partner 
relationship 
behaviors 
All survey 
respondents 
Continuous 
(range from 1 to 
5 where 1 is 
never and 5 is 
always) 
OLLE pre-
survey, 
OLLE 
post-
survey, 
OLLE 
follow-up 
Partner_Fight 
Reported 
frequency of 
fighting with 
partner 
Partner 
relationship 
behaviors 
All survey 
respondents 
Continuous 
(range from 1 to 
5 where 1 is 
never and 5 is 
always) 
OLLE pre-
survey, 
OLLE 
post-
survey, 
OLLE 
follow-up 
Partner_DisagreeAverage of 7 
survey items 
related to 
frequency of 
disagreement 
with partner on 
different topics 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
 
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. 
Staff present the purpose and benefits of standard and enhanced TCD services at 
orientations held at partner sites and the ASF mini clinic to recruit eligible fathers. Orientations 
also discuss the impact study and explain informed consent before soliciting participation. 
Participant responsibilities are clarified at the orientation, such as providing contact 
information and responding to surveys. 
Program staff follow a protocol approved by IRB Solutions, Inc to solicit informed 
consent. Candidates are informed about study specifics and afterward can ask questions and 
seek clarification before documenting their consent. Candidates are made aware of their 
responsibilities to attend TCD service workshops and fulfill important requests, such as 
providing contact information and responding to surveys. In return, potential study participants 
are assured that receiving TCD services does not depend upon consent to participate in the 
study, their identifying information is kept confidential, and study results are reported at the 
group level to protect their anonymity. Project staff also inform candidates that incentives are 
offered for participating in TCD services and the study as follows:  
Attendance Incentives: 
• $25.00 e-gift card for attendance at workshops 1 – 3. 
• $25.00 e-gift card for attendance at workshops 4 – 6 
• $25.00 e-gift card for attendance at workshops 7 – 9 

 
Page | 24 
• $25.00 e-gift card for attendance at workshops 10 – 12 
Program completion incentives: 
• $150.00 e-gift card for program completion plus TYRO Champion T-shirt, Champion 
Dad T-shirt, TYRO Pin and Certificate of Completion 
• ASF also offers various wristbands displaying positive personal characteristics at 
various times based on participant engagement and group input. 
 Survey Completion Incentives: 
• $50.00 Giftogram gift card for OLLE Follow-up Survey. 
 
 
 
 
10.3. 
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 orientation or before first 
primary workshop session 
Post-test 
Collected after the completion of the primary 
services programming – during or following the last 
workshop or session 
Follow-up (6 months after enrollment) 
Collected approximately six months after program 
enrollment 
 
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. 

 
Page | 25 
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? 
On-line Local 
Evaluation 
(OLLE) and 
nFORM 
Baseline 
Survey 
Baseline 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online data 
collection 
program or on 
paper surveys 
if necessary 
CQI Data 
Manager will 
proctor data 
collection and 
assist 
participants as 
necessary 
No 
 
OLLE and 
nFORM Post-
Test Survey 
Post-Test 
(approx. 12 
weeks after 
enrollment 
during last 
workshop 
session) 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online data 
collection 
program or on 
paper surveys 
if necessary 
CQI Data 
Manager will 
proctor data 
collection and 
assist 
participants as 
necessary 
No 
 
OLLE Six 
Month Follow-
up Survey 
Six months 
after 
enrollment / 
baseline 
Participant 
self-enters 
survey using 
online data 
collection 
platform and 
link – or – 
Phone 
interview data 
collection  
MER Research 
Staff/ 
participant 
tracking team 
No 
 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
 
10.4. 
 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. 

 
Page | 26 
This evaluation will utilize both post-program surveys (completed at the completion of core 
programming) and follow-up surveys collected six months after enrollment. 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. As such, only 
those individuals who complete the program and who are at the data collection session will be likely 
to participate in the post-program data collection. 
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 protection and are required to pass a certification test on the subject 
matter. All staff will also receive a detailed training on the evaluation, including the evaluation tools, 
timing and data collection process, and the role and importance of randomization of participants. 
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 underway. 
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 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 primary local evaluator and the MER Line of 
Business Lead. 
 
11. 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.  

 
Page | 27 
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 that begin on April 1, 2021. 
 
12. DATA 
12.1. 
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 
Participation Data, Participant 
Outcomes (nFORM Surveys-
ACS, Entrance, Exit), 
Workshop attendance, case 
management 
Entered directly by TCD participants 
and TCD Project staff 
Qualtrics 
Participant outcomes (OLLE 
survey) 
Entered directly by participants and 
MER staff 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
12.2. 
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. 

 
Page | 28 
Database Name 
Ability to Export Individual 
Reports? 
What identifying information is 
available to facilitate linking to 
other data sources? 
nFORM 
Yes, pre-packaged 
operational reports, excel, 
cvs, tab delimited 
Name, DOB, nFORM ID 
Qualtrics 
Yes, Excel, cvs, tab delimited, 
others 
Name, DOB, nFORM ID 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
12.3. 
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 
Qualtrics 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
 
Please describe any plans for study registration with an appropriate registry (e.g., 
clinicaltrials.gov, socialscienceregistry.org, osf.io, etc.). 
This study will be registered with clinicaltrials.gov.