All in Dads! Program Evaluation
Phase: NA
Conditions: Fathers
Sponsor: Midwest Evaluation & Research

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All in Dads! Healthy Marriage and Responsible 
Fatherhood Program Evaluation 
Study Protocol 
NCT05194020 
October 17, 2024 
 
 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 2 
 
FATHERHOOD FIRE EVALUATION PLAN  
 
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 
There are different types of program evaluations and many different ways to describe them. To 
facilitate communication, the terms used here are described below: 
• 
Implementation Evaluation: An evaluation that addresses the extent to which a 
program is operating as intended. It describes who participated in the program, the 
services they received, and how services were provided. It assesses program operations 
and whether the population targeted was served. Implementation evaluation helps 
identify why a program’s intended outcomes were or were not achieved. Implementation 
evaluation cannot address whether changes have occurred as a result of the program. It 
is also called a process evaluation or formative evaluation. 
 
• 
Outcome Evaluation: Outcome evaluation is used to measure the results of a program. 
It assesses whether the program led to intended changes in participants’ knowledge, 
skills, attitudes, behaviors, or awareness. It can be descriptive or impact depending on 
whether it seeks to address whether the intended changes were the result of the 
program. 
 
• 
Impact Evaluation: Impact evaluation is a type of outcome evaluation that attributes 
participant changes to the program. To do so, it includes a comparison or control group 
to help establish that program activities, not something else, caused the changes in the 
observed outcomes. In this design, two groups are included in the evaluation: (1) a 
treatment group that includes individuals who participate in the program; and (2) a 
comparison group that includes individuals who are similar to those in the treatment 
group, but who do not receive the same services. 
 
• 
Descriptive Evaluation: Descriptive evaluation is a type of outcome evaluation that 
measures change in outcomes by making comparisons among participants after 
The purpose of this information collection is to document local evaluation plans conducted as part of 
the Fatherhood Family-Focused, Interconnected, Resilient, and Essential (Fatherhood FIRE) grants. 
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 8 hours per response, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
reviewing the collection of information. This is a voluntary collection of information. An agency may 
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject 
to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB # is 0970-0356 and the expiration date is 06/30/2021. If you have any 
comments on this collection of information, please contact Charles Michalopoulos at 
Charles.Michalopoulos@mdrc.org.  

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 3 
program participation and conditions prior to participation. This design involves collecting 
information only on individuals participating in the program. This information is collected 
at least twice: once before participants begin the program and sometime after they 
complete program.  
 
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 purpose of this project is to help fathers establish and strengthen their relationship with 
their children and the mothers of their children; to reduce domestic violence in vulnerable 
families; to improve economic stability of fathers through comprehensive, job-driven career 
services; to employ intensive case management barrier removal, individual job coaching, and 
comprehensive family development to improve short and long-term outcomes.  
The target population for this project are low-income urban father in high poverty and high-risk 
neighborhoods who are above the age of 18 with children under the age of 24. These fathers 
include non-custodial and custodial fathers, TANF eligible fathers, fathers at or below federal 
poverty levels, and fathers with children in early childhood learning centers. This project also 
focuses on fathers who have been or may be at risk of domestic violence (victims and 
perpetrators), under-involved or uninvolved in their children’s lives, unemployed, 
underemployed, lacking in education (GED/diploma), in need of job skills, or experiencing the 
following barriers: criminal records, mental health conditions, addictions, or disabilities.  
This project is needed in this community because Franklin County is the most populous county 
in Ohio with 1.3 million residents and a poverty rate of 16.7%. The largest city in Franklin 
County, Columbus, has a poverty rate of 20.2% for all residents but 31.4% among black 
residents and 32.1% among Hispanic residents. Furthermore, in the seven Columbus zip 
codes targeted in this project, the average poverty rate is 45.1%. The Columbus Metro region 
is one of the most racially and economically segregated regions in the country.  
This persistent and pervasive poverty negatively impacts upward mobility of families, 
exacerbates disparities, and reinforces generational poverty. Additionally, in Ohio, 1 in 3 
women and 1 in 4 men have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate 
partner which accounts for 15% of all violent crime. Since March 2020 there has been a 20% 
increase in domestic violence calls due to COVID-19 shutdowns and US Labor Department 
data shows the national unemployment rate among blacks has tripled. Funds from this grant 
will be used to address, support, and integrate all three authorized activities: Responsible 
Fatherhood, Healthy Marriage and Relationships, and Economic Stability.  
All In Dads! will take an integrated and comprehensive approach utilizing parenting education, 
intensive case management, coaching, mentoring, and employment services to improve long-
term outcomes for our target population. All In Dads! will educate fathers and couples to 
improve the quality of and increase the frequency of father/child engagement, improve 
spousal/co-parent-parenting pair relationships, reduce conflict and domestic violence, and 
create safer and happier families by improving child and parent well-being, self-esteem, and 
health.  

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 4 
 
2. EVALUATION GOALS 
Please briefly describe key goals of your evaluation and what you hope to learn below. 
The goals for the AFC Fatherhood project are improved family functioning (parenting and co-
parenting), improved adult and child well-being, increased economic stability and mobility, and 
reduced poverty by providing intensive, integrated services in promoting responsible parenting and 
economic stability with funds from The Fatherhood Family-Focused Interconnected, Resilient and 
Essential Grants. Evaluation goals include achieving sufficient sample size, retaining participants 
through the use of incentives, collecting valid and complete data, and ultimately making a 
contribution to the field of responsible fatherhood in the literature.  
 
 
 
 
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. 
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 
9/30/2025 
3/31/2024 
Definition 
All participants enrolled for services  
All participants enrolled for services to 
include local evaluation 
 
 
 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
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 
Additional Evaluation staff hiring and 
onboarding 
1/15/2021 
2/15/2021 
Evaluation staff training 
1/22/2021 
2/20/2021 
Evaluation Kickoff meeting and orientation 
with all program staff 
2/2/2021 
2/3/2021 
IRB training and certification by all program 
and evaluation staff 
10/1/2020 
2/28/2021 
Development and submission of Evaluation 
Plan document 
1/15/2021 
2/19/2021 
Evaluation Tools Development 
10/1/2020 
2/28/2021 
IRB Approval 
3/1/2021 
3/15/2021 
CQI Team Formed and Meeting bi-weekly 
3/15/2021 
7/1/2025 
Training for CQI Team 
3/15/2021 
3/28/2021 
Training for all Program Staff on Research 
Methods and process 
3/15/2021 
3/28/2021 
+ Refreshers as 
needed including new 
staff 
Evaluation Data Collection  
4/1/2021 
 5/31/2025 
      Baseline Data 
4/1/2021 
 3/31/2024 
      Post Test Data 
5/17/2021 
 8/2/2024 
      Follow-up Data 
4/1/2022 
 5/31/2025  
at the latest 
1st Manuscript submitted for publication 
7/1/2025 
12/31/2025 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 6 
Final Descriptive Report Submitted 
12/1/2025 
 3/31/2025 
 
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 Descriptive Evaluation Design to assess 
whether outcomes improve for low-income fathers who participate in the All in Dads! (AID!) 
Project. Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed before and after participants complete 
core curricula—Father Factor, The New Playbook, and Money Smart—and Job Readiness 
Coaching and Career Development as employment support services (pre to post). Primary 
outcome measures will indicate whether behavior improved for healthy family relationships 
(parent, co-parent, and partner). Secondary outcome measures will indicate whether behavior 
improved for the attitudes and expectations that facilitate and reflect behavior for healthy family 
relationships and economic stability (financial, employment) (see Table 1 below). 
 
 
 
 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 7 
No 
Research Question 
Implementation or 
Outcome? 
R1 
Will participants report significantly healthier parenting 
behavior one-year after completing primary educational 
services and employment support services? 
Primary Outcome 
R2 
Will participants report significantly healthier co-parenting 
behavior one-year after completing primary educational 
services and employment support services? 
Primary Outcome 
R3 
Will participants report significantly healthier financial 
behavior one-year after completing primary educational 
services and employment support services? 
Secondary Outcome 
R4 
Will participants report significantly healthier parenting 
attitudes after completing primary educational services and 
employment support services? 
Secondary Outcome 
 
1.2. OUTCOME RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
For each outcome research question listed above, whether a descriptive or impact design, 
summarize the inputs (e.g., program components, program supports, implementation 
features, etc.), target population (e.g., the population for which the effect will be estimated) 
and the outcomes (e.g., child well-being, father-child engagement, etc.) that will be 
examined to answer the research question(s). Comparisons for descriptive evaluations may 
reflect circumstances before the grant, pre-treatment, or pre-determined benchmark from 
other studies with similar interventions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 8 
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 
Primary 
curricula 
(Father 
Factor, The 
New 
Playbook, and 
Money 
Smart); 
Employment 
Support (Job 
Readiness 
Coaching, 
Career 
Development); 
Continuous 
Quality 
Improvement 
(CQI) Process 
 
Low-income 
fathers who 
are 18+ 
years with 
children up to 
24 years who 
are residents 
of Franklin 
County in 
Ohio 
Assessment of 
healthy 
parenting 
behavior at 
AID! Project 
enrollment. 
Participants 
who 
complete 
primary and 
support 
services will 
report 
healthier 
parenting 
behavior 
one year 
after AID! 
enrollment. 
Confirmatory 
R2 
Primary 
curricula 
(Father 
Factor, The 
New 
Playbook, and 
Money 
Smart); 
Employment 
Support (Job 
Readiness 
Coaching, 
Career 
Development); 
Low-income 
fathers who 
are 18+ 
years with 
children up to 
24 years who 
are residents 
of Franklin 
County in 
Ohio 
Assessment of 
healthy co-
parenting 
behavior at 
AID! Project 
enrollment. 
Participants 
who 
complete 
primary and 
support 
services will 
report 
healthier 
co-
parenting 
behavior 
one year 
Confirmatory 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 9 
Continuous 
Quality 
Improvement 
(CQI) Process 
after AID! 
enrollment. 
R3 
Primary 
curricula 
(Father 
Factor, The 
New 
Playbook, and 
Money 
Smart); 
Employment 
Support (Job 
Readiness 
Coaching, 
Career 
Development); 
Continuous 
Quality 
Improvement 
(CQI) Process 
 
Low-income 
fathers who 
are 18+ 
years with 
children up to 
24 years who 
are residents 
of Franklin 
County in 
Ohio 
Assessment of 
healthy 
financial 
behavior at 
AID! Project 
enrollment. 
Participants 
who 
complete 
primary and 
support 
services will 
report 
healthier 
financial 
behavior 
one year 
after AID! 
enrollment. 
Confirmatory 
R4 
Primary 
curricula 
(Father 
Factor, The 
New 
Playbook, and 
Money 
Smart); 
Employment 
Support (Job 
Readiness 
Coaching, 
Career 
Development); 
Continuous 
Quality 
Improvement 
(CQI) Process 
Low-income 
fathers who 
are 18+ 
years with 
children up to 
24 years who 
are residents 
of Franklin 
County in 
Ohio 
Assessment of 
healthy 
parenting 
attitudes 
immediately 
following 
program 
completion 
post-
intervention. 
Participants 
who 
complete 
primary and 
support 
services will 
report 
healthier 
parenting 
attitudes 
immediately 
following 
program 
completion..  
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 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 10 
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 
Low-income fathers can 
lack the parenting 
skills to fulfill their 
familial obligations as a 
parent to promote 
healthy family 
relationships. 
Determine the extent to 
which the delivery of 
AID! Project services 
enhance the parenting 
skills of low-income 
fathers. 
Inform practitioners 
about whether AID! 
Project design 
promotes healthy family 
relationships by 
improving parent 
behavior. 
R2 
Low-income fathers can 
lack the co-parenting 
skills to fulfill their 
familial obligations as a 
parent to promote 
healthy family 
relationships. 
Determine the extent to 
which the delivery of 
AID! Project services 
enhance the co-
parenting skills of low-
income fathers. 
Inform practitioners 
about whether AID! 
Project design 
promotes healthy family 
relationships by 
improving co-parent 
behavior. 
R3 
Low-income fathers can 
lack the financial skills 
to fulfill their familial 
obligations as managers 
of household finances to 
promote economic 
stability. 
Determine the extent to 
which the delivery of 
AID! Project services 
enhance the financial 
management skills of 
low-income fathers. 
Inform practitioners 
about whether AID! 
Project design 
promotes economic 
stability by improving 
financial behavior. 
R4 
Low-income fathers can 
lack parenting 
attitudes to facilitate 
the skills necessary to 
engage in healthy 
parenting behavior.  
 
Determine the extent to 
which the delivery of 
AID! Project services 
enhance the parenting 
attitudes of low-income 
fathers. 
Inform practitioners 
about whether AID! 
Project design 
promotes healthy family 
relationship by 
improving parenting 
attitudes.  
 
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. 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 11 
Figure 1 in appendix A presents a logic model to specify a theory of change for delivering AID! 
services. Service delivery processes specified in the model are linked to the desired outcomes for 
healthy family relationships and economic stability. Model specification incorporates a Descriptive 
Study design to conceptualize service delivery to assess outcomes for the AID! Project by 
comparing primary and secondary participant outcomes before and after participants complete 
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 AID! Project. As a result, three broad service 
delivery goals are identified to maximize AID! Project participation benefits as explained below: 
 
• 
Goal 1 - Deliver core curricula as primary services to AID! participants: Candidates will 
understand that they receive core curricula 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 AID! Project and giving project 
staff informed consent to participate in study activities. Then, Father Factor, The Next 
Playbook, and Money Smart curricula will be delivered to participants as specified in the 
logic model. 
• 
Goal 2 - Deliver employment support services to AID! participants: Candidates will 
understand that they receive employment support 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 AID! Project and 
giving project staff informed consent to participate in study activities. Then, Case Managers 
will help Job Coaches promote Job Readiness and help the Career Development Manager 
with job placement and post-employment success for participants. 
• 
Goal 3 - Conduct Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) to ensure full 
implementation of primary and enhanced employment services to participants: 
Reports prepared and presented to the CQI Team by evaluators in each of the 5 steps in 
the CQI Process will use a series of performance indicators to track key outputs over time to 
identify any AID! services delivered that might fall short of the intended amounts to be 
offered (i.e., fidelity standards) and received (i.e., dosage thresholds) by them. The CQI 
Team will then work with project staff to develop and implement performance interventions 
to address any outputs that need improvement to ensure the services offered to and 
received by participants meet the intended amounts by the end of each program year. 
 
Desired Outcomes: Outcomes specified in the logic model theorize the primary and secondary 
outcomes that are desired for participants after they complete AID! services. Secondary outcomes 
are the improved attitudes and expectations that indicate and reflect participant engagement in 
healthy parenting, partner relations, employment, and financial behaviors. Primary outcomes are 
the healthier behaviors exhibited by participants for parent, co-parent, and partner relationships that 
ultimately define the participation benefits for the AID! Project. All outcomes specified in the logic 
model are theorized to be more positive for eligible low-income fathers after they complete primary 
services and post-employment support services. 
 
4. HYPOTHESES 
For each specified research question, state the hypothesized result(s) and briefly describe why 
these results are anticipated. 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 12 
Research 
Question 
Hypothesized Result  
R1 
Participants will report healthier parenting behavior one-year after they 
complete primary services and employment support services in the AID! Project. 
R2 
Participants will report healthier co-parenting behavior one-year after they 
complete primary services and employment support services in the AID! Project. 
R3 
Participants will report healthier financial behavior one-year after they complete 
primary services and employment support services in the AID! Project. 
R4 
Participants will report healthier parenting attitudes immediately after they 
complete primary services and employment support services in the AID! Project. 
* 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 
Pre to follow-up assessment 
will estimate the impact of 
AID! participation on 
healthy parenting 
behavior.  
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their parenting behavior from pre to 1-year 
follow-up estimates the maximum amount of 
benefit that can be attributed to AID! services 
in the absence of a counterfactual. 
R2 
Pre to follow-up assessment 
will estimate the impact of 
AID! participation on 
healthy co-parenting 
behavior.  
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their co-parenting behavior from pre to 1-
year follow-up estimates the maximum amount 
of benefit that can be attributed to AID! 
services in the absence of a counterfactual. 
R3 
Pre to follow-up assessment 
will estimate the impact of 
AID! participation on 
healthy financial behavior.  
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their financial behavior from pre to 1-year 
follow-up estimates the maximum amount of 
benefit that can be attributed to AID! services 
in the absence of a counterfactual. 
R4 
Pre to post assessment will 
estimate the impact of AID! 
Healthy change reported by participants in 
their parenting attitudes from pre to post 
estimates the maximum amount of benefit that 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 13 
participation on healthy 
parenting attitudes. 
can be attributed to AID! services in the 
absence of a counterfactual. 
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 Action for Children (the grantee) and MER (the local 
evaluator) is regular communication, by way of recurring meetings and daily interactions with 
embedded staff. Throughout the original proposal process, and now during the evaluation planning 
phase, MER worked in consort with AFC 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 AFC 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 AFC 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 AFC in attendance, to ensure the partnership remains strong and 
that coordination across organizations is on track. This recurring, ongoing meeting structure is 
conducive to close coordination, ensuring that challenges can be quickly addressed, and promising 
strategies can be efficiently maximized.  
One of the key components of this coordination effort is the Data Manager, who is an AFC 
employee. The Data Manager functions to bridge the gap between organizations. They will interact 
with AFC staff daily while completing their job duties and play a leadership role in the recurring 
meetings outlined above. See Section II.D. above for more details about this role and others. Both 
the meetings and the roles outlined above will continue throughout the entire project period, 
providing opportunities to ensure the rigor and relevance of the evaluation and its findings, and to 
discuss and coordinate dissemination efforts (which will also be shared across MER and AFC).  
MER has experience operating prior descriptive evaluations using this exact process. Clearly 
outlining roles and responsibilities maintains the independence of the evaluation. That is, the 
evaluation team helps identify and illuminate areas of concern or improvement (for the program and 
the evaluation), but the program staff have responsibility for implementing improvements and 
providing direct services to participants. In this way, AFC and MER acknowledge our shared 
interest in and responsibility for a well-executed project and evaluation, but that MER is also an 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 14 
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 
Michelle Jackson, M.S. 
Midwest Evaluation and 
Research 
Evaluation Project Manager 
Articulate the experience, skills, and knowledge of the staff for the evaluation (including whether 
they have conducted similar studies in this field), as well as their ability to coordinate and 
support planning, implementation, and analysis related to a comprehensive evaluation plan. 
Dr. Matthew Shepherd will serve as the Principal Investigator for this grant. As such, he has 
corporate responsibility for all evaluation activities. Dr. Shepherd has over 25 years’ experience 
in program design and implementation, applied research, program evaluation, policy analysis, and 
evaluative technical assistance.   
 
 
Michelle Jackson will serve as the Evaluation Project Manager. The Evaluation PM leads the 
effort to conduct a descriptive study and a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) process for the 
grant. Previously, Ms. Jackson has served as project lead for community foundation and grant 
evaluation projects. She has facilitated the data collection and survey tracking process for 
research assistants. In addition, she manages Midwest Evaluation’s Institutional Review Board 
(IRB) submissions and reporting. In 2019, she was selected by Public Strategies as an 
Emerging Scholar to attend the 2019 Biennial Grantee Conference.  
 
The CQI Data Manager will work closely with the grantee and community partners on-site to 
complete data collection and management activities for the descriptive study and a Continuous 
Quality Improvement (CQI) process. 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 15 
 
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 
18+ year old urban 
fathers in Franklin 
County (OH) with 
children age 24 and 
under 
No difference: all 
program participants 
will be study 
participants 
The sample will be 
identified and recruited by 
the program staff.  
Urban adult 
fathers 
 
8.2. 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. 
Though not an RCT, the Power Analysis is as follows: 
 
Outcome 1:  
Outcome 2:  
Outcome 3:  
 
Outcome Name 
Parenting Attitudes 
Father 
Relationship 
Behavior 
(parenting/co-
parenting) 
Father Financial 
Behavior 
Continuous or binary? 
Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 16 
Level of significance 
(e.g., 0.05 percent) 
0.05 
0.05 
0.05 
Number of sides of test 
(one- or two-tailed) 
2 tailed 
2-tailed 
2-tailed 
Power (e.g., 80 percent) 
80% 
80% 
80% 
Total number of 
individuals in analytic 
sample  
483 
483 
483 
If continuous outcome, 
enter the standard 
deviation of the outcome 
(>0) 
nFORM 
nFORM 
nFORM 
Proportion of individual-
level (or within-group) 
variance explained by 
covariates 
nFORM 
nFORM 
nFORM 
Minimum detectable 
effect size 
0.030 
0.030 
0.030 
 
8.3. 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? 
Action for Children will over-recruit to ensure sufficient 
sample size. Incentives will be offered at various times in 
the curriculum to keep participants active.  
Who will be responsible for 
recruiting the evaluation 
sample? 
Applicants will be enrolled via street outreach or referral. 
Action for Children will use multiple targeted marketing 
platforms-such as billboards, radio, print, social media, 
flyers, brochures, and posters. Action for Children will also 
have an experienced and trained full-time recruiter, part-
time recruiter, and other staff to assist in recruitment.  

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 17 
Please describe any 
incentives to be offered for 
program participation and/or 
completion and/or data 
collection and/or 
participation in the 
evaluation. 
Participants will be incentivized throughout participation in 
primary workshops as well for completing the one-year 
follow-up survey for evaluation purposes.  
• 
$25 gift card after completing Enrollment Surveys and 
attending 3 sessions 
• 
$25 gift card after the completion of Session 6 
• 
$75 gift card after the completion of Session 11 or 12 
and the nFORM Post-Program Survey (& OLLE Post-
Survey-only during evaluation enrollment period: ended 
4/12/2024) if attendance is at least 90% for the core 
curriculum workshops  
 
A $50 gift card will be given for completion of the 1 Year 
Follow-Up Survey for evaluation purposes.  
 
 
9. DATA COLLECTION 
9.1. CONSTRUCTS AND MEASURES 
Clearly articulate the constructs of interest, measures to evaluate those constructs, and specific 
data collection instruments. Provide any information on the reliability and validity of the data 
collection instruments. For standardized instruments, you may provide the citation for the 
instrument. 
Construct 
Measure  
Instrument 
Reliability and Validity 
(if standardized instrument, you 
provide a citation for the instrument) 
Parenting 
Behavior 
(interaction 
with children) 
1 item: hours 
spent w/children 
in last 30 days 
(interval); 1 item: 
frequency reach 
out to children 
(categories, 5-
point scale); 7 
items: frequency 
engage in key 
behaviors 
(categories, 5-
point scale) 
nFORM 
Community-
Based Fathers 
Survey (A2b, 
A2c, A5b: b-d, f-
i) 
*also asked on 
OLLE; will use 
data from 
survey with the 
most complete 
data 
n/a 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 18 
Co-Parenting 
Behavior 
11 items: 
frequency of 
agreement with 
key co-parenting 
behaviors 
(interval, 5-point 
scale) 
nFORM 
Community-
Based Fathers 
Survey (A13: a-
k) 
*also asked on 
OLLE; will use 
data from 
survey with the 
most complete 
data 
n/a 
Father Financial 
Behavior 
2 items: yes or no 
questions for 
have resume, 
checking/savings 
accounts 
(dichotomous) 
nFORM 
Community-
Based Fathers 
Survey  
(B3, B3a) 
*also asked on 
OLLE; will use 
data from 
survey with the 
most complete 
data 
n/a 
Parenting 
Attitudes 
(toward 
children) 
7 items: 
frequency of key 
attitudes 
(categories, 5-
point scale) 
nFORM 
Community-
Based Fathers 
Survey (A3: a-g) 
*also asked on 
OLLE; will use 
data from 
survey with the 
most complete 
data 
 
n/a 
 
9.2. CONSENT 
Describe how and when program applicants will be informed of the study and will have the 
option of agreeing (i.e., consenting to) or declining to participate in the study. 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 19 
Fathers will be recruited or referred to All in Dads!. Case Managers will contact fathers to fully 
explain the project, including the research component involving surveys at the start of workshops, 
the end of workshops, and 12-months following enrollment into the project. General intake 
information and the nFORM Applicant Characteristics Survey will be administered. At that point, an 
nFORM profile will be created. If the applicant decides to enroll in the project, the Case Manager 
will schedule the father for a virtual orientation session. If the applicant decides not to enroll in the 
project, he will be provided with resources and referrals to other programs. From there, fathers will 
attend their scheduled virtual orientation with a workshop facilitator where they will be reminded 
that participation in the project is voluntary, that they can drop out of the project at any time for any 
reason without consequences after completing the consent form and will be given the opportunity 
to leave the orientation session if they desire. If the applicant agrees to participate in the project, he 
will complete a consent form along with a release of information form, media release form, and the 
nFORM Entrance Survey. Informed consent will take place prior to program enrollment and the 
collection of evaluation data.  
 
9.3. METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION 
If the evaluation will collect multiple waves of data, describe the timing of these waves below. 
When describing follow-up periods, specify whether the follow-up period will be post-baseline, 
post-random assignment, or post-program completion. 
Wave of Data Collection  
(e.g., baseline, short-term follow-up, long-
term follow-up) 
Timing of Data Collection 
 
T1: baseline/pre-participation  
Before first workshop session, at the same time 
as the nFORM entrance survey-following 
informed consent 
T2: post-participation  
After the final workshop session, at the same 
time as the nFORM exit survey 
T3: 1-year follow-up  
Collected approximately one year after program 
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. 
 
 
 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 20 
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? 
Administrativ
e Data Only: 
Will data 
access 
require data 
sharing 
agreement? 
Parenting 
Behavior 
(interaction with 
children) 
 
1 item: hours 
spent w/children 
in last 30 days 
(interval); 1 
item: frequency 
reach out to 
children 
(categories, 5-
point scale); 7 
items: frequency 
engage in key 
behaviors 
(categories, 5-
point scale) 
nFORM 
Community 
Fathers 
Entrance 
Survey-
administered at 
first workshop 
session/OLLE 
Pre; 
nFORM 
Community 
Fathers Exit 
Survey-
administered at 
last workshop 
session/OLLE 
Post/OLLE 
Follow-Up 
nFORM and/or 
OLLE 
 
Participant self-
enters survey 
using online 
data collection 
platform 
Case 
Manager/Facilita
tor will proctor 
data collection 
and assist 
participants as 
necessary 
 
 
Co-Parenting 
Behavior 
11 items: 
frequency of 
agreement with 
key co-parenting 
behaviors 
(interval, 5-point 
scale) 
 
nFORM 
Community 
Fathers 
Entrance 
Survey-
administered at 
first workshop 
session/OLLE 
Pre 
nFORM 
Community 
Fathers Exit 
Survey-
administered at 
last workshop 
session/OLLE 
Post/OLLE 
Follow-Up 
nFORM and/or 
OLLE 
 
Participant self-
enters survey 
using online 
data collection 
platform 
Case 
Manager/Facilita
tor will proctor 
data collection 
and assist 
participants as 
necessary 
 
 
Father Financial 
Behavior 
nFORM 
Community 
nFORM and/or 
OLLE 
Case 
Manager/Facilita
 
 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 21 
 
2 items: yes or no 
questions for have 
resume, 
checking/savings 
accounts 
(dichotomous) 
Fathers 
Entrance 
Survey-
administered at 
first workshop 
session/OLLE 
Pre; 
nFORM 
Community 
Fathers Exit 
Survey-
administered at 
last workshop 
session/OLLE 
Post/OLLE-
Follow-Up 
 
 
Participant self-
enters survey 
using online 
data collection 
platform 
tor will proctor 
data collection 
and assist 
participants as 
necessary 
Parenting 
Attitudes 
(toward 
children): 
7 items: 
frequency of key 
attitudes 
(categories, 5-
point scale) 
nFORM 
Community 
Fathers 
Entrance 
Survey-
administered at 
first workshop 
session/OLLE 
Pre; 
nFORM 
Community 
Fathers Exit 
Survey-
administered at 
last workshop 
session/OLLE 
Post 
nFORM and/or 
OLLE 
 
 
Participant self-
enters survey 
using online 
data collection 
platform 
Case 
Manager/Facilita
tor will proctor 
data collection 
and assist 
participants as 
necessary 
 
 
 
 
9.4.  ENSURING AND MONITORING DATA COLLECTION 
Describe plans for training data collectors and for updating or retraining data collectors about 
procedures. Detail plans to regularly review data that have been submitted and to assess and 
swiftly address problems. 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 22 
This evaluation will utilize both post-program surveys (completed at the completion of core 
programing) and follow-up surveys collected one year after enrollment / baseline. The methods for 
these data collections differ. The primary driver for post-program survey completion is high rates of 
program retention. This data point will be collected during the last workshop session – after (but 
during the same session of) the completion of the nFORM post-program data collection. As such 
only those individuals who complete the program and who are at the data collection session will 
participate in the post-program data collection.   
All program staff and evaluation staff will undergo a rigorous set of trainings to prepare for the 
evaluation. All staff receive an overview and introductory training to present the goals and 
objectives of the evaluation effort and its importance to the overall project. Next all staff receive 
training on human subject’s protection and are required to pass a certification test on the subject 
matter. All staff will also receive a detailed training on the details of the evaluation including the 
evaluation tools, timing and data collection process.  
In addition, the Data Manager and the primary local evaluation staff will undergo a rigorous training 
process to better understand the context of HMRF research, training on data collection procedures 
they will be responsible for, and training on the nFORM system and use of nFORM data in a CQI 
process. MER is creating networks of CQI Data Managers and Evaluation Project Managers across 
the 12 projects that we are evaluating so that all staff have access to experienced Data Managers 
and evaluation staff who have done this work previously. This training takes the form of weekly 
training sessions that are currently under way. 
Members of the CQI team will also receive specific training on the MER CQI process that has been 
developed prior to the launch of data collection or program services. As described elsewhere MER 
is assisting the program staff in implementing a robust CQI process that will focus on retention as 
one of the primary areas of program improvement and as such we are anticipating relatively 
modest levels of attrition for this data collection. 
On a bi-weekly basis the Data Manager, the local evaluation staff and MER technical specialists 
will be responsible for downloading data from the nFORM and MER On-Line Local Evaluation 
(OLLE) systems for processing and presentation to the CQI team for tracking and monitoring 
performance measurement outcomes (recruitment, enrollment, dosage, completion, referrals, etc.) 
so that near real-time adjustments can be made to program implementation to ensure compliance 
with program goals and objectives.  
All MER training is currently being recorded and as new staff come on board with projects 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. 
 
 
9.5. TRACKING PARTICIPANTS AND REDUCING ATTRITION 
If participants will complete post-program and/or follow-up surveys, please provide estimated 
response rates for each wave of data collection listed in 10.3. Please describe plans for tracking 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 23 
participants and reducing attrition below. Note: If no post-program or follow-up surveys are 
proposed, this issue does not need to be addressed. 
 
For each wave of data 
collection listed in 10.3, 
what is your estimated 
response rate?  
Baseline 
T1: 100%-done at time of 
enrollment/orientation 
Wave 1 
T2: 90%-Estimated completion rate 
Wave 2 
T3: 70%-Estimated 1 year follow-up 
Wave 3 
 
 
Wave 4 
 
What steps will be taken to 
track participants to 
conduct follow-up surveys 
with as many participants 
as possible? 
This evaluation will utilize both post-program surveys, 
administered after the completion of core programing, and follow-
up surveys, collected one year after enrollment/baseline. The data 
collection methods for the two time periods will differ, and both 
have been successfully implemented by MER in prior studies.  
The post-survey data point will be collected during the last 
workshop session, after the completion of the nFORM post-
program data collection, so only those individuals who complete 
the program and who are at the data collection session will 
participate in the post-program data collection. Therefore, the 
primary driver for post-program survey completion is high rates of 
program retention. The grantee-evaluator joint CQI process 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. 
Tracking and data collection for the follow-up survey one year 
after baseline will be conducted differently, using an intent-to-treat 
model in which all participants enrolled are included in the follow-
up survey data collection process. Participant tracking will begin 
at enrollment, where detailed tracking information will be collected 
during the informed consent process. This includes currently 
available traditional contact information for each participant 
(address, phone, email), as well as social media contact 
information (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), and detailed information for 
secondary contacts who will likely always be in contact with the 
participant (e.g., parents, siblings, friends). The consent form will 
obtain permission to contact these secondary sources to locate 
the participant for follow-up interviews, if necessary. Additionally, 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 24 
$50 Walmart gift cards are planned as incentives to encourage 
completion and show respect for the time of the participant. 
Tracking will begin 60 days prior to the target survey due date, 
when a postcard that includes information about online or phone 
survey completion will be mailed to the provided contact address 
for the participant. The primary purpose of this postcard is to 
verify the address provided. When retuned mail is received 
because the participant no longer lives at the provided address, or 
the address is invalid, then the participant will be moved into a 
queue for tracking by MER trained research staff. If the postcard 
is not returned and the survey not completed, a formal letter will 
be mailed (and emailed if possible) to the participant at 60 days 
prior to the due date, again containing information for survey 
completion. The postcard and letter may help ensure MER name 
recognition in the event research staff do need to contact a 
participant directly by phone.  
At 30 days prior to the survey due date, the participant will receive 
a phone call from MER staff directly to compete the follow-up 
survey. MER staff will attempt to reach the client with the phone 
information provided and via social media. If the client is unable to 
be contacted after 3 attempts, MER staff move the participant into 
the queue for more structured tracking, including through 
secondary contacts, and an iterative process of outreach and 
tracking will take place until the survey is complete, or all tracking 
efforts are exhausted. 
For participants moved into the queue for tracking, the following 
steps are followed. MER will begin tracking by outreach to 
secondary contacts, which includes sending a letter for the 
participants to the address for the secondary contact, sending a 
letter to the secondary contacts themselves, and attempting to 
call the secondary contacts to get updated contact information for 
the participants. It should be noted that secondary contacts are 
never told details of the program the participants are in, or details 
that could violate confidentiality. Tracking may also include 
utilizing publicly available databases and services which MER has 
subscriptions for to obtain new or unknown contact information.  
 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 25 
Please describe a plan for 
monitoring both overall 
and differential attrition 
(across treatment and 
comparison groups). 
Overall attrition will be mitigated through the use of incentives 
granted to participants at upon completion of: 
• 
Session 3 and complete entrance surveys 
• 
Session 6 
• 
Session 12 and complete the exit surveys 
• 
1 Year Follow-Up Survey 
10. PRIVACY 
Specify how the methods for data collection, storage, and transfer (e.g., to the federal 
government) will ensure privacy for study participants.  
For these evaluation efforts Action for Children and MER will utilize nFORM for performance 
measurement data collection and storage, Qualtrics Enterprise for the collection and storage of 
local evaluation (OLLE) data, and Dropbox Enterprise for the storage of all data exported from 
either data collection system and all other program and evaluation documents. Logins with secure 
passwords will be necessary for all staff to access data they are authorized to enter/view. Using 
SPSS as our preferred statistical analysis and data management program, the highly experienced 
MER staff can combine and link data from multiple sources (including nFORM, Qualtrics, and other 
administrative data systems) into a complete data set with relative ease. 
 
nFORM 
The nFORM system is a management information system that each HMRF grantee will use to 
collect and store the information that will be reported to the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) 
within ACF. The data from nFORM can also be easily exported to other programs, such as 
Microsoft Excel. The nFORM data will be entered by participants directly and by program staff 
(Case Managers, Facilitators, Project Director, and Data Manager) and the Data Manager will have 
the primary responsibility for overseeing the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of data 
entered by staff. MER evaluation staff will download and analyze this data on a bi-weekly basis. 
nFORM will capture performance management data (including program operations, services, and 
client characteristics). 
 
Qualtrics Enterprise 
Qualtrics is an industry leader in data collection and security and will be used for the collection and 
storage of participant responses to surveys for the local evaluation effort. This data will be entered 
directly by participants and by MER evaluation staff. Participants will use a provided link on tablets, 
computers, or phones to directly answer survey questions. Information collected in Qualtrics will be 
about outcomes, life situation, and other status indicators.  
 
Qualtrics servers are protected by high-end firewall systems and scans are performed regularly to 
ensure that any vulnerabilities are quickly found and patched. Application penetration tests are 
performed annually by an independent third-party. All services have quick failover points and 
redundant hardware, with backups performed daily. Access to systems is restricted to specific 
individuals who have a need-to-know such information and who are bound by confidentiality 
obligations. Access is monitored and audited for compliance. 
 
Qualtrics uses Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption (also known as HTTPS) for all transmitted 
data. Surveys may be protected with passwords. Our services are hosted by trusted data centers 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 26 
that are independently audited using the industry standard SSAE-18 method. Qualtrics has ISO 
27001, FedRAMP and HITRUST authorization and certification. Information is easily and securely 
downloadable at any time to Excel or comma-separated formats and data in transit is secured 
using secure TLS cryptographic protocols. Qualtrics data is also encrypted at rest. 
 
Dropbox 
Once data is downloaded by MER it is at all times stored on cloud-based storage provided by 
Dropbox Enterprise. All MER staff are prohibited from storing any project information (including 
data) on local computer hard drives. This ensures safety of the data from loss or unauthorized 
access due to the damage or theft of computers.   
 
Dropbox adheres to the most stringent compliance standards by combining major accepted 
standards with compliance risk assessment measures, including ISO 27001, SOC 1, 2, and 3, 
GDPR, the CSA Code of Conduct, and HIPAA/HITECH.  Data is also protected from data security 
threats with in-transit and at-rest encryption.  The Dropbox Enterprise system also allows MER to 
recover accidentally deleted content and undo unwanted file changes, for up to 10 years.  The 
Advanced Team & Content Controls Add-On, powered by BetterCloud technology, allows IT 
admins to deploy Dropbox on team devices and govern data in one place.  
 
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.  
Because the planned evaluation involves human subjects, AFC understands that program 
implementation requires both IRB approval and participant informed consent. MER has an 
established relationship with Solutions IRB. MER has had 14 research studies approved by 
Solutions IRB over the past four years, completed over 15 annual check-in reports, and has 
submitted timely amendments when changes to studies needed to take effect. 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.  
 
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 during the planning period in order to 
receive official approval to begin enrollment and data collection beginning in April.  
Program staff and facilitators will also obtain Human Subjects Training Certification through 
the IRB to ensure the protection of participants.  
 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 27 
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 
Performance Measurement 
Data  
Entered directly by participants, 
and by program staff 
Qualtrics 
Local evaluation data, 
participant outcomes (OLLE 
surveys) 
Entered directly by participants, 
and by MER evaluation staff 
* you may add rows by hitting the tab button, or right click and select insert row below 
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. 
Database Name 
Ability to Export Individual 
Reports? 
What identifying information is 
available to facilitate linking to 
other data sources? 
nFORM 
capabilities of nFORM 2.0 
unknown at this time 
capabilities of nFORM 2.0 
unknown at this time 
Qualtrics 
Yes, Excel or comma 
separated 
Name, date of birth, gender, 
address, email, phone number 
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 
Ability to 
encrypt at 
rest?  
Data 
Backup and 
Require all 
users to 
have logins 
Current Anti-
Virus Software 
Installed? 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 28 
data during 
transit?  
Recovery 
Plan? 
and 
passwords? 
nFORM 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Qualtrics 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 29 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
OMB Control No.: 0970-0356 
 
 
 
 
Fatherhood FIRE Evaluation Plan Template 
Page | 31