Elements of Promising Practice for Fatherhood Programs: 

Evidence-Based Research Findings on Programs for Fathers 

Compiled by: 

Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew, Ph.D, Jennifer Carrano, B.S., Tiffany Allen, M.S.W., Lillian Bowie, M.A., 

Kassim Mbawa, M.A., & Gregory Matthews, B.A. 

August 15th, 2007 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the 

official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Office of Family Assistance 

National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse 

101 Lake Forest Blvd, Suite 360 

Gaithersburg, MD 20877 

(877) 4DAD411 

www.fatherhood.gov 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................2 

 Making the Case for Fatherhood Interventions: Consequences and Implications 

for Fathers and Families...........................................................................................2 

 Barriers to Male Participation in Programs.............................................................................3 

 Identifying Rigorous Research: The Ten Principles..................................................................4 

 Criteria Used for Considering Fatherhood Programs. ...............................................................6 

 Types of Fatherhood Programs..........................................................................................8 

 Ten Characteristics of Effective Fatherhood Programs................................................................9 

 Putting Research into Practice: Ten Strategies for Fatherhood Programs........................................13 

 Early Conclusions about the State of Research on the Effectiveness of Fatherhood Programs...............14 

 References.................................................................................................................15 

APPENDIX 1: “Model” Fatherhood Programs....................................................................17

 Dads for Life...............................................................................................................18 

 Family Transition Program.............................................................................................22 

 PEACE Program..........................................................................................................26 

 Parenting Together Project.............................................................................................32 

 Preparing for the Drug Free Years....................................................................................37 

 Responsible Fatherhood Program for Incarcerated Dads- Fairfax County......................................41 

 Video Self-Modeling Effects of Parenting Education on First-Time Fathers’ Skills...........................46 

 “Young Dads” ............................................................................................................51

APPENDIX 2: “Promising” Fatherhood Programs.............................................................55

 An Ache in their Hearts ................................................................................................56 

 Effects of Parenting Education on First-Time Fathers..............................................................61 

 Fatherhood Education Program- Boston..............................................................................65 

 Father Involvement Intervention in a Head Start-based program................................................69 

 GAIN-LA.................................................................................................................74 

 Hawaii’s Healthy State Program (HSP) ..............................................................................79 

 JOBS First.................................................................................................................85 

 Men as Teachers.........................................................................................................90 

 Minnesota Family Investment Program...............................................................................95 

 Parents as Teachers (PAT) .............................................................................................99 

 Parents’ Fair Share.......................................................................................................103 

 Respecting and Protecting Our Relationships......................................................................110 

 The Self Sufficiency Project (SSP) ..................................................................................114 

 Triple P- Positive Parenting Program................................................................................118

APPENDIX 3: “Emerging” Fatherhood Programs..............................................................123 

 24/7 Dad.................................................................................................................124 

 Australian All-Male Discussion Forums for Expectant Fathers..................................................128 

 Creating Lasting Connections (CLC) ...............................................................................132 

 DADS Family Project .................................................................................................137 

 Dads Make a Difference (MD) .......................................................................................142 

 Doctor Dad...............................................................................................................146 

 Early Head Start.........................................................................................................149 

 Maryland Responsible Fatherhood (RF) Demonstration Program..............................................154 

 OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs...........................................................................160 

 OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Supportive Services for Non-Custodial Parents – CA.........167 

 SHARE Program ......................................................................................................172 

 Strengthening Families Program 6-10...............................................................................176 

Page 1 of 184 
Introduction 

The increased interest in programs that promote responsible fatherhood and the limited 

information currently available on the services provided and effectiveness of these programs has 

generated interest in the systematic evaluation of such programs. Not surprisingly, individuals who run 

and are involved in fatherhood programs have one principal question: “What really works in 

fatherhood programs?” The current research review helps to answer this question. However, it is 

important to note from the beginning, some of the limitations of this review. 

First, this report summarizes only those fatherhood programs that have been subjected to 

evaluation research that meets certain criteria (see below). It does not discuss what fathers can do; nor 

does it evaluate the role of broad cultural values and norms; it does not review the relative efficacy of 

various program curriculum; nor does it answer questions that are for specific subpopulations of 

fathers (e.g., African American or Hispanic fathers). It is crucial for community organizations to 

understand, that although effective programs can help increase responsible fatherhood, it is naïve to 

think that such program interventions can solve all issues related to fathers by themselves. 

Nonetheless, programs such as those summarized here offer some early answers because they 

summarize what has worked, and what has not worked across diverse groups of fathers in varied 

communities. 

Making the Case for Fatherhood Interventions: Consequences and Implications for Fathers and 

Families 

In recent years more evidence has become available that fatherhood intervention programs may 

be effective; and (as shown by programs described in this report), if successfully implemented can 

positively impact the lives of fathers, their partners, and children. Fatherhood programs often vary in 

terms of the specific outcomes that programs are designed to affect, however, the ultimate goal of 

almost all fatherhood programs is to improve the well-being of children (The Fatherhood Initiative, 

2005). A plethora of fatherhood programs have worked to tailor services to meet the individual needs 

of fathers served by their programs. Fathers served are diverse, ranging from non-custodial fathers who 

seek access and custodial rights to their children to married and divorced fathers who would like to 

become more involved with their children (Mincy & Pouncy, 2004). A common theme among varied 

fatherhood interventions is that men need to develop the capacity to care for themselves in order to 

become more effective and responsible fathers (Levine & Pittinsky, 1997). If fathers are to positively 

impact their children’s lives, it critical for them to adopt constructive behaviors. Thus, in order to help 

fathers raise healthy children and remain engaged in their children’s lives, it may be critical to make 

investments in program interventions that focus on improving the functioning and well-being of 

fathers. Fathers are a primary source of socialization; they influence family processes and their positive 

involvement can be beneficial for child well-being (Lamb, 1997; Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2006). Paternal 

participation in family programming has the ability to impact the well-being and functioning of fathers 

as individuals as well as their families. The missions of fatherhood interventions are varied and 

programs have been designed to influence varied outcomes. Examples of these outcomes are included 

below. 

• Work Skills, Self-Sufficiency and Employment: Interventions to improve work skills among 

fathers have been the focus of a number of Federal initiatives (see U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 2006). These programs have worked to increase non-custodial fathers’ 

employment, child support compliance, and involvement with their children by helping to 

ensure that fathers become a primary and positive source of both economic and social support 

for their offspring. Men who are jobless confront a serious challenge in fulfilling the role of 

Page 2 of 184 
“provider”. Among low-income fathers, those who hold jobs or report having worked in the 

past 12 months have been found to be more likely to be involved with their infants than those 

who do not work (Gavin, Black, Minor, Abel, Papas, & Bentley, 2002). Other research 

suggests that, while some non-custodial parents do not make child support payments because 

they are unwilling to do so, the majority of low-income non-custodial parents do not meet their 

child support obligations because they do not earn enough to pay what is ordered and often 

work irregularly (National Women’s Law Center, 2004; Sorenson & Lerman, 1998). An 

inability to find jobs and maintain consistent employment often harms men’s potential to be 

involved parents and encourages conflicted and marginal relationships with their partners and 

their families (Roy, 2004). Fathers’ education and employment are associated with higher 

levels of involvement and improve the odds of continued paternal involvement as children 

grow older (Coley & Chase-Lansdale, 1999). 

• Responsible Fatherhood: Reducing drug and alcohol use as well as reducing involvement 

with the criminal justice system continue to be at the forefront of several fatherhood 

interventions. Some research indicates that when fathers recover from substance abuse, 

children exhibit significant improvements in psychosocial functioning (Kelley & Fals-Stewart, 

2002). Incarceration affects fathers’ ability to form and maintain social bonds with their 

children (Edin et al., 2001). While prisons remove men from families, the effects of 

incarceration continue well after release from prison (Hamilton, 2005). For fathers with a 

history of incarceration, the inability to find employment and have healthy relationships with 

partners also damages the relationships that men have with their children because they are 

unable to make a time and material contribution (Nurse, 2000). Overall, fatherhood 

interventions that focus on improving responsible father behavior can be beneficial not only to 

fathers’ well-being, but also to that of their families and children. 

• Healthy Relationships and Co-parenting. Making existing relationships healthier is a critical 

goal for several ongoing fatherhood interventions because such programs have the potential to 

reduce marital conflict, domestic violence and enhance relationship quality, all of which would 

lead to improvements in outcomes for children, couples, and families. There is extensive 

evidence that children do better when raised by both biological parents in a high quality marital 

relationship (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). The interest in and need for promoting healthy 

relationships is clear, and the co-parenting relationship represents a critical locus for the 

development of relationship skills. The quality of the couple relationship influences a fathers’ 

ability to parent effectively. Parents experiencing difficulties in their adult couple relationship 

are also less likely to co-parent effectively (Talbot & McHale, 2004). Research demonstrates 

that unharmonious and antagonistic co-parenting relationships consistently relate to poorer 

outcomes for children (Belsky et al., 1995; Belsky & Fearon, 2004; Camara & Resnick, 1988). 

Fatherhood programs that are able to successfully promote and strengthen co-parenting 

relationships have the potential to produce substantial benefits for adults, and more importantly 

children. 

Barriers to Male Participation in Programs 

Studies on fathers’ involvement in family programs have identified four categories of barriers 

that exist to participation in programs (Shock & Gavazzi, 2004). These include: 

o pragmatic/structural program issues, such as scheduling and privacy concerns; 

o family demographics, such as marital status of parents and income; 

Page 3 of 184 
o father characteristics such as education, past experience with family-based interventions 

and services; and 

o fathers’ perceptions of child problem behaviors, the applicability of the program to his 

family, and his parenting competency. 

For low-income fathers, some research cites the challenging social contexts in which many 

parents live such as poverty, communities with high crime rates, areas of high substance use, 

inadequate employment opportunities, insufficient support systems, perceived barriers to 

communication, and lower-self-efficacy among parents as potential barriers to participation (Roy, 

2004). Other research done on fathers in programs suggests that longitudinal follow-up is difficult with 

fathers, many of whom may transition in and out of households, jobs, and intimate relationships 

quickly (Nelson, Clampet-Lundquist, & Edin, 2002). Addressing the reality of fatherhood experiences 

may be particularly relevant for poor fathers who face violence, unemployment, gang and police 

presence, and a general lack of resources. 

Identifying Rigorous Research: The Ten Principles 

What works in fatherhood programs? Only rigorous evaluations of programs can provide 

evidence of whether or not programs actually have the desired effect on behavior. While several 

studies have examined the effects of programs on outcomes for fathers and their families, the evidencebase varies widely as does the quality and rigor of research methods. In general however, results that 

come from well-designed programs that have been rigorously evaluated should be taken more 

seriously than results from less-well-designed and evaluated programs. There are several principles of 

good research methods that have to be considered and that often yield high quality results. The extent 

to which each of these principles is adhered to by the studies used in this review is provided in the 

individual program summary descriptions (see Appendices 1-3). Each of these principles of rigorous 

research is discussed below in more detail. 

• Principle 1: Sampling of Programs. As noted, varied approaches address the behavior and 

well-being of fathers and their families. However, in selecting programs, care must be taken in 

using the results from a small group of studies of fathers to draw inferences across a wide range 

of programs. For example, this review has uncovered more evaluated programs that seek to 

improve father involvement and co-parenting than those that seek to improve fathers’ mental 

health. The problem with generalization from a small group of programs to a larger group is 

that findings may work well with some fathers in some contexts, but not as well with others, 

and additional studies are needed with varied samples of fathers in different settings. In 

addition, programs that are well-funded often tend to have more well-trained staff, more 

resources and are better run programs, yielding positive evaluation results which may not yield 

the same findings when replicated in other settings that do not have access to the same 

resources and may have staff with less training (Kirby, 2001). Less mature programs may also 

be prematurely evaluated, before elements of implementation have been addressed, yielding 

less positive evaluation results. 

• Principle 2: Evaluation Design. The evaluation design recognized as the gold standard is a 

random assignment study (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). This design is used to determine 

causality, i.e. to determine whether the observed outcomes or changes that resulted for fathers 

and/or families were the result of participation in the program. In a random assignment study, 

fathers are assigned to two groups: a treatment group (a group that receives services) or a 

control group (a group that does not receive program services, but may receive other 

Page 4 of 184 
instruction or services). This design, if well-implemented, is the only way to create equivalent 

groups. That is, fathers with varied characteristics (e.g., age, sex, race and motivation) will be 

equally (or very close to equally) represented in both the treatment and control groups. This 

design therefore reduces the likelihood of “selection bias,” i.e. more highly motivated fathers 

being more likely to choose to attend the program, or more fatherhood programs being likely to 

be implemented in communities with more “at risk” fathers. Few of the studies in the current 

review used random assignment designs, while the majority used quasi-experimental or prepost test designs. This means that selection bias, or other kinds of biases may have affected 

results. These biases can obscure actual positive program effects, or overstate positive program 

effects when they did not actually occur (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). 

• Principle 3: Sample Size. It is commonly agreed that rigorous studies require a sufficient 

sample size to detect expected impacts. The necessary sample size varies according to the 

outcome measure, the magnitude of the effect that needs to be detected and the level of 

statistical significance (a measure of how confident one can be in the results) (Kalton, 1983). In 

general, a minimum sample size of 30 in the control group and 30 in the treatment group (after 

attrition) is needed to obtain robust results. Much larger sample sizes, though, are needed if 

sub-group analyses are planned (e.g., analyses of incarcerated fathers, as a larger sub-group of 

fathers) (Kalton, 1983). There are several reasons why larger samples are needed. First, in the 

absence of adequate samples, it is difficult to determine statistical significance because of 

insufficient statistical power. Second, when sample sizes are small, the magnitude of the effect 

is difficult to determine, since such effects may have been a result of chance (Rossi & Freeman, 

1993).

• Principle 4: Long-Term Follow Up. The length of follow-up often varies, and is dependent on 

the outcomes being measured, the curriculum that is being used, and the amount of time that 

fathers are likely to attend. Several programs that have been evaluated suggest that follow up at 

least over a six week period is important, but follow up for a year or more is needed to establish 

whether impacts or effects endure. Follow up is required for several reasons. First, it can 

provide information about short-term effects. Second, some program effects are likely to 

diminish over time and it cannot be assumed that short term results with endure. Third, if 

programs are trying to influence changes in behaviors, such changes are only likely to be 

detected after a period of time has elapsed. 

• Principle 5: Validity and Reliability of Study Measures. Fatherhood interventions often 

strive to measure changes in behaviors and other outcomes for fathers and their families. 

Typically these behaviors can only be estimated from data that individuals report about 

themselves. Rigorous research often uses instruments (single item measures and scales) that 

have been validated in previous research. In short, measures that have previously been used 

with populations of fathers and that have been assessed for their psychometric properties are 

recommended. 

• Principle 6: Proper Statistical Analyses. Rigorous evaluation studies conduct proper 

statistical analyses of the data that have been collected. This includes the testing of hypotheses, 

using proper statistical tests, and reporting all of the results of the test, whether they are positive 

or negative. 

Page 5 of 184 
• Principle 7: Dissemination of Results. Evaluation studies that are rigorous and well-designed 

often attempt to publish results, whether they are positive or negative (Kirby, 2001). Studies 

that are large, well-funded, well-designed and have advisory boards that include experts in the 

field of fatherhood and are widely known while in progress are more likely to have published 

results, regardless of whether they are positive or negative. At the very least, results should be 

reviewed and shared with the field. 

• Principle 8:Independent External Evaluator. Rigorous evaluation studies are often 

conducted by an independent external evaluator for a number of reasons. First, external 

evaluators are less likely to be biased and more likely to be objective. Second, external 

evaluators bring technical expertise that may not exist in program staff. Third, external 

evaluators offer a new perspective and may bring fresh insights. Finally, external evaluators are 

often also more efficient because of experience with evaluation and often have greater 

credibility. 

• Principle 9: Replication. Replication of results is a hallmark of good science and an important 

aspect of demonstrating program effectiveness and understanding what works best, under what 

conditions, and for what target populations (Metz, Bowie, & Blasé, 2007). A program that 

achieves positive results in one setting should be replicated in another setting with a new target 

population and re-evaluated to determine the generalizability of the model. A program that may 

have been found to have positive effects in one setting may not have the same effects in another 

setting primarily because there may have been unique characteristics of the first program 

setting that may have accounted for positive results. When tried in another setting, the results 

may differ, and may have been a result of chance, or a function of a more motivated group of 

fathers. Effective programs whenever possible should be replicated before being widely 

adopted (Kirby, 2001). 

• Principle 10: Fidelity to the Program Model. Fidelity refers to the extent to which the 

delivery of an intervention adheres to a protocol or program model originally developed 

(Mowbray et al., 2003). Ineffective programs can be implemented well, and effective programs 

can be implemented poorly. Neither is desirable. Desirable outcomes are only achieved when 

effective programs are well implemented. Therefore, it is critical that program evaluations 

include a fidelity assessment to ensure that essential elements of the intervention service model 

or curriculum have been implemented with integrity to the original model. 

Summary. These ten principles were used to guide how we considered programs to be a part of this 

review. The identification of these principles, however, does not suggest a need to incorporate every 

principle into every evaluation study. Conducting evaluation studies that meet all or most of these 

criteria are often time intensive and costly. 

Criteria Used for Considering Fatherhood Programs 

The ten principles identified have implications for the criteria used to identify fatherhood programs 

included in this review. Several of the research criteria used to select fatherhood programs are 

currently being used in other “promising practices’ efforts such as SAMHSA’s National Registry of 

Evidence-based Programs and Practices (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2007) and the 

Promising Practices Network (2007). On the basis of this review, we reviewed fatherhood programs 

that met the following criteria: 

Page 6 of 184 
• The program/intervention was implemented in 1980 or later; and the evaluation results were 

published no earlier than 1995. 

• Evaluation data were collected from U.S., Canada, U.K, Australia and European samples of 

fathers and their families 

• The study used a sample size of at least 15 

• The intervention aimed to impact: father involvement and co-parenting, selfsufficiency/employment, risky behaviors/disease prevention; fathers’ mental health, or a 

combination of these; improve child outcomes and other outcomes identified. 

• The study design was an experimental, quasi-experimental, or outcomes study with baseline 

and follow-up data, and follow-up data from intervention and control or comparison groups 

were used to determine “effect” or “impact”. 

• Involvement of participants in the interventions was known by the researchers and not based on 

participant recall. 

• The study follow-up time was at least 1 month after the intervention was initiated. 

• Proper statistical analyses were used. 

• At least one outcome was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 

• Program evaluation documentation available 

• The evaluation was conducted by an external independent evaluator. 

Programs included in the review do/did not: 

• Have to have findings published in a peer-reviewed journal 

• Have to be replicated 

• Have to be currently in operation or currently being implemented in some location. 

The following table categorizes programs into three groups-“model” programs, “promising” programs” 

and “emerging” programs on the basis of these criteria and drawing on the ten principles of rigorous 

research identified above. 

TABLE 1: HOW FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS ARE RATED 

Criteria “Model” Programs “Promising” Programs “Emerging” Programs 

Effect Size or Outcome 

Magnitude/Significance 

At least one outcome is positively 

changed by 10% 

Change in outcome is more 

than 5% 

No outcome is changed 

more than 1% 

Statistical Significance At least one outcome with a 

substantial effect size is statistically 

significant at the 0.05 level 

Outcome change is 

marginally significant at the 

0.10 level 

No outcome change is 

statistically significant 

Sample Size Sample size of evaluations exceeds 

30 in both the treatment and control 

or comparison groups 

Sample size of evaluations 

exceeds 15 in both the 

treatment and control or 

comparison groups 

Sample size of evaluation 

includes less than 10 in the 

treatment and comparison 

groups 

Evaluation Method

(experimental, quasiexperimental, outcomes 

monitoring) 

Study uses a randomized control trial 

(experimental design). 

Study has a comparison 

group, but there are some 

weaknesses, such as the 

groups may lack 

comparability on preexisting variables or the 

analysis does not employ 

appropriate statistical 

controls. 

Study does not use a 

convincing comparison 

group. For example, the use 

of before and after 

comparisons for the 

treatment group only. 

Attrition Study retains at least 60% of original 

sample 

Study retains at least 50% of 

original sample 

Study loses more than 50% 

of original sample 

Associations with 

Outcomes 

Outcomes for fathers, fathers and 

partners/spouses or fathers and 

families 

Outcomes for fathers, 

fathers and partners or 

fathers and families 

Outcomes for children only 

Page 7 of 184 
Criteria “Model” Programs “Promising” Programs “Emerging” Programs 

Independent External 

Evaluator 

Yes Yes Internal Evaluator 

Publication of 

Evaluation Results 

Publicly Available Publicly Available Distribution restricted only 

to the sponsor of the 

evaluation 

Types of Fatherhood Programs 

This review identified a wide variety of fatherhood programs with varied foci. These included: 

• Father Involvement & Co-Parenting Programs; 

• Self-Sufficiency/Employment Programs; 

• Risky Behavior/Disease Prevention Programs; 

• Fathers’ Mental Health Programs; and 

• Fatherhood Programs with Multiple Components. 

The following table summarizes the programs included in this review by program type. 

TABLE 2: EVIDENCE-BASED FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS BY PROGRAM TYPE 

Fathers 

Only 

Fathers 

and 

Partner/ 

Spouse 

Children 

Only 

Fathers 

and 

Families 

Improving Father Involvement & Co-Parenting Only 

Dads for Life X 

Parenting Together Project X 

PEACE Program X 

Video Self-Modeling X 

Effects of Parenting Education on First-Time Fathers X 

Men as Teachers X 

Triple P- Positive Parenting Program X 

24/7 Dad X 

DADS Family Project X 

Doctor Dad X 

Fatherhood Education Program- Boston X 

OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Supportive Services for 

Non-Custodial Parents - California 

X 

Self-Sufficiency/Employment Component Only 

The Self Sufficiency Project X 

Risky Behavior/Disease Prevention Component Only 

Preparing for the Drug Free Years (Guiding Good Choices) X 

Respecting and Protecting Our Relationships X 

The PARTNERS Project X 

Fathers’ Mental Health Component Only 

An Ache in their Hearts X 

Programs with Multiple Components 

“Young Dads” X 

Creating Lasting (Family) Connections X 

Family Transition Program (FL) X 

Father Involvement Intervention in a Head Start-based program X 

GAIN-LA X 

Hawaii’s Healthy State Program (HSP) X 

JOBS First X 

Maryland’s Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration X 

Minnesota Family Investment Program X 

Page 8 of 184 
Fathers 

Only 

Fathers 

and 

Partner/ 

Spouse 

Children Fathers 

Only and 

Families 

Parents as Teachers (PAT) X 

Parents’ Fair Share X 

Responsible Fatherhood Program for Incarcerated Dads- Fairfax 

County 

X 

Australian All-Male Discussion Forums for Expectant Fathers X 

Dads Make a Difference (MD) X 

Early Head Start X 

OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs X 

SHARE Program X 

Strengthening Families Program 6-10 X 

Table 3 summarizes all of the programs according to which category they fell into (i.e., “model,” 

“promising” or “emerging”), based on the ratings criteria identified in Table 1 above. Programs were 

considered to be “model” if they met the criteria for “model” described in Table 1. 

TABLE 3: FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS BY RATINGS CRITERIA GROUP 

“Model” Program “Promising” Program “Emerging” Program 

Dads for Life An Ache in their Hearts 24/7 Dad 

Family Transition Program Effects of Parenting Education on FirstTime Fathers Australian All-Male Discussion 

Forums for Expectant Fathers 

PEACE Program Fatherhood Education Program- Boston Creating Lasting Connections (CLC) 

Parenting Together Project Father Involvement Intervention in a Head 

Start-based program 

DADS Family Project 

Preparing for the Drug Free Years GAIN-LA Dads Make a Difference (MD) 

Responsible Fatherhood Program for 

Incarcerated Dads- Fairfax County 

Hawaii’s Healthy State Program (HSP) Doctor Dad 

Video Self-Modeling Effects of 

Parenting Education on First-Time 

Fathers’ Skills 

JOBS First Early Head Start 

“Young Dads” Men as Teachers Maryland Responsible Fatherhood 

(RF) Demonstration Program 

Minnesota Family Investment Program OCSE Responsible Fatherhood 

Programs 

Parents as Teachers (PAT) OCSE Responsible Fatherhood 

Programs: Supportive Services for 

Non-Custodial Parents - California 

Parents’ Fair Share SHARE Program 

Respecting and Protecting Our 

Relationships 

Strengthening Families Program 6-10 

The Self Sufficiency Project (SSP) 

Triple P- Positive Parenting Program 

Ten Characteristics of Effective Fatherhood Programs 

This review identified nine programs that were considered effective, i.e., fell into the “model” 

category. These programs all underwent evaluations that: utilized randomized control trials 

(experimental designs); found at least one statistically significant positive outcome for fathers, their 

partner, and/or children; included a sample size of at least 60 (30 in the control group and 30 in the 

treatment group); had low attrition rates; were conducted by external evaluators; and had publicly 

available evaluation results. Based on our review to date, these programs are considered effective and 

Page 9 of 184 
share 10 characteristics, noted below. These characteristics reflect different aspects of teaching and the 

particular context of programs. As yet, there is no evidence to suggest which combination of these 

characteristics contributed to the overall success of these programs. Nor is there evidence that each of 

these “model” programs had to incorporate each of these characteristics to have a measurable effect on 

participants. These program descriptions are in Appendix 1 (pp. 17-61). 

1. Effective programs incorporated teaching methods and materials that were 

appropriate for fathers and the cultures of the populations served. Our review suggests 

that effective fatherhood programs tailored their materials to serve the populations of 

fathers and their families and were culturally sensitive in the provision of the various 

services and components. For example, the Young Dads fatherhood program targeted 

African-American adolescent fathers and used male social workers who were thought to be 

better equipped to serve young fathers. Staff who engaged fathers were often targeted to be 

within the same cultural group or from a similar living environment, so that they could 

better relate to program participants. 

2. Effective programs selected teachers or leaders who believed in the program they 

were implementing and then provided them with training. Programs that had welltrained instructors or facilitators had more positive outcomes. Trainings ranged from one 

day sessions, such as in the Parenting Together Program, to three-day sessions or longer, 

such as in Preparing for the Drug Free Years. Some programs, such as Parenting Together, 

also utilized regular follow-up training sessions so that program leaders could brush up on 

skills and discuss any problems they were having. 

a. Staff selection/recruitment of staff: Many of these effective programs also selected 

leaders who had substantial experience in the service delivery field. For example, 

leaders in the PEACE Program had at least ten years of experience in the field; leaders 

in Parenting Together had an average of 15 years’ experience. 

b. Staff training and coaching: In general the training was designed to give teachers and 

facilitators information on the programs as well as practice using the teaching strategies 

included in the curricula. Beyond the initial training, some of the instructors also 

received coaching and follow-up training to provide extra support “in the field” in order 

to improve the quality of their teaching. In some cases, group sessions were facilitated 

by both males and females to promote a balance of teaching styles and ideas within the 

group. 

3. Effective programs had a higher staff-participant ratio. Where this information was 

available, programs that had staff members working one-on-one with fathers (such as in 

Video Self-Modeling Effects of Parenting Education on First-Time Fathers’ Skills) or a high 

staff-client ratio (such as in Young Dads, which had a ratio of 4 staff members for 30 

fathers) were more likely to have positive effects. When programs provided some type of 

case management, service referral component, the attrition rate of the fathers in the program 

also tended to be lower.

4. Effective programs used targeted curricula. Program curricula that were designed 

around fewer core issues seemed to lead to better outcomes relative to curriculums that 

covered a wide range of issues. For example, the PEACE Program used a curriculum that 

was targeted specifically to preventing issues around family relationships following 

Page 10 of 184 
divorce. The narrow scope of the program, focused solely on post-divorce relationships, 

and resulted in positive effects on the targeted outcomes. 

5. Effective programs used theoretical approaches that have been effective in influencing 

parenting behaviors in other contexts. Few fatherhood programs have been replicated. 

However, among those programs reporting positive outcomes, several used theoretical 

perspectives or theories of change and approaches that had been found to be effective in 

parenting. Programs developed logic models based on these theoretical frameworks, and 

were able to design activities related to inputs, outputs and outcomes. Each program 

activity was therefore designed to change one or more of these factors that was grounded in 

a particular theoretical framework. For example, the curriculum used in Preparing for the 

Drug Free Years was based on a comprehensive review of empirical research on the causes 

of adolescent problem behaviors and on risk and protective factors. It is theoretically guided 

by a social development model that emphasizes the importance of positive bonds to family, 

school, and peers in preventing substance use. 

6. Effective programs employed a variety of teaching methods designed to focus on the 

fathers as individuals, and thereby personalized the information. Most successful 

programs incorporated some level of flexibility in their service delivery that enabled them 

to tailor their intervention to meet the individual needs of fathers. For example, many 

programs utilized individualized case management techniques (e.g., “Young Dads”), 

through which they were able to identify the specific needs of each father and to provide 

services accordingly. Often, such services were in addition to a core focus on improving 

parenting, which all fathers received. Other programs engaged fathers in small group 

sessions with other men (e.g., Dads for Life). These types of groups gave fathers the 

opportunity to learn parenting techniques, and discuss pertinent parenting issues and 

common concerns. Fathers reported that the social support they received through the 

programs was especially beneficial- fathers seem to need and want to talk with other fathers 

about their experiences and challenges as dads. 

7. Effective programs lasted a sufficient amount of time to complete important core 

activities adequately. It takes a considerable amount of time to recruit fathers and engage 

them in a program that will eventually realize changes in their behaviors. Effective 

programs tended to range in duration from five to ten sessions delivered over several weeks 

(e.g., in Preparing for the Drug-Free Years) to several months of program activities, as was 

the case with Video Self-Modeling Effects of Parenting Education on First-Time Fathers’ 

Skills. Where the program dosage was delivered over at least a two month period, the 

overall findings tended to be more positive (e.g., The Effects of a Parent Education/Play 

Program). Short programs that lasted only a couple of hours did not have large effects. 

8. Effective programs had staff who engaged in one-on-one relationships with fathers.

Fathers in successful programs often had one-on-one relationships with staff who provided 

case management, or who provided counseling for a number of services the fathers may 

have needed. When the work with fathers and services was individualized, fathers seemed 

to thrive and achieve better outcomes. Programs that were able to engage fathers beyond 

just discussion of material covered in the program sessions were more likely to be effective. 

Page 11 of 184 
9. Effective programs encouraged the use of an incentive to fathers and or their families. 

Some programs that were found to be effective (e.g., Dads for Life, and Preparing for the 

Drug Free Years) used cash incentives to motivate fathers (and families) to participate. For 

example, Dads for Life offered fathers a $20 incentive to participate in the study. Generally, 

fathers had lower attendance at programs than mothers did. Fathers were more likely to stay 

involved in the program if they were provided incentives, and this also reduced study 

attrition. 

10. Effective programs replicated their curricula with fidelity. All programs that were 

found to be effective replicated their program models using the specified set of activities 

designed to put into practice the program model, intervention, or curriculum as created by 

the developer. 

Table 4: Fatherhood Programs Proven Effective According to Program Focus 

Improving Father Involvement & Co-Parenting Only 

o Dads for Life

o Parenting Together Project

o PEACE Program

o Video Self-Modeling

Reducing Risky Behavior/Disease Prevention Component Only 

o Preparing for the Drug Free Years (Guiding Good Choices)

Multiple Program Components 

o Family Transition Program 

o Responsible Fatherhood Program, Fairfax County 

o “Young Dads”

Page 12 of 184 
PUTTING RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE: 

TEN STRATEGIES FOR FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

How exactly can the findings from this review be used by fatherhood programs to design or 

improve existing fatherhood programs? What are the take away points? Based on current 

evidence, at this time, we would suggest the following: 

1. Use program models that have been proven to be effective and have been replicated with 

similar populations of fathers. 

2. Select teachers and facilitators and provide them with relevant training and coaching. 

Program staff should be provided with initial training as well as ongoing training and 

supervision in the field. They need encouragement and learning to put their learning into 

practice and they need opportunities for practice and feedback. This process should also 

involve feedback loops and ongoing opportunities for learning and reflections including 

monthly meetings to discuss challenges associated with implementing the new practice, 

training or technical assistance needs and successes and challenges. 

3. Implement programs with fidelity. When replicating programs that have been known to be 

successful with similar populations of fathers, ensure that the program is implemented with 

integrity to the original model. When adapting an existing program to meet the unique needs of 

your target population, make sure that these modifications are not at the expense of essential or 

critical components of the original model. 

4. Use program models that are theory-based and approaches that have been found to be 

effective. Successful programs develop logic models based on these theoretical frameworks, 

and are able to design activities related to inputs, outputs and outcomes. 

5. Allow for sufficient time to complete important core program activities adequately. Short 

term curricula (e.g. those lasting less than 10 hours) seldom have measurable impacts on 

behaviors. 

6. Use incentives to engage fathers and families. Incentives increase attendance and reduce 

attrition from the study.

7. Be creative with outreach and recruitment efforts. Go where the fathers are. 

8. Make programs father-friendly. Make sure initiatives are welcoming and engaging to men. 

Some programs encourage fathers to bring their children to the program and create activities for 

the children. 

9. Select a targeted number of outcomes and set clear goals to be achieved by the program.

Programs with a core focus and fewer targeted outcomes are more effective than programs with 

multiple goals. Develop and use a logic model. 

10. Use teaching methods and materials that are appropriate for fathers and the cultures of 

the populations served. For example, the Young Dads fatherhood program targeted AfricanAmerican adolescent fathers and used male social workers who were thought to be better 

equipped to serve young fathers. Staff who engaged fathers were often targeted to be within the 

same cultural group or from a similar living environment, so that they could better relate to 

program participants. Preparing for the Drug Free Years used a curriculum that included 

optional materials (e.g., an ethnic adaptation guide) to help instructors adapt the lessons to meet 

the needs of the specific population of fathers being served.

Page 13 of 184 
Early Conclusions about the State of Research on the Effectiveness of Fatherhood Programs

On the basis of this review, a number of conclusions can be drawn from the many studies reviewed in 

this report. 

• Few of the studies covered in this review meet all of the criteria for implementation or 

evaluation. Of those evaluation studies of fathers that are documented, only a few used random 

assignment designs (experimental), most had small sample sizes, some used inappropriate 

statistical tests, some used psychometrically sound measures; and some reported positive 

results. 

• Several different approaches to improving father involvement have not been adequately 

evaluated. Therefore it is not appropriate to reach conclusions about an entire approach to 

improving responsible fatherhood on the basis of a handful of evaluations. 

• Few fatherhood programs that have been shown to be effective have been replicated. This 

points to the issue of making general statements about the effectiveness of some types of 

program based on the results of non-replicated studies. 

• Several studies reviewed were hampered by methodological constraints, including the lack of 

control or even comparison groups and the use of exploratory analyses. As such, results may 

likely be biased. 

Despite the real limitations of the research in this field, we should be encouraged by the progress that 

is currently being made in the number of new programs that are targeting fathers and their families for 

intervention efforts and the use of stronger research and evaluation strategies. 

Page 14 of 184 
REFERENCES 

Belsky, J., Crnic, K., & Gable, S. (1995). The determinants of coparenting in families with toddler 

boys: Spousal differences and daily hassles. Child Development, 66, 629-642. 

Belsky, J., & Fearon, R. (2004). Exploring marriage-parenting typologies and their contextual 

antecedents and developmental sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 501-523. 

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., & Carrano, J. (2006). The father-child relationship, parenting styles, 

and adolescent risk behaviors in intact families. Journal of Family Issues, 27(6), 850-881.

Camara, K. A., & Resnick, G. (1988). Interparental conflict and cooperation: Factors moderating 

children's post-divorce adjustment. In E. Hetherington & J. Arasteh (Eds.), Impact of divorce, 

single parenting, and stepparenting on children (pp. 389). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates, Inc. 

Coley, R. L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1999). Stability and change in paternal involvement among 

urban African American fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 1-20. 

Edin, K., Nelson, T., & Paranal, R., (2001). Fatherhood and incarceration as potential turning points 

in the criminal of unskilled men. Chicago, IL: Institute for Policy Research at Northwest 

University. 

Gavin, L. E., Black, M. M., Minor, S., Abel, Y., Papas, M. A., & Bentley, M. E. (2002). Young, 

disadvantaged fathers’ involvement with their infants: An ecological perspective. Journal of 

Adolescent Health, 31(3), 266-276. 

Hamilton, K. (2005). Education behind bars: Marymount Manhattan College teams with volunteers to 

keep college hopes alive for incarcerated women. Black Issues in Higher Education. 

Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling. Sage Series: Quantitative Applications in the 

Social Sciences. London: Sage Publications. 

Kelley, M. L., & Fals-Stewart, W. (2002). Couples- Versus Individual-Based Therapy for Alcohol and 

Drug Abuse: Effects on Children's Psychosocial Functioning. Journal of Consulting & Clinical 

Psychology; 70(2), 417-428. 

Lamb, M. E. (1997). Fathers and child development: An introductory overview. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), 

The role of the father in child development (pp. 1-18). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Levine, J., & Pittinsky, T. (1997). Working fathers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing 

Company. 

National Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy. (2002). Dollars 

and sense: Improving the determination of child support obligations for low-income mothers, 

fathers and children. Washington, DC: National Women’s Law Center and the Center on 

Fathers, Families, and Public Policy. 

Nelson, T. J., Clampet-Lundquist, S., & Edin, K. (2002). Fragile fatherhood: How low-income, noncustodial fathers in Philadelphia talk about their families. In C. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera 

(Eds.), The Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 525-553). 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. 

Nurse, A. (2000). Coming home: The transition from incarcerated to paroled young fathers. In G. Fox. 

& M. Benson (Eds.), Families, Crime, and Criminal Justice, (v2) (pp. 281-308). New York, 

NY: Elsevier Science. 

Promising Practices Network. (2007). Promising Practices Network on Children, Youth, and Families. 

Retrieved August 14, 2007, from www.promisingpractices.net. 

Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W. & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Page 15 of 184 
Roy, K. (2004). You can’t eat love: Negotiating provider role expectations for low-income fathers 

and families. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, 

2, 253-276. 

Sorensen, E., & Lerman, R. (1998). Welfare reform and low-income noncustodial fathers. Challenge 

41(4), 101-116. 

Talbot, J. A., & McHale, J. P. (2004). Individual parental adjustment moderates the relationship 

between marital and coparenting quality. Journal of Adult Development, 11(3), 191-205. 

The Fatherhood Initiative. (2005). Improving opportunities for low-income fathers. Washington, DC: 

US Department of Health & Human Services. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Promoting Responsible Fatherhood: 

Economic stability. Retrieved August 14, 2007, from 

http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/Stability/index.shtml. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration. (2007). SAMHSA’s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and 

Practices (NREPP). Retrieved August 14, 2007 from http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/. 

Page 16 of 184 
Appendix 1: 

“Model” Fatherhood 

Programs

17 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

DADS FOR LIFE 

OVERVIEW: The Dads for Life program was developed to reduce the risks of divorce for 

children by targeting their recently divorced noncustodial fathers. The intervention sought to 

impact two levels-the father-child relationship, and the father-mother relationship. Dads for Life 

was shown to have a positive impact on conflict between noncustodial fathers and mothers who 

were recently divorced. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: 

• Improve the father-child relationship by increasing father’s parenting skills 

• Influence the father-mother relationship to decrease conflict 

• Promote better coparental behaviors 

LOCATION: Maricopa County, Arizona 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: 

Noncustodial fathers who either had joint legal custody or who were not the parent with primary 

physical custody were targeted for this intervention. The fathers had the following characteristics: 

• 86% were of European descent, 5% were Hispanic, 3% were African American, and 1% 

were Asian American; 

• 30% completed some college, but had no degree, 18% had no degree, 23% had a 4-year 

degree, and 17% had an advanced degree; and 

• Less than a quarter of the fathers reported an annual gross income less than $18,000; 

• The median income reported was $42,000, and the top quarter of income started at 

$66,000. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT) 

• Outcomes: 

o Coparenting 

o Interparental Conflict 

Method: Fathers were randomly assigned, using a true lottery system where fathers 

drew lots, to a treatment group, which received the intervention, or the control group, 

which received a self-study version of the intervention. Participants were recruited 

through divorce and child support records. After an initial review of the records, 

potential participants were mailed recruitment materials which included a short videotape 

to the fathers. Afterwards follow-up phone calls were done to ensure that both parents 

agreed to participate in random assignment. Eligibility criteria included: 

o The couple had been divorced in the past 4-10 months 

o The couple had at least one child between the ages of 4 and 12 years 

o The mother had primary physical custody (joint legal custody was allowed) 

o Both parents lived within an hour of the data collection team. 

The control group was sent a copy of the two self-help books called Divorced Fathers: 

Reconstructing a Quality Life and Divorced Dad Dilemma, which gave advice to 

divorced fathers on personal life adjustment, improvement of existing relationships with 

children, establishment of a separate home, and constructive methods for handling legal 

matters relating to a divorce. Participants were assessed before random assignment, 3 

DADS FOR LIFE 

18 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

months after the program, 7 months after random assignment, and 1 year after random 

assignment. If children were between the ages of 4 and 12 years, they were interviewed 

using a well-being measure. In the secondary analysis, which is the focus of this 

summary, the researchers explored how mothers’ and fathers’ perception of coparenting 

changed in the 2 years post-divorce. 

• Sample: 214 fathers participated in the study; 127 were assigned to the treatment group, 

and 87 to the control group. 120 children were interviewed at the first time point, 99 at 

the second time point, 92 at the third time point, and 79 at the final time point.

• Measures:

o Coparenting: Measured by five items that assessed the couple’s functioning as a 

parenting team:i

 Working together to handle problems with the child 

 Communicating about the child’s needs

 Talking about how to co-parent

 Trusting the judgment of the other spouse to solve problems with the 

child

 Creating a united front for the children

o Interparental conflict: Assessed using 13 items adapted for parental report from 

the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale.ii Items assessed the 

frequency and intensity of parents’ conflict and whether conflicts tended to be 

resolved. 

• Statistical Analyses: Latent growth curve modeling was to further assess the program’s 

effect on interparental relations.

• Attrition: 14.2% of the group did not complete the entire program. 77.2% of the fathers 

completed the program, and 8.7% never attended the program.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Each group facilitator had at least a Master’s degree in 

unspecified fields.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

DADS FOR LIFE 

19 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

8 group sessions with fathers were held, each 1 hour and 45-minute, co-facilitated by a 

male and female leader. Two one-on-one 45 minutes sessions were also conducted by the 

same facilitators. The sessions were scripted to ensure fidelity to the model. The leaders 

were also taught to encourage discussion in the sessions. A film entitled Eight Short 

Films about Divorced Fathers was also shown that highlighted the themes of the 

sessions. The actors in the film were ethnically diverse. At each session a ten minute 

segment was shown. About half of the sessions focused on the parent-child relationships, 

which involved skills like listening, communication, and effective discipline. The other 

half focused on interparental conflict, introduction, and review. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration) : 8 group sessions with fathers were 

held, each 1 hour and 45-minutes, co-facilitated by a male and female leader. Two oneon-one 45 minutes sessions were also conducted with each participant. 

• Frequency of program offerings: 8 group sessions with fathers were held.

• Diversity of activities: Not currently available.

• Incentives for participation: Parents were given $20 to complete the first 45-minute 

telephone survey.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Coparenting 

o Fathers’ reports of coparenting were not impacted by the program, with no 

improvements or declines over time. However, mothers whose ex-spouses were 

enrolled in the program had an increased likelihood of having a positive postdivorce parenting relationship with the father over time (p<.05). 

• Interparental Conflict 

o Conflict between fathers and mothers decreased between the initial interview and 

the second interview, and was maintained throughout the 2 subsequent interviews 

(p<.001). 

SOURCES:

Cookston, J.T., Braver, S.L., Griffin, W.A., Deluse, S.R., & Miles, J.C. (2006). Effects of the 

dads for life intervention on interparental conflict and coparenting in the two years after 

divorce. Family Process, 46(1), 123-137. 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Jeff Cookston 

Department of Psychology 

1600 Holloway Ave. 

San Francisco State University 

DADS FOR LIFE 

20 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

San Francisco, CA 94132 

Sanford L. Braver 

Department of Psychology 

Arizona State University 

Tempe, AZ 85287-1104

DADS FOR LIFE 

21 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

FAMILY TRANSITION PROGRAM 

OVERVIEW: The Family Transition Program pilot program operated in Escambia County, 

Florida from 1994 to 1999. It was one of the first welfare-to-work programs in the country to 

impose a time limit on family cash assistance, where benefits were canceled once that time limit 

was reached. The program also provided services and incentives to families as support to finding 

and maintaining employment. The program was successful in reducing long-term welfare receipt 

and increasing father involvement through formal and informal child support. However, it had 

small negative effects on certain measures of older children’s school performance. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

• Increase welfare recipients’ self sufficiency 

• Reduce long-term welfare dependency 

LOCATION: Escambia County, FL 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: More than half of the sample had received 

welfare for a total of 2 years before enrollment; 12% were first-time applicants. The report notes 

that “almost all” participants were female. However, an analysis on noncustodial fathers was 

conducted, which is the focus of this summary. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT) 

• Outcomes:

o Employment 

o Receipt of AFDC/TANF 

o Food stamp status 

o Amount of income derived from AFDC/TANF and Food Stamp payments 

o Food security

o Child well-being

o Use of child care 

o Stability of care for children ages 5-12 

o Financial support of noncustodial biological fathers for children ages 5-12 

o Noncustodial biological father contact for children ages 5-12 

• Method: The evaluation compared the treatment group, the FTP group, and the Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) group, the control group. The control group 

received services that reflected the welfare rules (including requirements for participating 

in employment-related activities through Florida’s welfare-to-work program). Applicants 

were randomly assigned before an eligibility determination was made. Thus, 8% of the 

FTP group never received benefits because they were later found to be ineligible for 

benefits. Participants who were already receiving assistance when FTP was implemented 

were given the chance to enter the program through random assignment when they 

appeared for their semiannual recertification interviews. The evaluation follows the 

participating families for four years after they entered the study. Those who were unable 

to work were disqualified from participating in the study. 

The study exempted the following people from the study:

o Incapacitated or disabled adults 

FAMILY TRANSITION PROGRAM 

22 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

o Persons under 18 years who were in school or working 30 hours or more per 

week 

o Adults caring for disabled dependents 

o Parents caring for children 6 months or younger 

o Person who over 62 years 

o Caretaker relatives 

In addition, some participants were exempted after random assignment. These persons 

are still included in the analysis. 

Two surveys were administered to both groups. The first survey was administered two 

years after random assignment, with 600 respondents total from both treatment and 

control groups, and assessed FTP’s implementation. The second survey was administered 

to 1,729 people four years after random assignment, and was given to participants who 

had at least one child between 5 and 12 years. The survey was a 90-minute segment on 

child care, parenting, and child well-being. 

A separate analysis was done on noncustodial father involvement and child outcomes, 

based on the four-year survey, which will be the focus of this profile. For the child care 

and father involvement analysis, 1,108 families were interviewed on a single focal child. 

• Sample: 5,430 people were randomly assigned to the FTP and control groups. The 

report sample is 2,817 single-parent cases that were randomly assigned from May 1994 to 

February 1995. For the 4-year survey 1,729 people were interviewed. For the analysis of 

father involvement, 1,108 families were interviewed. 

• Measures: For the father involvement analysis, at four years after random assignment, 

families were interviewed with a survey that examined child care history, information 

about children’s involvement with their noncustodial biological fathers, as well as 

support from their fathers. It also examined home environment, parenting behavior, 

children’s behavior and functioning. With regard to father involvement, the following 

measures were used from the four-year follow-up interview: 

o Noncustodial biological father contact 

 Bought something for child in last year 

 Cared for child in last year 

 Contacted child by phone/letter in last year 

 Sees child weekly 

 Sees child monthly 

 Sees child 1-11 times per year 

 Does not see child 

o Noncustodial biological father financial support 

 Has formal child support order 

 Received money from father through child support agency in the last 

year 

 Received money directly from father through child support agency in the 

last year 

 Received money directly from father in the last year 

 Regularly received money directly from father in the last year 

FAMILY TRANSITION PROGRAM 

23 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

o No noncustodial biological father 

 Father in the home 

 Father deceased 

• Statistical Analyses: A two-tailed t-test was done to regression-adjusted impact 

estimates.

• Attrition: Not currently available.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The model included four major features:

 A time limit. Participants were only able to receive cash assistance for 24 months 

within any 60 month period. Some groups were exempt from this limit. Also, 

some safeguards were put into place which gave extensions, partial benefit 

termination or subsidized jobs after the time limit expired.

 Financial work incentives. The first $200 and one-half of any other earned 

income was disregarded when calculating what a family would receive monthly. 

This was referred to as “enhanced earned income disregard.” Participants in FTP 

were allowed to have more valuable cars than what AFDC allowed without 

losing eligibility rights. Participants were also given two years of subsidized 

transitional child care after they left welfare-to-work (as opposed to 1 year for the 

control group).

 Enhanced services and requirements. Intensive case management was provided 

to workers with very small caseloads. FTP participants were also required to 

participate in employment related activities. The program also made available 

enhanced education, training, and job placement services to participants. Child 

support representatives were also assigned to the FTP cases to enforce child 

support orders.

FAMILY TRANSITION PROGRAM 

24 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

 Parental responsibility mandates. Parents with school-aged children had to 

ensure that their children attended school regularly and were required to speak 

with their child’s teacher at least one time during the grading period. Applicants 

with preschool-age children had to prove that their children were receiving 

necessary immunizations. If these requirements were not met, the parents faced 

sanctions.

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration) : Not currently available.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: Not currently available.

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Children in the FTP group were cared for more by their noncustodial biological father 

than children in the AFDC group. Children in the FTP group were more likely to receive 

money from their father through the child support agency in the last year (p=.05). 

• Children in the FTP group were more likely to regularly receive money directly from 

their father in the last year (p=.10). 

• FTP increased care and support from noncustodial biological fathers by 5 percentage 

points. Children in FTP were more likely to regularly receive money from their father 

through formal and informal means. 

SOURCES:

Bloom, D., Kemple, J.J., Morris, P., Scrivener, S., Verma, N., Hendra, R., Adams-Ciardullo, D., 

Seith, D., & Walter, J. (2000). The family transition program: Final report on Florida’s 

initial time-limited welfare program. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/20/overview.html 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 

19th Floor 

16 East 34 Street 

New York, NY 10016-4326 

FAMILY TRANSITION PROGRAM 

25 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

PARENTS’ EDUCATION ABOUT CHILDREN’S EMOTIONS (PEACE) PROGRAM 

OVERVIEW: The Parents’ Education About Children’s Emotions (PEACE) Program was 

funded by the Supreme Court of Ohio as a mandated divorce education program for couples 

pursuing divorce. The PEACE program grew out of divorce support groups that Big Brothers/Big 

Sisters initiated in Marion County public schools. The program was developed to help divorcing 

parents understand how their conduct and conflict during divorce affects their children’s 

adjustment. The PEACE program significantly affected residential parents’ satisfaction with 

parenting, closeness to their children, parental effectiveness since the divorce, and satisfaction 

with their custody agreements. Though participants reported that the PEACE program had 

positive impacts on their perceived behavioral changes toward their spouse and children, the 

program did not produce significant impacts on improving the coparenting relationship between 

divorced parents. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

• Enhance children’s post-divorce adjustment 

• Help divorcing parents understand how divorce impacts their children and how their 

conduct has a direct effect on their children’s adjustment 

• Reduce post divorce relitigation 

LOCATION: Marion County, Ohio

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: The general characteristics of the full 

sample of divorced parents included: 

• 9.70% were fathers with sole custody, 51.49% were mothers with sole custody 

• 32.90% had joint legal custody, 2.24% had joint physical custody, and 4.47% had split 

custody 

• 98.51% were Caucasian, .75% were African American, and .75% were defined as 

“Other” 

• The average number of years since divorce was 4.02 years 

• The average time length of marriage was 10 years 

• 37.50% ended their marriages through divorce, and 62.50% through dissolution 

(uncontested divorce) 

• The mean age of participants was 36 years 

• The mean age of participants at marriage was 22 

• The mean number of children of participants was 1.88 

• At the time of the study, 54.81% were single, 9.64% were cohabiting, 2.96% were 

separated, and 32.59% were remarried 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (STRATIFIED RANDOM ASSIGNMENT) 

• Outcomes:

o Improved coparenting relationship 

o Improved relationship with children 

o Positive adjustment to custody and visitation agreements 

o Improved attitude toward the nonresidential parent role 

o Knowledge about children’s adjustment post-divorce 

PEACE PROGRAM 

26 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

• Method: The researchers used a stratified random design from a sample of couples that 

had been divorced a minimum of two years. Couples with a minor child, gender, and year 

served as strata. The names were randomly selected from court records. A neighboring 

county with a similar population was used to select control group participants. To ensure 

gender balance and adequate representation for the five study years, 50 males and 50 

females from the two counties were surveyed every year for a total of five years 

(n=1,000). After the surveys, participants were mailed a questionnaire with a selfaddressed stamped envelope. People who were sent questionnaires had to have been 

divorced for at least two years, with a maximum of six years. Parents that participated in 

the program from 1991-1995, divorced within this time period, and did not receive 

services from another divorce education program were included in the study.

• Sample: The full sample included 236 individuals, with 136 in the treatment group and 

100 in the comparison group. A subsample (n=143) of couples who were divorced four 

years or less was also tested.

• Measures: A self-administered questionnaire was sent to both groups with Likert-type 

rating scales measuring the following items:

o Coparenting relationship

 Quality of the coparental relationship was measured using the Support 

subscale from the Quality of Coparent Communication Scaleiii. 

Responses ranged from “never” to “always” on a 5-point scale. 

Questions answered included, “Does your former spouse go out of the 

way to accommodate any changes you need to make?” and “Would you 

say that your spouse is a resource to you in raising the children?”

 Conflict with the former spouse was measured by the conflict subscale 

from the Quality of Coparent Communication Scaleiv. Questions 

included: “When you and your former spouse discuss parenting issues, 

how often does an argument result?” and “How often is the underlying 

atmosphere one of hostility and anger?”

 Sharing of responsibilities with the former spouse was measured by the 

parental component of the 10-item Content of Coparental Interaction 

scale.v

 Parents had to indicate to what extent they shared child-rearing 

activities, which included: major decisions made about the child’s life, 

day-to-day decisions made about their child’s lives, and discussion of 

personal issues that the child may be experiencing. Responses ranged 

from “never” to “always” on a five-point scale.

 Frequency of contact with the former spouse was measured by a scale 

that asked the participants to indicate how often they contacted the other 

parent in the past year. Answers ranged from “none” to “more than once 

a week”.

 Satisfaction with the other parent’s time with the child was measured by 

a scale that asked the participants how satisfied they were with the 

amount of time the other parent spent with their children, with responses 

ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” on a 5-point scale. 

o Relationship with children. 

 Parental satisfaction was measured by a single-item scale asking 

participants to describe the experience of being a parent now to a year 

before their divorce. The change in satisfaction was the difference in 

PEACE PROGRAM 

27 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

how the parent perceived closeness with their children at the time of 

divorce and at the present time.

 Change in closeness with their children since the divorce was measured 

by asking the parents how close they were to their children at the present 

time and at the time of the divorce. Responses could range from 

“excellent” to “poor” on a 5-point scale.

 Change in parental effectiveness since the divorce was measured by 

asking the parents how they compare their parenting effectiveness at the 

present time as compared to the time of their divorce. Responses ranged 

from “excellent” to “poor” on a 5-point scale.

o Adjustment to custody/visitation. 

 Satisfaction with custody arrangements was measured by a single-item 

scale asking the participants how satisfied they were with their current 

custody arrangement. Responses ranged from “very dissatisfied” to 

“very satisfied” on a 5-point scale. 

 Number of times returned to court to seek change or compliance

 Number of informal changes in custody

 Satisfaction with informal changes in custody or visitation was measured 

by a single-item scale asking how satisfied the participant was with any 

informal changes that were made to custody or visitation arrangements. 

Responses ranged from “very satisfied” to “very dissatisfied” on a 5-

point scale.

o Attitude toward the nonresidential parent role. This outcome was measured 

using the Attitudes Toward the Nonresidential Parent Scale.vi Participants 

responded to four questions regarding the nonresidential parent’s role: “A 

nonresidential parent should be an ongoing part of his or her child’s life”; “Nonresidential parents are just as important to a child as the other parent”; “The 

responsibilities of a non-residential parent are the same as they are for the 

residential parent”; and “Non-residential parents should be able to help make 

decisions about their child’s upbringing”. Responses ranged from “strongly 

agree” to “strongly disagree” on a 5-point scale.

o Knowledge about children post-divorce. This outcome was measured by a 12-

item inventory using “true-false” responses, to assess the participant’s 

understanding of the process of adjustment by children in a divorce. Some items 

included in the inventory were: “Divorcing parents can get a lot of support from 

their children”; “Divorce is an on-going process rather than a single event”; and 

“Children should know all the bad things my former spouse has done to me.”

o Perception of the PEACE Program. Using two different measures, the 

evaluators assessed the helpfulness of the program and their perceived changes in 

behavior as a result of participating in the program. The first measure asked 

participants how helpful they found the program when they were enrolled in the 

program, at the present time, and in general for other families. Responses ranged 

from extremely helpful to not helpful on a 5-point scale. The second was an 

eight-item measure asking the participant to indicate to what extent certain 

negative behaviors had been affected by the program. Responses ranged from 

“behavior stopped completely” to “behavior increased” on a 4-point scale. 

Certain behaviors listed included: “Refuse to allow visitation for some reason”; 

“Fight with the other parent in front of the children”; and Discouraged more time 

between children and the other parent”.

PEACE PROGRAM 

28 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

• Statistical Analyses: Confirmatory factor analysis (LISREL) was done to determine 

goodness of fit of multiple variables to make a unitary construct. 2x2 analyses of 

covariance (ANCOVA) and multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA) were 

used. Because of the differences between socioeconomic status between the two counties 

studied, SES was controlled for by treating it as a covariate in the analyses. 

• Attrition: Not currently available.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: A male and female leader conducted the sessions with 

an average of 40 participants.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: The group leaders had over 10 years in experience in children 

and adult services.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Sessions were held in the county courthouse in a courtroom with a uniformed 

deputy on duty.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

The program is based on social learning theory and parenting skills training. Parents 

attend the 2 1⁄2 hour session after filing for divorce but before the divorce decree is 

granted. Parents are asked to pay a $20 fee to attend the mandated session. The session is 

conducted by a male and female leader. Divorcing parents do not have to attend the same 

session. Parents learn how to successfully coparent to replace dysfunctional parenting 

with more cooperative parenting styles. A grief-loss perspective is also used to help 

parents understand divorce as a crisis and what a normal reaction and recovery to divorce 

would be. Topics included in the program are: 

 Statistics and facts about divorce 

 The grief process for adults and children 

 Negative effects of divorce on children 

 Developmental variations in children’s reactions to parental divorce 

 Factors that contribute to a more positive post-divorce adjustment 

 Role of the residential and nonresidential parent 

 Communication skills 

 How to co-parent 

 Single parent families and stepfamilies 

PEACE PROGRAM 

29 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

 Legal aspects of divorce (definitions of terms, types of parenting arrangements, 

use of mediation) 

At the end of each session, parents are given a handbook with the detailed information on 

topics from the session and a list of community resources and a reference list for books 

for adults and children on divorce, single parenting or stepfamilies. Participants complete 

a three-page evaluation of the program upon exit. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: An average of 40 parents attended each session. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Participants were mandated to 

participate in 1 session which lasts for 2 1⁄2 hours after filing for divorce, but before a 

decree is granted.

• Frequency of program offerings: The session is offered twice a month in the county 

courthouse but each parent is only required to attend one session.

• Diversity of activities: Fathers participated in 2 1⁄2 hour session which covered a range 

of topics dealing with divorce, single parenting, and stepfamilies.

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Coparenting relationship 

• The analysis showed no significant multivariate effects. In the subsample, there were 

also no significant multivariate effects. 

Relationship with children 

• Residential parents had significantly better relationships with their children in terms of 

parental satisfaction (p<.0001), closeness (p<.0001), and effectiveness (p<.0001). In the 

subsample, the MANCOVA analysis found a significant multivariate effect for 

residential parents in terms of parental satisfaction (p<.0001), closeness (p <.001), and 

effectiveness, (p<.01). 

• ANCOVA analysis revealed that parents who participated in the PEACE program had a 

better relationship with their children in parental satisfaction (p<.01) and closeness 

(p<.01). 

Adjustment to custody and visitation 

• MANCOVA analysis revealed no significant multivariate effects for the full sample. For 

the subsample, the MANCOVA analysis produced a significant multivariate effect for 

residential status. A follow-up ANCOVA analysis revealed that the residential parent 

was significantly more satisfied with their custody agreement (p<.0001). 

Attitudes toward nonresidential parent role 

• ANCOVA analysis revealed no significant main effects for the full sample or the 

subsample. 

Knowledge about children postdivorce 

• MANCOVA analysis revealed no significant main effects for the full sample or the 

subsample. 

PEACE PROGRAM 

30 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

Perceived impact of the PEACE program 

• PEACE program participants reported a mean score of 3.66 regarding the helpfulness of 

the program; this score was between “helpful” and “very helpful”. Regarding the 

potential helpfulness of the program to others, participants reported a mean score of 

almost 4. Regarding perceived behavioral changes as a result of the PEACE program, the 

mean score was 3.4, which was between the top two categories, “decreased” and 

“stopped completely”. 

SOURCES:

McKenry, P.C., Clark, K.A., & Stone, G. (1999). Evaluation of a parent education program for 

divorcing parents. Family Relations, 48(2), 129-137. 

EVALUATOR AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Patrick C. McKenry, PhD 

Department of Human Development and Family Science 

Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center and Department of African American and 

African Studies 

Ohio State University 

Columbus, OH 

PEACE PROGRAM 

31 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

PARENTING TOGETHER PROJECT 

OVERVIEW: The Parenting Together Project is a couple-oriented intervention that was 

developed to test an increase in father’s involvement and mother-father cooperation during the 

transition to parenthood. The project began in the second trimester of the couple’s first child and 

ended 5 months postpartum. With accurate curriculum delivery, the intervention strongly 

enhanced the quality of father’s interactional skills with their infants, and was moderate in 

affecting time involvement, with no effect on paternal responsibility. Read More...

PROGRAM GOALS: 

• Enhance father’s knowledge, skills, and commitment to the fatherhood role 

• Increase mother’s support and expectations for the father’s involvement 

• Foster co-parental teamwork in couples 

• Have couples deal more constructively with contextual factors such as work and cultural 

expectations 

LOCATION: Not currently available. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: 

To participate in the project, couples had to be over the age of 18, married or living together, in 

their second trimester of pregnancy, and have both partners expecting their first child. 

• Over 2/3 thirds of the couples had college degrees. 

• More than half of the couples earned more than $75,000 combined. 

• 16% of the couples were mixed ethnicity. 

• 3% were identified as non-white ethnicity (African American or Asian-Pacific Islander). 

• The median age for fathers was 31 years. 

• 156 of the couples were married, and 9 were cohabiting. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT) 

• Outcomes:

o Quality of father-child interaction 

o Father involvement, which includes engagement, accessibility, and paternal 

responsibility 

• Method: Couples were randomly oversampled at a proportion of 5/4 to the treatment or 

control group. Oversampling occurred because the evaluator anticipated a higher dropout 

rate for those in the intervention group because of the amount of time and effort required 

for the program. The measures were given to both fathers and mothers; assessments were 

completed immediately after random assignment, and then six and twelve months 

postpartum. 

Evaluations of the sessions were completed by the participants, parent educators, and 

observers after each meeting. The evaluator determined that 2 of the 17 groups were 

hindered by problems such as, scheduling difficulties, poor attendance, low evaluation 

scores, and parent educator absence due to illness. These two sessions were classified as 

PARENTING TOGETHER PROJECT 

32 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

adequate interventions; therefore, data from these two groups were omitted from the 

outcome analysis. A separate analysis was conducted on the two groups. 

• Sample: At random assignment, there was a full sample of 165 couples (95 for the 

experimental and 70 for the control group). The final sample at the last 12-month 

postpartum assessment was 65 couples in the experimental and 67 in the control group. 

• Measures:

o Quality of father-child interaction: This was measured by videotaped 

observations of parent-child play in the home. Fathers were observed for a 5 

minute period with the baby. Mothers were also observed. The interactions were 

observed and rated by two different raters using the Parent Behavior Rating 

Scale. The scale includes the following variables: 

 Warmth/emotional support 

 Intrusiveness 

 Engagement with child 

 Positive affect 

 Negative affect 

 Dyadic synchrony (meshing of behavior between parent and child) 

o Father involvement 

 Engagement. This was measured by the Interaction/Accessibility Time 

Chart. Parents were asked to complete a time diary prior to the 6 and 12 

month assessment periods, using a forced-recall technique to give 

detailed, hour-by-hour information about the most recent workday and 

non-workday before the assessment. The chart looked at direct 

engagement (face-to-face interaction), and parallel engagement (doing 

another activity while with the baby). If a parent forgot to complete the 

diary, they were asked to fill out information for just the day prior to the 

assessment. 32% of participants did not complete the diary before the 

scheduled assessment, but there were no significant differences found 

between the intervention and control groups on non-completion. There 

also were no significant differences on other outcomes between 

completers and noncompleters. 

 Accessibility. This was measured by the Interaction/Accessibility Time 

Chart. Parents were asked to complete a time diary prior to the 6 and 12 

month assessment periods, using a forced-recall techniques to give 

detailed, hour-by-hour information about the most recent workday and 

non-workday before the assessment. This was measured by the number 

of minutes the parent was physically available, though not necessarily 

interacting with the child. 

 Paternal Responsibility. This was measured by McBrides’ Parental 

Responsibility Scale (PRS), a questionnaire mothers and fathers 

completed jointly. The PRS lists common child care tasks and asks the 

parents to determine which parent has the primary responsibility of the 

particular task. Responsibility was defined as remembering, planning, 

and scheduling the task. The items on the PRS were adapted to be 

relevant to the age of the children in the study. 

• Statistical Analyses: The desired sample size was determined using power analyses. 

Based on the final sample, there is adequate power for quality of father-child interaction 

and parental responsibility variables, but not for time involvement variables. Preliminary 

PARENTING TOGETHER PROJECT 

33 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

analyses (one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square statistics) on the 

baseline characteristics of the intervention and control groups were conducted. Repeated 

measures were done (ANOVA) for quality of father-child interaction and father 

involvement.

• Attrition: There was a 15% attrition rate by the 12 month assessment. No significant 

differences between the couples who remained and those who dropped out were found in 

this study.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Licensed, community-based parent group educators 

taught the 7 group sessions in a local community-based clinic. Pairs of male and 

female teachers taught each session. 

o Staff Education The staff educators averaged 15 years of experience.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training There was a 1-day orientation to the curriculum, and group 

meetings were held monthly to troubleshoot and make any necessary revisions to 

the curriculum.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: Participants were recruited from a local health 

maintenance organization and also through fliers handed out by nursing staff, local radio 

and television announcements. The Parenting Together curriculum consisted of mini 

lectures, group discussion, video skill demonstrations, role playing, and new parent role 

models.

Fidelity to the model was assessed by using checklists completed by the parent educators 

after each session; an observer also took notes in each group. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Eight education sessions were 

created based on a curriculum that was developed from a theoretical model, based on 

ecological frameworks “in which the behaviors of fathers, mothers, and children are 

viewed within an interdependent web of personal, relational, and community influences, 

and in which paternal involvement includes cognitive and affective domains as well as 

PARENTING TOGETHER PROJECT 

34 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

observable behaviors” (p439). Initially, a home visit was conducted and the remaining 7 

sessions were done in a group clinic setting. The first four sessions occurred before birth 

and the remaining four occurred during months 2-5 after birth. Group sessions were 

conducted to be cost effective, but to also help the group members learn from and 

encourage one another.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: Not currently available.

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Quality of Father-Child Interaction 

• The study found significant differences in fathers in the treatment group’s 

warmth/emotional support (p<.05), intrusiveness (p<.05), positive affect (p<.01), and 

dyadic synchrony (p<.001). 

• There were no significant differences on engagement with the child and negative affect. 

• The overall quality score was significantly higher (p<.01) than the control group with an 

effect size of .47 at 6 months postpartum, and .31 at 12 months postpartum. 

Father Involvement 

• The treatment group had one significant intervention effect for workday accessibility 

(p<.05). With effect sizes at .42 and the 6-month assessment and .30 at the 12 month 

assessment, fathers in the intervention group were more available to their babies than in 

the control group. They were available on average, 42 more minutes more than the 

control group fathers. 

• There were no significant differences on direct engagement or parallel interaction during 

workdays. 

With the two excluded groups included in the outcome analysis: 

Quality of Father-Child Interaction 

• There were still significant group effects for warmth/emotional support and dyadic 

synchrony. However, the effects for positive affect, negative affect, intrusiveness, and 

overall quality fell below the .05 level of statistical significance. The effect size for 

overall quality reduced to .36 and .16 at 6 and 12 months postpartum in the intent-to-treat 

analysis, and down from .41 to .31 from 6 to 12 months postpartum in the previous 

analysis that excluded the two groups. 

•

Father Involvement 

• These results were similar to the previous analysis. There was a significant intervention 

effect for workday accessibility. The effect size was .42 at 6 months, and .26 at 12 

months. On average, fathers in the intervention group were accessible to their children 

40 minutes more than the control group fathers. 

• For parallel interaction, the effect size became statistically significant (p<.05) with effect 

sizes of .52 at 6 months and .23 at 12 months. 

PARENTING TOGETHER PROJECT 

35 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

SOURCES:

Doherty, W.J., Erickson, M.F., LaRossa, R. (2006). An intervention to increase father 

involvement and skills with infants during the transition to parenthood. Journal of 

Psychology, 20(3), 438-447. 

EVALUATOR AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

William J. Doherty 

Department of Family Social Science 

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 

290 McNeal Hall 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

bdoherty@che.umn.edu 

PARENTING TOGETHER PROJECT 

36 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

PREPARING FOR THE DRUG FREE YEARS (PDFY) 

OVERVIEW: Preparing for the Drug Free Years (PDFY) is a program that was designed in 

1984 as part of a comprehensive method to prevent drug abuse. Parents were taught how to 

reduce family risk factors, increase family protective factors, and use parenting skills and other 

methods to reduce their children’s risk for substance abuse. A pilot evaluation of the program 

found that PDFY was effective at improving parenting behaviors that reduce the risk of and 

enhance protection against children’s initiation of substance use.vii Read more...

LOCATION: PDFY was first implemented in Seattle, Washington public schools and has since 

been used in more than 30 states and Canada. The evaluation summarized here was conducted 

with PFDY participants in rural Iowa.viii

PROGRAM GOALS: The major goal of PDFY was to prevent future substance use in late 

elementary- and middle school-aged children by teaching parents effective methods of reducing 

risk factors and increasing protective factors that will prevent early drug and alcohol use.ix 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: Participants in the evaluation had the 

following characteristics: 

• Race/ethnicity: Nearly all families were Caucasian 

• Socioeconomic status: Median annual per capita family income was $6,800, or 

$27,000 for a family of four 

• Family structure: 39% were from single-parent families.x

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT STUDY)xi

• Outcomes: The PFDY program in Iowa addressed the following outcomes: 

o Levels of parent attendance/participation in program sessions 

o PFDY’s effectiveness at enhancing parenting behaviors that reduce risk and 

offer protection against children’s substance use.xii

• Method: Nine schools in rural Iowa were selected based on their districts’ eligibility 

for federally funded school lunch program. All families (n = 387 families) in those 

schools who had children in grades six and seven were invited to participate in the 

study. Families who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to either the 

experimental PFDY group or to a control group. The control group was placed on a 

waitlist to receive the PFDY curriculum after the conclusion of the study; no alternate 

intervention was provided for this group during the study. Each family completed 

pre- and post-test questionnaires and videotaped observations. The post-test occurred 

approximately two to nine weeks following program completion. Workshops were 

delivered by community members who had completed four days of PDFY training.xiii

• Sample: A total of 209 families with children in grades six and seven at nine schools 

in rural Iowa completed the pre-test and 175 families (84 percent) completed the 

post-test.xiv

• Measures: 

o Parents’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors 

PREPARING FOR THE DRUG FREE YEARS (PFDY) 

37 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

o General family life (e.g., chores, roles, parental monitoring) 

o Family problem-solving behavior 

o Program attendancexv

• Statistical Analyses: Outcomes were tested using analysis of covariance 

(ANCOVA) tests.xvi

• Attrition: Sixteen percent of participants did not complete the post-test. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: PDFY workshops were run by two co-leaders.xvii

o Staff Education: Not available.

o Staff Experience: Workshop leaders were typically members of the community. 

It was recommended that at least one of the co-leaders be a parent.xviii xix

o Staff Training: PDFY workshop leaders completed a three-day PDFY 

Workshop Leader’s Training. Training was available for up to twelve 

participants for a fee of $4,500 plus travel expenses. Participants were guided 

through the program curriculum and given the chance to experience and practice 

each of the five sessions. They practiced delivering the program content and 

establishing effective timing and flow. Participants were given tips on how to 

address concerns specific to their communities and how to plan, promote, 

implement, and deliver the program.xx xxi

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not available.

o Staff wages: Not available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: PDFY has been delivered in a variety of contexts, including churches, schools, 

community centers, homes, hospitals, prisons, and workplaces.xxii 

• Materials: Training materials included a Workshop Leader Guide, a Workshop Video, 

and Training Handouts. xxiii Leaders used a curriculum kit that included a workshop 

leader’s guide, a videotape series (one tape for each session), and a family activity book 

for each family. Optional materials, including a question-and-answer audiotape to help 

leaders address difficult questions, an ethnic adaptation guide, and a drug-free toolkit 

were also available.xxiv

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not available. 

• Community Organizations: Not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The PDFY curriculum is based on a comprehensive 

review of empirical research on the causes of adolescent problem behaviors and on risk 

and protective factors.xxv It is guided by a social development model that emphasizes the 

importance of positive bonds to family, school, and peers in preventing substance use. 

The curriculum includes the following sessions: 

o Session 1: “Getting Started: How to Prevent Drug Use in your Family”: This 

session provides an overview of the program, an introduction to risk factors for 

PREPARING FOR THE DRUG FREE YEARS (PFDY) 

38 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

substance use, the nature and extent of adolescent substance use, and an overview 

of parenting strategies that can reduce the risk. 

o Session 2: Setting Clear Family Expectations on Drugs and Alcohol”: Session 

2 teaches parents about ways to reduce risk factors for substance use, including 

family management strategies, positive attitudes toward substance use, setting 

behavior standards, involving children in creating family policies around 

substance use, and implementing family meetings. 

o Session 3: “Avoiding Trouble”: The third session focuses on risk factors that 

increase the likelihood that children will use substances, including having friends 

who use substances, antisocial behavior, and early first use of drugs or alcohol. 

Children are involved in this session and taught to resist peer pressure.

o Session 4: “Managing Family Conflict”: Session four focuses on reducing risks 

related to family conflict, family management, anger management, and 

adolescent alienation and rebelliousness. 

o Session 5: “Strengthening Family Bonds”: The final session focuses on ways 

parents can enhance protective factors and expand opportunities to involve 

children in the family, with the goal of discouraging substance use. xxvi

PROGRAM DESIGN:

 

• Group size: Not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): PDFY is typically delivered in five 

sessions of two hours each, though it is adaptable and has been delivered in ten one-hour 

sessions and in other formats.xxvii

• Frequency of program offerings: Not available.

• Diversity of activities: Parents participate in five workshops focused on parenting 

behaviors/family skills that discourage children’s substance use. A combination of 

instruction and practice techniques (e.g., role play activities) are used in the sessions.xxviii

• Incentives for participation: Participants in the Iowa evaluation study were offered a 

financial incentive of $10 per hour per family member to complete the study assessments. 

Incentives were not offered for participation in program sessions.xxix 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Parent outcomesxxx: 

o PFDY parents exhibited significant improvements in targeted parenting 

behaviors and child management skills, controlling for pre-test levels. 

o Based on the self-report questionnaires, mothers in the PFDY group were 

significantly more likely than control group mothers to: 

 Reward children for good behavior 

 Communicate rules regarding substance use 

 Use appropriate punishment for misbehavior 

 Restrict children’s alcohol use 

 Expect children to refuse beer from a friend 

 Express less conflict with their spouses 

 Work at being more involved with their children 

o Based on the self-report questionnaires, fathers in the PFDY group were 

significantly more likely than control group fathers to: 

 Communicate rules regarding substance use 

 Be more involved with their children 

PREPARING FOR THE DRUG FREE YEARS (PFDY) 

39 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

o Based on the results of the observation measures, mothers in the PFDY group 

were significantly more likely than control group mothers to exhibit: 

 More proactive communication with children 

 Less conflict 

 More improvement in relationship quality or bonding with children 

o Based on the results of the observation measures, fathers in the PFDY group 

were significantly more likely than control group fathers to exhibit: 

 More proactive communication with children 

 More improvement in relationship quality or bonding with children 

• Additional checks of the validity of the PFDY evaluation found that improvements in 

parent behaviors were directly related to participation in PFDY. Specifically, these 

validity checks found that: 

o There were no differences between control group parents and PFDY parents in 

behaviors that were not specifically addressed by the program. 

o Parents in the PFDY group who actually attended certain sessions exhibited 

significantly more improvements in behaviors addressed in those sessions 

compared with the PFDY group as a whole (which contained parents who did not 

attend those sessions).xxxi 

• Note that subsequent evaluations of PFDY have replicated the results of the pilot 

evaluation and have provided evidence that the program results in long-term 

improvements in parent behaviors and reductions in children’s smoking and alcohol-use 

behaviors.xxxii

PREPARING FOR THE DRUG FREE YEARS (PFDY) 

40 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 

FOR INCARCERATED DADS- FAIRFAX COUNTY 

OVERVIEW: The Fairfax County Responsible Fatherhood Program for incarcerated dads was 

implemented to educate incarcerated fathers about child development, responsible fathering and 

to re-kindle child-father relationships. Two groups of prisoners, a treatment and control group, 

were drawn from a population of inmates just beginning their sentence or just about to leave the 

prison system by the Director of Community Corrections. Differences in key outcome measures 

were shown between fathers who had participated in at least four program sessions and those in 

the control group. Fathers in the treatment group significantly increased; their frequency of 

contact with their children; knowledge and attitude towards fatherhood; and knowledge of the 

justice system. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

The Fairfax County Responsible Fatherhood Program’s main objectives were: 

• Promote responsible fatherhood during and after incarceration. 

• Encourage father involvement in their children’s lives. 

• Teach parenting skills while providing understanding of child development. 

• Teach the values of positive communication between parents and methods of minimizing 

parental conflict. 

LOCATION: Fairfax County, Virginia 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

Fathers were primarily drawn from prisoners just beginning their sentence but some fathers about 

to be released were also included. These participants were identified by the Director of 

Community Corrections. 

Treatment Group (56) 

• The father’s average age was approximately 34 years old. 

• Most fathers (48 %) had graduated high school or obtained a GED. About 21 percent of 

the fathers had some high school; an equal proportion had some college. Nine (9) percent 

had associates or bachelors degrees. 

• The ethnic composition for the treatment group was 27 % White, 64 % Black, 5 % 

Hispanic and 1.8 % Asian or other. 

• About half (52 %) of the fathers made less than $30,000 annually. Twelve (12) percent 

made more than 50,000.

• Approximately 60 % had lost their jobs since incarceration. Fifty (50) percent of the 

fathers had committed custodial offenses. 

• Forty six (46) percent of the fathers are single, 25 % currently married and 5 % widowed. 

They each had and an average of 2 children.

• Half the fathers attended all program sessions.

Control Group (31) 

• The father’s average age was 34 years old. 

• About one third (29 %) of the fathers had graduated high school or obtained a GED. 

Another third (29 %) had some high school with an equal proportion having some 

college. Three (3) percent had an associate’s degree while approximately 10 % had 

graduate degrees. 

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 

FOR INCARCERATED DADS- FAIRFAX COUNTY 

41 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

• The ethnic composition for the group was 38 % White, 42 % Black and 19 % Hispanic. 

• Almost half (42 %) of the fathers made less than $30,000 annually. Only 6 % made more 

than $50,000.

• Approximately 50 % had lost their job with an equal proportion incarcerated for 

custodial offenses. 

• Twenty six (26) percent of the fathers are single, 26 % currently married and 48 % 

divorced or separated. Each had an average of 2.75 children. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (Random Assignment) 

• Outcomes

The following outcomes were assessed; 

o Frequency of contact with children

o Knowledge and attitudes toward fatherhood

o Quality of relationship with mothers of children

o Knowledge of the justice system. 

• Method

An experimental design was used in this study. The treatment group consisted of 56 

fathers who participated in at least four of the fatherhood program sessions; these fathers 

comprised 80 % of the group. The control group consisted of 31 fathers incarcerated for 

the length of the program. The Director of Community Corrections recruited fathers for 

both groups. The Responsible Fatherhood program ran for ten weeks and inmates in the 

treatment group met weekly for about one and a half hours. 

Fatherhood Program facilitators had been working at the jail and were known to the 

fathers. A pre-test was administered to the treatment group during the first session. 

Control group fathers received pre-tests within the same period. Post-tests were 

administered during the last session for the treatment group; the control group also 

completed post-tests within the same period. 

• Sample

The study involved 56 men in the treatment group and 31 in the control group. 

• Measures

o Frequency of contact with children

During the pretest survey, inmates were asked how often they saw, spoke to, or 

wrote to their children. At post-test the same questions were posed but phrased in 

relation to the program. These questions were scored using a four-point scale 

ranging from never to four times per month. The scores were added up to create a 

composite score. 

o Knowledge and attitudes toward fatherhood

Seven items scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging were used to develop the 

measure. Responses were added for both the pre- and post-test to create a preand post composite score. This measure was based on the Adult-Adolescent 

Parenting Inventory (AAPI) developed by Bavolek, Kline and McLaughlin 

(1979).

o Quality of relationship with mothers of children

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 

FOR INCARCERATED DADS- FAIRFAX COUNTY 

42 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

Four items were asked pre- and post-test. These items were also scored on a fivepoint Likert scale and similarly added up as in the knowledge and attitudes 

toward fatherhood measure. 

o Knowledge of the justice system. 

Four items asking respondents about their knowledge of the justice system 

pertaining to custodial issues were posed both at pre- and post-test. These items 

were also scored on the five-point Likert scale. Responses were added to create 

pre- and post-test composite measures. 

• Statistical Analyses

Analysis of pre- and post-test scores was conducted to determine if there were differences 

between the treatment and control group; differences across time on the four dependent 

variables; and differences on the four dependent variables based on the number of 

program sessions attended. Further analysis was conducted to determine whether 

differences on the outcomes existed between custodial and non-custodial inmates. 

• Attrition

Out of the 72 inmates assigned to the treatment group, 16 men did not attend more than 

the minimum 4 sessions or were not present during either the pre- or post-tests. Of the 50 

men originally in the control group, 19 men could not be located for post-tests due to 

early or work release programs. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participant ratio; Information not available. 

o Staff Education: Information not available. 

o Staff Experience: Information not available. 

o Staff Training: All volunteers were trained by the Director of Community 

Corrections. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information not available. 

o Staff Wages: Facilitators for all the program sessions were volunteers from a 

local non profit organization. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Program sessions were conducted in the pre-release center, a facility that housed 

inmates from several local counties who were either at the end of their sentences or 

participating in work release programs. 

• Materials: Information currently not available. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Facilitators for the program sessions were volunteers from 

a local non profit, Opportunities, Alternatives and Resources (OAR). 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

The Responsible Fatherhood Program consisted of weekly sessions over ten weeks. To be 

included in the analysis for the treatment group, inmates had to have attended a minimum 

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 

FOR INCARCERATED DADS- FAIRFAX COUNTY 

43 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

of four sessions. The curriculum for those in the treatment group covered demographics 

on fatherhood and parenting. Other modules included understanding child development, 

co-parenting, responsible manhood, conflict resolution and moving on. Each lesson had 

homework components that often required interaction with their children. Participants 

were also required to maintain a journal of reflections on classes and interactions with 

their children. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Information currently not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Each weekly session ran for about 

an hour and a half. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Inmates met once per week for ten weeks. 

• Diversity of activities: Sessions included homework that would require child interaction. 

• Incentives for participation: Participants in both the treatment and control group were 

informed that invitations were based on a desire to improve the program for future 

participants and a response to incarcerated fathers’ needs. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Frequency of contact with children: 

• Scores on frequency of contact with their children for fathers in the treatment group 

increased significantly (p<0.05) over time suggesting that the program was effective in 

increasing a father’s contact with his children. 

• The frequency of contact with their children for fathers incarcerated for non-custodial 

offenses increased significantly (p<0.05) over time. When comparing fathers incarcerated 

for custodial offenses versus those incarcerated for non-custodial offenses at post-test, the 

frequency of contact among fathers’ incarcerated for non-custodial offenses was higher 

than those incarcerated for custodial offenses (p<0.05). 

Knowledge and attitudes toward fatherhood: 

• Fathers’ knowledge and attitude toward fatherhood for fathers in the treatment group 

significantly increased over time (p<0.05) suggesting that the program was effective in 

increasing fathers knowledge about psychological and physiological development of their 

children. 

• Fathers’ knowledge and attitude toward fatherhood varied significantly (F= 7.97, p 

<0.05) across the number of program sessions attended. This knowledge was 

significantly higher for fathers who had attended all sessions versus fathers who had 

attended four to five sessions or six to seven sessions. 

• Fathers’ who were incarcerated for custodial offenses had significantly higher post-test 

scores on knowledge and attitude towards fatherhood relative to those incarcerated for 

non-custodial offenses (p<0.05). Fathers incarcerated for both types of offenses showed 

significant (p<0.05) improvement over time. 

Knowledge of the justice system: 

• Fathers’ knowledge of the justice system for fathers in the treatment group increased 

significantly (p<0.05) over time suggesting that the program was effective in improving 

awareness and knowledge of the justice system.

• Fathers who were incarcerated for custodial crimes significantly (p<0.05) increased their 

knowledge of the justice system over time.

SOURCES:

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 

FOR INCARCERATED DADS- FAIRFAX COUNTY 

44 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

Bavolek, S.J., D. Kline, and J. McLaughlin (1979). Primary Prevention of Child Abuse: 

Identification of High Risk Adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect: International Journal. 3. 

1070-1080. 

Robbers, Monica L.P. (2005). Focus on Family and Fatherhood: Lessons from Fairfax County’s 

Responsible Fatherhood Program for Incarcerated Dads. Justice Policy Journal Vol. 2 No 1. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Monica L. P. Robbers 

Associate Professor 

Department of Criminal Justice 

Marymount University 

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 

FOR INCARCERATED DADS- FAIRFAX COUNTY 

45 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

VIDEO SELF-MONITORING EFFECTS OF PARENTING EDUCATION ON FIRSTTIME FATHERS’ SKILLS 

OVERVIEW: This randomized controlled study with first-time fathers evaluated the effects of 

video-self modeling with feedback as a participatory parenting education program. The program 

aimed at improving parents’ interaction skills with their infants. Fathers in the intervention group, 

along with a trained home visitor, reviewed videotapes of the father playing with their child at 

five and six months. The home visitor provided positive feedback and a handout. Those in the 

control group discussed age appropriate toys with the visitor. Significant differences in behavior 

between the intervention and control group were observed in the father’s sensitivity to infant cues 

and fostering their infant’s cognitive growth. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: The video self-modeling fatherhood program was designed to: 

• Improve the father’s ability to recognize and respond appropriately to infant behavioral 

cues. 

• Help fathers promote their infants cognitive and social-emotional development. 

• Increase fathers’ sense of competence as a parent. 

LOCATION: Two western Canadian cities. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: Characteristics of fathers in the intervention 

group and control group were: 

• They were first-time parents. 

• Spoke primarily English to their infants and read English at 8th grade level. 

• The average age was 32 for the intervention group, 31 for the control group. 

• Ninety five percent of fathers in the intervention group were employed, 91 % for the 

control group. 

• On average fathers worked 44 hours outside the home. 

• Educational attainment ranged from partial high school to graduate degrees; on average 

16 years of education. Forty two percent of the sample had university education or higher 

while 21 percent of males in the general population had university degrees or higher. 

• Of the 165 who described their ethnicity, 83 % were European Canadian. Others 

described themselves as Aboriginal, Chinese, Hispanic, Filipino, Asian or other. 

• Fathers whose infants had major congenital anomalies, received care in neonatal 

intensive care units, were of multiple births or had known medical problems were 

excluded. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT) 

• Outcomes

o The Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS) (Sumner & Spietz, 

1994) was used to assess: 

 Sensitivity to Cues 

 Response to Distress 

 Social-emotional Growth Fostering 

 Cognitive Growth Fostering 

VIDEO SELF-MONITORING EFFECTS OF PARENTING EDUCATION ON FIRST-TIME 

FATHERS’ SKILLS 

46 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

o The Parenting Sense of Competence (PSOC) (Johnston & Mash, 1989) was used 

to measure two outcomes: 

 Efficacy 

 Satisfaction 

• Method: An experimental design using block randomization assigned first-time fathers 

into an intervention or control group. The control group received home visits when the 

infants were 5 and 8 months old. The intervention group was visited when the infants 

were 5, 6 and 8 months. All home visitors were unaware of the research hypothesis. 

Additionally, home visitors in the control group did not know what was included in the 

intervention. 

Each home visit consisted of the father being videotaped while playing with his child. 

Further treatment varied between the control and intervention group. Self-reported 

questionnaires at the 5th and 8th months were used for the PSOC instrument. Videotapes 

of the home visits were also reviewed and measured using the NCATS by raters to assess 

different outcome measures. These raters were unaware of group assignment and other 

scores obtained by fathers. 

o Intervention group: Fathers were videotaped teaching their child to play with a 

toy selected from a list provided by the home visitor. The toys would be new to 

the child. Immediately after the videotaping, the father and home visitor 

reviewed the tape together. The home visitor identified instances when the 

father’s behavior had been sensitive and responsive to the child or promoted 

cognitive or social-emotional growth. Handouts pertaining to the interaction 

skills were also shared. Fathers were provided a copy of the videotape after the 

visit. A second identical visit was conducted at 6 months. There was no feedback 

process during the final videotaped visit at 8 months. 

o Control group: Fathers were videotaped teaching their five month old child to 

play with a new toy using the same procedure as the intervention group. 

However, the father did not view the videotape nor receive feedback. The home 

visitor discussed age appropriate toys using a standardized protocol and 

pamphlets available at community child health clinics in the study area. Fathers 

were also asked about activities they liked to do with their child. During the final 

videotaped visit at 8 months no feedback was provided. 

• Sample: One hundred and eighty three (183) first-time fathers were enrolled for the 

study. 

• Measures:

o Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS) (Sumner & Spietz, 1994)

It is used to measure parent-child interactions and has 73 behaviors scored on a 

yes/no scale. A higher score infers a more positive interaction. Four raters were 

used to view and score each videotape. The raters were blind to group assignment 

and other scores obtained by the fathers. The outcome measures were subscales 

of the 73 behaviors, namely: 

 Sensitivity to cues: consisted of 11 items 

 Response to distress: consisted of 11 items 

 Social-emotional growth fostering: consisted of 11 items 

VIDEO SELF-MONITORING EFFECTS OF PARENTING EDUCATION ON FIRST-TIME 

FATHERS’ SKILLS 

47 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

 Cognitive growth fostering: consisted of 17 items 

o Parenting Sense of Competence (PSOC) (Johnston & Mash, 1989)

This was a self-reported questionnaire. It had 16 questions on a 6 point scale and 

was used to provide to subscale scores measuring efficacy and satisfaction. 

• Statistical Analyses: Changes in scores on the NCATS and PSOC were analyzed using a 

2 (group) by 2 (time) ANOVA with repeated measures for time. 

• Attrition: One hundred and eighty three (183) fathers were enrolled; 94 were randomly 

assigned to a control group and 89 to an intervention group. The control group lost 13 

fathers while the intervention group lost 8. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Each father and child met with one home visitor. Home 

visitors did not change from one visit to the next in all but five of the visits in the 

intervention group. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available.

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available.

o Staff Training: Home visitors were trained by researchers. They conducted 

supervised home visits and practiced with fathers in pilot studies. All home 

visitors from the intervention group reviewed the Keys to Caregiving video series 

to develop skills in identifying father’s behavior. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: All visits and videotaping were conducted in the father’s home. Rating of 

videotapes by experts was done outside the homes. 

• Materials: Information currently not available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Information currently not available. 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

Fathers were recruited during prenatal classes or visits to community health centers; 

through advertising; and through community groups for new parents. Participants in the 

intervention group received two handouts describing aspects of parent-infant interaction 

observed and reviewed from the videotaped session. One handout described infant 

behavioral cues. The other outlined components of the teaching loop included: 

 alerting the baby 

 showing and explaining 

 giving the baby time to try 

 offering praise and suggestions. 

VIDEO SELF-MONITORING EFFECTS OF PARENTING EDUCATION ON FIRST-TIME 

FATHERS’ SKILLS 

48 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

Participants in the control group received pamphlets that were available in local child 

health community clinics. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: A group consisted of the father, child and home visitor. Four raters 

reviewed each videotape to give independent scores. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Each home visit for both the 

control and intervention group was approximately one hour long. This period included 

about 20 minutes of videotape reviewing time for the intervention group.

• Frequency of program offerings: The control group received home visits at the 5th and 

8th months. The intervention group was visited during the 5th, 6th and 8th months. 

• Diversity of activities: Each visit was conducted using identical protocols.

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Parent Total Score on the NCATS: 

 More positive father-child interactions were observed for the intervention group. Average 

scores for fathers in the intervention group increased from 40.6 to 41.7 while scores for 

those in the control group decreased from 40.0 to 38.4. They were statistically significant 

at the (p = 0.001) level. 

Sensitivity to Cues: 

 Fathers in the intervention group became more sensitive to infant cues over time unlike 

fathers in the control group. These results were statistically significant at the (p = 0.05).

Cognitive Growth Fostering: 

 Fathers in the intervention group became more adept at fostering cognitive growth than 

fathers in the control group. This was statistically significant at the (p = 0.002) level. 

Social-emotional Growth Fostering: 

 There were no significant differences in the father’s behaviors fostering infant socialemotional growth.

Efficacy and Satisfaction: 

 There was statistically significant (p< 0.001) main effect for time. Father’s efficacy 

scores in both groups increased by about 2 points. 

 There was no main effects for PSOC Satisfaction observed. 

 There were no significant interaction effects for either Efficacy or Satisfaction. 

 

SOURCES:

Johnston, C., & Mash E.J. (1989). A Measure of Parenting Satisfaction and Efficacy. A Journal 

of Clinical and Child Psychology, 18, 167-175. 

Magill-Evans, Joyce; Margaret J. Harrison, Karen Benzies, Mark Gierl and Cathy Kimak. 

(Winter 2007). Effects of Parenting Education on First-Time Father’s Skills in 

Interactions with Their Infants. Fathering, Vol. 5 No. 1, 42-57. 

VIDEO SELF-MONITORING EFFECTS OF PARENTING EDUCATION ON FIRST-TIME 

FATHERS’ SKILLS 

49 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

Sumner, G., & Speitz A. (Eds.) (1994) NCAST: Caregiver/Parent-Child Interaction Teaching 

Manual. Seattle, WA: NCAST Publications. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

For more information concerning this study should be sent to: 

Joyce Magill-Evans 

Department of Occupational Therapy, 

2-64 Corbett Hall, 

University of Alberta 

Edmonton, AB T6G 2G4 

Email: joyce.magill-evans@ualberta.ca 

VIDEO SELF-MONITORING EFFECTS OF PARENTING EDUCATION ON FIRST-TIME 

FATHERS’ SKILLS 

50 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

“YOUNG DADS” 

OVERVIEW: The “Young Dads” Program targeted African American adolescent fathers to 

help them become more confident and responsible fathers. The evaluation of the “Young Dads” 

program suggested that programs for young fathers that only focus on teaching parenting skills 

are ineffective. The evaluation revealed statistically significant changes for fathers who 

participated in the program in employment rates, vocational plans, perceptions of current 

relationships with their children, perceptions of the quality of the future relationship with their 

children, frequency of contraceptive use, and the availability of persons with whom a problem 

can be discussed. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: The “Young Dads” parenting program aimed to increase African 

American adolescent fathers’ ability to: 

o Establish and meet individual goals 

o Develop stronger support systems 

o Develop more consistent and positive feelings about their relationships with their 

children now and in the future 

LOCATION: New York City, New York

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

The sample served included first-time fathers between the ages of 16 and 18 years. The 

characteristics of the evaluation sample included the following: 

• All participants were African American and from the same geographical area 

• The mothers of the participants’ children were receiving services through a teen mother’s 

support program or were in a mother-baby group residence. 

• The mean age of their children was 9 months 

• On average, couples had known each other for almost a year before the women became 

pregnant 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT) 

• Outcomes:

o Employment 

o Vocational plans 

o Current Relationship with child 

o Perception of future relationship with child 

o Establishment of a 10-year plan 

o Use of contraceptives 

o Number of close friends 

o Discussion of problems with others 

• Method: Adolescent fathers were randomly assigned to treatment or control group. The 

fathers were interviewed at two time points: at the time of referral and six months after 

referral. The experimental group received individual and group counseling, 

education/vocational referrals and placements, medical care and referrals, housing and 

legal advocacy, cultural and recreational activities, and parenting skills training. Control 

“YOUNG DADS” 

51 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

group fathers received weekly group parenting skills training and were invited to 

participate in the child welfare agency’s case planning for their children.

• Sample: 60 (30 fathers in the treatment group and 30 fathers in the control group) 

African American adolescent fathers were included in the sample.

• Measures: Fathers were interviewed at the two time points: the time of referral, and six 

months after referral. 

o Employment. Fathers were asked if they were employed. 

o Vocational Plans. Fathers were asked if they had a vocational plan. 

o Current Relationship with Child. Fathers were asked to rate the quality of their 

relationship with their child as “excellent”, “good”, “fair”, or “poor”. 

o Future relationship with Child. Fathers were asked to predict the closeness, 

quality, and consistency of their relationship with their children in the future. 

Fathers could rate the relationships as “excellent”, “good”, “fair”, or “poor”. 

o Establishment of a 10-Year plan. Fathers were asked if they had developed a tenyear plan. 

o Use of Contraceptives. Fathers were asked if they used birth control “always”, 

“often”, or “sometimes”. 

o Description of Being a Man. Fathers were asked to provide a description of their 

views of being a man. 

o Number of close friends. Fathers were asked the number of close friends they 

had.

o Discussion of Problems with others. Fathers were asked with whom they 

discussed problems. Fathers had the options of choosing a relative, friend, 

child’s mother, social worker, or no one. 

• Statistical Analyses: Data were analyzed using chi-square analysis.

• Attrition: Not currently available.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Two social workers, a parenting instructor, and an 

educational-vocational counselor were assigned to thirty fathers. 

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

“YOUNG DADS” 

52 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

The program involved using a comprehensive set of services that were tailored to the 

individual needs of young fathers. Fathers were contacted through their child’s mother’s 

adolescent mother programs in a local hospital. Once enrolled, the fathers were asked to list 

areas in their lives where they needed assistance. The program model assumed that male 

social workers were better equipped to serve the young fathers and thus used the relationship 

between the adolescent fathers and male social workers as a therapeutic (through counseling 

and regular meetings), mentoring, and supportive male relationship throughout the program. 

The male staff members also served as positive parenting role models. The fathers received 

individual and group counseling, education/vocational referrals and placements, medical care 

and referrals, housing and legal advocacy, cultural and recreational activities, and parenting 

skills training. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: 30 fathers were enrolled in the program.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Not currently available.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: The fathers received individual and group counseling, 

education/vocational referrals and placements, medical care and referrals, housing and 

legal advocacy, cultural and recreational activities, and parenting skills training. 

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Employment 

• At the second time point, 97% of the fathers in the treatment group were employed, 

compared to 31% of control group fathers who were employed (p<.01). 

Vocational Plans 

• At the second time point, 87% of treatment group fathers had a vocational plan in 

comparison to 42% of control group fathers (p<.01). 

Current Relationship with child 

• At the second time point, 77% of the experimental group reported that their relationship 

with their child was “excellent” or “good”. 50% of the control group reported an 

“excellent” or “good” relationship with their children at the second time point (p<.02). 

Expectation of Future Relationship with the Child 

• 96% of treatment group fathers predicted that their future relationship with their child 

will be excellent in comparison to 73% of control group fathers at the second time point 

(p<.02). 

Use of Contraceptives 

• At the second time point, 90% of fathers in the treatment group reported that they use 

contraceptives always or often, in comparison to 73% of fathers in the control group 

(p<.01). 

“YOUNG DADS” 

53 
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

Discussion of Problems 

• At the second time point, no treatment group reported that they did not have someone to 

discuss their problems with, in comparison to 27% of control group fathers. 

SOURCES:

Mazza, C. (2002). Young dads: The effects of a parenting program on urban African American 

adolescent fathers. Adolescence, 37(148), 681-693. 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Carl Mazza 

Department of Sociology/Social Work 

Lehman College of the City University of New York 

250 Bedford Park Boulevard West 

Bronx, New York 10468 

cmazza@alpha.lehman.cuny.edu 

“YOUNG DADS” 

54 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

Appendix 2: 

“Promising” Fatherhood 

Programs

55 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

AN ACHE IN THEIR HEARTS 

OVERVIEW: An intervention for parents who recently lost an infant to stillbirth or Sudden 

Infant Death Syndrome was evaluated in Brisbane, Australia. Mothers and fathers received 

information about infant death and the grieving process and had access to a trained grief 

counselor. The intervention reduced distress for mothers and fathers, especially those who were at 

high risk of developing mourning difficulties, compared to a group that did not receive the 

intervention. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: The overall goal of this program was to provide information and support 

to parents of infants who recently died. The program aimed to accomplish this goal by the 

following: 

• Assisting participants in accepting the reality of their loss, 

• Helping parents affirm their baby’s existence, 

• Supporting parents in their expression of emotional pain, and 

• Encouraging mourning. 

LOCATION: The Brisbane, Australia metropolitan area. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

Fathers participating in the study had the following characteristics: 

• Eighty-six percent were married and 74 percent had other children. 

• Ninety-one percent of fathers worked full-time outside the home. 

• Eighty-one percent had experienced a perinatal death, and the other 19 percent a SIDS 

death. 

• More than half of households averaged $20,000 to $45,000 Australian per year. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL 

• Outcomes: The evaluation measured the following outcomes:

o Psychological symptoms of disturbance, including anxiety and depression,

o Physical symptoms of disturbance, such as headaches and insomnia,

o Reliance on coping strategies, and

o Perceived support from a partner. 

• Method: Study participants were recruited from three maternity hospitals in the Brisbane 

metro area. The study was forbidden from contacting parents until four weeks after the 

death of the infant by the state health department and participating hospitals. All 

participants (including those who received the intervention and the comparison group) 

had received routine care from a hospital immediately following the infant death. 

Interviews with participants were administered at three time points after the loss of 

the infant: four to six weeks postloss, six months post loss and 15 months postloss. The 

first interview collected baseline data before the intervention. In addition to the measures 

that were repeated on later interviews, the initial interview was used to classify 

participants as either high-risk or low-risk for developing mourning difficulties, as 

determined by scores on seven indicators of risk. The indicators of risk were

o Lack of perceived social support, 

o Ambivalent relationships with the baby, 

o Particularly traumatic circumstances surrounding the death, 

AN ACHE IN THEIR HEARTS 

56 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

o Other difficult life circumstances, 

o Difficulty with coping in the past, 

o Problematic individual characteristics, and 

o Unsatisfactory relationships within the nuclear family. 

Classification into a risk group did not affect treatment. These groups were only used 

during final statistical analyses to determine whether the program was more effective for 

participants at high risk of complicated grieving. 

Due to uncontrollable circumstances, the comparison group was recruited six 

months after the treatment group. Both groups were sampled from the total population of 

eligible families. Analyses showed no significant differences in the routine care offered 

by hospitals or in the 44 demographic and psychological variables collected in the preintervention interview. 

• Sample: Parents were recruited for the study if they had experienced a stillbirth (greater 

than 20 weeks gestation) or neonatal death at one of the three major maternity hospitals 

in the Brisbane metropolitan area, or had experienced a Sudden Infant Death Syndrome 

(SIDS) death in the same area during the recruitment period. Of the 261 parents who 

were eligible for the study, 172 agreed to participate (66 percent). Of the 144 parents who 

completed all three interviews, 65 were fathers and 79 were mothers. The treatment 

group was comprised of 84 parents and the comparison group was comprised of 60 

parents. There were no significant differences between treatment and comparison groups 

on a number of demographic variables.

• Measures: The following measures were used in all interviews:

o The Delusions-Symptoms-States Inventory (DSSI/sAD) assessed psychological 

symptomatology, particularly, anxiety and depression.33

o Two scales were taken from the Physical Health and Daily Living Form Manual 

to measure physical symptomatology and coping responses.34 The coping 

responses scale included three subscales: cognitive coping strategies, avoidance, 

and seeking support. 

o The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) was used to assess relationships quality.35

• Statistical Analyses: Mutlivariate analyses of variance were employed to assess whether 

the experimental group differed from the control group over time. Data from mothers and 

fathers were analyzed separately because it could not be assumed that couples would 

provide independent data. Stepdown analyses were employed to address 

nonindependence of subscales that were intercorrelated. This procedure evaluates the 

most theoretically important dependent variable first, then determines whether successive 

dependent variables add significantly to the combination of dependent variables already 

evaluated. Effects were considered significant only if the multivariate main or interaction 

effect was significant at p<.05. A Bonferroni adjustment determined the level of 

significance for stepdown analyses to adjust for the number of dependent variables.

• Attrition: Of the 172 parents who agreed to participate, 144 (84 percent) completed all 

three interviews. The rate of attrition was similar for the treatment group (17.6 percent) 

and the comparison group (16.7 percent). An analysis of attrition revealed significant 

differences between those who dropped out of the study and those who completed all 

three interviews on just three of the 33 variables measured in the first interview. Parents 

who did not complete all interviews were more likely than those who did to be over 35 

years old, unmarried, and to hold some religion other than Christian. The analyses 

AN ACHE IN THEIR HEARTS 

57 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

reported in the evaluation only consider data from participants who completed all three 

interviews. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Grief workers were required by participating hospitals to be 

registered social workers and psychologists.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: In addition to their education, grief workers were required to 

complete a 40-hour training course.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Case meetings could take place in any setting chosen by the family. In the initial 

interview round, 98 percent of interviews were conducted in participants’ homes.

• Materials:

o Parents were provided written information on medical aspects of infant death, the 

process of mourning, effects of infant death on various family members and 

family systems, and future decision-making. Exercises encouraged parents to 

relate the information to their personal situation. Other children in the family 

were given picture story books or an adolescent pamphlet. Families could choose 

to give information pamphlets to members of their social networks including 

grandparents, teachers, and coworkers to enhance social support. 

o A training manual with accompanying handouts and teaching aids was provided 

for grief workers who took a required 40-hour course. 

o The format for the initial interview was derived from the therapeutic interview 

for bereavement recommended by Raphael.36

• Partnerships and Linkages: The program was implemented with agreement of the three 

hospitals that, after due consideration, provided names and contact information of parents 

of recently deceased infants, as well as relevant demographic information. This 

agreement included safeguards for families’ privacy.

• Community Organizations: No other community organizations were part of this 

intervention.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: This model of intervention became known as An Ache 

In Their Hearts and has been documented thoroughly to allow replication.37

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Each grief worker met with the members of one family per session.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Parents could contact their grief 

worker when they wanted, so the number of contacts per family ranged from one to 25 

(mean = 5.78, standard deviation = 5.11). 

AN ACHE IN THEIR HEARTS 

58 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Frequency of program offerings: Participants could contact their grief worker at any 

time during the 15-month observation period 

• Diversity of activities: Treatments included relationship counseling, information 

clarification or collection, or psychosocial support, depending on the particular 

difficulties that might hinder the family’s grieving process.

• Incentives for participation: No incentives were reported in this evaluation.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

 The most consistent finding of the evaluation is that parents at high-risk of developing 

mourning difficulties benefit more than those at low risk. Fifty-one fathers (30 treatment, 

21 comparison) were classified as at low-risk and fourteen fathers (seven treatment, 

seven comparison) were classified as at high-risk of developing mourning difficulties. 

 One exception to the influence of risk was an improvement in seeking support as a 

coping strategy for all fathers. 

 Fathers in the treatment group had significantly reduced psychiatric disturbance scores 

over time (p<.001). For high-risk fathers, psychiatric disturbance was significantly lower 

at both six months (p<.05) and 15 months post-loss (p<.01). For low-risk fathers, 

psychiatric disturbance was significantly lower at 15 months postloss (p<.001). In 

addition, high-risk fathers had reduced levels of psychiatric disturbance to such an extent 

that they were not significantly different from those of low-risk fathers at 15 months. 

 Levels of anxiety among high-risk treatment group fathers declined significantly at 15 

months post-loss (p<.01). This decline was large enough that levels of anxiety were not 

significantly different for high-risk and low-risk fathers at 15 months postloss. 

 The use of avoidance coping strategies declined significantly over time for high-risk 

fathers in the treatment group (p<.05).Seeking support as a coping strategy changed 

significantly for the treatment group of fathers (p<.001) but not the comparison group. 

 High-risk parents who participated in the intervention were more likely to maintain 

relationship quality over time than high-risk individuals in the comparison group (p<.01). 

High-risk fathers in the comparison group had lower marital cohesion six month postloss 

(p<.05). 

 Some benefits for fathers were not significant until 15 months postloss, suggesting longterm efficacy of the treatment. 

SOURCES:

Bedford, A., Foulds, G.A., and Sheffield, B.F. (1976). A new personal disturbance scale 

(DSSI/sAD). British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 387-94. 

Moos, R.H., Cronkite, R.C., Billings, A.C., and Finney, J.W. (1984). Health and daily living form 

manual. Social Ecology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Veterans 

Administration and Stanford University Medical Centers, Palo Alto, CA. 

Murray, J.A. (1993). ‘An ache in their hearts’ resource package. The University of Queensland, 

Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 

Murray, J.A., Terry, D.J., Vance, J.C., Battistutta, D., and Connolly, Y. (2000). Effects of a 

program of intervention on parental distress following infant death. Death Studies, 24, 275-305. 

Raphael, B. (1984). The anatomy of bereavement. New York: Basic Books. 

AN ACHE IN THEIR HEARTS 

59 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic satisfaction: New scales for assessing the quality of 

marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15-25. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Judith A. Murray, Deborah J. Terry, John C. Vance, D. Battistutta and Y. Connolly. 

The University of Queensland. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 

AN ACHE IN THEIR HEARTS 

60 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

THE EFFECTS OF A PARENT EDUCATION/PLAY GROUP ON FATHER 

INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD REARING 

OVERVIEW: The Parent Education/Play Group Program, a fatherhood intervention study, 

aimed to demonstrate that father involvement programs will increase father interaction and 

responsibility with their children, and improve fathers’ perceived sense of parenting and 

competence. The Parent Education/Play Group Program had two components: group discussion 

and father-child dyad play. Significant program effects were found on treatment group fathers’ 

responsibility, forms of involvement, and their perceived sense of competence in parenting skills. 

Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: 

The program aimed to: 

• Cultivate support for the need and necessity of father involvement programs. 

• Provide a contextual understanding for practitioners and researchers of the modifiability 

of father involvement with the hope that the improved understand would lead to the 

development and implementation of parent education and support programs. 

The Parent Education/Play Group intervention aimed to: 

• Improve fathers’ confidence related to parenting 

• Increase fathers’ parenting skills 

• Improve paternal responsibility accessibility and interaction with their children 

LOCATION: Not currently available.

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

FATHERS 

• Age. The mean age of fathers was 34.7 years old. 

• Number of children. Fourteen (14) fathers had only one child, thirteen (13) had two children, 

and three (3) fathers had three children. The majority of the fathers signed up to participate 

with their first born child. 

• Ethnicity. 80% white, 7% black, 7% Arabic, 3% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. 

• Income. Twenty (20) fathers had combined family incomes greater than $40,000 and six (6) 

had family incomes between $25,000 and $40,000. 

• Education. Eighteen (18) had advanced degree or were attending graduate school. Seven (7) 

had B.S. degrees. 

• Employment. All of the fathers were employed full-time outside of the home 

CHILDREN 

Age. The mean age was 94.8 months. 

Gender. Seventeen (17) girls and thirteen (13) boys. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 

• Outcomes:

o Fathers’ perceived sense of competence in parenting 

THE EFFECTS OF A PARENT EDUCATION/PLAY GROUP ON FATHER INVOLVEMENT 

IN CHILD REARING 

61
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

o Fathers’ perceptions of the degree to which they have acquired the skills and 

understanding to be a good parent 

o Fathers’ value of parenthood and comfort level in the role as a parent 

o Paternal responsibility. 

o Paternal accessibility and interaction 

• Method: A number of instruments were for the present study. 

o The Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC) – a 17 item self-report Likerttype scale developed to measure self-esteem in parenting situations.

o Child Care Task Checklist – list 11 common child care tasks used to measure 

paternal responsibility. 

o Interaction/Accessibility Time Chart (adapted) – data from this chart was 

collected through phone interviews and was used to measure the total amount of 

time the father was interacting with or accessible to his child for one workday 

and one non-workday. 

Data from the PSOC, Child Care Task Checklist, and Interaction/Accessibility Time 

Chart was collected for both the treatment group and control group prior to the start of the 

10- week program (pre-test) and at the end of the program (post-test) 

• Sample: 30 fathers (15 in the treatment group and 15 in the waitlist group) and their preschool aged children. 

• Measures:

o Fathers’ perceived sense of competence in parenting 

o Fathers’ perceptions of the degree to which they have acquired the skills and 

understanding to be a good parent 

o Fathers’ value of parenthood and comfort level in the role as a parent 

o Paternal responsibility- remembering, planning, and scheduling the child-care 

task. 

o Paternal accessibility and interaction 

• Statistical Analyses:

o To examine group differences, a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) 

function was used with the PSOC, Interaction, Accessibility, and Responsibility 

scores as the dependent variables and group membership as a factor.

• Attrition: Not currently available.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support 

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

THE EFFECTS OF A PARENT EDUCATION/PLAY GROUP ON FATHER INVOLVEMENT 

IN CHILD REARING 

62
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

Father-child dyads in the experimental group participated in a 10-week parent 

education/play group program. Control group father-child groups participated in a 

comparable 10 week program. Two major components: Group discussion and fatherchild play time.

 Group Discussion: This component used the Parent Effectiveness Training 

(P.E.T.), Adlerian, and Behavioral approaches with a specific focus on the child, 

and allowing fathers the opportunity to share their problems and perceptions with 

one another. 

 Father-child play: Fathers and their children engaged in both structured and nonstructured preschool-type activities. This gave fathers the opportunity to play and 

explore different ways of engaging their children, and to increase their sensitivity 

to the needs of their children. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: 30 fathers (15 in the control group and 15 in the treatment group) 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): 20 hours total, 10 weeks long

• Frequency of program offerings: 2 hours on 10 consecutive Saturday mornings. 

• Diversity of activities: Group discussion (1 hour/week) and father-child play time (1 

hour/week)

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• There were no significant pretest demographic differences between the control group and 

the treatment group. 

• The MANOVA function used to investigate program effects with the PSOC, Interaction, 

Accessibility, and Responsibility scores revealed: 

o Significant differences in PSOC [F(1,28 = 7.75, p=.010)] post-test scores, with 

the fathers in the treatment group scoring higher. 

 There were significant differences on the Valuing/Comfort subscale 

[F(1.28) = 10.14, p=.004], with treatment group fathers scoring higher 

than control group fathers. At the end of the program, treatment group 

fathers saw themselves as more comfortable with their parental role 

compared to control group fathers. 

o There were significant differences in Responsibility [F(1,28) = 7.09, p=.013] 

post-test scores, with the fathers in the treatment group scoring higher. 

THE EFFECTS OF A PARENT EDUCATION/PLAY GROUP ON FATHER INVOLVEMENT 

IN CHILD REARING 

63
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

o Differences in Interaction and Accessibility post-test scores were not significant 

for fathers. 

• Older fathers became more interactive (r=.55, p=0.5) while fathers of firstborn children 

became more accessible (r=.67, p <.01). 

SOURCES:

McBride, Brent A. (1990). The effects of a parent education/play group program on father 

involvement in child rearing. Family Relations, 39, (3), 250-256. Available at 

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0197-

6664%28199007%2939%3A3%3C250%3ATEOAPE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W. 

THE EFFECTS OF A PARENT EDUCATION/PLAY GROUP ON FATHER INVOLVEMENT 

IN CHILD REARING 

64
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

FATHERHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM -- BOSTON 

OVERVIEW: This parent education program was implemented in Boston in 1981. The program 

taught communication skills to fathers who had at least one school-aged child. The evaluators 

found that, compared to a group of fathers who did not receive program services, fathers in the 

program improved their communication skills with more sensitivity to children and fewer 

undesirable responses to children’s behaviors. Children of men in the program were more likely 

to perceive a positive change in their relationships with their fathers than children of men in the 

comparison group. The intervention also seemed to lower fathers’ satisfaction with their families 

and changed their concepts of an ideal family. The evaluators explain this result as an increase in 

fathers’ expectations for family relationships, but incomplete implementation and consolidation 

of the changes they would like to make in their relationships at the time of the post-test. Read 

More...

PROGRAM GOALS: This program intended to improve fathers’ communication skills with 

their school-aged children, and thereby increase fathers’ active participation in parenting. 

LOCATION: This parent education program took place in Boston, Massachusetts. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: The program recruited 11 married, 

Caucasian fathers in the Boston area who had at least one child of age 6-12. 

• The average age for fathers was 36.45 years, for mothers 35.22 years, and for focal 

children 8.63 years. 

• Fathers averaged 16.4 years of education. 

• The length of present marriage averaged 9.32 years. 

• 27.3% of the men had been married previously. 

• Focal children were 63.6% male and 36.4% female. 

• The treatment and comparison groups had similar characteristics except that mother’s age 

was somewhat older in the treatment group. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (PRE- POST-TEST DESIGN) 

• Outcomes: The effects of the program were assessed in the areas of:

o Fathers’ communication skills; 

o Children’s perceptions of their relationships with their fathers; and 

o Family systemic effects, as measured by the family concepts held by fathers and 

mothers. 

• Method: Fathers were recruited to the program from community organizations in Boston 

neighborhoods. Eleven of the men underwent the eight-week program and eleven men 

did not. All men, their wives, and the children that were the focus of the intervention 

were measured on the relevant dependent variables before and after the intervention. 

• Sample: Eleven married, Caucasian fathers living in the Boston area participated in the 

parent program as well as a comparison group of eleven fathers with similar demographic 

characteristics. 

FATHERHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM- BOSTON 

65 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Measures: Fathers’ communication skills were measured using the Sensitivity to 

Children Scale (Stollak 1968; Kallman and Stollak 1974) and the Porter Acceptance 

Scale (Porter 1954). Children’s perceptions of their relationships with their fathers were 

assessed using structured one-on-one interviews and the Kinetic-Family-Drawing Test 

(Burns and Kaufman 1972). Family systemic effects were measured using the Family 

Concept Test (van der Veen 1965).

• Statistical Analyses: The Sensitivity to Children Scale, the Porter Acceptance Scale and 

the Family Concept Test were analyzed using analysis of covariance, with the pre-test 

scores as the co-variates. This method allows evaluators to test whether the changes 

measured between the pre-test and the post-test are significantly different for the 

treatment group and the control group. 

• Attrition: None.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: The sessions were led by one graduate student for the 11 

participants.

o Staff Education: The leader of the sessions was an advanced doctoral candidate 

in counseling psychology.

o Staff Experience: The session leader had experience with skills training and 

with group work.

o Staff Training: The session leader was noted for his ability to engage fathers in 

family therapy.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Materials for the program were prepared by the evaluators but were not 

published. The session leader used the Leader’s Guide and fathers were given Father’s 

Workbooks.

• Partnerships and Linkages: The participants were recruited from community 

organizations in Boston neighborhoods, including churches, schools, health and social 

services agencies, and businesses.

• Community Organizations: This project was undertaken by psychologists from Boston 

University.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The curriculum was developed by the evaluators and is 

unpublished. The program emphasized the development of skills through didactic and 

experiential processes. The first half of the course focused on fathers’ listening and 

responding to their children. The second half of the course focused on fathers’ speaking 

for themselves and acceptance of their children.

FATHERHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM- BOSTON 

66 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Eleven participants.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): 32 hours over eight weeks.

• Frequency of program offerings: Weekly three-hour sessions, plus one-hour homework 

assignments.

• Diversity of activities: Sessions included demonstrations of skills using videotaped and 

live examples and practice of the skills using role-play exercises and videotape for 

immediate feedback. Homework assignments included readings, pencil-and-paper 

exercises, and using learned skills in interactions with children.

• Incentives for participation: Participants were volunteers. No participant incentives 

were reported in the evaluation.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

 Fathers in the treatment group had significantly more improvement on the Sensitivity to 

Children Scale than fathers in the comparison group (p<.05). This scale has two 

components: desirable responses and undesirable responses. Fathers in the treatment 

group significantly decreased their undesirable responses compared to the other fathers 

(p<.05), but there was not a significant difference between groups in the number of 

desirable responses (p=.144). 

 There were no significant differences between treatment and comparison groups in 

changes on the Porter Acceptance Scale. 

 Analysis of the final measure, the Family Concept Test, found mixed results among the 

four indicators of family concept. Father’s Satisfaction significantly declined for the 

treatment group compared to the other group (p<.01). The difference between groups in 

changes on Mother’s Satisfaction was not significant (p=.251). Changes on Real Family 

Congruence (the degree of agreement between mothers and fathers on family concept) 

were not significantly different between groups. However, the treatment group had 

significant declines in Ideal Family Congruence (the degree of agreement between a 

father’s perceptions of his real family and an ideal family) compared to the other group 

(p>.05). 

 Children of fathers in the program perceived an improvement in their relationships with 

their fathers more often than children of the men in the comparison group. 

 This client-based skills training program for fathers seemed to teach participants what not 

to do in terms of responding to their school-aged children, but they were not immediately 

able to increase their desirable responses to children. 

 The degree to which fathers’ actual family relationships conformed to their ideal 

relationships declined after the program, presumably because they had learned better 

relationships were possible but had not been able to fully implement their new skills. 

 All findings are tentative and not generalizable, as the study had a very small number of 

participants. 

SOURCES:

Burns, R.C., & Kaufman, S.H. (1972). Actions, styles, and symbols in Kinetic-Family Drawings 

(KFD). An interpretive manual. New York: Brunner/Mazel. 

Levant, R.F., & Doyle, G.F. (1983). An evaluation of a parent education program for fathers of 

school-aged children. Family Relations 32, 29-37. 

FATHERHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM- BOSTON 

67 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

Kallman, J., & Stollak, G. (1974). Maternal behavior toward children in need-arousing 

situations. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, 

Chicago, IL. 

Porter, B. (1954). Measurement of parental acceptance of children. Journal of Home Economics 

46(3), 177-184. 

Stollak, G. (1968). A measure of parent sensitivity to children. Unpublished manuscript. 

Michigan State University.

van der Veen, F. (1965). The parent’s concept of the family unit and child adjustment. Journal of 

Counseling Psychology 12, 196-200. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Ronald F. Levant and Gregory F. Doyle

FATHERHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM- BOSTON 

68 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

FATHER INVOLVEMENT INTERVENTION IN A HEAD START-BASED PROGRAM 

OVERVIEW: Under a Head Start-University Partnerships grant funded by the US Department 

of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, a fatherhood 

intervention was adapted from traditional Head Start parent involvement activities for fathers that 

sought to bolster the connection between fathers and their children in Head start programs. The 

intervention involved increased participation and coordination of program activities by fathers in 

Head Start classrooms. Overall, fathers who participated in the program more frequently were 

found to have positive behavior changes in terms of father-child interaction. The greatest gains 

were made in fathers’ direct interaction, accessibility to their children, and support for children’s 

learning. The study found no significant associations between involvement in the program and 

improved child rearing behaviors. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

• Increase father involvement with children at home 

• Improve fathers’ child rearing behaviors 

• Increase children’s academic readiness and social skills 

LOCATION: Not currently available. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: To participate in the study, fathers had to be 

significantly involved in the care, rearing, and support of the focal child. Fathers could be 

grandfathers, uncles, biological fathers, stepfathers, or the Head Start mother’s partner. 

• 52.7% were African American, 30.9% were Latino-American, 9.2% were White, 3.6% 

were Asian American and 3.6% were identified as “Other”. 

• The median total family income of fathers was $10,500 per year 

• 70.9% were biological fathers; 14.5% were stepfathers, 3.6% were grandfathers, 7.3% 

were uncles, and 3.7% were mother’s partner. 

• 72.7% were residing fathers, 28.1% did not reside with the focal child. 

• 49.2% were single and never married 

• 58.2% were employed, 41.8% were unemployed 

• The average age was 34 years 

EVALUATION DESIGN: QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL, PRE-POST DESIGN 

• Outcomes:

o Increased father involvement at home

o Improvement in father’s child rearing behaviors

o Improvement in child’s academic readiness

o Improved social skills of children

• Method: Fathers who expressed interest in participating were assigned to the treatment 

group from four urban public elementary schools. The comparison group consisted of 

fathers from geographically similar neighborhoods from four separate elementary 

schools. The comparison group fathers still had the possibility of volunteering in 

programs in their child’s Head Start program. Each group was further divided into dosage 

groups (high, adequate, and low dosage) based on the amount of time they spent in the 

FATHER INVOLVEMENT INTERVENTION IN A HEAD START-BASED 

PROGRAM 

69 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

program. Low dosage fathers spent 1 to 4 hours in the program; adequate dosage fathers 

spent 5 to 21.5 hours; and high dosage fathers spent more than 21.5 hours in the program.

After agreeing to participate in the study, fathers and mothers were interviewed 

separately face-to-face. Each interviewer was either African American or LatinoAmerican. At the face-to-face interview, a questionnaire was administered, and then only 

fathers were videotaped playing with their child for 16 minutes. After the initial 

interviews, fathers participated in three random telephone interviews (two on a week day 

and the third on a weekend day). Telephone interviewers were blind to the objectives of 

the study and did not know the assignment of the fathers to either the comparison or 

treatment group. Two cohorts of fathers were followed for eight months. Data on children 

were collected at pre-test and post-test. 

• Sample: 146 fathers (91 in the treatment group and 55 in the comparison group) were 

recruited. Fathers were further broken down into dosage groups. Within the treatment 

group, there were 18 participants in the high dosage group, 15 participants in the 

adequate dosage group, and 22 participants in the low dosage group. Within the 

comparison group, there were 5 participants in the high dosage group, 0 participants in 

the adequate dosage group, and 36 participants in the low dosage group.

• Measures: 

o Father involvement at home

 Accessibility was measured by the time the father was actively 

interacting or not interacting with their child but close enough that he 

could become involved if necessary.

 Direct interaction was measured by asking fathers to recall the nature of 

their interactions with their children during the time they were both 

awake. Direct interaction was measured as one-on-one interaction with 

the child which could be play interactions, caregiving, or outings. The 

interactions could happen anywhere at any time, except in a Head Start 

program. Fathers were asked about interactions between their child the 

day of the call, starting with involvement the time the child awoke, and 

the actual time the involvement took place. Play interactions included: 

rough-and-tumble play, coloring and painting, playing board games, 

video games, puzzles, toys, role playing, and other symbolic play. 

Caregiving was measured as providing direct care to meet daily living 

needs. Outings were measured as going out to places with the child 

which could be restaurants, playgrounds, stores, or church.

 Father’s support of children’s learning was measured by asking the 

number of times the father read aloud to this child for at least 5 to 10 

minutes for the previous two days. Fathers were also asked the title of the 

books read.

o Father’s child rearing behaviors. This item was measured using an abbreviated 

version of the Parenting Dimensions Inventoryxxxviii which assesses 8 dimensions 

of parents. Three scales were used for the study: nurturance, responsiveness to 

child, and inconsistent discipline. The scales contained descriptive information 

which had six-point responses that ranged from “not at all descriptive of me” (1) 

to “highly descriptive of me”. There were 21 items on the scale.

FATHER INVOLVEMENT INTERVENTION IN A HEAD START-BASED 

PROGRAM 

70 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

 The Parent/Caregiver Involvement Scalexxxix was used and measured the 

quality of caregivers’ involvement during play. It assessed the amount 

and appropriateness of interaction between caregivers and children from 

0 to 5 years on responsiveness to child, play interaction, and positive 

control. The videotapes of fathers playing with their children were also 

used to assess the quality of caregivers’ involvement. The sessions were 

taped in a quiet room in the Head Start center where fathers were asked 

to play with their children with an age-appropriate farmhouse for 8 

minutes, then with puzzles and a picture book with no words.

o Child’s academic readiness. This item was assessed using the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Achievement-Revisedxl, to examine early reading (using a letterword identification scale). There was also an applied problem test that was used 

to assess early mathematics readiness. 

o Child’s social skills. Assessed using the Social Skills Rating Systemxli, which 

examined teachers’ and parents’ perception of the child’s social behavior. The 

teacher report contained 40 items in the Social Skills and Problem Behavior 

domains. The parent report included 49 items in the same domains. 

• Statistical Analyses: Factor analysis was done to lower the number of dependent 

variables in the study. MANOVA and ANOVA were conducted to examine changes in 

the dependent variables in relation to the treatment groups. Wilks multivariate effect sizes 

were calculated using SPSS. Pearson product moment correlations and multiple 

regression analyses were conducted to examine mediators of child outcomes. Chi squares 

and t-tests were done to compare differences between the treatment and control groups.

• Attrition: Of the 146 fathers initially recruited, 96 men finished the post-test interview. 

The response rate of fathers participating in the post-test protocol was 66%. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: An all-male staff served the fathers in the program. 

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

FATHER INVOLVEMENT INTERVENTION IN A HEAD START-BASED 

PROGRAM 

71 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Curriculum or Program Model: An all-male staff managed the father involvement 

program. The program included five components: 

 Volunteering in the program 

 Weekly Father’s day programs in each classroom: Structural educational 

activities were planned and implemented by fathers and project staff in each 

classroom. This component encouraged fathers to read and play with 

developmentally appropriate materials. Activities were designed to correlate with 

the interests and gifts of the men in the program and align with the classroom 

curriculum. 

 Father sensitivity training for the staff 

 Support groups for fathers: These groups were conducted monthly in the 

evenings to accommodate working fathers. Topics discussed included the 

meaning of fatherhood (exploring men’s feelings about childhood, their 

relationships with their father, their experiences being a fathers, beliefs about 

father relations, positive forms of involvement with children, positive forms of 

involvement with children); mother-father relations (barriers mothers and fathers 

face in male/female relationships and strategies for resolving dilemmas); and 

other sessions included guest parent educators who spoke about children’s selfesteem, encouraging language and literacy, and use of positive behavioral control 

strategies. 

 Father-child recreation activities. Specific activities included cookouts, fun days 

at the University, a swim party, a trip to an indoor activity center, and basketball 

games. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): For the study, fathers were placed 

in subgroups of dosage: low, adequate, and high. Low dosage fathers spent 1 to 4 hours 

in the program; adequate dosage fathers spent 5 to 21.5 hours; and high dosage fathers 

spent more than 21.5 hours in the program.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: Father participated in a variety of activities which included 

support groups, activities that involved their planning and coordination, and father-child 

recreation group activities.

• Incentives for participation: Participants received $30 at both pretest and post test.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Father Involvement in the Home

o MANOVA analysis determined a significant main effect for direct interaction, 

accessibility (p<.001), support of learning (p<.001), and giving care (p<.001). 

The Wilks multivariate effect size was .135, with a power of .99. The univariate 

analysis found a significant main effect of the treatment group for direct 

interaction (p <.001), accessibility (p=.009), and support of learning, (p<.001). 

o Treatment group fathers with a high dosage had the most positive change in 

direct interaction with children at home. Also, treatment group fathers in the high 

dosage group showed the greatest increase in accessibility to their children. 

FATHER INVOLVEMENT INTERVENTION IN A HEAD START-BASED 

PROGRAM 

72 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Child Rearing Behaviors

o MANOVA analysis found no significant main effects for the treatment-dosage 

group, so univariate analyses were not conducted. 

• Children’s Academic Readiness

o MANOVA analysis to determine the main effect on applied problems and letterword identification change produced a significant multivariate main effect for the 

treatment group (p =.05). Wilks multivariate effect size for the treatment group 

was .083, with a power of .83. Univariate analyses for individual academic 

readiness change scores showed a significant main effect of the treatment group 

for applied problems (p=.018). 

o There was no significant main effect for letter-word identification (p=.171). 

o The treatment group fathers with high dosage had the greatest gains in applied 

problem skills. The children of treatment, high dosage fathers had significantly 

greater positive change scores than the children of comparison group, low dosage 

fathers. 

• Children’s Social Skills 

o The MANOVA analysis produced a significant multivariate positive effect which 

included teacher reports on social skills, and the parent report on problem 

behavior and social skills behavior change scores at p=.015. The Wilks 

multivariate effect size was .11, with a power of .92. Univariate analyses for 

individual social skills change scores had a significant main effect of the 

treatment group for parent’s report on problem behavior (p=.005). 

o The problem behavior change scores of children of comparison group fathers 

with a low dosage were significantly greater than the change scores of treatment 

group fathers with a low dosage. 

SOURCES:

Fagan, J. & Iglesias, A. (1999). Father involvement program effects on fathers, father figures, and 

their Head Start children: A quasi-experimental study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 

14(2), 243-269. 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Jay Fagan 

Temple University 

School of Social Administration 

Ritter Hall Annex 5th floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19122 

FATHER INVOLVEMENT INTERVENTION IN A HEAD START-BASED 

PROGRAM 

73 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

LOS ANGELES JOBS-FIRST GAIN 

OVERVIEW: The Los Angles Jobs-First GAIN (Greater Avenues for Independence) program 

was an employment-focused mandatory welfare-to-work program operated by the Los Angeles 

County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) from January 1995 through March 1998. 

Recipients from both single-parent and two-parent families were tracked for two years in order to 

asses the program’s impact on a number of outcomes including employment, earnings, and 

welfare receipt. Evaluators also assessed the cost-effectiveness of the program. The evaluation 

found that overall during the two-year follow-up period Jobs-First GAIN led to substantial 

increases in employment and earnings, and reductions in welfare and Food Stamp receipt for 

recipients from two-parent families (of which more than half were male). Read More...

PROGRAM GOALS:

The program’s goal was to transfer welfare recipients into full-time work right away. Using a 

Work First approach and offering job assistance as its primary service, the program aimed to help 

greater numbers of welfare recipients achieve self-sufficiency. 

LOCATION: Los Angeles County, CA

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: 

Evaluators collected a random sample of welfare recipients from single-parent and two-parent 

families located in the inner-city neighborhoods of Los Angeles as well as outlying suburbs. 

Recipients from single-parents families were only 7% male while the recipients from two-parent 

families were more than half male (53%). 

• Demographics among two-parent families: 

o 53% male 

o Average age – 36.2 years 

o 47% Hispanic, 5.3% African American, 28.1% non-Hispanic white and 20% 

Asian (primarily Cambodian and Vietnamese) 

o 60% had a child under 6 years old and the average recipient had 2.4 children. 

o Fewer than half, 40%, had graduated high school or had a GED 

o 30% had worked for pay in the past year and 68% had received welfare for two 

years cumulatively 

o 87.8% were married 

o About half, 52%, had limited English proficiency 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT) 

• Outcomes: The outcomes studied for recipients from two-parent families include:

o Participation in Jobs-First GAIN’s services 

o Employment and earnings 

o Welfare receipt 

o Cost effectiveness of the program 

• Method: The evaluation utilized an experimental design. People who showed up at a 

Jobs-First GAIN office to enroll in the program between April 1996 and September 1996 

were assigned, at random, to the experimental group or, for comparison, the control 

group. Experimental group members were given access to Jobs-First GAIN’s program 

services, subject to the program’s mandatory participation requirements and could incur a 

sanction – reduction in welfare benefits – for noncompliance. Those in the control group 

LOS ANGELES JOBS-FIRST GAIN 

74 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

were still eligible for AFDC/TANF and could seek other services in the community as 

well as childcare assistance should they enroll in a work program under their own 

initiative. The evaluation involved three main components: 

o Participation analysis: Examined the participation rates of experimental and 

control group recipients. 

o Impact analysis: Examined differences between Jobs-First GAIN’s experimental 

participants and a control group in employment rates and earning/income and 

welfare receipt. Evaluators also assessed the impacts on child care usage, child 

outcomes, household structure, and medical coverage for a subsample of single 

mothers (findings not shown in this summary) 

o Benefit-cost analysis: Data from the impact study and fiscal data were used to 

compare financial costs and benefits experienced by recipients, the government, 

and taxpayers as a result of the Jobs-First GAIN program. 

• Sample: Welfare recipients who inhabit the inner-city neighborhoods of Los Angeles as 

well as outlying suburbs. The sample was diverse with respect to race and ethnicity, age, 

and family size, and includes 15,683 single parents (Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children – Family Group - AFDC-FGs), and 5,048 members of two-parent families (Aid 

to Families with Dependent Children – Unemployed Parents – AFDC-Us). 

• Measures: The evaluation utilized data from a number of different sources, including:

o Employment and earnings 

o Receipt of AFDC/TANF and Food Stamps

o Receipt and costs of Medi-Cal benefits 

o Participation in employment-related activities within and outside Jobs-First 

GAIN; educational attainment; employment history; household structure and 

income; medical coverage and receipt of noncash benefits; level of food 

insecurity and hunger; use of child care for employment and for other reasons; 

and indicators of children’s school progress, emotional and behavioral wellbeing, and safety.

• Statistical Analyses: To assess the effects of the Jobs-First GAIN program, impact 

estimates were regression-adjusted for differences between the two research groups in 

baseline characteristics, prior earnings and employment, and prior AFDC and Food 

Stamp receipt. Differences between the experimental and control groups were considered 

statistically significant if the result of a statistical test (typically a t-test) indicated that 

there is less than a 10 percent probability that they could have occurred by chance. 

• Attrition: Not currently available.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available

o Staff Education: Not currently available

o Staff Experience: Not currently available

o Staff Training: Not currently available

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available

o Staff wages: Not currently available

LOS ANGELES JOBS-FIRST GAIN 

75 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not applicable

• Materials: Not currently available

• Partnerships and Linkages: Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services 

(DPSS) implemented the Jobs-First GAIN with help from the Los Angeles County Office 

of Education (COE). Job developers in each GAIN office cultivated relationships with 

local employers and compiled lists of jobs positions and tried to match enrollees with 

open positions.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

The key features included: 

o Intensive program orientation aimed at motivating new enrollees to find work 

quickly. 

o High-quality job clubs, the leaders of which taught job-finding skills and engaged 

participants in activities aimed at boosting their self-esteem and motivation to work. 

The clubs also provided job development activities to increase job opportunities and to 

match people with prospective employers. 

o A strong Work First message, communicated through written handouts and group 

presentations and in one-on-one meetings with program staff. 

o Time limits on welfare eligibility. Recipients received a warning, conveyed orally 

and in writing that California would impose time limits on welfare eligibility for those 

who did not work. 

o Education regarding welfare grants. A concerted effort to teach people that 

California’s relatively generous rules for calculating welfare grants would help them 

increase their income in the short term by combining work and welfare. 

o A relatively tough, enforcement-oriented approach to encourage people to complete 

the program activities and find work quickly. 

After the passage of the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

Act (PRWORA) of 1996, Los Angeles County’s TANF program, California Work Opportunity 

and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) replaced Jobs-First GAIN in April 1998. Most features 

of Jobs-First GAIN continued under CalWORKS and several new features were added including: 

o Time limits on welfare eligibility - Welfare recipients in California, as elsewhere, are 

subject to TANF’s five-year lifetime limit on eligibility for federally funded benefits. 

o Grant diversion- CalWORKs offers new and returning applicants for assistance who 

meet specific criteria a onetime payment (equivalent to up to three months of benefits) 

if they forgo welfare.

o Stronger financial incentives – The CalWORKs formula gives recipients a somewhat 

stronger incentive to increase work hours than the previous Work Pays formula in 

effect under Jobs-First GAIN.

o Extended transitional benefits - CalWORKs offers recipients who leave assistance 

for employment subsidized child care for two years or until the family’s income 

reaches 75 percent of the state median. Under Jobs-First GAIN and the previous GAIN 

LOS ANGELES JOBS-FIRST GAIN 

76 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

program, transitional child care benefits were available for only one year after welfare 

exit. CalWORKs also extends medical coverage for up to two years (compared with 

one year under Jobs-First GAIN and Los Angeles GAIN) to people who leave welfare 

for employment.

o Post-employment services - CalWORKs enrollees who find employment are eligible 

for case management services from the program while still receiving welfare and for 

one year after ceasing to receive a grant. 

o Special services - DPSS devoted additional funding and special training to help 

CalWORKs staff identify enrollees with problems related to mental health, substance 

abuse, or domestic violence. These enrollees may be referred to special counseling or 

treatment services instead of job club and still receive credit for meeting CalWORKs’ 

work requirements. Under Jobs-First GAIN (and its predecessor), many of these 

enrollees were exempted from the program’s participation requirement without being 

referred to treatment or counseling.

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: DPSS maintained an active caseload of about 45,000 under Jobs-First GAIN 

from 1995 to 1998 and around 100,000 under CalWorks from January 1999 onward.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Six hour group orientation followed 

by a one-on-one appraisal meeting with a case manager during their first day in the 

program. Information regarding further hours spent with Job Clubs and program staff not 

currently available.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not applicable

• Diversity of activities: Activities revolve around finding and maintaining employment. 

Job clubs provide instruction in many of the skills needed to obtain employment 

including writing a resume, finding job openings and interview skills. Benefits such as 

child care and Medi-Cal are offered during recipients’ time on welfare and during the 

transition period. Under CalWORKs, recipients receive post-employment services for 

one year such as extended case management, counseling, mentoring and on-going 

education. 

• Incentives for participation:

 Financial sanctions (reductions in welfare benefits) for noncompliance 

 Parents not employed after 18-24 months must perform community service

 5-year lifetime limit on cash assistance (after the 1996 passage of the Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act)

 Earnings disregarded

 Transitional benefits for those who leave welfare due to employment including: 

Subsidized childcare and Medi-Cal coverage, additional vocational training, help 

obtaining EITC.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS: 

Employment/Earnings Findings for AFDC-Us: 

*All findings described below are statistically significant at p < .01 unless otherwise noted 

• Approximately two-thirds of experimental group members found employment in the twoyear follow-up period (a similar proportion to that among AFDC-FGs). Jobs- First GAIN 

produced large two-year impacts on both employment and earnings — 10 percentage 

points and $2,050, respectively. 

LOS ANGELES JOBS-FIRST GAIN 

77 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Jobs-First GAIN decreased the average length of AFDC/TANF receipt by a little over a 

month (7 percent) and reduced welfare expenditures by $1,429 per experimental group 

member (12 percent) over the two-year follow-up period. Reductions in Food Stamp 

receipt and expenditures were similar in size. 

• The two-year earnings gain for the full AFDC-U sample was offset by reductions in 

AFDC/TANF and Food Stamp payments. As a result, Jobs-First GAIN did not change 

sample members’ combined income from these sources. 

• Jobs-First GAIN led to employment and earnings gains and welfare reductions for both 

AFDC-U males and AFDC-U females. Impacts on employment were larger for women 

(12 percentage points compared with 8 percentage points for men), whereas men 

experienced a larger two-year earnings increase ($2,645 versus $1,486 for women). The 

average two-year reduction in welfare expenditures was also larger for AFDC-U males 

than females: $1,750 (14 percent) versus $1,005 (9 percent). 

• AFDC-U women’s earnings gain resulted primarily from increased job finding (74 

percent) and less so from decreased time to first job (23 percent). In contrast, the earnings 

gain for AFDC-U men resulted from a combination of job finding (39 percent), decreased 

time to first job (26 percent), as well as increased earnings on the job (21 percent) 

(statistical significance test results not provided). Employed female experimental group 

members earned slightly less per quarter than their control group counterparts, whereas 

employed male experimental group members earned about 6 percent ($168) more 

(statistically significant, p-value not provided). 

• Jobs-First GAIN achieved substantial earnings gains and welfare savings for several 

subgroups of AFDC-Us. Remarkably, Jobs-First GAIN increased two-year total earnings 

by over $2,000 for the “most disadvantaged” recipients (sample members who were longterm welfare recipients, had no high school diploma or GED at random assignment, and 

were not employed in the year prior to random assignment), as well as for Hispanics and 

Asians not proficient in English. The program did not increase earnings for several other 

subgroups of AFDC-Us, including whites, high school graduates and GED recipients. 

SOURCES: 

Freedman, S., Knab, J.T., Gennetian L.A., Navarro, D. (2000). The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN 

Evaluation: Final Report on a Work First Program in a Major Urban Center. New York: 

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 

19th Floor 

16 East 34 Street 

New York, NY 10016-4326 

LOS ANGELES JOBS-FIRST GAIN 

78 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

HAWAII’S HEALTHY STATE PROGRAM (HSP) 

OVERVIEW: The Hawaii’s Healthy State Program (HSP), a child abuse prevention program, 

used home visitors to help families turn away from abusive and neglectful parenting behavior. 

The HSP model had two components: population-based screening and assessment of families of 

newborns to identify those at risk for child abuse and neglect, and home-visiting of at risk 

families. Families were recruited from November 1994 through December 1995. An at-risk 

family was eligible for the Healthy Start services if the family lived in the HSP target community 

and was not already know to CPS. The Hawaii’s Healthy State Program promoted parenting 

involvement for nonviolent fathers in couples who lived together but also for violent fathers in 

couple, with little contact at baseline. However, the program had no apparent impact on fathers’ 

accessibility to the child, engagement in parenting activities, and sharing of responsibility for the 

child’s welfare. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: 

The population-based screening and assessment of families aimed to: 

• Identify families with a future risk of child maltreatment or neglect. 

The home-visiting component aimed to: 

• Improve family functioning 

• Prevent child abuse 

• Promote child health and development 

LOCATION: When the study began, there were six HSP programs serving communities on 

Oahu and four program serving neighboring islands of Hawaii. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

• Age: The mean age for mothers in both the HSP group and control group hovered around 23 

years old while fathers for both groups were about 26 years old. 

• Ethnicity: The majority of all people in the sample were native Hawaiians. 

• Education: Over 60% of the entire sample in both groups had completed high school. 

• Physical Violence: Mothers and fathers in both control and program groups were equally 

likely to exhibit physical violence. 

• Psychological Aggression toward Partner: Mothers in the program and control group were 

more likely than fathers to exhibit physiological aggression toward the partner. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL RANDOM ASSIGNMENT DESIGN 

• Outcomes: 

o Fathers’ participation in the HSP 

o Factors influencing fathers’ participation in home visits 

o The father’s role in parenting 

o Fathers’ accessibility 

o Fathers’ engagement 

o Fathers’ responsibility 

o Maternal satisfaction with the fathers’ role 

o Home visitors’ perceived competence 

HAWAII’S HEALTHY STATE PROGRAM (HSP) 

79
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Method: The evaluation is experimental in design, with random assignment of at-risk 

families to the home-visiting and the control groups. There are three groups: 1) the HSP 

group, 2) the main control group, and 3) a testing control group. Families in the HSP and 

main control group were followed and tested at 1, 2, and 3 years to measure outcomes. 

The testing control group was evaluated at three years to determine whether the study’s 

intensive data collection influenced outcomes.

• Sample: 684 (94%) of those randomized were interviewed at baseline; the remainder 

declined participation. This included: 

o 373 families in the HSP group

o 270 in the main control group,

o 41 in the testing group at baseline. 

• Measures: 

o Fathers’ participation in the HSP: Father’s participation was measured by 

reviewing HSP records to identify those visits in which the home visitor listed 

the father as a participant, which would include only visits in which the father 

was involved in the home visit. 

o Factors influencing fathers’ participation in home visit: Mothers were 

interviewed at baseline to measure the parent’s relationship (married, living 

together, going together, friends, no relationship) and their frequency of contact 

(every day, several days a week, once or twice a week, once or twice a month, 

less than once a month, not at all). 

o The father’s role in parenting: Fathers’ parenting role was reported by maternal 

report measuring fathers accessibility to the children, engagement in parenting 

activities, and sharing of responsibility for the child’s welfare. 

o Fathers’ accessibility: Fathers’ accessibility was measured as an ordinal variable 

indicating the frequency of contact with the child in the preceding year into 

categories: daily and less than daily. 

o Fathers’ engagement: Fathers’ engagement was measured by maternal report of 

how often he performed the five tasks: changing diapers/toilet training, feeding 

the child, comforting the child, playing with the child, and teaching the child new 

things. 

o Fathers’ responsibility: Fathers’ responsibility was measured by the mother’s 

report of how the parents shared responsibility in assuring that (a) the child had 

an appropriate diet, (b) the child was learning and developing appropriately, (c) 

the child always had a trustworthy caregiver, and (d) the house was safe to 

prevent injury to the child. 

o Maternal satisfaction with the father’s role: In each follow-up interview, mothers 

were asked to rate their satisfaction with the father’s accessibility, engagement, 

and responsibility in comparison to her expectations. 

o Home visitors’ perceived competence: Home visitors were surveyed three times 

during sample recruitment and follow-up to measure their self-rated competence 

in developing a trusting relationship with each parent and in helping mothers and 

fathers acquire specific knowledge and skills. 

• Statistical Analyses: 

o Chi-square, Student’s t-test, and one-way analysis of variance were used to test 

the representativeness of study families as a sample of all identified at-risk 

families on variables for all families from the HSP management information 

HAWAII’S HEALTHY STATE PROGRAM (HSP) 

80
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

system: maternal age, ethnicity, marital status, premature birth, low birth weight 

infant, parity, and Family Stress Checklist scores. Chi-square and Student’s ttests were used to assess the comparability of the HSP and control groups on 

baseline variables. 

o Student’s t-tests and one-way analysis of variance were used to assess the 

statistical significance of associations between family characteristics and the 

proportion of visits in which the father participates. 

o Stepwise multiple linear regression to examine the combined independent 

influence of variables associated with father’s participation in home visits at the 

bivariate level. 

o Chi-square and one-way analysis of variance were used to assess the statistical 

significance of differences in parenting between fathers in three subgroups: 

parents who lived together at baseline, parents who lived apart but saw each other 

frequently at baseline, and parents who lived apart and saw each other 

infrequently at baseline. 

o Population-average regression models were used to assess program impact on six 

outcomes measured over time: maternal perception of fathers; accessibility, 

engagement, and responsibility and maternal satisfaction with each of these.

• Attrition: 76% of the 897 eligible families completed baseline interviews and became 

study participants.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: A total of 54 home visitors provided services to families 

assigned to the HSP program. 

o Staff Education: All had completed at least high school; 61% had some college 

training, 26% had a college degree, and 5% had some graduate school training. 

o Staff Experience: The home visitors had a mean of 3.1 years (SD=2.7) 

experience as home visitors (range 3 months to 10 years). 

o Staff Training: Home visitors were trained paraprofessional working under 

professional supervision. They completed a 5-week training program. Topics 

covered a broad range of issues and included working with me, addressing 

sensitive issues such as domestic violence, and site visits to community resources 

to which referrals could be made to address family needs. Home visitors are 

expected to establish a trusting relationship with parents using empathetic, 

nonjudgmental listening and assisting parents to address existing crises. They are 

expected to role model problem-solving skills and help families’ access needed 

services such as housing, income assistance, and vocational training. Home 

visitors were also expected to promote child health and development by 

providing parenting education, modeling effective parent-child interaction, and 

ensuring that each child has a medical home. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Home visitors rated themselves more competent to work with 

mother than fathers. 23% of the home visitors agreed that it was usually easier to 

work with a family if the father was not involved, and 32% were ambivalent. 

This pattern held true in all three annual home-visitor surveys. 

HAWAII’S HEALTHY STATE PROGRAM (HSP) 

81
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: The evaluation focused on six HSP sites serving 

geographically defined communities in Oahu, home of 80% if the state’s residents. The 

sites are operated by three community agencies- HFSC, Child and Family Service (CFS), 

and Parents and Children Together (PACT) – with each agency operating two sites. 

• Community Organizations: The program was supported primarily by the Hawaii State 

Department of Health. Community agencies carried out daily screening and assessment in 

target communities comprising about 70% if births statewide. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

The HSP was intended to improved parent and child outcomes in at-risk families by providing 

services directly and by promoting family use of preventive and early intervention services. The 

model used had the early identification and home visiting component. 

 Early identification (EID): The EID component focused on families living in 

any one of the four Oahu communities and delivering a child at Kapiolani 

Maternity Hospital. Screening was completed at the obstetrical unit by reviewing 

mothers’ medical records to measure family risk for abuse in 15 areas: parents 

not married, unemployed partner, inadequate incomes, unstable housing, lack of 

telephone, less than high school education, inadequate emergency contacts, 

marital or family problems, history of abortions, abortions unsuccessfully sought 

or attempted, adoption sought, history of substance abuse, history or psychiatric 

prenatal care. When the mother’s history suggested a risk, the EID worker 

interviewed the mother to determine risk more precisely using Kempe’s Family 

Stress Checklist. 

 Home Visiting: The home visiting component focused on families classified 

through the early identification as at risk or child abuse and neglect. Families 

who were identified were visited by EID workers to participate in the home 

visiting program. Home visitors sought to establish trusting relationships with 

parents, helped families identify and build on their strengths to improve family 

functioning, worked to promote child health and development. 

 HSP services were offered to families for the child’s first three to five years. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Home visits were to be carried out 

for at least 3 years and if needed, for up to 5 years. 

• Frequency of program offerings: The frequency of home visits varies by families’ level 

of functioning. Newly enrolled families are to be visited weekly. As the families 

accomplish goals, home visiting frequency decreases to biweekly, then monthly, and then 

quarterly. 

HAWAII’S HEALTHY STATE PROGRAM (HSP) 

82
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Diversity of activities: Not currently available.

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Family composition results at baseline: 

o The 643 HSP and control-group families that completed baseline interviews were 

similar to at-risk families overall except: mothers were slightly younger and more 

likely to be having their first child (p<.01), and children’s fathers were more likely to 

score as being at risk on the family stress checklist (P<.05). 

o By maternal report in the baseline, 48% if parents in the sample lived together, 27% 

lived apart but saw each other frequently, and 25% saw each other infrequently; the 

HSP and control groups had similar distributions (p=.78). 

• Fathers’ Participation in Home Visiting 

o Families assigned to the HSP group average 13.6 ±12.3 home visits in the first year 

(p=.22). 

o Fathers who lived with or saw the mother frequently at baseline took part in more 

visits than those who saw the mother infrequently at baseline (p<.001). 

o Among couples who lived together at baseline, the mean proportion of visits in which 

the father participated was significantly lower for fathers who worked (0.19 vs. 0.34, 

p=.02), and those who drank (0.09 vs. 0.25, p>.001). 

o Fathers who were physically violent participation steadily declined, (0.18 vs. 0.26, 

p=.08). 

o Among parents who lived apart but saw each other frequently, violent fathers took 

part in more visits than did nonviolent fathers (mean proportion 0.26 vs. 0.15, p=.07). 

• Fathers’ Role in Parenting 

o Fathers’ accessibility decreased significantly over time from 61% with daily access at 

year 1 to 53% at year 3 (p<.01). 

o In all 3 years, mothers assumed more parenting responsibility than fathers, as 

indicated by mean score of about 4.0. 

• Program Impact on Fathers’ Role in Parenting 

o For families overall, there was no apparent program impact on fathers’ accessibility 

(β=0.2, p=.70), engagement (β=3.5, p=.01), or sharing of responsibility (β=1.6, 

p=.01), as measured by maternal report. 

• Program Impact on the Parents’ Relationship and on Father Violence 

o There was no program impact on the mother’s designation of the biological father as 

her partner over time for families overall (AOR =1.13, p=.43), for parents who lived 

together at baseline (AOR=1.13, p=.43), for parents who lived together at baseline 

(AOR=1.35, p=.26), or for parents who saw one another frequently at baseline 

(AOR=0.87, p=.64). 

o There was no significant program effect on maternally reported father violence at 

follow-up in families overall (AOR=.078, p=.12). 

• Program Impact on Mothers’ Satisfaction With the Father’s Role 

o There were some significant program effects on maternal satisfaction that were 

consistent with effects on the father’s parenting. Mothers in the HSP group were 

more likely to be satisfied with the father’s accessibility by only if the father was 

nonviolent at baseline (AOR=1.59, p=.01). 

SOURCES:

HAWAII’S HEALTHY STATE PROGRAM (HSP) 

83
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

Duggan, A., McFarlane, E., Fuddy, L., Burrell, L., Higman, S.M., Windham, A., & Sia, C. 

(2004). Evaluating AStatewide Home Visiting Program to Prevent Child Abuse in at-Risk 

Families of Newborns: Father’s Participation and Outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 9(1), 3-17. 

Duggan, A., McFarlane, E., Windham, A., Rohde, C., Salkever, D., Fuddy, L., Rosenberg, L., 

Buchbinder, S., and Sia, C. (1999). Evaluation of Hawaii’s Healthy Start Program. The Future of 

Children, 9(1) 66-90. 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION 

Anne K. Duggan, Sc.D 

Associate Professor of Pediatrics 

Johns Hopkins University 

School of Medicine 

Baltimore, MD 21201 

HAWAII’S HEALTHY STATE PROGRAM (HSP) 

84
 “PROMISING” PROGRAM 

JOBS FIRST 

OVERVIEW: Connecticut’s Jobs First Program was implemented in 1996 as a welfare reform 

demonstration project. It was the first welfare reform program to implement welfare time limits 

and the only program to incorporate all of the key elements outlines by welfare reform (i.e., time 

limits, financial work incentives, sanctions, and work requirements). The program was designed 

as a result of federal welfare reform legislation that aimed to decrease welfare dependency by 

increasing families’ levels of work participation and earnings. The program sought to achieve this 

goal by implementing time limits on welfare benefits, work activity requirements, financial work 

incentives, and sanctions for noncompliance. Connecticut received a federal waiver that allowed 

it to continue to offer control group recipients welfare benefits that had been in place prior to 

welfare reform, so as to conduct an experimental evaluation comparing the effectiveness of the 

new system with the old system. The evaluation of Jobs First found that the program was a costeffective means of increasing families’ levels of work and income while decreasing their 

dependence on welfare. It found that more stringent policies such as time limits and work 

requirements could be implemented without having significant detrimental effects on family and 

child well-being. Read More...

LOCATION: Jobs First was implemented throughout the state of Connecticut. 

PROGRAM GOALS: The major goals of the Jobs First program were the following: 

• To increase welfare recipients’ levels of income and work 

• To decrease dependence on government benefits. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: Jobs First served families in Connecticut 

who were receiving or who had applied for state welfare benefits because they had income levels 

below the national poverty line. The recipients in the evaluation had the following characteristics: 

• Age: Average age was 30.7 years, with the majority (41.3%) between 25 and 34, 

29.7% aged 35 or older, 20.7% between 20 and 24, and 8.6% under age 20. 

• Race/ethnicity: 39.1% were non-Hispanic Black, 37.6% non-Hispanic White, 22.4% 

Hispanic, and 0.9% other. 

• Family structure: 65.7% were never married; 1.3% were married and living with a 

spouse; 13.8% were married but not living with a spouse; 5.5% were separated; 

12.5% were divorced; and 1.1% were widowed. 

• Number of children per family: Families had an average of 1.7 children. 

• Youngest child’s age: 37.4% had a child aged 2 or younger; 23.6 had a youngest child 

aged 3-5; and 39.1% had a youngest child aged 6 or older. 

• Employment status: 88.3% had worked at some time; 57.4% had worked full-time for 

one employer for at least 6 months; 47.9% reported having at least some earnings in 

the past 12 months; and 22.8% were employed at random assignment. 

• Education status (highest degree earned): 11.4% had a GED; 48.0% had a high 

school diploma; 4.6% had a technical/two-year college degree; 1.9% had a four-year 

college degree; and 34.2% did not have any of the above degrees. 

• Public assistance status (total prior AFDC receipt): 18.5% of families had never 

received AFDC; 23.3% received it for less than two years; 22.3% received it for 2-5 

years; 20.4% for 5-10 years; and 15.5% for 10 years or more. 25.3% grew up in a 

home that received AFDC. 

JOBS FIRST 

85
 “PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Housing status: 11% lived in public housing; 24.1% in subsidized housing; 1.2% in 

emergency or temporary housing; and 63.7% in some other kind of housing. 

• Overall level of disadvantage: 22.9% fell into the least disadvantaged category; 

65.0% were moderately disadvantaged; and 12.2% were in the most disadvantaged 

category (based on an analysis of the combined demographic characteristics 

described above). 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL

• Outcomes: The evaluation examined a number of outcomes, including program effects 

on welfare receipt, employment, and income among Job First and AFDC families. In 

addition, survey data captured participants’ housing status and health insurance coverage, 

as well as outcomes related to the well-being of recipients’ children (e.g., home 

environment, parenting practices, school achievement and engagement, and measures of 

positive and negative behavior). Finally, the evaluation also looked at the costs and 

benefits (to both recipients and the government) of Jobs First compared with 

Connecticut’s old welfare program. 

• Method: The Jobs First evaluation utilized an experimental design in which 4,800 

families in the state of Connecticut were randomly assigned to either the Jobs First 

welfare reform group or to a control group. Whereas the Jobs First group was held to new 

welfare rules including time limits, financial work incentives, and work requirements, 

participants in the control group continued to receive welfare benefits as outlined under 

the old Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) welfare rules. Families in the 

two groups were tracked for a period of four years. The evaluation involved three 

separate components: 

o Implementation analysis: Examined the day-to-day operation of the welfare 

system under the new Jobs First rules and the obstacles faced with implementing 

the new program. 

o Impact analysis: Examined differences between Jobs First participants and a 

control group in employment rates and earning/income, welfare receipt, welfare 

dependency, child well-being, and other important outcomes. 

o Benefit-cost analysis: Data from the impact study and fiscal data were used to 

compare financial costs and benefits experienced by recipients, the government, 

and taxpayers as a result of the Jobs First program. 

• Sample: A total of 4,803 single-parents who were receiving or who applied for welfare 

benefits in Connecticut were randomly assigned to either the Jobs First group (n = 2,396) 

or the control group (n = 2,407). Participants were drawn from two of Connecticut’s large 

cities: New Haven (n = 3,628) and Manchester (n = 1,175). 

• Measures: The evaluation utilized data from a number of different sources, including: 

o Baseline data collected from a one-page survey used to obtain background 

demographic information. 

o Connecticut’s computerized administrative records to track recipients’ monthly 

welfare benefits and earnings. Records were obtained from both unemployment 

insurance records and public assistance records. 

JOBS FIRST 

86
 “PROMISING” PROGRAM 

o In addition, large-scale surveys were given to welfare recipients to obtain 

additional data on employment, job characteristics, income, participation in 

employment activities, and other information. Participants with children aged 5 

to 12 also provided information about parenting practices, child care, the home 

environment, and child well-being. 

o Child care subsidy data was collected from state records to obtain information 

about the receipt of child care subsidies. 

o Safety net data was obtained to track participation in the optional state safety net 

program provided to participants who lost welfare benefits but needed additional 

support. 

o State fiscal records were obtained to assess the costs of the Jobs First program. 

o Staff surveys, interviews, and observations were conducted with program staff to 

collect additional implementation data. 

• Statistical Analyses: Descriptive analyses were used to determine the demographic 

characteristics of Connecticut’s welfare recipients. To assess differences between the 

Jobs First group and the control group, ordinary least squares regressions analyses were 

conducted to adjust for any group differences in demographics and prior behavior. The 

regression analyses included a number of covariates obtained from state administrative 

records, such as quarterly employment, quarterly earnings, and quarterly AFDC payment 

amounts received during the four quarters preceding the evaluation. Statistical 

significance testing (including two-tailed t-tests) was used to determine differences 

between the groups on the outcomes measured.

• Attrition: Not currently available. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support:

o Staff-participant ratio: Each staff member responsible for overseeing families’ 

utilization of Jobs First services was responsible for between 150 and 200 cases. 

o Staff Education: Not available.

o Staff Experience: Welfare eligibility workers were responsible for determining 

families’ eligibility and benefits amounts. Two types of welfare eligibility 

workers were employed. Specialized intake staff processed families’ applications 

for benefits and described the program to families, whereas Family Independence 

Representatives (FI-Reps) worked with families who were approved for benefits. 

Following 1999, some of the FI-Reps’ responsibilities were subcontracted to 

community organizations such as the United Way of Connecticut. A separate 

group of workers were responsible for investigating and handling child supportrelated activities, such as locating nonresident parents and establishing paternity 

and support orders. Finally, social workers provided crisis intervention to 

families when necessary.

o Staff Training: Not available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not available.

o Staff wages: Not available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

JOBS FIRST 

87
 “PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Space: Not applicable. 

• Materials: Not applicable.

• Partnerships and Linkages: The Jobs First program was implemented by the 

Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS). The Child Care Assistance Program 

(CCAP) oversaw components of the program related to child care services and subsidies. 

• Community Organizations: A partnership was formed with the United Way of 

Connecticut and the Connecticut Council of Family Services Agencies (CCFSA) to 

implement the safety net program and other services for families who lost welfare 

benefits and/or needed additional assistance. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The Jobs First program subjected families receiving 

welfare benefits to the following program rules and guidelines: 

o Time limits: Receipt of welfare benefits was limited to a period of no more than 

21 months, unless participants were deemed incapable of engaging in work or 

unless benefit extensions were granted. 

o Work or employment activities requirements: Recipients were required to 

participate in work or employment services to remain eligible for welfare 

benefits. 

o Financial work incentives: Generous financial incentives were awarded to 

families as a result of their engagement in work or employment activities. For 

example, all earned income was disregarded when calculating recipients’ cash 

benefits and food stamps eligibility (as long as the family remained below the 

federal poverty line). 

o Sanctions: Recipients who failed to abide by program requirements had the 

amount of their benefits reduced. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not applicable. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Participation in the Jobs First 

program was limited to a maximum of 21 months, though six-month extensions were 

granted for families who were unable to find work despite “good faith efforts.” No time 

limits were implemented for individuals deemed incapable of engaging in paid work 

(e.g., those with disabilities). 

• Frequency of program offerings: Not applicable.

• Diversity of activities: Jobs First offered recipients employment-related services 

including the Job Search Skills Training (JSST) program, which is a group-based 

program that teaches job search and retention skills. Education and training opportunities 

are also offered to recipients who are unable to find work after long efforts. Finally, child 

care assistance, child support enforcement services, Medicaid health coverage, and crisis 

intervention were also available to families when appropriate. 

• Incentives for participation: Participants who were assigned to the Jobs First program 

were mandated to participate in order to receive state welfare benefits; those who chose 

not to engage in Jobs First’s work requirements faced sanctions that reduced their 

eligibility to receive future cash assistance. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

JOBS FIRST 

88
 “PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Jobs First helped families move from welfare to work. At the end of the evaluation, 51% 

of Jobs First families had left welfare for work, compared with 42% of control group 

families. Whereas only 19% of Jobs First families continued to receive welfare benefits, 

28% of the control group members were still receiving assistance. 

• Jobs First helped families increase their earnings. Over the course of the evaluation, Jobs 

First families earned 7% more than control group families. 

• Income gains were especially high (37%) for Jobs First families who faced the most 

serious employment barriers (e.g., no recent work history, less than a high school level 

education); benefits to families with fewer barriers to employment (e.g., those with high 

school degrees and recent work histories) were relatively small. 

• Jobs First’s effects on income and welfare benefits changed over time, with Jobs First 

families initially receiving more benefits and income than the control group due to 

generous work incentives. However, these income gains were eliminated as Jobs First 

families approached their time limits and benefits decreased. Both groups received about 

the same amount of welfare payments over the course of the evaluation, but Jobs First 

families received about 6% more in income from earnings and public assistance. 

• Jobs First had little effect on families’ levels of material hardship, which were high for 

both groups of families. 

• A little more than half of the Jobs First families reached their time limit during the 

evaluation and approximately two-thirds of those were granted at least one extension of 

six months. Extensions were granted for families who were not working but were deemed 

to be making “good faith” efforts to gain employment. Most families whose benefits 

timed out were employed at the time they lost benefits. 

• Jobs First resulted in small improvements in the behavior of young children, but it did not 

affect school performance or engagement in young children. 

• The effects on adolescents were mixed, with Jobs First adolescents being less likely to be 

convicted of a crime but more likely to exhibit lower levels of school achievement 

compared with adolescents from the control group. 

• The program’s impacts on children’s home environment, family functioning, and 

parenting practices were small, but the effects that were found were generally positive. 

• The net cost of the Jobs First program was low compared with comparable programs, and 

over five years, participants’ financial gains exceeded program costs. 

• The main finding of the evaluation was that welfare time limits can be implemented 

without causing serious harm to families, at least when the economy is strong and 

benefits extensions are granted to families who cannot find work. 

 

SOURCE:

Bloom, D., Scrivener, S., Michalopoulos, C., Morris, P., Hendra, R., Adams-Ciardullo, D., 

Walter, J., & Vargas, W. (2002). Jobs First: Final report on Connecticut’s welfare 

reform initiative. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. 

JOBS FIRST 

89
 “PROMISING” PROGRAM 

MEN AS TEACHERS 

OVERVIEW: The Men as Teachers program studied the effects of empowerment intervention 

on African American Head Start fathers as it relates to their parenting attitudes and sense of well 

being. Fathers in the treatment group were empowered by being trained as facilitators, informing 

the curriculum design process and conducting the treatment program sessions independent of the 

researchers. Fathers in the treatment group were given instruction by empowered fathers. 

Program sessions for fathers in the control group consisted of watching a video-taped series on 

parenting. Results indicated significant improvements in fathers’ attitudes toward teaching their 

children for the treatment group. Resident fathers in the treatment group also showed significant 

gains in self-esteem and satisfaction with parental roles. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

The Men as Teachers Program used a self-help approach to help African American Head Start 

Fathers achieve the following objectives; 

• Improve fathers’ parenting attitudes 

• Increase fathers’ sense of well being. 

LOCATION: Head Start agency in a northeastern urban community. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

Fathers were assigned to one of two groups, the treatment and control group. Characteristics of all 

38 fathers were: 

• Seventy eight (78) percent were biological fathers, 16% were stepfathers, 8% were the 

mother’s boyfriends and 2% were grandfathers. 

• The father’s average was 31 years old. 

• Most fathers (60.5%) were never married. Another 21% were divorced or separated. 

• Most fathers (55%) did not reside with their Head Start children. 

• On average, the fathers were high school graduates (12th grade). 

• Almost two thirds (65%) of the fathers were unemployed at interview with the median 

total family income at $12,500. 

• The mean age of the fathers’ children in Head Start was 5.9 years. 

• Over half (55%) the fathers’ children in Head Start were female. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL 

• Outcomes

Several instruments were used to measure four outcomes: 

o Fathers’ self-esteem 

o Fathers’ satisfaction with the parental role 

o Fathers’ attitudes about teaching their children 

o Fathers’ attitudes and values regarding importance of socializing their children 

about African American Heritage and realities of racism. 

 

• Method

The basis for the Men as Teachers program was to test Empowerment Theory. 

Researchers hypothesized that there would be significant and positive associations 

between fathers who participated in the empowerment-based program and fathers’ 

perceptions about their ability to teach young children and foster children’s racial 

socialization. Additionally, these fathers would show increased self-esteem and 

MEN AS TEACHERS 

90 
 “PROMISING” PROGRAM 

satisfaction with their parental role. The experiment design had two groups, the treatment 

(empowered fathers) and control group. 

All study participants were interviewed face-to-face by African American undergraduate 

and graduate students at pre-test and post-treatment. 

Treatment Group 

In order to operationalize empowerment, fathers in the treatment group used a self-help 

approach, administering the treatment. Researchers trained eight Head Start fathers over 

the course of four months to be facilitators of the treatment group curriculum. 

Researchers also collaborated with these fathers on the development of the curriculum. 

Finally, these father-trainees led the treatment program discussion groups; researchers 

were not present during the group sessions. Fathers attended six program sessions. 

Control Group 

Fathers in the control group watched four 25 minute videotapes from a parenting series, 

“Parenting: An attitude of the Heart” (Campbell, 1991). Researchers produced a fifth 20 

minute tape dealing with race and socializing children on race that fathers watched. 

Fathers watched one tape per session in the presence of a researcher. However, there 

were no formal discussions after watching each tape. Researchers made the tapes 

available for fathers who missed the group viewing and monitored these fathers to ensure 

that they watched the videos. 

• Sample

A total of 38 fathers completed the program, 19 each in the treatment and control groups. 

• Measures

o The Jackson Personality Inventory (Jackson, 1976)

This instrument is a scale used to measure self-esteem. It assesses a person’s 

perception of social adequacy and degree to which they deserve the care of 

others. It consists of 20 True/False questions that include items such as, “I have 

never been a popular person” and “I am seldom at a loss for words.” Higher 

scores indicated greater levels of self-esteem. 

o Self-Perceptions of the Parental Role (MacPhee, Benson, & Bullock, 1986)

A subscale of this instrument was used to measure fathers’ satisfaction with the 

parental role. It contained five items that assessed a fathers’ perceptions of the 

degree to which parenting was a source of joy and fulfillment. High scores on 

this scale indicated greater levels of satisfaction. 

o The Parent as Teacher Inventory (Strom, 1984)

A subscale of this instrument was used to measure fathers’ perceptions of their 

ability to facilitate the teaching-learning process for their child. Items were 

scored on a 4 point Likert scale ranging from a strong no to a strong yes. Higher 

scores on this scale indicated that fathers were more positive about their ability to 

facilitate their child’s learning. A sample item included, “I feel able to give my 

child the proper preschool experience at home.” 

o The Scale of Racial Socialization-Parent Version (Stevenson, 1997)

The racial oppression subscale of this instrument was used. This subscale 

measures the importance of teaching one’s child about racial oppression. It 

MEN AS TEACHERS 

91 
 “PROMISING” PROGRAM 

consists of 22 items scored using a 5 point Likert-type scale ranging from 

strongly disagree to strongly agree. Higher scores indicate that fathers are more 

positive about the importance of teaching their children about racial oppression. 

Sample items include, “Racism and discrimination are the most difficult 

problems a Black child has to face.” 

 

• Statistical Analyses

An experimental pre- and post-test design was used. Multivariate analysis of covariance 

(MANCOVA) was calculated to examine the main effect of treatment group and the 

interactive effect of treatment group by father’s residential status on self-esteem, parent 

satisfaction, attitudes about teaching young children, and racial oppression socialization. 

Pre-treatment measures of the outcome variables were used as statistical controls. 

• Attrition

Four (4) out of the 42 fathers or father figures recruited for the study were not included in 

the final sample. Two of the fathers did not participate in the programming at all while 

the other 2 attended several lessons. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: Fathers trained by the research staff administered the program 

for the treatment group. Training occurred over 4 months. Additionally, research 

staff used taped sessions to offer advice for the subsequent program sessions.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Information currently not available.

• Materials: Information currently not available. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Information currently not available. 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

Fathers in the treatment group attended weekly classes for six consecutive weeks. Fathers 

in the control group attended classes for five consecutive weeks where they watched 

videotapes from a parenting series, “Parenting: An Attitude of the Heart” (Campbell, 

1991). The respective curriculums used for both groups were; 

Treatment Group 

o The value of being a father. 

o The need to challenge racism in 

society. 

o Control over one’s own destiny. 

o Racial socialization of children. 

o The role of parents as teachers. 

MEN AS TEACHERS 

92 
 “PROMISING” PROGRAM 

o Positive discipline strategies

Control Group 

1. Improving one’s attitude. 

2. How to love one’s child. 

3. Discipline. 

4. Importance of values and parents role as teachers. 

5. Staff produced tape on dealing with racism and socializing children about race. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Information currently not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Fathers in the treatment group took 

part in the program for 6 consecutive weeks. Each session lasted 90 minutes. Fathers in 

the control group took part in the program for 5 consecutive weeks. Each session lasted 

about 25 minutes. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Fathers in both the treatment and control group 

attended weekly sessions. 

• Diversity of activities: Each session for the treatment group consisted of completing a 

unit in the curriculum. Each session for the control group consisted of watching a video. 

• Incentives for participation: Fathers were given $20 at pre-test and $40 at post-test. To 

encourage continuous participation, male staff members spoke often to fathers on the 

telephone or met with them when they were dropping off their children at the Head Start 

center. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• A significant interactive effect for treatment group by residential status of the father, F(1, 

37) = 18.7, p<0.001, on fathers’ self-esteem was observed. Resident fathers in the 

experimental group reported significantly greater self esteem than resident fathers in the 

control group at post-test after controlling for pre-test measures. 

• A significant interactive effect for treatment group by residential status of the father, F(1, 

37) = 19.47, p<0.001, on fathers’ satisfaction on parenting role was observed. Resident 

fathers in the treatment group showed significant improvements in parenting satisfaction 

compared to resident fathers in the control group over time after controlling for pre-test 

measures. 

• A significant main effect for the treatment group, F(1, 37) = 4.2, p<0.05, on fathers’ 

attitudes towards teaching their children was observed. Treatment group fathers made 

significantly greater improvements in their attitudes relative to control group fathers.

SOURCES:

Campbell, R (Writer, Editor), (1991). Parenting: An Attitude of the Heart. [Videotape]. Priority 

One Publishing. 

Fagan, Jay, Stevenson, Howard C. An Experimental Study of an Empowerment-Based 

Intervention for African American Head Start Fathers. Family Relations. Vol. 51, Iss. 3; 191-198. 

MEN AS TEACHERS 

93 
 “PROMISING” PROGRAM 

Jackson, D. (1976). Jackson Personality Inventory. Research Psychologists Press. Goshen, NY. 

MacPhee, D., Benson, J. B., & Bullock, D. (1986). Influences on Maternal Self-Perceptions. 

Paper presented at the fifth biennial International Conference of Infant Studies. Los Angeles, 

CA. 

 Stevenson, H.C. (1997). Rationale for the Measurement of Racial Socialization Beliefs and 

Experiences. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Pennsylvania. 

Strom, R.D. (1984). Parent as a Teacher: Inventory Manual. Scholastic Testing Service. 

Bensenville, IL. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Jay Fagan 

National Center on Fathers and Families, 

Ritter Hall Annex, 5th Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19122 

jfagan@nimbus.temple.edu 

MEN AS TEACHERS 

94 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

MINNESOTA FAMILY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

OVERVIEW: The Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) was piloted in 1994 as a new 

welfare program that encouraged welfare recipients to work and reduce their reliance on public 

assistance. MFIP incentivized families that worked by allowing them to retain more of their 

welfare benefits while working, and required longer-term recipients to work or participate in 

employment services. For two-parent families, MFIP had negative effect on family earnings, 

which led to a positive effect on the receipt of welfare benefits. MFIP had no effect on marital 

stability, fertility or children’s school achievement. MFIP was modified to include a 60-month 

time limit, less financial incentives and stricter work requirements and implemented as the states’ 

TANF program in January 1998. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

• Encourage welfare recipients to work 

• Reduce reliance on public assistance 

• Reduce poverty 

LOCATION: Minnesota (in three urban and four rural counties)

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

The study looked at effects among two-parent families, those identified as either married or 

cohabitating at study entry and had received welfare for at least 6 months. 

• 86.6% of the respondents were female, 13.4% were male; 

• The average age of respondents was 31 years; 

• 66% were White, non-Hispani, 13.3% were Black, non-Hispanic, 3.2% were Hipanic, 

4.5% were Native american/Alaskan native, and 13% were Asian/Pacific Islander; 

• 72% were married and living together and 22% were never married; 

• 42% had 3 or more children, 30.7% had w children, and 27.4% had one child; 

• 59.3% worked full time for 6 months of more for one employer; 

• 31.2% had no high school diploma or GED. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL 

• Outcomes: 

o Employment

o Earnings

o Welfare Receipt

o Marriage 

o Divorce 

o Fertility 

o Children’s schooling achievement 

• Method: Families were randomly assigned to either a program group eligible for MFIP 

or a control group eligible for AFDC. Families who were applying for assistance and 

those who had been on welfare were recertified and randomly assigned to a program or 

control group. Effects were examined up to 6 years after random assignment. Singleparent families and two-parent families were analyzed for program effects. 

MINNESOTA FAMILY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

95 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Sample: The two-parent family sample included 2,256 families. A subgroup analysis of 

two-parent families was done which included a sample of 459 families for third-grade 

scores and 473 families for fifth-grade scores.

• Measures:

o Employment and earnings 

 Extracted from unemployment insurance earnings records

o Welfare receipt, defined as receipt of food stamps, Family General Assistance, or 

MFIP.

 Extracted from public assistance benefits records

o Marriage 

 Extracted from marriage certificate records from the Minnesota Center 

for Health Statistics tracking marriages that took place from January 

1989 to December 2001. 

o Divorce 

 Extracted from divorce records from the Minnesota Supreme Court, 

capturing divorces that occurred in Minnesota from January 1994 to 

August 2001. 

o Fertility 

 Extracted from birth certificate data provided from the Minnesota Center 

for Health Statistics during the first five years of the follow-up period 

o Children’s schooling achievement 

 Measured by the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs) 

administered in public schools in the third and fifth grades to measure 

mathematics and reading skills. 

• Statistical Analyses: Two-tailed t tests were applied to regression-adjusted impact 

estimates. Reading and math scores were converted from the raw scores to allow for 

comparisons across years for the four specific tests.

• Attrition: Not currently available.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

MINNESOTA FAMILY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

96 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The MFIP had four key components:

 Financial Incentives to work. Once parents began working under the program, 

they received an increase of 20% in the basic grant for work-related expense. 

Also 38% of her earnings were disregarded when the family’s grant level was 

calculated. Also, the program paid child care expenses directly to the providers, 

rather than being reimbursed as under AFDC.

 Participation Requirements for Long-Term Recipients. Participants who 

received assistance in 2 of the 3 prior years were mandated to participate in 

employment services. In two-parent families, at least one of the parents had to 

work 30 hours or more or participate in employment-focused activities after 6 

months of receiving assistance.

 Simplification of Rules and Procedures. Participants received their AFDC, food 

stamps, and Family General Assistance in monthly lump payment.

 Streamlined Eligibility Rules for Two-Parent Families. Unlike families eligible 

for AFDC, the primary wage-earner in two-parent families could work more than 

100 hours a month and still receive benefits. Also, it eliminated the work history 

requirement which required at least one of the parents to have a work history of 

12 months before applying for the program. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Not currently available.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: Not currently available.

• Incentives for participation: Once a parent began working under the program, she 

received an increase of 20% in the basic grant for work-related expense. Also 38% of her 

earnings were disregarded when the family’s grant level was calculated. Also, the 

program paid child care expenses directly to the providers, rather than being reimbursed 

as under AFDC.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Employment, earnings, and welfare receipt 

• MFIP had negative and statistically insignificant effects on family employment (whether 

at least one parent worked). 

• MFIP had statistically significant positive effects on welfare receipt by Year 6 (p=.01). 

In summary, MFIP had negative effects on family earnings, which led to a positive effect 

on receipt of welfare benefits. 

Divorce 

• MFIP decreased divorce among two-parent families by 17% by the six-year follow-up 

point at p=.10 level of significance. However the program’s effects are statistically 

different depending on the welfare history of the family. In a subgroup analysis, it was 

found that divorce is not as prominent for two-parent families who had a history of 

welfare, as compared to two-parent families who were new applicants to welfare upon 

random assignment. 

MINNESOTA FAMILY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

97 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

Fertility 

• MFIP had no effects on the likelihood of families having a baby during the six years of 

follow-up. 

Children’s Schooling Achievement 

• No statistically significant differences were found for program participant’s children’s 

reading and math achievement in third or fifth grade. 

SOURCES:

Gennetian, L.A., Miller, C. & Smith, J. (2005). Turning welfare into a work support. Six-year 

impacts on parents and children from the Minnesota family investment program. 

Retrieved April 28, 2007 from: http://www.mdrc.org/publications/411/full.pdf. 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 

19th Floor 

16 East 34 Street 

New York, NY 10016-4326 

MINNESOTA FAMILY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

98 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

PARENTS AS TEACHERS (PAT) 

OVERVIEW: Parents as Teachers (PAT) is a home-based parent education and support program 

that was implemented in three pilot sites in Texas. The goal of the PAT program was to educate 

and support parents in ways that would enable them to be effective teachers who could guide their 

child’s cognitive, socio-emotional, linguistic, and motor development. The longitudinal 

evaluation found that, compared to parents in a comparison group, PAT fathers reported 

significantly higher levels of perceived social support, which increased over time. Scores on a 

measure of the quality of the home environment and parenting were higher for parents in the PAT 

program than for parents in the comparison group. However, fathers’ in both groups reported 

decreasing levels of parenting satisfaction over time. Read More...

PROGRAM GOALS: The long-term objective of the program was to enhance children’s 

development so that they would be better prepared to succeed in school. The PAT program aimed 

to do this through the accomplishment of three specific goals: 

• To enhance children’s physical, social, and intellectual development by providing parents 

with information and guidance in the home environment; 

• To reduce parenting stress and increase pleasure in parenting; and 

• To provide parents with social support from their community and peers. 

LOCATION: The PAT program was implemented in three school districts in Texas. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: 

All parents in the PAT program were first-time parents. In addition, they had the following 

demographic characteristics: 

• Child age: In the PAT group, all but one of the children were six months or younger (the 

other child was 8 months old). Most (81 percent) enrolled in the program when their 

children were three months or younger and 54 percent enrolled either before their child 

was born or immediately after. 

• Fathers’ age: Fathers had a mean age of 40 years. 

• Parent education: Levels of education ranged from high school graduates to the 

completion of a professional degree. Most had attended college. 

• Socioeconomic status: Families ranged from the lowest to highest categories of SES, but 

85 percent of them fell within the upper two SES strata. 

• Race/ethnicity: Ninety-three percent of PAT participants were white. 

• Family structure: Ninety-one percent of participants lived in two-parent homes. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL (LONGITUDINAL) 

• Outcomes: Outcomes for the evaluation were based on an ecological model and 

therefore targeted parent, parenting, and child outcomes, which included the following:

o Child outcomes: 

 Cognitive and language abilities 

 Adaptive social behavior. 

o Parent and parenting outcomes: 

 Parent knowledge about child development 

 Parent attitudes 

 Quality of parenting and the home environment 

PARENTS AS TEACHERS (PAT) 

99 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

 Parenting stress 

 Perceptions of social support 

 Parenting satisfaction 

 Satisfaction with the PAT program 

• Method: The PAT program was advertised and offered to entire communities. 

Participants for the study were recruited by PAT parent educators when they enrolled in 

the PAT program. During enrollment, they were given information packets containing 

information about the study, consent forms, and baseline questionnaires. Parents who 

chose to enroll in the study completed and mailed the recruitment packet questionnaires 

back to the evaluators. The comparison group was selected from childbirth preparation 

classes in a nearby city where PAT was not offered, based on their having similar 

demographic and motivational characteristics as those who enrolled in the PAT program. 

Participants in both groups were tracked for a period of three years, with data collected 

via self-report mail surveys at baseline and when children were one, two, and three years 

old. 

• Sample: The total baseline sample size for this evaluation was 128 families (59 in the 

PAT program group and 69 in the comparison group). Enrollment was open to any parent 

with a child between the ages of 0 and three, though special emphasis was placed on 

recruiting parents of newborns, as they would be eligible to participate in the program for 

the entire three years. 

• Measures: A number of scales that were used in previous research were used to assess 

outcomes in the PAT evaluation:

o Children’s cognitive development was assessed using the following scales: 

 Bayley Scales of Infant Developmentxlii (age 1) 

 Kaufman Assessment Battery for Childrenxliii (age 3) 

o Children’s language development was assessed using the following scales: 

 Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Scalexliv (ages 1 and 2) 

 Preschool Language Scalexlv (age 3) 

o Children’s socio-emotional development was assessed using the following scale: 

 The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scalesxlvi (ages 2 and 3) 

o Parent knowledge about child development was assessed using: 

 The Parent Knowledge Questionnairexlvii (34-item scale assessing parent 

knowledge of 7 phases of child development. Given to mothers and 

fathers when children were age 3.) 

o Parenting attitudes were assessed using: 

 Parent Attitudes Toward Childrearingxlviii (Given to mothers and fathers 

at baseline and when children were ages 1 and 3. Includes four subscales: 

Warmth, Encouragement of Independence, Strictness, and Aggravation.) 

o Parenting stress was assessed using: 

 The Parenting Stress Indexxlix (Given to mothers and fathers when 

children were ages 1 and 3.) 

o Parents’ perceptions of social support and parenting satisfaction were assessed 

using: 

 The Inventory of Parenting Experiences (IPE)l

 (Given to mothers and 

fathers when children were ages 1, 2, and 3.) 

o Quality of parenting and the home environment was assessed using: 

 The Home observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME)li

(34-item scale assessing parent knowledge of 7 phases of child 

PARENTS AS TEACHERS (PAT) 

100 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

development. Given to mothers and fathers when children were ages 1, 2, 

and 3.) 

• Statistical Analyses: All measures used in the study were administered to parents at least 

twice. Repeated measures multivariate ANOVAs (MANOVAS) were used to test for the 

main effects of group (PAT or comparison), time, and the interaction between group and 

time. Significant effects of either group assignment or interaction effects (group X time) 

were used to determine program effectiveness. T-tests were used to test for baseline 

differences between the PAT group and the comparison group.

• Attrition: The cumulative attrition rate was 28.8 percent in the PAT group and 20.3 

percent in the comparison group. The majority of the families who left the study (81 

percent) did so because they moved to a different area. Analyses revealed no significant 

differences between the families who left the study and those who completed it.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Home visits were done on a one-to-one basis. 

Information about staff-participant ratios in the parent groups meetings are not 

currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Each parent educator was trained by the PAT National Center.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: The one- and two-year assessments were conducted in participants’ homes. The 

three-year assessments occurred both in the home and in a laboratory setting.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: The PAT programs in the three sites were supported by 

their local school districts.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The PAT curriculum was originally based on the work 

of Burton White.lii It focuses on educating and supporting parents as teachers who can 

guide their children’s development. A key component of the curriculum is the 

personalized home visit, in which trained parent educators give parents information and 

guidance to help them guide their child’s development. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Participants received one-on-one home visits. Information about the group 

size for the parent support groups is not currently available.

PARENTS AS TEACHERS (PAT) 

101 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): On average, participants received 

24 home visits and attended 12 group meetings.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: The PAT program consists of home visits, parent group meetings, 

health and developmental screenings for children (in general development, language, 

hearing, and vision), and referral services when appropriate.

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Children’s cognitive development: No significant effects were found.

• Children’s language development: No significant effects were found.

• Children’s socio-emotional development: No significant effects were found. 

• Parent knowledge about child development: There were no significant effects of group, 

time, or group x time on fathers’ parenting knowledge, though PAT group mothers had 

significantly more knowledge about child development than comparison group mothers 

[F(1, 85) = 8.93, p < .01] and all parents increased in parenting knowledge over time 

(from a mean score of 24.38 at baseline to a mean score of 25.48 at age three). 

• Parenting attitudes: No significant effects were found.

• Parenting stress: No significant effects were found, thought his may be due to low reports 

of stress by both groups of parents at all times.

• Parents’ perceptions of social support: Both mothers [F(1,79) = 6.2, p < .05] and fathers 

[F(1,71) = 5.5, p < .05] in the PAT group reported significantly higher levels of perceived 

community support than mothers and fathers in the comparison group. Mothers [F(2, 77) 

= 120.27, p < .0001] and fathers [F(2, 70) = 101.85, p < .0001] in both groups reported 

increasingly higher levels of community support over time.

• Parenting satisfaction: Fathers’ levels of parenting satisfaction decreased significantly 

over time for both groups [F(2, 66) = 9.26, p < .001]. No significant differences between 

groups were found.

• Quality of parenting and the home environment: The PAT group had significantly higher 

scores on the HOME assessment than the control group [F(1, 89) = 9.77, p < .01]. 

However, both groups had high-quality home environments at each assessment time and 

there were no effects of time or group x time. 

• Parent satisfaction with PAT: Parents expressed high levels of satisfaction with the PAT 

program, with 92% of mothers and 88% of fathers reporting that they had higher levels of 

parenting confidence and 95% of mothers and 94% of fathers reporting that they would 

recommend the program to others. There was no significant change in program 

satisfaction over time. 

SOURCES:

Owen, M. T., & Mulvihill, B. A. (1994). Benefits of a parent education and support program in 

the first three years. Family Relations, 43, 206-212. 

PARENTS AS TEACHERS (PAT) 

102 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE (PFS) 

OVERVIEW: Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) was a national demonstration project implemented 

from 1994 to 1996 that was authorized by the Family Support Act of 1998, which was enacted to 

enforce the collection of child support from noncustodial parents. PFS sought to provide better 

options for low-income fathers who have more difficulty maintaining child support payments. 

Collaboration among the state child support enforcement agency, employment service providers, 

and community organizations were essential to the operation of the program. The evaluation 

found that the practices in the program did lead to increases in formal child support payments, but 

this was the case mostly with fathers who could pay without the assistance of PFS. PFS was not 

successful in increasing the employment earnings above those of the control group. Generally, 

PFS did not affect the fathers’ involvement but increased visitation among those that were 

initially the least involved. The evaluators found that the program could be effective when 

targeted to the most disadvantaged group of fathers. Read more...

LOCATION: PFS was in implemented in seven sites across the U.S.: 

• Dayton, Ohio 

• Grand Rapids, Michigan 

• Jacksonville, Florida 

• Los Angeles, California 

• Memphis, Tennessee 

• Springfield, Massachusetts 

• Trenton, New Jersey 

PROGRAM GOALS: PFS was a national demonstration program which sought to help 

noncustodial fathers: 

• Increase their child support payments 

• Increase their employment and earnings 

• Increase their parental involvement to support and improve parenting behavior

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: The program served non-custodial parents 

who were delinquent in their child support orders, unemployed or underemployed, and who had a 

child that was receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds. 98% of the 

participants were men. The participants in the program had the following characteristics: 

• 59.6% were African American, 23.2% were of Hispanic descent, 14.8% were White, and 

2.3% were identified as “Other”;liii

• 49.5% had no high school diploma;liv

• The average hourly wage was $7.04;lv

• 36.9% of the sample reported living alone, 23% reported living with parents, and 24.8% 

reported living with a spouse or partner;lvi

• 67% had been arrested prior to program entry;lvii

• 1/3 of the fathers in the sample saw their children at least once a week at the start of the 

program, 30% did not see their children at all in the six months leading up to the 

survey;lviii

• 33% lived with parents or other relatives, 23% moved 3 or more times during the year; 

9% homeless in 3 months prior to survey at PFS;lix

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE 

103 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• On average, 6 was the youngest age of the child of the noncustodial parents in the 

sample.lx

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT)

• Outcomes:

o Financial Support 

 Formal child support payments 

 Informal cash child support payments 

 In-kind support 

o Non-financial Involvement 

 Noncustodial parents’ contact with the focal child 

 Noncustodial parents’ parenting 

 Custodial and noncustodial parents’ conflict 

• Method: The evaluation of Parents’ Fair Share used an experimental design which 

randomly assigned 5, 611 noncustodial parents that were delinquent in their child support 

payments to either the Parents’ Fair Share group or to a control group. The control group 

was exposed to standard child enforcement procedures. The evaluation included a followup period of two years. An ethnographic study was also done to track over 30 men in the 

PFS group and their time in the program (findings are not detailed here).lxi

Information from the child support agency and the employment office was used to collect 

data on the noncustodial parents’ employment and earnings. Surveys were also 

administered to a randomly selected subgroup of fathers (n=553), and another group of 

custodial mothers (n=2,005) associated with the men in the evaluation.lxii Generally, 

surveys were administered one year after each father entered the program, and they asked 

about activities that occurred within the time span of the previous six months. The 

surveys collected information on employment and earnings, visitation, and informal 

support. The youngest child of the noncustodial parents was the focal child in surveys. 

Random Assignment. There were two different points of random assignment used in this 

design: 

o Extra outreach and case review: A representative sample of noncustodial parents 

from a site’s child support caseload who appeared-based on information in 

administrative records-to meet the PFS eligibility rules were assigned at random to 

one of two groups: an extra outreach group subject to extra outreach and case review 

or a standard group subject to the site’s usual CSE practices. 

o Referral to PFS Services and coverage of PFS mandates: Noncustodial parents who 

appeared at a hearing or case review and were judged eligible and appropriate for 

PFS by site staff were assigned at random to one of two groups: a program groups 

that was given access to PFS services and was subject to its mandates to participate 

or a control group that did not receive those services and was subject to normal CSE 

practices. Members of the control group were free to participate in other services in 

their community on their own initiative.”lxiii

Noncustodial parents referred to the PFS group had the option of reestablishing their 

child support payments and declining PFS services. 

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE 

104 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Sample: 5,611 noncustodial parents were included in the full sample. Surveys were also 

administered to a randomly selected subgroup of fathers (n=553), and another group of 

custodial mothers (n=2,005) associated with the men in the evaluationlxiv. 

• Measures: The evaluation captured the level of noncustodial parents’ financial support 

and non-financial involvement. The evaluation measured:lxv

o Financial Support 

 Formal child support payments (including the average amount of child 

support paid for the target case, totaled across six months before the survey) 

 Informal cash child support payments (cash contributions that the custodial 

parent received directly from the noncustodial parent six months before the 

survey, or 7-12 months after random assignment). The average dollar value 

was measured. Custodial parents were asked about the focal child as well as 

support for siblings. 

 In-kind support. Any support besides money provided to the custodial parent 

or her household. 

o Non-financial Involvement 

 Noncustodial parents’ contact with the focal child 

 Noncustodial parents’ parenting 

 Custodial and noncustodial parents’ conflict 

• Statistical Analyses: When relevant, descriptive analyses were used to compare 

custodial and noncustodial parents’ response to questions that were common in their 

individual surveys. A matched sample was used (which had a joint response rate of 78%, 

and a response rate of 94% when both parents responded). The analyses exclude those 

where the custodial and noncustodial parents reported that they cohabitated, and those 

where the custodial parent noted that she was not living with the child. Regression 

analysis was used for background characteristics of the sample (age, race/ethnicity, 

education, marital status, prior employment, prior child support payments, and other 

relevant demographics). The impacts were also weighted to reflect representation of each 

site in the full sample.lxvi Subgroup analyses were conducted to see how the impact of 

PFS varies due to different family characteristics and the implementation site. 

• Attrition: Not currently available. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE 

105 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Space: Not currently available. 

• Materials: The Responsible Fatherhood Curriculum, used in the peer support groups, 

was developed by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC).

• Partnerships and Linkages: The program operated using local partnerships among child 

support agencies, employment and training providers, and community-based service 

organizations. 

• Community Organizations: Community-based organizations were partnered with the 

child support agencies and employment providers to provide services. Previously, their 

role had been advocating for low-income families, but this demonstration shifted their 

responsibility to reporting on the father’s employment outcomes and noncompliance to 

the program. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model:lxvii The PFS program is built around 4 core 

components that were developed from background research and the pilot program: 

o Peer support groups: These groups were conducted using the “Responsible 

Fatherhood” curriculum developed by the Manpower Demonstration Research 

Corporation (MDRC). Each site was expected to provide regularly scheduled 

support groups for participants. The groups were conducted to inform 

participants about their rights and obligations as noncustodial parents, encourage 

positive parental behavior and sexual responsibility, strengthen their commitment 

to work, and enhance the participants’ life skills. The topics that were covered 

included: parental roles and responsibilities, relationships, managing anger, and 

coping with problems on the job. 

o Employment and training services: These services included activities that 

assisted participants in obtaining sustainable employment with earnings that 

enabled them to support themselves and their children. These services could 

include job search assistance, opportunities for education and skills training, onthe-job training, paid work experience, and other activities that combined skills 

training or education with employment. 

o Mediation to improve relations with custodial parents: The sites were 

expected to provide opportunities for parents to mediate their differences based 

on models that were typically utilized in divorce cases. The sites had formal 

agreements with mediation organizations, and participants were told about the 

availability of the services. 

o Enhanced child support enforcement: As this activity was a major objective of 

the demonstration project, the sites were expected to develop new procedures, 

services, and incentives to enforce child support obligations. This could also 

include expediting the establishment of paternity and child support awards, and 

negotiating reduced child support orders while the noncustodial parents 

participated in the program. 

Staff responsibilities were divided into two categories: specialists, who played specific 

roles in the demonstration such as peer support facilitator or job developer, and case 

managers, who tracked the progress of the participants through their stay in the 

programlxviii 

Case manager responsibilities included:lxix

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE 

106 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

o Orienting the fathers to the program 

o Making service plans 

o Assessing need for support services 

o Making referrals to program components or outside services 

o Monitoring program compliance 

Child support enforcement staff in the government agency had responsibilities tolxx: 

o Lower child support orders 

o Give the noncustodial parents time to participate in peer support and move 

toward employment 

If a participant was noncompliant, the child support enforcement worker had to work with 

the parent to retain services. If this was unsuccessful, the worker would increase the child 

support order back to the original level and conduct normal enforcement procedures. 

PROGRAM DESIGN: 

• Group size: Not currently available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): After 6 months of steady payment 

of child support, the participant was disenrolled from the program. If he became 

unemployed once again, he was instructed to contact the case manager to reenter the 

program.lxxi

• Frequency of program offerings: Fathers were required to attend the peer support 

sessions. These sessions met a minimum of two to 3 times a week for a set number of 

weeks to cover all the topics. Participants were required to attend a minimum number of 

sessions to have completed this component.lxxii

• Diversity of activities

• Incentives for participation: Participation in the program was mandatory, or the 

participants faced possible incarceration.lxxiii

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS: (The Springfield sample is not included in the following 

evaluation findings). 

Child Support Paymentslxxiv

• Parents referred to PFS were more likely to pay child support through the child support 

enforcement system compared to the control group across the seven sites combined. 

• The proportion of those who paid support increased by about 4.5 to 7.5 percentage points 

• There was not a statistically significant change in the total average value of support 

provided. 

• The amount of child support paid over the 18 months increased by a statistically 

significant amount in only 2 sites. 

Employment and Earningslxxv

• No site produced increases in employment and earnings that were consistent and 

statistically significant during 18 months of follow-up. However, the Grand Rapids and 

Dayton sites increased earnings by a statistically significant amount. Grand Rapids 

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE 

107 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

increased earnings in their later quarters, and Dayton increased employment and earnings 

in their early quarters. 

• Though not statistically significant, the program increased earnings for the full sample, 

but the growth was concentrated among men with greater employment barriers (those 

with no HS diploma and no recent work experience). 

• A subgroup analysis revealed that the program produced a statistically significant 

increase in employment for fathers without a diploma (69.6% versus 64.6%) and no 

impact for their more-educated counterparts. 

• The program did not significantly affect hours worked, with small movement toward fulltime work (statistically insignificant). 

• PFS did not succeed in helping fathers find better, high-paying jobs. 

• Non-African American men moved into better jobs than they would have obtained 

otherwise (jobs that paid $9 or more and offered health insurance), but had a little effect 

on African American fathers. 

Paternal Involvementlxxvi

• PFS did not change the frequency or length of visits between noncustodial parents and 

their children. 

• The subset analysis from the survey showed that religious activities were increased by a 

statistically significant amount, with fathers 14.7 more likely to state that they engaged in 

this activity with their children. 

• PFS did not affect the overall likelihood that the parents spoke to each other in the 6 

months leading up to the survey, the frequency with which they discussed the child, the 

likelihood that the noncustodial parent was involved in major decisions about the child, 

or the likelihood that the custodial parent reported any improvement in the noncustodial 

father’s role as a parent. 

• PFS caused a small increase of 3.5 percentage points in the proportion of custodial 

parents who reported frequent disagreements. 

• There was a no increase in the overall proportion of custodial parents who reported 

aggressive styles of conflict. 

• PFS decreased the amount of informal support to custodial parents. 

SOURCES:

Doolittle, F. & Lynn, S. (1998, May). Working with low-income cases. Lessons for the child 

support enforcement system from Parents' Fair Share. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/144/overview.html. 

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE 

108 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

Doolittle, F., Knox, V., Miller, C. & Rowser, S. (1998, December). Building opportunities, 

enforcing obligations: Implementation and interim impacts of parents’ fair share.

Retrieved April 18, 2007 from: http://www.mdrc.org/publications/144/overview.html

Knox, V. & Redcross, C. (2000). Parenting and providing. The impact of parents’ fair share on 

paternal involvement. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/144/overview.html

Martinez, J.M. & Miller, C. (2000). Working and earning. The impact of parents’ fair share on 

low-income fathers’ employment. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/144/overview.html

Miller, C. & Knox, V. (2001). The challenge of helping low-income fathers support their 

children. Final lessons from parents’ fair share. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/144/overview.html

The Responsible Fatherhood Curriculum can be found at: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/40/abstract.html. 

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE 

109 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

RESPECTING AND PROTECTING OUR RELATIONSHIPS 

OVERVIEW: The Respecting and Protecting Our Relationships program (Respeto/Proteger in 

Spanish) is a community-based HIV prevention program that targets inner-city Latino teen 

parenting couples. A recent report of the pilot77 study shows the program helped young parents 

reduce sexual risk behaviors associated with HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Read 

more...

PROGRAM GOALS: Respecting and Protecting our Relationships is intended to help 

adolescent parenting couples prevent HIV infection. 

LOCATION: This program was implemented in Los Angeles, California. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

• Twenty-six couples participated in the program. Of these participants, 17 fathers and 18 

mothers completed the program. The characteristics of father participants alone are not 

available. The following characteristics describe all participants in the intervention group 

(n=35). 

• Forty percent of participants were under age 18, 29 percent were 18-20 and 31 percent 

were older than 20. 

• Ninety-four percent of participants were Latino and six percent were Caucasian. 

• Ninety-one percent of participants had only one sexual partner; the rest had more than 

one. 

• Twenty percent of participants had been physically abused at some time in their lives. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (PRE-POST TEST DESIGN) 

• Outcomes: The key outcomes measured in the evaluation were sexual risk behaviors, 

including the number and proportion of unprotected sexual encounters.

• Method: The research team had planned to randomly assign young people to treatment 

and control groups, but program staff were concerned about denying some of their clients 

access to the program. In the end, assignment to treatment or comparison groups was 

selected by community organization, not randomly. Questionnaires were completed at the 

beginning and end of the intervention as well as three and six months after its completion. 

Most questionnaires were completed in a group setting, but participants who were unable 

to attend completed them at home. Questions were read aloud in either English or 

Spanish by a trained research assistant. The questionnaires were given to women and men 

separately and took approximately 45 to 90 minutes to complete.

• Sample: The total sample included 49 couples ages 15-21 who were either pregnant or 

had given birth. Twenty-six couples were assigned to the treatment group and the other 

23 did not receive the intervention but completed questionnaires for comparison.

• Measures: The questionnaires measured sexual risk behaviors (e.g., use of condoms 

during sex) and sociodemographic characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, religion, 

pregnancy status, past history of physical or sexual abuse, and lifetime and current 

substance use.

RESPECTING AND PROTECTING OUR RELATIONSHIPS 

110 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Statistical Analyses: Because of the small sample size and high rate of attrition in the 

treatment group, reliable statistical analyses were not possible for this pilot study.

• Attrition: Of the 26 young couples assigned to the treatment group, nine men and eight 

women did not complete the program (32.7 percent attrition). In the comparison group, 

two men and two women of the original 23 couples did not finish the program (8.7 

percent attrition). In all, 21 of the original 98 participants did not complete the program 

(21.4 percent attrition). The evaluators found that attrition was due to competing factors 

rather than dissatisfaction with the program. Reasons for attrition included work 

schedules, unstable living situations, relationships breakups, and unanticipated crises). 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: 2:35.

o Staff Education: Not currently available. 

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Program services were held in community settings such as community 

organization offices, clinics, and libraries.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: This program was funded by the California Collaborative 

Research Initiative as part of the UCLA AIDS Research Program. Respeto/Proteger 

(Respecting and Protecting Our Relationships) is a collaborative effort between 

community organizations and an academic research team.

• Community Organizations: This program was a collaboration of the UCLA School of 

Nursing and the Bienvenidos Family Services National Latino Fatherhood and Family 

Institute (NLFFI).

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: 

 The curriculum for this program included HIV prevention activities from the 

program Be Proud! Be Responsible!78 These activities were integrated with a 

theoretical framework by Tello79 and the findings from preliminary focus groups 

and individual interviews with adolescent parents. The findings from the 

preliminary study led program designers to stress the following aspects of 

intimate relationships: 

 Trust, 

 Communication and 

 Mutual respect. 

 The program’s conceptual framework80 bases its curriculum in culturally rooted 

concepts and indigenous values of the Chicano, Latino, Hispanic and Native 

RESPECTING AND PROTECTING OUR RELATIONSHIPS 

111 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

American peoples. Cultural teachings from the National Latino Fatherhood and 

Family Institute (NLFFI) program, Con los Padres, were incorporated in this 

program. 

 Program content focusing on HIV prevention included the topics of 

 HIV awareness, 

 Understanding vulnerability to HIV infection, 

 Attitudes and beliefs about HIV and safer sex, 

 Building condom use skills, refusal skills, and conflict negotiation, and 

 Contraception and disease prevention. 

 The intervention focused on the development and maintenance of healthy 

relationships. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: The treatment group was comprised of 26 couples led by male and female 

facilitators.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Twelve hours in six sessions.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: Participants were sometimes separated by gender and sometimes 

together in one group. Activities included reflections on what it would mean to others if 

the participant were to become infected with HIV followed by a presentation by a young 

mother who is infected with HIV. Participants wrote letters to their children in the final 

meeting.

• Incentives for participation: Participants received monetary compensation for their time 

and efforts beginning at $15 and increasing to $35 per questionnaire, plus $15 per class 

attended. Childcare and transportation were also provided to these young parents for each 

class and data collection session. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

The findings from this pilot study are purely descriptive. Differences between groups were not 

statistically significant due to small sample size. 

• Sexual risk behaviors were high for both the treatment and control groups at baseline: 

about 77% did not use a condom in their last sexual encounter. 

• The reported number of times the participant had unprotected sex in the past three months 

declined for the treatment group between the baseline and six-month follow-up. 

• The reported proportion of sex that was unprotected in the past three months also 

declined after the intervention. 

SOURCES:

Jemmott, L.S., Jemmott, J.B., and McCaffree, K.A. (1996). Be proud! Be responsible! Strategies 

to empower youth to reduce their risk for HIV infection, curriculum manual. New York: Select 

Media. 

Koniak-Griffin, D., Lessser, J., Nyamathi, A., Uman, G., Stein, J., and Cumberland, W. (2003). 

Project CHARM: An HIV prevention program for adolescent mothers. Journal of Family and 

Community Health, 26, 5-20. 

RESPECTING AND PROTECTING OUR RELATIONSHIPS 

112 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

Lesser, J., Verdugo, R.L., Koniak-Griffin, D., Tello, J., Kappos, B., and Cumberland, W.G. 

(2005). Respecting and protection our relationships: A community research HIV prevention 

program for teen fathers and mothers. AIDS Education and Prevention, 17(4), 347-360. 

Tello, J. (1998). El hombre noble buscando balance: The noble man searching for balance. In R. 

Carillo and J. Tello (Eds.), Family violence and men of color: Healing the wounded spirit. New 

York: Springer. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Janna Lesser, Department of Family Nursing Care, University of Texas Health Science Center. 

Robert L. Verdugo, Bienvenidos Family Services. 

Deborah Koniak-Griffin, Center for Vulnerable Populations Research, UCLA School of Nursing. 

Jerry Tello, National Latino Fatherhood and Family Institute. 

Barbara Kappos, Bienvenidos Family Services. 

William G. Cumberland, Public Health/Biostatistics, UCLA. 

RESPECTING AND PROTECTING OUR RELATIONSHIPS 

113 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

THE SELF SUFFICIENCY PROJECT FOR LONG-TERM WELFARE RECIPIENTS 

(SSP) 

OVERVIEW: The Self-Sufficiency Project for Long-Term Welfare Recipients (SSP) program 

was launched in 1992, a ten year project involving more than 6,000 single-parent families in 

British Columbia and New Brunswick. SSP was conceived and funded by Human Resources 

Development Canada (HRDC), managed by the Social Research and Demonstration Corporation 

(SRDC), and evaluated by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) and 

SRDC. It used a complex design to enroll participants in three linked research samples and used a 

random assignment evaluation design. An evaluation of the long-term welfare recipients, found 

that a well-structured financial incentive program can encourage work, increase earnings, and 

reduce poverty. Read More...

PROGRAM GOALS: SSP had two goals: 1) to create credible evidence about the effects of 

changing policy; and 2) to demonstrate that a particular policy focused on earnings supplements 

could be effective. The SSP program aimed to: 

• Encourage work and independence among welfare recipients 

• Ensure that welfare recipients had adequate incomes to support themselves and their 

families 

• Increase parents’ earning and income 

• Reduce reliance on welfare 

• Determine whether a program like SSP would harm or benefit child 

• Affect parents in the period after parents were no longer eligible to receive the 

supplement benefits. 

LOCATION: British Columbia and New Brunswick, two provinces of Canada 

 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

Recruitment in SSP’s main research study began in November 1992 and was completed in March 

1995. Each month, Statistics Canada used Income Assistance (IA)lxxxi Administrative records to 

identify all people in selected geographic areas who met the following criteria: 

• were single parents; 

• were 19 years of age or older; and 

• had received IA payments in the current month and at least 11 of the prior 12 months. 

Baseline Characteristics 

• 43% of the parents had been on welfare for at least three years. 

• 21.7% of the sample were 19 – 24 

• 53.5% of the sample had 1 child under age 19, 32.9% had 2 children, and 13.6% had 3 or 

more children 

• 95.3% of the sample had previous work experience, 52.7% had less than a high school 

education, 10.5% had some post-secondary education 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT) 

• Outcomes: Because the evaluation of SSP assigned people to the program and control 

groups at random, the impact or effect of the supplement offer is measured as the 

THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROJECT (SSP) 

114 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

difference in employment, earnings, income, IA benefits, and SSP benefits and other 

outcomes between the two groups. 

• Method: Using a rigorous random assignment design, half of the project recipients were 

randomly assigned to a program group and offered the SSP supplement, while the 

remainder formed the control group. 

o A baseline survey was administered to all sample members just prior to random 

assignment and informed consent was provided. The survey included questions about 

respondents’ gender, age, race/ethnicity, and other demographic characteristics; 

household composition and family structure; child care needs; general quality of life; 

employment and earnings; current income sources and amounts; and attitudes toward 

work and welfare.

o Single parents who were recruited into the recipient study were randomly assigned to 

either the program group (offered the SSP earnings supplement), or the control group 

(not offered the supplement).

o Most sample members completed follow-up surveys approximately 18, 36, and 54 

months after random assignment. 

o Administrative data sources provided monthly information on income assistance and 

SSP supplement payments.

• Sample : Nearly 6,000 single parents in British Columbia and New Brunswick who had 

been on income assistance for at least a year participated in SSP. The program group 

contained 2,880 recipients; the control group contained 2,849.

• Measures: Differences in employment, earnings, income, and other outcomes between 

the two groups. 

• Statistical Analyses: Logic probability modeling was used to determine whether the jobready program group members were more likely to take up the supplement. A two-tailed 

t-test was used to determine outcome difference between program and control group. A 

statistical test (the F-test) was performed to determine whether differences between 

subgroup impact estimates could easily be due to chance factors. 

• Attrition: Of the original sample of 5,729 members, 4,852 completed the 54-month 

survey — 2,460 in the program group and 2,392 in the control group (for an 84.7 percent 

response rate). The effects of SSP were examined using only these sample members, a 

group called the report sample.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROJECT (SSP) 

115 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: Understanding the structure of the SSP’s incentive is 

crucial to understanding the effects of the supplement offer. Key features of the SSP 

Earnings Supplement included: 

o Full-time work requirement. Supplement payments were made only to eligible 

single parents who worked at least 30 hours per week and left income assistance. 

o Substantial financial incentive. The supplement equaled half the difference 

between a participant’s earnings and an “earnings benchmark.” During the first 

year of operations, the benchmark was $30,000 in New Brunswick and $37,000 

in British Columbia. Unearned income (such as child support), earnings of other 

family members, and number of children did not affect the amount of the 

supplement. The supplement roughly doubles the earnings of many low-wage 

workers (before taxes and work-related expenses). 

o One year to take advantage of the offer. A person could sign up for the 

supplement if she found full-time work within the year after random assignment. 

If she did not sign up during that year, she could never receive the supplement. 

o Three years of supplement receipt. A person could collect the supplement for 

three calendar years from the time she began receiving it, as long as she was 

working full time and not receiving income assistance. 

o Voluntary alternative to welfare. No one was required to participate in the 

supplement program. After beginning supplement receipt, people could decide at 

any time to return to income assistance, as long as they gave up supplement 

receipt and met the IA eligibility requirements. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Not currently available.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: Not currently available.

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• One third of the long-term welfare recipients who were offered the SSP earnings 

supplement worked full time and took up the supplement offer. On average, these 

supplement takers received the supplement for 22 months over their three years of eligibility 

and received more than $18,000 in supplement payments over that time, at the level of 

(p=.01)

• SSP increased employment, earnings, and income, and reduced welfare use and 

poverty. By the end of the first year after random assignment, program group members were 

THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROJECT (SSP) 

116 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

twice as likely as control group members to be working full time, and the effect of SSP on 

employment continued to be strong through most of the follow-up period. These impacts 

were concentrated among individuals who took up the supplement offer, suggesting that 

SSP’s effects were nearly three times as large among supplement takers, at the level of 

(p=.01)

• The effects of SSP on employment, welfare use, and income were small after parents 

were no longer eligible for the supplement. Members of the program group could receive 

supplement payments for up to three years, and the program’s effects were strong throughout 

the period when parents were eligible for the supplement. In the middle of the fifth year after 

random assignment, which was after supplement takers could no longer receive the SSP 

earnings supplement, the program and control groups were equally likely to work.

• Elementary-school-age children in the program group performed better in school than 

similar children in the control group. Parents in the program group gave their elementaryschool-age children higher marks on school performance than did parents in the control group 

(children who were 5.5 to 7.5 years of age by the end of the period studied in this report), at 

the (p=.05) level of significance. For children in other age groups, however, there were few 

differences in outcomes between the program and control groups.

• Government agencies spent money to achieve SSP’s positive results, but society as a 

whole benefited from the program. Government agencies spent about $1,500 per program 

group member administering SSP. From society’s point of view, however, the program cost 

less than the benefits it provided. When fringe benefits are included, program group members 

earned $4,100 on average more than they would have without the program, at the level of 

(p=.1).

SOURCES:

Michalopoulos, C., Tattrie, D., Miller, C., Robins, P., Morris, P., Gyarmati, D., Redcross, C., 

Foley, K., and Ford, R. (2002). Making Work Pay: Final Report on The Self-Sufficiency 

Project for Long-Term Welfare Recipients. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from: 

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/sdc/pkrf/publications/research/2002-002340/mwpssp.pdf 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 

19th Floor 

16 East 34 Street 

New York, NY 10016-4326 

THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROJECT (SSP) 

117 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

TRIPLE-P POSITIVE PARENTING PROGRAM 

OVERVIEW: The Positive Parenting Program (Triple-P) is a parent training program designed 

for families with children with disruptive behavior problems. Both mothers and fathers in 

participating families were required to attend the program and complete questionnaires preintervention, post-intervention and at a three month follow-up. Parents were randomly assigned to 

a Standard Group Triple-P condition (SGTP) and an Enhanced Group Triple-P condition (EGTP). 

The intervention included group training sessions and telephone consultations. Both groups 

exhibited significant changes in fathers’ reports of child behavior, relationship conflict, and 

relationship satisfaction and communication. The Enhanced condition did not appear to offer 

extra benefits to participants. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: This program set out to reduce child behavior problems, reduce marital 

conflict, and increase marital satisfaction in families with children with high levels of behavior 

problems. 

LOCATION: Queensland, Australia. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

Couples were broken into two treatment groups: Standard Group Triple P (SGTP and Enhanced 

Group Triple P (EGTP). 

• Fathers in both groups had high education. Of STGP fathers, 58 percent were 

college/university graduates, 5 percent other post-secondary education, 21 percent high 

school graduates, and 16 percent did not complete high school. In the EGTP group, 67 

percent of fathers had graduated college/university, 11 percent had other post-secondary 

education, 5 percent were high schools graduates, and 17 percent did not complete high 

school. 

• Fathers’ average age for the STGP group was 38.13 years. The average age of fathers in 

the EGTP group was 36.69 years. 

• Occupational status was measured on a 7-point scale where 1 reflects high occupational 

prestige.82 Prestige scores were very close for the two groups: 3.52 for the STGP group 

and 3.47 for the EGTP group. 

• Groups were also close in average number of children per family: 1.89 for SGTP and 

1.94 for EGTP. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL – (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT STUDY) 

• Outcomes: The following outcomes were assessed:

o Child behavior,

o Parenting skills,

o Parental adjustment,

o Conflict over parenting, and

o Relationships satisfaction and marital communication. 

• Method: This group comparison was designed with two conditions (SGTP and EGTP) 

and three time periods (pre- and post-intervention and three-month follow-up). The SGTP 

was chosen as the comparison condition because it is a well-established parent program 

with high validity,83 and it was considered unethical to withhold this treatment from a 

TRIPLE-P POSITIVE PARENTING PROGRAM 

118 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

traditional no-intervention group. The enhanced curriculum included the same treatment 

as the standard curriculum, plus two extra 90-minute group training sessions.

• Sample: Thirty-seven couples with children aged two to five participated in the 

intervention. Twenty-one families were assigned to the SGTP condition and 23 were 

assigned to the EGTP condition. All parents had reported high levels of marital conflict 

over parenting issues.

• Measures: Outcomes were measured with the following parent-report scales and 

inventories at all three time points:

o The ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale (EMS) assessed marital satisfaction for 

each partner and couple agreement.84

o The Marital Communication Inventory (MCI) measured the perceived 

supportiveness of each partner.85

o The Abbreviated Dyadic Adjustment Scale (ADAS) is a seven-item 

questionnaire abbreviated from the 32-item Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale.86

It measures aspects of communication, intimacy, cohesion and disagreement.

o The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) assessed symptoms of depression, 

anxiety and stress over the previous week.87

o The Parent Problem Checklist (PPC) measured inter-parental conflict relating to 

cooperative parenting functions within the family.88

o The Parenting Scale (PS) assessed three types of dysfunctional parenting 

practices relating to discipline: laxness, overreactivity, and verbosity. 89

o The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) quantified parental perceptions of 

disruptive behavior.90

o Client satisfaction was also measured at each time point to gauge parent 

perspectives on program effectiveness.91

• Statistical Analyses:

o Preliminary univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were completed to 

establish comparability of the sample in each condition. These analyses revealed 

a significant difference between conditions only for fathers on Parenting Scale 

(PS) scores. Due to this difference, the PS measure was analyzed with a repeated 

measures ANCOVA using the pre-intervention score on the PS as the covariate. 

o Repeated measures ANOVAs and MANOVAs were performed separately for 

mothers and fathers and for each of the dependent variables. 

• Attrition:

o For the STGP condition, 21 families were assigned, 20 completed intervention, 

19 completed post-assessment measures, and 16 completed the follow-up 

assessment. Of the 23 families assigned to EGTP, 20 completed intervention, 18 

completed post-assessment measures, and 16 completed the follow-up. 

o One family was removed from the study for failing to attend an adequate number 

of sessions; two others were removed for failing to return the post-intervention 

questionnaires.

o Analyses of variance were performed to determine whether mothers and fathers 

who completed the program differed from those who did not. These analyses 

revealed that fathers who did not finish the program had reported higher levels of 

dysfunction pre-intervention than non-completers.

TRIPLE-P POSITIVE PARENTING PROGRAM 

119 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: 2:10 during group sessions; 1:1 during phone 

consultations.

o Staff Education: All facilitators were trained psychologists.

o Staff Experience: Facilitators had been involved in other Triple P interventions 

and evaluations.

o Staff Training: All facilitators were accredited Triple P Providers.

o Planning Time and Coordination:

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: All group sessions were held in the Triple P Clinic at the Family Support Centre, 

University of Queensland.

• Materials: All parents received a workbook for homework exercises and information.92

During group sessions, a video was used to demonstrate positive parenting strategies.93

Participants in the enhanced treatment also received materials from a supplementary 

workbook.94

• Partnerships and Linkages: The Parenting and Family Support Centre’s Triple P Clinic 

at The University of Queensland provided space for the intervention and allowed 

recruitment for the program from the clinic’s waiting list.

• Community Organizations: Flyers were posted in area childcare centers, preschools and 

kindergartens for recruitment purposes.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

This program follows the Group Triple-P curriculum. Leaders used the Facilitator’s 

Guide to Group Triple P.

95

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Approximately 10-12 parents participated in each group session.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Group Triple P consists of four 

two-hour group sessions and four 15-30 minutes follow-up telephone consultations over 

the course of eight weeks. Parents in the enhanced curriculum also met for two 90-minute 

supplementary group sessions.

• Frequency of program offerings: Participation in the intervention was weekly, 

alternating between group meetings and telephone consultations.

• Diversity of activities: Activities included individual and group exercises, watching 

instructional videos and parent support training.

• Incentives for participation: No incentives for participation were reported. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Generally, the two treatments had positive impacts on most outcomes, but the enhanced 

treatment was not significantly better than the standard treatment.

TRIPLE-P POSITIVE PARENTING PROGRAM 

120 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

• In the following outcome domains, significant impacts were observed on father reports 

from pre-intervention to follow-up for both the EGTP and SGTP conditions:

o Child behavior improved, as measured by the ECBI (p<.001); 

o Conflict over parenting declined, as measured by the PPC (p<.0001); 

o Relationship satisfaction and communication, as measured by the ADAS and 

MCI (p<.005). 

• No significant impact on fathers in EGTP or SGTP conditions was made in the parental 

adjustment domain (depression, anxiety, and stress), as measured by the DASS.

• Mixed results were observed for the parenting skills domain, as measured by the PS. A 

significant impact was observed for fathers in the enhanced group only between postintervention and follow-up. There were no significant impacts between pre-intervention 

and follow-up for either group. 

SOURCES:

Arnold, D.S., O’Leary, S.G., Wolff, L.S., and Acker, M.M. (1993). The parenting scale: A 

measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137–

144. 

Bienvenu, M.J. (1970). Measurement of marital communication. Family Coordinator, 19, 26–31. 

Dadds, M.R. and Powell, M.B. (1991). The relationship of interparental conflict and global 

marital adjustment to aggression, anxiety, and immaturity in aggressive nonclinic children. 

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 553–567. 

Daniel, A. (1983). Power, privilege and prestige: Occupations in Australia. Melbourne, 

Australia: Longman-Cheshire. 

Eyberg, S.M., and Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter-Eyberg 

Student Behavior Inventory-Revised: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological 

Assessment Resources. 

Fowers, B.J., and Olson, D.H. (1993). ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale: A brief research and 

clinical tool. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 176–185. 

Ireland, J.L., Sanders, M.R., and Markie-Dadds, C. (2003). The impact of parent training on 

marital functioning: A comparison of two group versions of the Triple P-Positive Parenting 

Program for parents of children with early-onset conduct problems. Behavioural and Cognitive 

Psychotherapy, 31, 127-142. 

Lovibond, P.F., and Lovibond, S.H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: 

Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and 

Anxiety Inventory. Behavior Research and Therapy, 33, 335–343. 

Markie-Dadds, C., Turner, K.M.T., and Sanders, M. (1998a). Every parent’s group workbook. 

Brisbane: Families International Publishing. 

Markie-Dadds, C., Turner, K.M.T., and Sanders, M. (1998b). Every parent’s supplementary 

workbook. Brisbane: Families International Publishing. 

TRIPLE-P POSITIVE PARENTING PROGRAM 

121 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

Ralph, A., and Sanders, M.R. (2003). Preliminary evaluations of the Group Teen Triple P 

program for parents of teenagers making the transition to high school. Australian e-Journal for 

the Advancement of Mental Health, 2(3), 1-10. 

Sanders, M.R. (1999). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: Towards an empirically validated 

multilevel parenting and family support strategy for the prevention of behavior and emotional 

problems in children. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2(2), 71-90. 

Sanders, M.R., Markie-Dadds, C., Tully, L.A., and Bor, W. (2000). The Triple P-Positive 

Parenting Program: A comparison of enhanced, standard, and self-directed behavioral family 

intervention for parents of children with early onset conduct problems. Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 624-40. 

Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing marital quality. 

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28. 

Turner, K.M.T., Markie-Dadds, C., and Sanders, M.R. (1998). Facilitator’s manual for Group 

Triple P. Brisbane: Families International Publishing. 

EVALUATOR AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Matthew R. Sanders, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

TRIPLE-P POSITIVE PARENTING PROGRAM 

122 
Appendix 3: 

“Emerging” Fatherhood 

Programs

123 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

24/7 DADTM A.M. and 24/7 DADTM P.M. 

OVERVIEW: 24/7 DadTM A.M. and 24/7 DadTM P.M. are two distinct but complimentary 

parenting programs for fathers offered in Alabama. 24/7 DadTM A.M. is a basic program while the 

24/7 DadTM P.M. is comprehensive and is completed after the basic program. Participants in each 

program attended 12 two-hour sessions in group or individual one-on-one settings. An evaluation 

of program participants found that the 24/7 DadTM programs had a positive effect on fathers by 

improving their parenting skills, fathering knowledge and attitudes toward fathering. Read 

more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

The fatherhood programs focus on characteristics that a father must have to be “a great dad 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week.” The shared program goals are to; 

• Increase knowledge and skill level of fathers 

• Promote a healthy and positive attitude regarding fatherhood and parenting. 

LOCATION: Bay Minette, Alabama and Robertsdale, Alabama. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

• 24/7 DadTM A.M. Program 

o 26 % were between 20-29 years old; 36 % were between 30-39 years old

o 54 % were Black ; 42 % were White

o 13 % were married, 38 % were single and 15 % lived with a partner

o 38 % reported incomes below $15,000; 40 % earned $15,000-$25,000.

• 24/7 DadTM P.M. Program 

o 13 % were between 20-29 years old; 33 % were between 30-39 years old

o 60 % were Black ; 33 % were White

o 40 % were married, 23 % were single and 10 % lived with a partner

o 50 % reported incomes below $15,000; 33 % earned $15,000-$25,000.

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (Pre-Post Test Design) 

Outcomes:

• Level of self-awareness

• Attitudes towards caring for one’s self

• Knowledge of fathering skills

• Knowledge of parenting skills

• Knowledge of relationship skills

Method: The evaluation, administered by the Baldwin County Fatherhood Initiative, used 

pre/post test measures on two questionnaires, the 24/7 DadTM Fathering Inventory and the 

24/7 DadTM Fathering Skills Survey. The first survey was administered at the beginning and 

end of each of the respective programs, and was designed to measure father and parenting 

attitudes. The second survey, the 24/7 DadTM Fathering Skills Survey, measures fathering and 

parenting knowledge. Separate skills surveys were administered at the beginning and end to 

the AM and PM programs since the knowledge and skills taught differed by program. 

24/7 DADTM A.M. AND 24/7 DAD TM P.M. 

 124 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

Sample: The 24/7 DadTM A.M. Program had a sample of 48 fathers for the Fathering 

Inventory survey and 40 for the Fathering Skills Survey. 24/7 DadTM P.M. Program had 29 

fathers for the Fathering Inventory and 30 for the Fathering Skills Survey.

Measures:

• Self Awareness Measures: 

o Fathers were asked how expectations they had of their children impacted 

their children’s self-worth.

o Fathers were asked about their attitudes towards sharing problems, 

grieving and anger.

• Caring for Self Measures: 

o Fathers were asked about their attitudes towards positive and negative 

feelings. 

o Fathers were asked about their attitudes towards health checkups.

• Fathering Skills Measures: 

o Questions were asked about father’s roles in the family and balancing 

work and family.

o Fathers were questioned on their role in influencing children’s outcomes 

versus the child’s nature. 

• Parenting Skills Measures: 

o Fathers were asked about how to encourage their children to do more, 

using consequences to modify behavior, discipline and family rules. 

• Relationship Skills Measures: 

o Fathers were questioned about their attitudes toward marriage and their 

children’s mother.

Statistical Analyses: The samples from both surveys were analyzed using cross tabs and 

paired sample T-test to compare mean scores and test for significance. Significance testing is 

done at the 90 percent confidence level. Means that have increased from pre to post test are 

also reported. 

 

Attrition: In order to participate in the 24/7 DadTM P.M. Program, fathers had to complete 

the A.M. program first. 80 % of all fathers in the A.M program who completed the pre-test 

Fathering Inventory Survey completed the post-test Fathering Skills Survey. Only 60 % of 

participants in the A.M. program completed the P.M. program. 97 % of all participants in the 

P.M. program completed both the pre and post surveys. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available.

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available.

o Staff Training: Information currently not available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available.

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available.

24/7 DADTM A.M. AND 24/7 DAD TM P.M. 

 125 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Information currently not available.

• Materials: The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) provides a 24/7 DadTM curriculum, 

facilitators guide and fathering handbook to be purchased for use in administering the 

programs. NFI also offers a two day training institute for administrators of the program.

• Partnerships and Linkages: The Baldwin County Fatherhood Initiative administered 

the two programs. NFI was responsible for data analysis and program evaluation. 

• Community Organizations

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model:

24/7 DadTM is a set of programs developed by experts in fathering and parenting. NFI 

sells the program to institutes, groups, or individuals to administer. NFI also trains the 

facilitators who administer the programs. There are to programs, 24/7 DadTM A.M. and 

24/7 DadTM P.M. consisting of 12 two-hour sessions. Fathers are expected to complete 

the basic AM program before participating in the more comprehensive PM program. 

Facilitators were provided with a curriculum outlining activities for each session. Fathers 

and mothers were brought together at the end of each program to discuss the father’s 

development and how their relationship had been affected. 

24/7 DadTM A.M. Sessions: 

o

amily of origin 

o Fathering and Culture F

o Masculinity 

o Understanding Your Self 

o Handling and Expressing 

Emotions 

o Spirituality 

o Physical and Mental Health 

o Fathering and Family Roles 

o Discipline, Rewards and 

Punishment 

o Expectations and Children’s 

Dev. 

o Balancing Work and Family 

o Getting Involved with 

Children

24/7 DadTM P.M. Sessions: 

1. Fathering and the 24/7 Dad 

2. Growing from Boyhood to 

Manhood 

3. Recognizing and Handling 

Anger 

4. What it Means to be a Man 

5. Spirituality and Growth 

6. Sex, Love and Relationships 

7. Power and Control 

8. Competition and Fathering 

9. Improving my 

Communication Skills 

10. Having Fun and Getting 

Involved 

11. Stress, Alcohol and Work 

12. Growth and Celebration 

24/7 DADTM A.M. AND 24/7 DAD TM P.M. 

 126 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: While the 24/7 DadTM can be administered in groups or on one-on-one 

basis, information was not available for the format this particular intervention used.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Fathers participated in 12 two-hour 

sessions for each of the 24/7 DadTM programs. Multiple sessions were offered. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Information currently not available.

• Diversity of activities: Each session in the curriculum covered different topics on what it 

means to be a “great dad”. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Preliminary findings from the outcomes evaluation show that the 24/7 DadTM programs had a 

positive effect on fathers by improving their parenting skills, fathering knowledge and attitudes 

toward fathering. Statistically significant results were recorded in all outcome areas; caring for 

one’s self, self awareness and knowledge of fathering, parenting and relationship skills. 

• Out of 50 questions asked in the 24/7 DadTM Fathering Inventory completed by fathers in 

the AM program, 8 showed statistically significant change at the 90 % confidence level. 

Eleven other questions showed increases in mean scores between pre to post program. 

• Findings from the Fathering Inventory for the PM program had one question measuring 

self awareness, caring for self and relationship skills show statistically significant positive 

changes. 

• Out of the 25 questions asked in the 24/7 DadTM Fathering Skills Survey completed by 

fathers in the AM program, 7 showed statistically significant change at the 90 % 

confidence level. 

• Findings from the Fathering Skills PM program had 3 questions measuring self 

awareness and parenting skills that were statistically significant. 

SOURCES:

Olshansky, Jana. 24/7 DadTM A.M. and 24/7 DadTM P.M. – Outcome Evaluation Results 2005-

2006. Released October 25, 2006 from: https://www.fatherhood.org/evaluation.asp

Structure and curriculums were obtained from the National Fatherhood Initiative website: 

https://www.fatherhood.org/247dad.asp

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Ms. Jana Olshanshky 

Director of Evaluation 

National Fatherhood Initiatives 

101 Lake forest Boulevard 

Suite 360 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877 

Phone: (301) 948-0599

Fax: (301) 948-4325 

Email: jolshansky@fatherhood.org

24/7 DADTM A.M. AND 24/7 DAD TM P.M. 

 127 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

AUSTRALIAN ALL-MALE DISCUSSION FORUMS FOR EXPECTANT FATHERS: 

EVALUATION OF A MODEL 

OVERVIEW: Approximately 80% of first-time parents in Australia attend antenatal and 

parenting education courses. After a successful pilot, the forum was integrated as an integral 

session in the overall antenatal educational program for Australia. The All-Male Discussion 

Forum served over 600 first-time fathers between 1998 and 2003. All program participants 

completed a questionnaire form after the session and were unanimous in their agreement about 

the benefits of the forum, particularly the opportunity to discuss issues of importance to them 

with other fathers. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: 

The objectives of the all male discussion forum were to: 

• Clarify information on 

the different components of pregnancy (i.e., labor and postnatal issues). 

• Raise awareness of issues 

perhaps not previously considered (i.e., postnatal depression). 

• Discuss controversial 

issues such as male circumcision and breastfeeding. 

• Establish effective 

communication guidelines between the husband and wife. 

• Understand the 

importance of fathers to their children and encourage men to be involved with their 

family. 

LOCATION: The male forum took place in a coastal region of New South Wales, located 

between the Sydney metropolitan area the large regional city of Newcastle Australia. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: The program served expectant fathers in the 

central coast, a coastal region of New South Wales. Of the 605 expectant fathers who gave their 

ages, 3% were under 20 years, 44% were between 21 and 29 years, 35% were between 30 and 35 

years; and 18% were over 35 years. The majority of the forum participants were first-time 

expectant fathers. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: DESCRIPTIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY 

Outcomes:

• Increased understanding of the father’s role. 

• Increased knowledge of healthy father-child relationships. 

• Knowledge of post-birth coping strategies including: becoming a dad, father’s new role, 

and lifestyle changes. 

• Improved co-parenting communication skills. 

• Challenge pre-existing thinking related to the father’s role antenatal and parenting 

education classes. 

Method: The study evaluated male-specific forums as a means of meeting the needs of 

expectant fathers during pregnancy, labor, and childbirth, as well as discussion issues beyond 

birth. At the end of each program fathers were asked to complete a questionnaire form. The 

evaluation sheet contained two sections. 

AUSTRALIAN ALL-MALE DISCUSSION FORUMS FOR EXPECTANT FATHERS 

128 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

Sample: Throughout the six years (1998-2003), 112 sessions were conducted with a total of 

749 participants. To avoid confounding variables in the analysis, the five sessions not run by 

the primary educator were not included, nor were the older version of the questionnaire. This 

gave a final sample of 91 sessions with 622 male participants. 

Measures: The measured used for the first section of the questionnaire included: benefits of 

attendance, communication style of facilitator, format of session, discussion topics, extending 

the time span of the sessions. The second section contained two open-ended questions 

regarding the most valuable components of the session and suggestions for future 

improvement.

Statistical Analyses: Descriptive statistics were derived for each variable. One-way ANOVA 

and Chi square tests were used to determine whether responses to the questions were related 

to the number of participants in each groups, the place or year of the session, or the service 

provider. Textual analysis was used to analyze the two open-ended questions. 

Attrition: Of the original 622 male participants, 617 completed the questionnaire, a response 

rate of 99%. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support:

o Staff-Participant Ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: All male facilitators held qualifications in nursing, midwifery, 

and men’s health. 

o Staff Experience: Male facilitators were fathers of young child, and value the 

role of fathers while appreciating that this role varies among individual men. 

o Staff Training: Male facilitators all had small-group leadership skills and were 

guided by adult learning principles. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: At the end of the session, the male facilitator provided the male participants 

with a handout of the topics and issues covered in the male forum.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Child and Family Health, Community of Midwives, and 

Maternity Service. 

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model:

 Facilitation: It is considered important that same-gender facilitators be used 

because it is believed that the male participants feel more comfortable and 

relaxed when discussing male-specific topics in an all-male group. The facilitator 

also serves as a role model when conducting this type of session. 

AUSTRALIAN ALL-MALE DISCUSSION FORUMS FOR EXPECTANT FATHERS 

129 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

 The CCH discussion topics allows for a wide variety of issues which included: 

 emotions relating to conception and pregnancy; 

 involvement during labour and in the process of birthing; 

 postnatal depression 

 changes in lifestyle and relationships; 

 formal and informal support networks; 

 resumption of sexual activity; 

 the role of fathers in breastfeeding; and, 

 the hopes and aspirations of becoming a father. 

 Forum Closure: At the end of the male forum, fathers completed a short 

evaluation. The male facilitators provided the pregnant partners with a handout of 

the topics and issues covered in the male forum, which will hopefully encourage 

discussion between the partners. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: The mean-and median-sized group consisted of seven fathers, with groups 

ranging in size from 2 to 12. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): There service providers (Child and 

Family Health, Community Midwives, and Maternity Services) delivered program 

services. The programs varied from two to six sessions (depending on the service 

provider). 

• Frequency of program offerings: Program sessions were conducted on a midweek 

evening, a Saturday, or a combination of both depending on the service provider. 

• Diversity of activities: Since 1998, at least a single 2 to 2 1⁄2 hour gender-specific forum 

led by a same-gender facilitator has been included within each program. 

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Findings represent outcomes for all fathers participating in the All-Male Discussion Forum 

• 99% agreed or strongly agreed the session would be of benefit to their role as a father, the 

facilitator communicated effectively, the format of the sessions allowed for an open 

discussion, and the all-male forums should be continued. In each case, 60% or more 

strongly agreed. However, there were no statistically significant differences at the 0.5 

level of significance between responses based on the number of participants in the group, 

the place of the session, the service provider, or the year of the session. (p<.05). 

• A total of 497 (80%) program participants answered the open-ended question, “What did 

you find most useful about the session?” Nearly 67% of the responses to this question 

were about the delivery mode, nearly 50% of the respondents talked about the discussion 

format, 33% of fathers commented that the content of the sessions as being the most 

valuable aspect 

o Mode of delivery: Several men commented on the relaxed and open nature of the 

discussion where everyone’s input was welcomed and well received. 

o Discussion format: To be in a setting where they could listen to and share with 

other men in the same position as themselves was a rewarding experience for 

mane of the fathers. 

o Facilitator: A number of participants commented that the facilitator, apart from 

being a father himself, was instrumental in guiding the discussion while creating 

a comfortable and informal atmosphere. 

AUSTRALIAN ALL-MALE DISCUSSION FORUMS FOR EXPECTANT FATHERS 

130 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

o Discussion content: For several fathers, the session clarified the role of the 

contemporary father, what to expect as a Dad, and what the responsibilities of a 

father involved, including both the emotional and financial role. 

• A total of 145 (24%) program participants offered suggestions for future sessions. Of the 

145 respondents, 68% offered a suggestion future sessions mentioned they would have 

liked more time spent on the male-only part of the antenatal program. The main 

recommendation was to extend the session or divide it into two sessions; to allow for 

more topics to be covered; more time to spend with the group; and, more opportunities 

for brainstorming. 

SOURCES:

Fredewald, M., Fletcher, R., and Fairbairn, H. (2005). All-Male Discussion Forums for Expectant 

Fathers: Evaluation of a Model. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 14(2), 8-18. 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Mark Freidewald, RN, CM, BHSc (Nursing), Men’s Health (Cert.) 

Clinical Nurse Consultant 

Parent Educator, Division of Women, Children’s and Family Health at Central Coast Health, New 

South Wales, Australia. 

Richard Fletcher, BSc, MMedSci 

Lecturer in the Faculty Health of Health 

Team Leader for the Engaging Fathers Project in the Family Action Centre at the University of 

Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 

Hedy Fairbairn, BA, MEd (Stud.) 

Research Assistant in the Engaging Fathers Project in the Family Action Centre at the University 

of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. 

 

AUSTRALIAN ALL-MALE DISCUSSION FORUMS FOR EXPECTANT FATHERS 

131 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

CREATING LASTING CONNECTIONS (CLC), 

ALSO REFERRED TO AS CREATING LASTING FAMILY CONNECTIONS (CLFC) 

OVERVIEW: Creating Lasting Connections (CLC) was a 5-year demonstration project funded 

by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, 

which utilized community and faith-based organizations to help delay the onset and subsequent 

use of alcohol and other drug use (AOD) by adolescents, and increase family resiliency. The 

intervention was developed by the Council on Prevention and Education: Substances, Inc. 

(COPES), and it highlighted wellness, health promotion, and resiliency factors by using a twotiered intervention that targeted both adolescents and their families. The evaluation found positive 

impacts on community service utilization by adolescents and parents, and some positive affects 

on parents’ knowledge about AOD. This model was later modified and renamed Creating Lasting 

Family Connections (CLFC), which has been replicated in at least 40 states. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: 

In the family domain, CLC’s goals were to increase: 

• Parents’ knowledge and beliefs about alcohol and other drug use (consistent with the 

program’s message) 

• Family management skills 

• Communications skills 

• Family role modeling of alcohol use 

• Self-reported involvement in community activities with their adolescents 

• Use of community services when personal or family problems arise 

 

In the adolescent domain, the program’s goals were to increase adolescent resiliency by affecting 

positively their: 

• Leveling communication and refusal skills 

• Bonding with their family 

• Involvement with their parents in community activities 

• Use of community services when personal and family problems arise 

LOCATION: Not currently available. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: 

Families that were identified as “at risk” by the church advocate teams were included in the 

program. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (RANDOM ASSIGNMENT) 

Outcomes: (Only families and child outcomes will be discussed here-the evaluation also 

assessed the programs’ effect on church community engagement). 

• Parent and Child Outcomes 

o Community involvement 

o Service utilization 

o Actions taken because of services received 

o Perceived helpfulness of services 

CREATING LASTING CONNECTIONS (CLC) 

132 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Parent Resiliency Outcomes 

o AOD knowledge and beliefs 

o Family communication 

o Parents’ AOD use 

o Family monitoring and supervision 

o Involvement of the child in establishing rules 

• Adolescents’ Resiliency Outcomes 

o Self-awareness and communication about AOD use and school work 

o Communication with peers 

o Bonding with family members 

• Method: Families were randomly assigned to receive the CLC intervention or control group 

services. Data were collected 1) at the beginning of the intervention; 2) after the training 

modules were completed, and 3) after approximately one year, after follow-up case 

management services. 

• Sample: Ninety-seven parents (n=40 for treatment group and n=48 for control group) and 

120 children (n=59 for treatment group and n=61 for control group) participated in the study. 

• Measures: One parent, which in this study was usually the mother, and one child aged 12 to 

14 were designated to complete interviews and answered questionnaires on parent and 

adolescents resiliency factors, service utilization, and perceptions of the helpfulness of 

services. 

• Statistical Analyses: Exploratory factor analysis and item analysis were used for the baseline 

data; a confirmatory analysis was done to replicate results from baseline data. Attrition 

analyses were conducted with individual and family characteristics, risk and resiliency factors 

from family and adolescent domains, and AOD use measures among adolescents. An analysis 

with and without repeated measures was conducted to produce outcome evaluation results for 

families and adolescents. A t-test was used to uncover statistically significant differences 

between the slope of the regression line from the CLC treatment group and the regression line 

of the moderator variable. Statistical significance was determined using a two-tailed test of 

significance (alpha = .10). 

• Attrition: No differential attrition bias was found in the study. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support: Not currently available.

o Staff-participant ratio : Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

CREATING LASTING CONNECTIONS (CLC) 

133 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The program was designed with two integrated 

components—the system and client level. The design highlighted wellness, health 

promotion, and resiliency factors.

 The system-level component consisted of 5 phases: 

 Identification, recruitment, assessment, and selection of church 

communities. In this phase, introduction letters and surveys were sent to 

132 churches to determine those that were interested. On-site visitations 

were conducted and a readiness assessment was completed for churches 

who were interested in participating. 10 church communities were 

selected out of this process. 

 Church Advocate Teams (CATs) formation and orientation. A group of 

volunteers (CATs) were trained from each church and acted as advocates 

for high-risk adolescents and their families to recruit and retain them for 

the CLC program. 

 CAT Training. CATs received an 8 to 10 week training, which was an 

accelerated version of the CLC training components. 

 High-risk family recruitment. Each CAT was responsible for developing 

their own recruitment plan tailored to their community. Recruitment was 

carried out through church events, church leader endorsements, 

advertisements, and face-to-face advertisement. 

 Program and evaluation retention activities. After recruitment, CATs 

helped retain program and evaluation activities to ensure families’ full 

participation in all activities. 

o The client-level component included training modules for parents and 

adolescents, early intervention services, and follow-up case management services 

for the families. Case management included bimonthly telephone consultations 

and/or home visits to families in need of support. Case management was 

provided for approximately 5 to 6 months after the adolescent and parent training 

was completed (which ended approximately one year after random assignment). 

Intervention services, which included problem assessment and treatment/referrals 

were made accessible to families who the program staff identified, or if families 

requested services. 

The curriculum was developed by the Council on Prevention and Education: 

Substances, Inc. It included separate training modules for adolescents and families: 

 Module One, AOD Issues Training. This module sought to increase 

the participants’ knowledge about substance abuse, gave the history 

of substance abuse prevention programs, was an examination of 

personal and group benefits about AOD issues and the dynamics of 

chemical dependency and its effects of families. The training was 

done over a 12 to 16-hour period. 

CREATING LASTING CONNECTIONS (CLC) 

134 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

 Module Two, “Not My Child”. This module examined family 

planning skills to develop and implement expectations and 

consequences for any areas of interest or concern. Specifically, it 

highlighted inclusion, acceptance, understand, respect, and 

autonomy. This training was done over a 16-20 hour period. 

 Module Three, Straight Communications. This training module 

brought together the adolescents and their parents and gave 

opportunities to practice communications style during role plays. 

First, a separate group of parents, and then adolescents met for 8 to 

12 hours; afterwards, the parents and adolescents met to practice 

their communication skills with one another. 

To persuade adolescents to participate in the first training, the program coordinated familyoriented social activities to begin to build relationships between the adolescents and their 

parents. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Training Module One was to be 

done over a 12 to 16 hour period; Training Module Two was to be done over a 16 hour to 

20 hour period; Training Module Three was to be done over an 8 to 12 hour period, and 

allotted additional time for a joint training with adolescents and their parents.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: Youth and parents participated in two separate training modules, 

and a third joint training. 

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• After case management follow-up services, parents in CLC reported more action of 

community services than in the control group (p=.05). The CLC parents perceived 

the services as more helpful than the control group as well (p=.04). 

• Adolescents reported greater community services utilization when problems arose, 

more action taken because of service receipt, and more perceived helpfulness of 

services when compared to the control group (p =.01). 

• The program had a short-term gain in increased communication between parents and 

adolescents but this was not confirmed by adolescents’ report on increased 

communication. 

• Compared to the control group, parents who participated in the CLC intervention had 

greater shorter-term and sustained knowledge of AOD (p<.001). These parents were 

also better at involving their children in setting AOD rules (p<.001). This outcome 

was significant in the short-term but was insignificant after the follow-up case 

management services were complete. 

• The program did not affect parents’ substance use, community involvement, family 

communication, and other family management skills. 

CREATING LASTING CONNECTIONS (CLC) 

135 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• No differential attrition bias was found in the study. 

SOURCE:

Johnson, K., Strader, T., Berbaum, M. Bryant, D., Bucholtz, Collins, D. & Noe, T. (1996). 

Reducing alcohol and other drug use by strengthening community, family, and youth resiliency: 

An evaluation of the creating lasting connections program. Journal of Adolescent Research, 

11(1), 36-67. 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Knowlton Johnson, MSSW, PhD, Forestry, Criminal Justice, Social Science, Social Work 

Senior Research Scientist 

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Louisville Center 

Louisville, Kentucky 

Phone: (502) 238-7339

Fax: (502) 634-5690

Email: kwjohnson@pire.org

For more information on the Creating Lasting Family Connections curriculum, contact: 

Ted Strader, Executive Director 

Council on Prevention and Education: Substances, Inc. (COPES, Inc.) 

845 Barrett Avenue 

Louisville, KY 40204 

Phone: (502) 583-6820 

Fax: (502) 583-6832 

email: tstrader@sprynet.com 

Internet: www.copes.org and click on “Products”

CREATING LASTING CONNECTIONS (CLC) 

136 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

OVERVIEW: The DADS Family Project was created in 1996, and implemented in the South 

Eastern United States. Research demonstrates that the use of group interventions with parents to 

prevent child maltreatment and to support positive parenting has been effective. The DADS 

Family Project is an innovative program that is designed to adapt to a variety of settings, from 

schools to churches to prisons and businesses. The DADS Family Project was conducted at three 

correctional institutions with fathers both face-to-face and via video conferencing. For men who 

participated in the group via video conferencing, the scores of the participants improved in three 

of the eight areas assessed in the predicted direction: permitting self expression, avoiding harsh 

punishment and not using physical punishment. For men in the face-to-face session, the changes 

were less dramatic, with significant changes only in avoiding harsh punishment. Read more.... 

PROGRAM GOALS: The purpose of the program is to assist dads in improving their 

understanding of the essential role of fathering. The goals for each father were to: 

o Recognize his potential positive impact on his children; 

o Improve in his attitude of wanting to be an equal parent; 

o Develop personal model of fatherhood as a “generative” dad; 

o Understand the meaning and strategies for establishing a safe, secure, predictable, 

and reliable home environment; 

o Acquire an appreciation of the value of play for children and strategies for playing; 

o Improve communication skills; 

o Improve stress management; and, 

o Acquire positive discipline strategies. 

LOCATION: Southeastern United States 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: 

The DADS Project was completed with fathers who were incarcerated in a state prison system 

and were selected to participate by prison officials. Fathers participated in the project either in a 

face-to-face program or through distance learning. 

Demographic Characteristics: 

• Average age of the participants was 33.8 

• Participants reported an average of 3.2 children, with a range of one to ten 

• Marital Status: 

O 25% were never married 

O 27% were married 

O 36% were divorced 

O 11% were separated 

• Educational attainment level 

O 35% had not completed high school 

O 59% completed high school or vocational training 

O 7% attended college 

• Family income range: 

O 34% was under $10,000 

O 17% between $10,000 and $20,000 

O 10% between $20,000 and $30,000 

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

137 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

O 20% between $30,000 and $40,000 

O 20% over $40,000 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (PRE-POST TEST DESIGN)

• Outcomes: 

o Encourage verbalization 

o Foster independence 

o Permit self-expression 

o Avoid harsh punishment 

o Non-physical punishment 

o Avoid strictness 

o Encourage emotional expression 

o Orient to change 

o Social desirability 

• Method: To assess the effects of the DADS training on participants’ knowledge and attitudes 

about their roles as parents; a 45 item pretest posttest design using a standardized 

questionnaire was administered to the fathers. Each inmate completed a demographic sheet. 

In addition, structured qualitative interviews were designed specifically for this project, and 

focused on the participants’ experience of the training. Four inmates from the distance 

learning group were randomly selected at the end of the project and were interviewed.

• Sample: Forty-six (46) fathers participated in the face-to-face DADS Program, and seventeen 

(17) fathers participated at a distance.

• Measures: The standardized 

questionnaire PARI Q4 (Parental Attitude Research Instrument) was used with the fathers. 

The total measure is 115 items, and includes a number of sub-scales both about dad’s 

relationship which his children and about his relationship with his spouse. Eight sub-scales 

were selected for this study and were designed to assess the following: 

o Encouraging Verbalization 

o Fostering Independence 

o Permitting Child’s Self-Expression 

o Avoiding Harsh Punishment 

o Non-Punishment 

o Avoiding Strictness 

o Encouraging Emotional Expression 

o Change Orientation 

• Statistical Analyses: Two statistical procedures were used to assess the effect of the training 

on the fathers’ attitudes about parenting. 

o Nonparametric tests for differences in outcomes between participants at the live 

training and at the distance site were conducted. This test was done to assess if any 

differences existed as a result of the distance learning condition.

o The second test was designed to address questions about the effect of the training on 

the attitudes of the participants. A repeated measures Wilcoxon nonparametric test 

was used to address this question. 

o Qualitative interviews were hand and audio recorded, and summarized. 

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

138 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Attrition: Not currently available.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-Participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff Wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Training sessions were 

held at correctional facilities. 

• Materials: Parenting manuals were provided to each inmate in all locations who 

participated in the classes. In addition to the parenting manual, the group leaders 

followed the format detailed in the DADS Family Project manual. Small group activities, 

experiential exercises, and audio-visual aids were used in the class presentations. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The Dads Actively Developing Stable Families Project 

(DADS) curriculum was developed by Dr. Larry Barlow and Dr. Thomas Cornille (2005). 

The curriculum utilizes a self-efficiency model (SE) to enable fathers to lower anxiety, 

experience a sense of accomplishment, and maintain high level of effort. The learning 

strategies include using group interaction, modeling by facilitators, and verbal 

persuasion. Instructors are encouraged to self-disclose. Fathers learn from and support 

one another in a context that allows for building trust and promoting community spirit. A 

brief description of each session is provided below:

o Session 1: DADS Actively Developing Self. Fathers are led through a session 

recalling their personal history of being fathered, sharing about the birth of their 

children, and eventually establishing a model of fatherhood. 

o Session 2: DADS Actively Developing Safety and Sensitivity. A house is drawn 

and divided into four rooms to portray the need for children to experience an 

environment that is (1) safe, (2) secure, (3) predictable, and (4) reliable. 

o Session 3: DADS Actively Developing Play Skills. This session begins by reading 

one or two books to the fathers with the attempt to set and atmosphere for playful 

interaction. 

o Session 4: DADS Actively Developing Communication Skills. The central theme 

of this session is to teach the skill of reflective listening. Fathers are taught how 

to distinguish between surface context and deeper meaning. Fathers learn about 

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

139 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

utilizing non-threatening body postures when discussing topics with their 

children. 

o Session 5: DADS Actively Developing Stress Management Skills. Fathers are 

taught about some of the properties, where a model of stress is diagramed and 

explained to fathers by studying a real-life family portrayed on a documentary. 

o Session 6: DADS Actively Developing Effective Discipline Skills. Fathers 

brainstorm about long-term parental goals for their children: to become selfsupporting, self-regulating, responsible, and effective decision-makers. Fathers 

learn through role-playing activities and exercises on how to utilize natural and 

logical consequences as means of effective discipline. 

o Session 7: DADS Actively Developing Experiential Skills. This session provides a 

lab in the community setting for demonstrating what fathers have learned thus 

far. Fathers are guided through exercises and interactions with their children, and 

they each observe their child’s manner of interacting. 

o Session 8: DADS Actively Developing Experiential Skills: This session is a 

celebration and thus occurs at the final meeting. Fathers graduate from the course 

and are recognized by their entire family. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Sixty-three (63) fathers

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Four classes of three hours each (12 

hours total) were held at three correctional institutions. Simultaneously, with the course 

being taught at one of the institutions, participants at a fourth institution interacted with 

the class by means of video and audio linkage. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Fathers participated in the project in one of two ways. 

One group took part in the program face-to-face and other group through distance 

learning. For the distance learning group, audio-video simultaneous broadcast was used, 

from one prison where a group was participating live to another prison, where a 

classroom manager was present who responsibility was to distribute materials for the 

class and oversee classroom order. 

• Diversity of activities: A brief description of each session is provided below.

o Session 1: DADS Actively Developing Self 

o Session 2: DADS Actively Developing Safety and Sensitivity. 

o Session 3: DADS Actively Developing Play Skills 

o Session 4: DADS Actively Developing Communication Skills 

o Session 5: DADS Actively Developing Stress Management Skills 

o Session 6: DADS Actively Developing Effective Discipline Skills 

o Session 7: DADS Actively Developing Experiential Skills 

o Session 8: DADS Actively Developing Experiential Skills 

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

140 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• For men who participated in the group via video conferencing, the scores of the 

participants improved in three of the eight areas assessed in the predicted direction: 

o permitting self expression at the level of (p<.05) 

o avoiding harsh punishment at the level of (p<.05) 

o not using physical punishment at the level of (p<.05) 

• For men in the face-to-face session, the changes were less dramatic, with significant 

changes only in Avoiding Harsh Punishment at the level of (p<.05). 

SOURCES:

Cornille, T., Barlow, L., and Cleveland, A. (2005). DADS Family Project: An Experiential Group 

Approach to Support Fathers in Their Relationships with Their Children. Social Work 

with Groups, 28(2), 41-57. Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/SWG 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Thomas A. Cornille, PhD, LCSW 

Larry O. Barlow, PhD, LMFT 

Faculty in Interdivisional Program in Marriage and Family Therapy 

Department of Family and Child Sciences 

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306 

Arthur D. Cleveland, LCSW, provides clinical social work services to children and families in 

Tallahassee, FL. 

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

141 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

DADS MAKE A DIFFERENCE (DMAD) 

OVERVIEW: The Dads Make a Difference (DMAD) program is a youth development, 

pregnancy prevention, and paternity education program where older adolescent teens are trained 

to teach and mentor middle–school aged youth about the responsibilities involved with being a 

parent. The evaluation found that the teen parent trainers reported statistically significant 

increases in knowledge about fatherhood, paternity establishment, and child support. The teens’ 

attitude changes about sexual risk taking and paternity establishment were also statistically 

significant. There were no changes in attitudes about the importance of fathers. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

• Promote the positive involvement of fathers 

• Educate youth about responsible parenting 

LOCATION: Maryland

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: This demonstration program served two 

types of participants. The program trained teenagers aged 14-19, who were referred to as “site 

mentors” to train middle school youth (ages 11-13) on pertinent issues regarding fatherhood and 

teenage sexuality. Fourteen middle school-aged youth participated in the program: 

• 15% male, 85% were female; 

• 83% were African American, 8% were Hispanic, and 8% indicated as “other” race ; 

• The average age was 12.8 years; 

• 70% were in grades 3-7; 

• 30% were in high school; 

• 0% had children, and 0% were pregnant or expecting a child.

126 teen trainers participated in the program: 

• 54% were female, 46% were male; 

• 68.3% were African American, 28.3% were Caucasian, 1.75 multiracial, 1.7 % other; 

• The average age was 15 years 

• 15.3% were in grades 7-8, 41.5% in grades 9-10, 38.1% in grades 11-12, 5.1% had 

graduated high school; 

• 1.6% had children, and 0.8% were pregnant 

• 44% had previous experience as a peer counselor 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING 

• Outcomes: 

Peer Trainer & Middle-school Aged Youth: 

o Knowledge of fatherhood, paternity establishment, and child support 

o Attitudes toward fathering, paternity establishment, and child support 

o Self-esteem levels 

o Level/frequency of volunteer involvement 

o Level/frequency of labor force involvement 

o Academic performance 

o Appropriate program delivery 

o Satisfaction with the program 

DADS MAKE A DIFFERENCE 

142 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

o Teen pregnancy rates 

o Paternity establishment 

o Ability to discuss the role of fathers 

• Method: A pretest posttest design was used to assess how the program impacted the teen 

trainers and the middle school-aged children’s knowledge about fatherhood and teenage 

sexuality. Future evaluation activities include: 

o A follow-up survey with teen peer trainers 

o More descriptive analyses and follow-up with middle schoolers 

• Sample: 126 peer trainers and 14 middle-school aged children were evaluated. 

• Measures: 

Peer Trainer Measures 

o The peer trainers were asked how they feel about themselves physically, 

morally, personally, as a family member, in their social relationships with 

peers, and in academic/work situations (Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: 

Second Edition (TSCS:2) 

o Open-ended post-teen training questions 

o Teen profile questionnaire, which collects demographic information, the 

number of participants in the program, and other information on pregnancies, 

paternity establishments and current child support orders. 

o Janis-Fields Self-Esteem Scale, which assesses an individuals’ sense of 

worth 

o Knowledge poll, which assessed knowledge of paternity and child support 

o Opinion poll, which assessed attitudes about sexual risk taking, paternity 

establishment and child support, and the importance of father involvement. 

Middle School-Aged Youth Measures 

o Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept scale, which assesses how children feel 

about themselves in a variety of domains: rate of volunteer activity, rate of 

labor force participation, rate of extracurricular activity participation, and 

academic performance. 

o Teen profile questionnaire, which collects demographic information, the 

number of participants in the program, and other information on pregnancies, 

paternity establishments and current child support orders. 

o Knowledge poll, which assessed knowledge of paternity and child support 

o Opinion poll, which assessed attitudes about sexual risk taking, paternity 

establishment and child support, and the importance of father involvement. 

o Open-ended post-teen training questions 

o School and work questionnaire 

• Statistical Analyses: Pearson correlations were used for the entire sample, separating the 

sample by gender. 

• Attrition: Not currently available. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

DADS MAKE A DIFFERENCE 

143 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

o Staff-participant ratio: Each session is taught by two facilitators (one female 

and one male).

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: The DMAD organization regularly trains teen mentors to 

implement the program in local communities nationwide. The current cost for 

one-day trainings are $45; if the participants are not from Minnesota, the cost 

$100 per adult, and $75 per teen adult. Participants receive the DMAD 

curriculum, lodging (in some cases), meals, and a T-shirt or cap. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: The program was started by a partnership of four agencies 

in Ramsey County, Minnesota: Children’s Defense Fund of MN, Family Tree Clinic, 

University of Minnesota Extension, and Ramsey County Attorney’s Office-Child support 

and Collections.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The DMAD program is taught by teenage trainers who 

receive a two-day overnight training, accompanied by an adult advisor. The DMAD 

curriculum is divided into four lessons, which focus on risky sexual behavior, the legal 

benefits of fatherhood, the importance of fathers, and how to make informed decisions 

about parenthood.

 Risky Business teaches sexual responsibility, the difficulty of teen parenting, and 

the risk and protective factors of teenage pregnancy. 

 Being a Legal Father discusses the legal issues surrounding fatherhood, and the 

benefits of establishing legal paternity and gives an explanation of child support. 

 Fathers and Their Families explores how a father’s presence positively impacts a 

child’s well-being. 

 Decisions are for the Making teaches the participants to develop visions for their 

futures, which helps to them to understand the necessary experiences they want 

to have before becoming a parent. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Not currently available.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: Not currently available.

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

DADS MAKE A DIFFERENCE 

144 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

Teen Parent Trainers 

• Teen parent trainers reported significantly higher levels of knowledge about fatherhood, 

paternity establishment, and child support after participating in the DMAD program (p = 

.001) 

• There were statistically significant changes in teens’ attitudes about sexual risk taking 

and paternity establishment/child support. Post-training, teens had greater knowledge 

about risks involved with early sexual activity (p = .01); and the importance of fathers 

establishing legal paternity and paying child support (p <.01). 

• There were no significant changes in teens’ attitudes about the importance of fathers. 

• There was a small but statistically significant relationship between self-esteem and 

knowledge of paternity and child support issues among the teen peer trainers, with higher 

levels of self-esteem being associated with more knowledge about the importance of 

being a father and supporting one’s child. (r=.22, p <.05). 

• Those teens reporting higher personal and academic/work self-concepts also reported 

being more aware of the risk associated with early sexual activity (r=.24, p <.05; r=.22, p 

<.05); 

• Teens who had a lower sense of adequacy and worth in social interactions with other 

people also reported being more aware of the risks associated with sexual risk-taking 

(r=.24, p <.05). 

• Those who had higher levels of self-esteem reported greater knowledge of paternity and 

child support issues (r=.29, p <.05); 

• Those who had a lower sense of adequacy and worth about their academic and work 

performance felt more strongly about the importance of fathers establishing legal 

paternity and paying child support (r=.29; p <.05). 

SOURCES:

Anderson, E.A., & Kohler, J.K. (2002). Dads make a difference: Year 4 evaluation report. Fiscal 

year: July 2001-2002. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Family 

Studies. 

Dads Make a Difference. (2007). Middle school curriculum: Teen teachers. Retrieved May 2, 

2007, from: http://www.dadsmakeadifference.org/MiddleTeenTeach.html#two 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Elaine A Anderson, Ph.D. 

Julie K. Kohler, Ph.D. 

Department of Family Studies 

University of Maryland 

1204 Marie Mount Hall 

College Park, MD 20742 

ea8@umail.md.edu; jkkohler@wam.umd.edu 

DADS MAKE A DIFFERENCE 

145 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

DOCTOR DAD 

OVERVIEW: Doctor Dad is an infant and toddler health safety workshop that teaches fathers 

the skills to care for their children’s’ medical needs. The workshop was pilot tested and evaluated 

by the Center of Family and Community Ministries at Baylor University. The sample size in the 

evaluation was too small to measure impacts that were statistically significant. However, the 

evaluation found that the father’s knowledge and skills increased in each topical area covered by 

the workshop. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: Doctor Dad’s goal is to equip fathers with the following knowledge and 

skills: 

• The ability to quickly and confidently respond to a medical emergency 

• The ability to know when to seek professional medical assistance for his child 

• The knowledge that he can have a positive impact on the daily life of his child 

• An appreciation of the father-child bond 

• Enhanced parenting skills 

LOCATION: Texas

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: Not currently available. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING 

• Outcomes: The evaluation studied the change in fathers’ skills and knowledge in the 

topical areas of well child, sick child, injured child, and safe child; and to increase the 

father’s confidence levels in caring for their children.

• Method: A pre/post evaluation of the Doctor Dad workshop was done to assess the 

impact of the Doctor Dad workshop on the participants’ skills, knowledge, and 

confidence level. 

• Sample: The sample size was 6.

• Measures: Changes in skills and knowledge were measured using a pre- and post- survey 

in the following areas: well child, sick child, injured child, and safe child. The survey 

also listed questions that asked about fathers’ confidence levels when caring for their 

child. 

• Statistical Analyses: The sample size was too small to analyze for statistically 

significant changes. 

• Attrition: All participants in the program completed the pre-and post- test surveys. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support:

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available.

DOCTOR DAD 

146 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

o Staff Education: The interactive workshop is conducted in four sessions, each 

taught by a certified healthcare professional, health educator, or other qualified 

person. Each session lasts two to three hours.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: Doctor Dad is a one to two-day workshop where 

fathers learn how to use basic medical knowledge to care for their young children, 

enabling them to handle most of medical situations that may arise. The workshop is 

conducted in four sessions, each taught by a certified healthcare professional, health 

educator, or other qualified person. Each session lasts two to three hours. The four 

sessions are centered on the following topic areas: 

o The Well Child (information on temperament, crying, nutrition, and 

immunizations) 

o The Sick Child (how to take temperatures, dealing with fevers and colds, and 

preventing dehydration) 

o The Injured Child (how to prevent and treat burns/sunburns, drowning, 

cuts/scrapes, and other injuries) 

o The Safe Child (safety in the home and in the community, Sudden Infant Death 

Syndrome (SIDS), gun safety, and anger management) 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Each session lasts two to three 

hours.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: Not currently available.

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS: 

• The sample size was too small to test for statistically significant changes, but the 

findings indicated that there was an increase in knowledge and skill level in each area. 

DOCTOR DAD 

147 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• The findings also show that the fathers’ confidence levels increased from the time of the 

pre-test to the post-test. 

SOURCES:

National Fatherhood Initiative. (2006). Central Texas fatherhood initiative. Doctor dad pre-and 

post-survey data. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from: 

https://www.fatherhood.org/doclibrary/evaluations/Evaluation_DoctorDad_Baylor_TX_1

02606.pdf 

Central Texas Fatherhood Initiative. (2005). Doctor Dad. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from 

http://www.centraltexasfatherhood.org/doctordad.shtml 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Center of Family and Community Ministries 

Baylor University 

One Bear Place, #97320 

Waco, Texas 76798-7320 

DOCTOR DAD 

148 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

EARLY HEAD START 

OVERVIEW: Early Head Start (EHS) is a comprehensive two-generation program that provides 

intensive services before a child is born and concentrates on enhancing and supporting child 

development during the first 3 years of the child’s life. Early Head Start began with the Head 

Start reauthorization Act of 1994, and was expanded in 1998 with another Head Start 

reauthorization, which now includes a network of 700 programs in the 50 states, DC, and Puerto 

Rico. The Early Head Start Father Studies were carried out under the Early Head Start Research 

and Evaluation project, which examined the program implementation and impacts of the program. 

Specifically, the father’s studies were initiated to understand fathers in context of their families in 

EHS and how they influence infant and toddler development. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: 

• To promote healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women 

• Enhance the development of very young children 

• Promote healthy family functioning 

LOCATION: Russellville and Little Rock, Arkansas; Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; Lincoln, Nebraska; 

four New York City boroughs; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Sumter, South 

Carolina; northwest Tennessee; Logan, Utah; Brattleboro, Vermont; and Alexandria, Virginia. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: 

• A group of men who were either eligible for EHS or whose families were enrolled in 

EHS or similar programs were included in this study. These men were identified by 

the birth mother as the biological father or father figure, or as the man expected to 

raise the child with her. 

• 96% of the fathers were the biological father of the child. 

• The average age was 26.6. 

• 83% were born in the United States. 

• 86% spoke primarily English in the home. 

• 38% were Hispanic, 32% were African American, and 30% were White. 

• 40% were married to the child’s mother. 

• Most of the fathers were employed but their incomes were reported as low. Between 

9 and 15% reported no employment at each interview. 

• The average monthly income during the month before the survey was $1,300 at the 

first interview, and $1,460 at the time of the final interview. 

• At the time of the first and final interviews, most men were in the same home as the 

focal child (70% at the first; 73% at the final). 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING 

• Outcomes:

o Participation in preparatory activities before birth 

o Time spent with their children 

o Frequency of participation in specific activities 

o Prenatal and subsequent involvement with children 

EARLY HEAD START 

149 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Method: Fathers were interviewed at either 1 or 3, 6, and 14 months after the birth of 

their children. Only a small number of men were interviewed at both 1 and 3 months after 

birth. In the analysis, the responses in the 1 month and 3-month interview are combined. 

Videotaped father-child interactions were collected at 6 and 14 months (mothers were 

also interviewed at the same intervals). The analysis only includes a subsample of 108 

men who completed at least two interviews (because of the difficulty of interviewing the 

fathers during the short spans of time between the scheduled interviews). The sample size 

fluctuated depending on the variable, because some fathers did not complete both the 

initial and final interviews. 

• Sample: The analysis includes a subsample of 108 men who completed at least two 

interviews. The sample size fluctuated depending on the variable, because some fathers 

did not complete both the initial and final interviews. 

• Measures: Based on the father and mother interviews, the following information was 

extracted: 

o Participation in preparatory activities before birth. Both parents were asked 

about the fathers’ levels of participation in eight activities related to the mother’s 

pregnancy. A summary score was derived from the following activities:

 Attended a doctor visit with mother 

 Saw an ultrasound of the child 

 Listened to child’s heartbeat 

 Talked to child 

 Felt child move 

 Discussed progress of pregnancy with mother 

 Attended birth or Lamaze classes with mother 

 Bought things for child 



o Time spent with their children 

 Father presence 

• interviewees were asked if they ever lived with the child 

• distance that nonresident father lived from the focal child’s 

residence 

 Report of the amount of time spent with the focal child 

 Report of how often the father watch the child while the mother did other 

things 

 Perceived help fathers gave to mothers with child 

o Frequency of participation in specific activities & prenatal and subsequent 

involvement with children (items were asked at 6 and 14 month interviews) 

 Stayed in hospital after birth because of child medical problems 

 Present when child was born 

 Accompanied mother on first prenatal visit 

 Playing with child (also asked at first or third interview) 

 Giving child a bottle(also asked at first or third interview) 

 Preparing bottles or food for child (also asked at first or third interview) 

 Putting child to bed(also asked at first or third interview) 

 Changing diapers(also asked at first or third interview) 

 Dressing child (also asked at first or third interview) 

EARLY HEAD START 

150 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

 Singing songs to child 

 Getting up when child wakes during the night (also asked at first or third 

interview) 

 Bathing child (also asked at first or third interview) 

 Bouncing child on knee 

 Playing peek-a-boo 

 Taking child for ride on shoulders/back 

 Tossing child in air 

 Helping children get dressed (only asked at 14 month interview) 

 Playing outside in the yard, park, or playground 

 Teasing child to get him/her to laugh (only asked at 14-month interview) 

 Dancing with child (only asked at 14-month interview) 

 Reading stories 

 Telling stories 

 Singing nursery rhymes 

• Statistical Analyses: Descriptive analyses were conducted in addition to with 

comparisons using chi-square analyses. 

• Attrition: Not currently available. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: EHS relies on the partnerships between community 

organizations to help build the capacity of families to encourage healthy child 

development; programs are to build strong alliances to support and help 

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: EHS is a comprehensive child development program 

which provides intensive services before birth and enhances the development and family 

support during the first 3 years of life. Programs operate in four domains: 

 Child development (health, resilience, social cognitive, and language 

development); 

 Family development (improved family functioning, parenting and relationships 

with children, parent involvement); 

EARLY HEAD START 

151 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

 Staff development (including relationships with parents); and 

 Community development (improved child care quality, community collaboration, 

integrated family support services) 

EHS is based on nine principles: 

 High Quality –Programs should have policies in place that promote the 

knowledge, skills, and ethics of the child development, family development, and 

community building fields. 

 Prevention and Promotion – Program promote healthy child development and 

family functions before conception, through pregnancy, upon birth, and through 

the infant and toddler years. The program support prevention and detection of 

developmental concerns as early as possible. 

 Positive Relationships and Continuity –EHS believes in strong positive 

relationships over time (child, family, staff relationships); the parent-child bond 

is seen as the most significant. Caregiving practices have to support child 

attachment, minimizing the number of different caregivers and supporting longterm attachment with caregivers; the staff also should respect the family’s home 

culture. 

 Parent Involvement– Program should support a high level of parent involvement 

and partnership. This includes support of the father’s role in parenting, 

recognizing parents as the primary nurturer and advocate for the child. Parents 

are also encouraged to participate in policy and decision-making activities in 

programs. 

 Inclusion – Programs should fully include children with disabilities. An 

individualized plan should be developed which builds on individual strengths and 

supports the child and family’s participation in community activities. 

 Culture – Home culture and language is supported and respected as an important 

aspect of early identity and child and family development. 

 Comprehensiveness, Flexibility, Responsiveness, and Intensity – EHS programs 

believe that families can identify their own needs, strengths, set goals, and are 

capable of growth. Programs must be flexible and respond to varying levels of 

intensity based on need. 

 Transitions– Smooth transition from EHS to Head Start or other high quality 

programs are supported to ensure that the child continues to receive enriching 

services to support healthy child and family development. 

 Collaboration– EHS centers are to maximize the resources available to families 

in a cost-efficient and comprehensive way by building strong alliances in the 

communities where programs reside. 

EHS programs are guided by Head Start Performance Standards to which they must adhere to 

continue operation. Each program has its own eligibility criteria. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Families are eligible from 

pregnancy until the child is 3 years of age.

• Frequency of program offerings: Home-based programs provide home visits at least 

weekly and have bi-monthly parent-child group socialization activities. Center-based 

programs provide child care, parenting education, and parenting support services, and 

conduct home visits at least twice a year. 

EARLY HEAD START 

152 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Diversity of activities: Not currently available.

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS: 

• There was a positive correlation between father-reported prenatal involvement scores and 

father-reported activities with their children at 3 months.

• Most fathers lived with their children and spent frequent time with them as their sole 

caretaker. Those who did so declined between the initial and final interview but 

remained high. Mothers reported lower incidences, but the scores were still relatively 

high. 

• Fathers engaged frequently in play and caregiving activities with their children; mothers 

reported lower frequency but listed similar activities in the same rank order as fathers 

did. 

• Most fathers were involved in prenatal activities with the mother, and participation was 

associated with subsequent activities between father and child. Men who attended the 

first prenatal visit reported more father child activities, and those who were present at the 

birth reported more activities at the 3 month interview. 

SOURCES:

Early Head Start National Resource Center. What is early head start? Retrieved, April 27, 2007, 

from: http://www.ehsnrc.org/AboutUs/ehs.htm 

Vogel, C..A., Boller, K., Faerber, J., Shannon, J.D., Tamis-LeMonda, C.S. (2003). Understanding 

fathering: The early head start study of fathers of newborns. Submitted to the Ford 

Foundation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

EVALUATOR AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Project Director: Kimberley Boller 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2393 

Princeton, NJ 08543-2393

EARLY HEAD START 

153 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

MARYLAND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD (RF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 

OVERVIEW: The Maryland Responsible Fatherhood (RF) Demonstration project was one of 

several projects funded by the federal Office of Child Support (OCSE) to test comprehensive 

approaches to promoting responsible fathering. The Maryland Department of Human Resources 

used the OCSE grant to fund two Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Programs: the 

Baltimore Responsible Fatherhood Program (Baltimore RFP) in Baltimore City and a second 

program in suburban Charles County. Participants in the programs reported that they experienced 

a number of individual, relational, and contextual benefits from the programs. The evaluation 

found that following program completion, more fathers were employed, living with children, and 

able to pay child support and fewer fathers reported substance use or transportation problems. 

However, it was also found that the fathers in the sample had very high levels of depressive 

symptoms, which were far above that of the general population and which increased over time. 

This indicates that while responsible fatherhood program can offer a number of benefits to 

fathers, there is still a need for stronger mental health services among this population.xcvi xcvii xcviii 

Read more...

LOCATION: The Maryland Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Program was implemented 

in two Maryland locations: Baltimore City and Charles County.xcix 

PROGRAM GOALS: The Baltimore RFP sought to help noncustodial fathers: 

• Establish paternity 

• Improve fathers’ ability to make child support payments 

• Increase fathers’ access to their children 

• Increase parental involvement and improve parenting behavior

• Help fathers attain adequate employmentc

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: The Maryland RFP served low-income 

fathers or expectant fathers, many of whom were referred to the program because they were 

delinquent or at risk of becoming delinquent in their child support orders, unemployed or 

underemployed, in need of establishing paternity, and/or had a child that was receiving TANF 

funds. Some fathers were referred by the courts, whereas others participated in the program 

voluntarily.ci 

Qualitative focus group design (process evaluation): 

• Fathers’ ages ranged from 17 to 48 years (M = 31.2 years). Most (72%) were in their 

20s or 30s. 

• 95% were African American 

• 75% were never-married 

• 100% had established legal paternity or were named as the child’s father on the birth 

certificate. 

• 50% had custody of their children 

• 60% were employed 

• 65% percent had completed high school or obtained a GED (total years of education 

ranged from 9 to 15). 

Non-experimental descriptive interview design: 

• Fathers were identified as having risk factors related to their ability to meet child 

support payments or establish paternity. 

MARYLAND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD (RF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 

154 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Most were unmarried African-American fathers 

• Fathers’ average age was 32.1 years 

• Fathers had approximately 2 children each 

• Nearly 50% had a high school degree or GED, and 45% had no degrees (average 

number of years of education was 10.7) 

Non-experimental pre-/post-test design: 

• 100% were unmarried, nonresidential fathers at pre-test 

• Fathers’ mean age was 41.5 when they entered the program 

• 3 were African-American and 2 were non-Hispanic White 

• Fathers had an average of 3 children each when they entered the program 

• 60% had completed high school or earned a GED at the beginning of the evaluation 

and 100% had done so by the follow-up. 

EVALUATION DESIGN:

cii 

• QUALITATIVE FOCUS GROUP DESIGN (PROCESS EVALUATION)

• NON-EXPERIMENTAL DESCRIPTIVE INTERVIEW DESIGN

• NON-EXPERIMENTAL PRE-/POST-TEST DESIGN

• Outcomes: 

Qualitative focus group design (process evaluation): The process evaluation documented 

participants’ perceptions of program benefits, their barriers to involvement, and how they 

thought the program could be improved. 

Non-experimental descriptive interview design: The descriptive evaluation examined the 

demographic characteristics and life circumstances of fathers in the programs (e.g., 

employment status, education, race/ethnicity, marital status, parity, paternity 

establishment, child support and custody, income, father involvement and attitudes 

toward fathering, co-parental relationships, mental health, and social support). 

Non-experimental pre-/post-test design: The outcomes evaluation examined changes in 

participants’ demographic characteristics and life circumstances between the time they 

entered the program and one year later. 

• Method: 

Qualitative focus group design (process evaluation): In the process evaluation, four focus 

groups were held, each run by three facilitators. Focus groups lasted for two hours and 

were audio taped and later transcribed. Fathers’ responses and nonverbal cues were also 

recorded. Fathers received a stipend of $40 for participation. 

Non-experimental descriptive interview design: In the descriptive evaluation, individual 

interviews with fathers were conducted by male African American social services staff 

members who worked for the Maryland RFPs. Interviews lasted approximately one and a 

half hours. 

Non-experimental pre-/post-test design: In the outcomes evaluation, five fathers were 

interviewed by two African-American graduate students in human services at two points 

in time (when they first entered the program and one year later, following their 

completion of the program). 

MARYLAND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD (RF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 

155 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Sample: 

Qualitative focus group design (process evaluation): 

o A total of 20 fathers participated (8 were new to the program, 5 were already 

enrolled at the time of the evaluation, and 7 had completed the program). 

Non-experimental descriptive interview design: 

o 127 nonresidential fathers participated (96 from the Baltimore RFP; 31 from 

the Charles County program) 

Non-experimental pre-/post-test design: 

o 5 fathers from the Baltimore RFP participated in the outcomes evaluation 

Measures: 

Qualitative focus group design (process evaluation): Questions were based on a focus group 

guide developed by the evaluation team, a father advocate, and the Baltimore RFP’s program 

supervisor, covering topics such as fathers’ attitudes toward and experiences of becoming 

fathers, program involvement, financial and emotional support provided for children, and 

perceptions of the program. 

Non-experimental descriptive interview design & Non-experimental pre-/post-test design: 

Fathers were interviewed about a number of topics, including employment characteristics, 

income, paternity establishment, child custody arrangements, child support payments, coparental relationships, and father involvement. In addition, the following scales were used to 

measure variables that might mediate their involvement with children: 

• Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)ciii: This 20-item scale 

was used to measure fathers’ depressive symptoms. Scores of 16 or higher on the 

scale indicate symptoms of clinical depression. 

• Family Support Scale (FFS)civ: This 18-item scale was used to measure fathers’ 

levels of social support related to child-rearing. Scores range from 0 to 96, with 

higher scores indicating higher perceived social support. 

Statistical Analyses: Data gathered from the descriptive evaluation were analyzed using 

SPSS. More detailed information about the specific analyses conducted is not currently 

available.

Attrition: Not currently available. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support: The Baltimore RFP staff consisted of a program 

manager, two program administrators, an assessment coordinator, and six outreach 

workers. The Charles County program consisted of one full-time staff member.cv

o Staff-participant ratio: Not available.

o Staff Education: Not available.

o Staff Experience: Not available.

o Staff Training: All Baltimore RFP case managers were trained by the National 

Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership (NPCL).cvi

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not available.

MARYLAND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD (RF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 

156 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

o Staff wages: Not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Not available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available. 

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: The Maryland RFPs are jointly administered by the 

Maryland Department of Human Resources and the Community Services Administration 

Office of Community Initiatives and Child Support Enforcement. The Charles County 

program was administered by the Charles County Department of Social Services.cvii 

• Community Organizations: The Baltimore RFP developed collaborations with a 

number of community partners, including: Harbor Hospital in south Baltimore; The 

Southern Neighborhood Service Center; The Baltimore Urban League; and the Baltimore 

Employment Exchange.cviii

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The Baltimore RFP used the Responsible Fatherhood 

Program curriculum developed by the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning 

and Community Leadership (NPCL), cix which includes the following sessions on 

parenting, life skills, and relationships: 

o Session 1: Introduction to Responsible Fatherhood 

o Session 2: What Are My Values? 

o Session 3: Boys to Men: Experiencing Manhood 

o Session 4: The Art of Communication 

o Session 5: Fathers as Providers 

o Session 6: Noncustodial Fathers: Rights and Responsibilities 

o Session 7: Developing Values in Children 

o Session 8: Coping as a Single Father 

o Session 9: Dealing With Children’s Behaviors 

o Session 10: Relationships: Being a Friend, partner, Parent, and Employee 

o Session 11: Understanding Male-Female Relationships 

o Session 12: Managing Conflict and Handling Anger 

o Session 13: Handling Anger and Conflict on the Job 

o Session 14: Surviving on the Job 

o Session 15: The Issue of Race/Racism Part I 

o Session 15: The Issue of Race/Racism Part II 

o Session 16: Taking Care of Business 

o Session 17: Managing Your Time and Money 

o Session 18: Building a Support Network: Who’s on Your Side? 

o Session 19: Alcohol and Drug Use and Abuse Part I 

o Session 19: Alcohol and Drug Use and Abuse Part II 

o Session 20: Healthful Eatingcx

PROGRAM DESIGN: 

• Group size: Not currently available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Participants received weekly, twohour support sessions for six months, along with other services provided on an as-needed 

MARYLAND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD (RF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 

157 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

basis, and a voluntary “After Care Program” offering ongoing support following program 

completion.cxi

• Frequency of program offerings: The Baltimore RFP offered weekly support 

sessions.cxii

• Diversity of activities: Activities included peer support groups; classes on parenting, life 

skills, and relationship training; job search and employment assistance; substance abuse 

treatment; domestic abuse treatment, and case management services to target individual 

needs.cxiii

• Incentives for participation: Participants received two free bus tokens and a $4 

MacDonald's gift certificate each time they attended a session. Fifty dollar stipends were 

awarded following four months of regular program attendance and upon successful 

completion of the program.cxiv

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS: 

Qualitative focus group design (process evaluation):

• Participants reported the following program benefits: 

o Individual benefits (e.g., emotional support, an opportunity to learn about how to 

be a good parent, and assistance with issues such as substance abuse and 

employment) 

o Relational benefits (e.g., improved relationships with children and children’s 

mothers) 

o Contextual benefits (e.g., an improved ability to navigate social systems and 

manage issues of child custody, visitation, and support; increased levels of 

community involvement). 

o Benefits were cognitive (e.g., increased knowledge of resources and children’s 

behavior), emotional (e.g., development of listening and empathy skills), and 

behavioral (e.g., higher levels of community involvement) in nature. 

• Participants reported the following barriers to program participation: 

o Individual barriers (e.g., reluctance at sharing emotions with others, preconceived 

negative notions of fathering programs, and competition between participation in 

street life and program activities) 

o Contextual barriers (e.g., conflicting work hours, fear of the child support 

agency). 

• Participants reported that the program could be improved in the following ways: 

o Conducting more street outreach with fathers 

o Using more visible methods of program promotion 

o Clarifying the requirements for program compliance 

o Having program graduates conduct initial assessments 

o Identifying and addressing specific individual needs when participants first 

become involved in the program 

o Holding groups for men of similar ages 

o Holding meetings at least 5 days per week. 

Non-experimental pre-/post-test design: The following changes were found for the outcomes 

evaluation sample: 

• Between Time I and Time II, no change was found for the following outcomes: 

o % of fathers reporting that their incomes covered their financial needs (40%) 

o % of fathers with court orders requiring they pay child support (40%) 

o % of fathers with a criminal record (20%) 

MARYLAND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD (RF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 

158 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Between Time I and Time II, there were increases in the following outcomes: 

o % of fathers who were employed (60% to 80%) 

o % who lived with their children (20% to 40%) 

o % reporting they were able to pay the full amount of child support owed (20% to 

40%) 

o Fathers’ levels of depression on the CES-D (M = 14.4 at Time I; M = 17.2 at 

Time II) 

o Fathers’ levels of social support on the FSS (M = 24.6 at Time I; M = 44.4 at 

Time II) 

• Between Time I and Time II, there were decreases in the following outcomes: 

o % of fathers reporting drug or alcohol problems (20% to 0%) 

o % of fathers with limited or no access to transportation (20% to 0%) 

• Between Time I and Time II, there were mixed changes in the following outcomes: 

o How often fathers saw their children (40% reported an increase; 20% a decrease) 

o Fathers’ reports of the amount of influence they had in making important childrelated decisions (20% reported no change; 40% reported decreases in levels of 

influence) 

• Fathers’ perceptions of and experiences in the program included: 

o 60% reported that the program helped them change or establish custody 

arrangements 

o 40% reported that the program helped them change or set up visitation 

arrangements 

o 40% believed the program helped them change, set up, or make child support 

payments 

o 100% reported that the program had helped them build better relationships with 

children 

o 80% believed the program helped them improve their relationship with the 

child’s mother 

o 40% received domestic abuse services while in the program 

o 20% received anger management services while in the program 

o 20% underwent drug or alcohol treatment while in the program 

o 20% had restraining orders taken out against them in the time between interviews 

o 40% reported unstable housing (e.g., shelters, rooming houses, or multiple 

moves) 

SOURCES:

o The evaluation reports and other information about the Maryland RFP and other 

responsible fatherhood programs funded by the United States Department of Health and 

Human Services can be found at: http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/Evaluation/index.shtml. 

o The Responsible Fatherhood Curriculum can be found at: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/40/abstract.html. 

MARYLAND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD (RF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 

159 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

OVERVIEW: Between October 1998 and December 2000 eight sites in eight states were given 

grants by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to implement and test responsible 

fatherhood programs. The primary objectives of these programs were to assist unemployed or 

low-income non-custodial fathers in paying child support. Each program had autonomy in 

adopting their recruitment strategy and curriculum. An assessment of outcomes of 1,491 noncustodial fathers receiving services across all the sites found that there were significant increases 

in employment after enrollment in the respective programs. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

The objective of the projects funded by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) was to 

assist unemployed or low-income non-custodial parents (mostly fathers) to pay child support by: 

• Increasing employment or income; 

• Improving parenting skills and parental involvement; and 

• Motivating child support compliance. 

 

LOCATION: Eight fatherhood demonstration projects were involved: 

• California- San Mateo County: Supportive Services for Non-Custodial Parents 

• Colorado- El Paso County: Parent Opportunity Program 

• Maryland- City of Baltimore: Responsible Fatherhood Project 

• Massachusetts- City of Boston: Father Friendly Initiative 

• Missouri- Cape Girardeau County: Proud Parents Program 

• New Hampshire- Belknap, Hillsborough and Merrimack Counties: Phoenix Project 

• Washington- Pierce County: Devoted Dads 

• Wisconsin- City of Racine: Children UpFront 

The eight fatherhood projects were given latitude in terms of program format, service provision 

and client eligibility. As a result California’s Responsible Fatherhood program was sufficiently 

different in services to warrant separate evaluation. All results reported here will exclude 

California’s results. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

The overall characteristics of non-custodial fathers at seven sites excluding California were as 

follows: 

• The average age was 33 years old. About 23% were 25 years old or younger. One fifth 

(18%) were over 41 years old. 

• Half the non-custodial fathers were African-American, Non-Hispanic. White NonHispanic non-custodial fathers comprised 35% of the sample. 

• About 23% of non-custodial fathers had less than a high school diploma or GED. Most 

(77%) had at least a high school diploma or GED. 

• While 48% of the non-custodial fathers had been married, 11% were married and living 

with their spouse. 

• One third (32%) of the non-custodial fathers were living with their parents or relatives. 

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

160 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Two thirds of the non-custodial fathers had children with only one partner and 57% had 

only one non-resident child. 

• Approximately 64% of non-custodial fathers did not have court-ordered child access or 

visitation while 15% had restraining orders restricting child access. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (PRE-POST TEST) 

• Outcomes: Outcomes included: 

 Fathers’ employment status 

 Earning level changes 

 Presence of child support obligations 

 Level of child support obligations 

 Child support payment patterns 

 Client-child contact and access 

 Client satisfaction with child access 

• Method: Between October 1998 and December 31, 2000 eight sites in eight states 

(California, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington 

and Wisconsin) received grants from the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to 

test and implement responsible fatherhood programs aimed at increasing child support 

compliance. Each site was given wide latitude in determining program format, services, 

and client eligibility. Programs focused on either increasing child access or client 

employment in order to improve child support compliance. 

Across the eight sites, 2,279 clients received some form of service and had their baseline 

data recorded by staff. In addition to the baseline data, post intervention data were 

collected by telephone interview six months after enrollment in the respective programs. 

Across the seven different programs (excluding California) common services offered 

were employment and child support. Employment services included activities such as job 

training, job readiness workshops and job searches. Child support services included 

activities to help work with child support agencies to revise orders, abate orders, establish 

paternity or to reduce debt. Four of the programs also offered services aimed at 

increasing access to children. 

From the 2,279 program participants, 1,491 non-custodial fathers’ records were analyzed 

to evaluate cross-site characteristics and outcomes. Other sources of data included: 

o Case data maintained on individual clients by program staff at each site and 

collected using the Responsible Fatherhood Management Information System 

(RFMIS). 

o Child support administrative records from the state automated child support 

enforcement records (CSE) at each site. 

o Employment and earnings records maintained by the state Department of Labor 

and Employment from the Unemployment Compensation Insurance program 

(UI). 

• Sample: The analyses in this report were conducted using a sample of 1,491 noncustodial fathers. 

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

161 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Measures:

o Father employment status: Upon enrolment into one of the respective programs, 

clients self-reported their employment status, their status over the preceding 12 

months and their longest employment period with the same employer. These data 

were supplemented from the automated unemployment insurance database. The 

primary source of data post enrolment were the unemployment insurance 

database due to a very low response rate for the post-enrolment telephone 

interviews.

o Earning level changes: During enrolment participants were asked to describe 

their monthly earnings and employer based benefits. Earnings were 

supplemented from the automated unemployment insurance database. Postenrolment data was collected from the automated database.

o Presence of child support obligations: During enrolment clients self-reported 

their child support obligations. Automated child support records maintained by 

state child support enforcement agencies (CSE records) for the six months prior 

to enrolment supplemented pre-enrolment data. Post-enrolment data relied on 

CSE records for two post-enrolment periods- 6 and 12 months. 

o Level of child support obligations: Clients also self-reported their informal child 

support payments pre- and post-enrolment. CSE records were also used to 

supplement these reports. 

o Child support payment patterns: The CSE records were used to assess child 

support payment patterns during the six months prior to enrolment. Only parents 

with formal support orders could be used in the analysis. Post-enrolment data 

were also reliant on CSE records for two post-enrolment periods of 6 and 12 

months.

o Client-child contact and access: During enrolment the RFMIS was used to input 

client self-assessment of needs and staff client assessment of needs. Clients were 

asked the number of times they had contact with their children and whether they 

needed assistance with seeing them more often. Post-enrolment data were 

collected using telephone interviews. 

o Client satisfaction with child access: Clients were asked about their level of 

satisfaction with child access during the pre-enrolment RFMIS input process and 

post-enrolment telephone interview. 

• Statistical Analyses: The analyses focused on cross-site characteristics and outcomes for 

1,491 non-custodial fathers who comprised 65 percent of all program participants. Crosssite pre-enrolment and post enrolment characteristics were reported. Differences in means 

and significance testing for some of the outcomes were also conducted. 

• Attrition: Of the 1,491 non-custodial fathers who participated in responsible fatherhood 

programs at the various sites, 33 percent were reachable for post-enrolment telephone 

interviews. Of all those reached, 4 percent declined to be interviewed.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Information currently not available.

o Staff Education: Information currently not available

o Staff Experience: This varied across the eight different programs. Three of the 

programs employed either job training specialists, fatherhood specialists or 

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

162 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

marketing specialists. Most staff members were drawn from the respective State 

Child support agencies.

o Staff Training: Information currently not available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information not available.

o Staff Wages: Information not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Information currently not available. 

• Materials: Information currently not available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Many of the programs collaborated with multiple partners 

for recruitment of clients and provision of specialized services. Programs collaborated 

with multiple health and child support state agencies, non-profits and private industry. 

Specialized services included substance abuse rehabilitation, job training and 

development, resume and interview preparation and family mediation services. Most 

programs drew clients from State Court systems.

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

Recipients of the OCSE grants adopted different curriculums with an objective of 

providing services that would assist unemployed or low-income non-custodial parents 

(mostly fathers) to pay child support. Each program site had the autonomy to choose and 

tailor their fatherhood program curriculums. 

One program, Maryland, used the Responsible Fatherhood Program curriculum 

developed by the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community 

Leadership (NPCL). Massachusetts also adopted aspects of the NPCL curriculum. Other 

programs like New Hampshire’s were unsuccessful at establishing parenting classes or 

peer support groups. Case managers assessed client needs, referred them to appropriate 

service providers in the community, and ensured clients were successful in seeking these 

services. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Information currently not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration)

• Frequency of program offerings

• Diversity of activities: In order to fulfill OCSE grant requirements, programs focused 

their activities on either raising employment and self-sufficiency or increasing access to 

one’s children through mediation and increasing awareness of legal rights and 

obligations. Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Wisconsin focused on employment 

services. California and Washington focused on child access and visitation. Colorado and 

Maryland focused on both employment and child access. 

• Incentives for participation: Where incentives were offered they included; $20 to $50 

dollars offered to clients at pre-test and after completing the post-test; bus tokens; and 

temporary suspension of child support payments as long as one continued to be enrolled 

in a fatherhood program.

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

163 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Note: Results reported here do not include California. 

Client employment status and Earning level changes: 

• There were significant increases in employment two quarters post-program enrollment at 

four of the sites with the lowest employment levels one quarter prior to program 

enrollment (p<0.05). The rates of employment increased from 18% to 51% in Maryland; 

45% to 53% in Massachusetts; 13% to 42% in Missouri; and 46% to 62% in Wisconsin. 

• Non-custodial fathers at four sites showed significant increases in quarterly earnings from 

one quarter prior to program enrollment to two quarters post-program enrollment 

(p<0.05). Quarterly earnings increased from $1,718 to $2,439 in Colorado; $532 to 

$1,866 in Maryland: $1,711 to $2,149 in Massachusetts; and $738 to $1,177 in 

Wisconsin. These analyses had included changes in earnings for non-custodial fathers 

who were unemployed at pre-program enrollment. 

• When analysis was restricted to those non-custodial fathers who were employed one 

quarter prior to program enrollment only three sites showed significant growth in 

quarterly wages (p<0.05). Wages increased from $2,870 to $3,960 in Colorado; $3,547 to 

$3,914 in Washington; and $1,694 to $2,736 in Wisconsin. 

• Only one factor of employment- Completing high school education versus not 

completing high school- was found to be significant in determining wage levels (p<0.05). 

Non-custodial fathers who had completed high school earned $1,427 more per quarter 

than their counterparts who had not completed high school. In Missouri the difference 

was $913 per quarter. 

Presence of child support obligations: 

• Five of the seven programs increased the percentage of child support orders from pre- to 

post-program enrollment. However child support order levels were already relatively 

high prior to program enrollment. 

• At six of the seven programs the percentage of non-custodial fathers who reported that 

they had at least one case that needed child support orders established reduced from preto post-program enrollment. 

Level of child support obligations: 

• There were no significant differences in monthly child support order levels (monthly 

payment levels) at enrollment and twelve months after completing the program across all 

program sites. 

• Child support arrears levels showed no significant consistent increases or decreases for 

all program sites. 

Child support payment patterns: 

• The percentage of non-custodial fathers who were making any form of payments towards 

their monthly support/ arrears obligations 6 months prior to program enrollment 

increased 12 months following program enrollment at all but one program site- New 

Hampshire. 

• The average amount of support paid increased across all but one program siteWisconsin. 

• As non-custodial fathers’ incomes rose, the percentage of their child support obligation 

paid increased across all sites. These increases were significant for fathers earning more 

than $1,000 per month in Washington (p<0.05). This suggests that ordered child support 

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

164 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

levels were unrealistically high for the non-custodial fathers enrolled in the different state 

programs. 

Client-child contact and access: 

• Overall changes in reported frequency of contact with their children were negligible for 

non-custodial fathers across all sites. For those that did report increased frequency of 

contact, the primary reason cited was improved relationship with the mother of the 

children. 

Client satisfaction with child access: 

• The majority of non-custodial fathers in Maryland (64%), Massachusetts (51%) and 

Wisconsin (58%) were satisfied with their level of child access six months after program 

enrollment 

• The majority of non-custodial fathers in Colorado (59%) and Washington (63%) were 

dissatisfied with their child access levels six months after program enrollment. 

• When considering non-custodial fathers’ comparison of satisfaction with child access 

post-program enrollment relative to pre-program enrollment, 33% were more satisfied, 

32% less satisfied and 36% equally satisfied. 

SOURCES:

Pearson, Jessica; Thoennes, Nancy; Davis, Lanae; Venohr, Jane C.; Price, David A.; Griffith, 

Tracy; (2003). OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program 

Outcomes. Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies Inc. 

Pearson, Jessica; Thoennes, Nancy; Price, David A; Venohr, Jane C.; (2000) OCSE Responsible 

Fatherhood Programs: Early Implementation Lessons. Center for Policy Research and Policy 

Studies Inc. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

165 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

Center for Policy Research 

1570 Emerson Street 

Denver, CO 80218 

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. 

Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D. 

Lanae Davis, M.A. 

Policy Studies Inc. 

1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300 

Denver, CO 80202 

Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D. 

David A Price, Ph.D. 

Tracy Griffith 

FATHERHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM- BOSTON 

166 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS- CA 

OVERVIEW: Between October 1998 and December 2000, California’s San Mateo County 

received a grant from the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to run a responsible 

fatherhood program with the aim of increasing child support payments. California’s Program, 

Supportive Services for Non-custodial Parents, focused on resolving non-custodial parents’ 

(mostly fathers) access to their children by offering mediation services for the parents. The 

program did not record significant increases in non-custodial parents’ access to their children. 

Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

California’s Responsible Fatherhood Program, Supportive Services for Non-custodial Parents, 

financed by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) focused exclusively on resolving 

child access and visitation issues in order to promote the payment of child support. 

LOCATION: San Mateo County, California. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: 

Supportive Services for Non-custodial Parents identified and enrolled in the mediation program 

183 non-custodial fathers and 187 custodial mothers Characteristics of the non-custodial fathers 

who appeared for mediation were: 

• Most (57%) of the non-custodial fathers were Hispanic. Approximately 19% were White 

and 12% were African American. 

• The average age was 33.5 years old with almost two-thirds (62%) of the non-custodial 

fathers aged 31 years or older. 

• While 19% of the non-custodial fathers reported no education, 55% had a GED or 

completed high school and 25% had an AA degree or higher. 

• The average age of the non-custodial father’s child was 5.4 years old. Over two-thirds 

(67%) of fathers had one child. 

• Only 6% of the children lived with their non-custodial father while 76% lived with their 

mothers. Most fathers (48%) had not had their child custody cases established or decided. 

Amongst those whose custody cases had been decided, only 9% of the fathers were 

granted sole legal custody; 54% had joint legal custody with the mother of the child. 

• Approximately 75% of non-custodial fathers were employed full time; more than half 

(55%) were employed in labor/service type jobs. 

• While 19% of non-custodial fathers earned less than $800 per month, 26% earned more 

than $2000. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (PRE-POST TEST DESIGN) 

• Outcomes: Outcomes included: 

 Child support payment patterns 

 Client-child contact and access 

 Client satisfaction with child access 

OCSE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS- CA 

167 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Method: The OCSE grant enabled the San Mateo County Child Support Enforcement 

agency to: 

 Arrange for any non-custodial parent who experienced child access problems to 

receive free mediation services at the San Mateo Superior Court. Almost all 

levels of child support personnel with Supportive Services for Non-custodial 

Parents project could refer parents to the mediator. Of special interest were those 

cases where non-custodial parents were not complying with child support orders 

citing visitation denial and/or non-contact with their children as reason for 

nonpayment. 

 Hire a bilingual mediator, based at the court, to serve parents identified by the 

child support agency. 

 Contract with a community-based organization, San Mateo County Family 

Service Agency, to provide access services such as parent education, supervised 

visitation, counseling, and repeat mediation interventions. 

Supportive Services for Non-custodial Parents referred 915 non-custodial fathers to 

mediation services with 183 appearing for mediation. Non-custodial parents completed 

intake forms at enrollment and participated in a follow-up telephone interview 6 months 

after the mediation. Other data sources for the evaluation included: 

 Existing child support records; 

 A form completed by the mediator after each session; and 

 Reviews of employment and assets databases including the Employment 

Development Department, Franchise Tax board and Social Security. 

• Sample: Supportive Services for Non-custodial Parents identified 955 non-custodial 

parents experiencing visitation problems. Of these 955 cases referred to mediation, 915 

were non-custodial fathers. Many of the individuals referred to mediation services did not 

appear for mediation; 183 non-custodial fathers and 187 custodial mothers appeared for 

mediation. 

• Measures: Child support payment patterns: Unemployment Income (UI) records were 

used to assess child support payment patterns during the six months prior to enrollment. 

Post-enrollment data were also reliant on UI records for two post-enrollment periods of 

1-3 months and 4-6 months. This outcome was conducted on all fathers who were 

referred to the mediation program.

 Client-child contact and access: Clients were asked to make a self-assessment of 

their needs when completing the intake enrollment form. Post-enrollment data 

were collected using telephone interviews. This outcome was limited to those 

fathers who were enrolled in the mediation program. 

 Client satisfaction with child access: Clients were asked about their level of 

satisfaction with child access when completing the intake enrollment form and at 

the post-enrollment telephone interview. This outcome was limited to those 

fathers who were enrolled in the mediation program. 

• Statistical Analyses: Pre-test and post-test means were analyzed and compared. 

Differences in means and significance testing for outcomes were also conducted. 

OCSE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS- CA 

168 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Attrition: Of the 183 non-custodial fathers who participated in the mediation program, 

only 32 (17%) could be reached for the post-enrollment interview six months after 

completing the mediation. Of those reached, 4% declined to be interviewed. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: A mediation session involved the parents of the child 

and the mediator. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available.

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available.

o Staff Training: Information currently not available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available.

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: San Mateo Superior Court premises. 

• Materials: Information currently not available. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Other partners were not involved.

• Community Organizations: Supportive Services for Non-custodial Parents worked with 

a community-based organization, San Mateo County Family Service Agency

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: Each mediation session took about two hours. The top 

five issues discussed by the parents and mediator were: 

 When each parent would see the children; 

 What transpired during the visits; 

 Where the children were to live; 

 How the children were to be raised; and 

 Legal custody of the children. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: A mediation session consisted of the non-custodial parent, custodial parent 

and the mediator. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): On average a mediation session 

lasted about 2 hours. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Parents had access to follow-up interventions 

including additional mediation. More than half (52%) sought a second mediation.

• Diversity of activities: Interventions offered in addition to mediation included case 

management, supervised visitation and co-parent counseling. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

OCSE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS- CA 

169 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

Full agreements between parents were reached in 63% of the cases mediated. Partial agreements 

were reached in 12% of the cases while no agreements were reached in 25% of the cases. 

Child support payment patterns: 

Note: Conducted on all non-custodial fathers referred to the mediation program (N=623).

 There were significant increases in child support payments from the three month period 

prior to enrollment to the months after mediation. The average amount of paid in child 

support rose from $650 three months prior to the program to $970 for the first three 

months post-mediation referrals. This increase was significant at p<0.001. The 

percentage of non-custodial fathers not making any payments dropped from 

approximately 40% to 20 % in this period. 

 Subcategory analysis was conducted between the following groups; 

o Those who reached an agreement in mediation; 

o Those who mediated, but did not reach an agreement; 

o Those who were referred, but never mediated because the father failed to appear; 

o Those who were referred, but never mediated because the mother failed to 

appear; and 

o Those who expressed interest in mediation but one of the parents was not 

reached; 

All five groups showed an equivalent increase in payments from the period three months 

prior to the referral to the three months following referral. Furthermore the percent of 

non-custodial fathers not making payments dropped by approximately equal amounts for 

all five groups in the same period. This drop was significant at p<0.05. 

 An analysis of child support payment patterns between non-custodial fathers who 

reported Unemployment Income 4-6 months post-mediation and fathers who reported no 

income in the same period revealed that 11% of fathers with income did not make any 

payments to child support compared to 37% of the fathers with no income. This was 

significant at p<0.05. 

Client-child contact, access and client satisfaction with child access: 

Note: Conducted only on non-custodial fathers enrolled in the mediation program. 

Given the low number of post-enrollment telephone interviews, 32 non-custodial fathers, 

significance testing was not conducted on these outcomes. An analysis of the post-enrollment 

questionnaire revealed; 

 Approximately 38% of non-custodial fathers reported that they were seeing their children 

the same amount of time post-enrollment as they were pre-enrollment into the mediation 

program. About an equal number of non-custodial fathers (41%) reported that they were 

seeing their children more often. 

 While only 21% of non-custodial fathers reported seeing their children less, 45% of the 

non-custodial fathers said they were less satisfied with the level of access to their children 

post-enrollment in the mediation program compared to their satisfaction level prior to 

mediation. 

SOURCE:

Pearson, Jessica; Thoennes, Nancy; Davis, Lanae; Venohr, Jane C.; Price, David A.; Griffith, 

Tracy; (2003). OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program 

Outcomes. Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies Inc. 

OCSE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS- CA 

170 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

Center for Policy Research 

1570 Emerson Street 

Denver, CO 80218 

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. 

Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D. 

Lanae Davis, M.A. 

Policy Studies Inc. 

1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300 

Denver, CO 80202 

Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D. 

David A Price, Ph.D. 

Tracy Griffith 

OCSE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS- CA 

171 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

SUPPORT HAS A REWARDING EFFECT (SHARE) PROGRAM 

OVERVIEW: The Support Has a Rewarding Effect (SHARE) Program was a special initiative 

that was a part of the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) programs that were authorized by the Balanced 

Budget Act of 1997, which allowed the Department of Labor to award 3 billion dollars for money 

to help the hardest-to-employ recipients of TANF. SHARE targeted noncustodial parents to 

encourage them to reestablish their child support orders, and to help them find and maintain 

stable employment. The program began in July 1998 and was discontinued in September 2001. 

The SHARE program was successful in increasing noncustodial parents’ employment, earnings, 

and child support payments; however noncustodial parents who were referred but declined 

services in the program had the best outcomes. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: The SHARE program operated as a special initiative under the Welfareto-Work grant in Washington. The program aimed to: 

 

• Support noncustodial parents in helping to reestablish and resume the payment of 

delinquent child support orders 

• Encourage parental responsibility 

• Strengthen families 

LOCATION: The initiative operated in Washington state in three counties (Yakima, Kittitas, 

and Klickitat counties). 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: The program served non-custodial parents 

who had outstanding child support orders that were more than 60 days delinquent, and who had a 

child receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds. The demographic data in 

the study is limited, but the researchers concluded that: 

• 88% of the noncustodial parents were male. 

• The average and median age at the time of referral was 31 years. 

• About 1/3 of the noncustodial parents had reported employment in the first 3 quarters 

before enrollment into SHARE. It also seemed that those who were employed had low 

wages or did not work enough hours to earn a substantial living. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING – PRE-POST TEST 

• Outcomes: 

o Increased employment rates 

o Increased earnings 

 Employer-reported earnings, from administrative data 

o Increased ability to pay child support, and increase in amount of support paid 

 From administrative data 

• Method: The study examined pre-post trends of noncustodial parent’s employment, 

earnings, and child support payments in the four quarters before enrollment in the SHARE 

program, the quarter of referral to SHARE, and up to 15 quarters after referral. For later 

quarters, there were fewer sample members. In the evaluation report, employment and 

earnings are tracked through the sixth quarter after referral and for child support payments, 

through the ninth quarter after referral. Once a noncustodial parent was identified by the 

Department of Child Support to be eligible for the program, they were referred to SHARE 

SHARE PROGRAM 

172 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

and were issued a citation to appear at a child support hearing. At this hearing, the 

noncustodial parent could opt to reestablish child support payments, be referred to WtW 

services, or face incarceration. The study also compared outcomes for those who came to the 

hearing and those who did not; those referred to WtW and those not referred; and differences 

in patterns of outcomes for those who followed different paths. Information was collected on 

employer-reported earnings, child support payments, and receipt of TANF and food stamp 

benefits. 

• Sample: 574 noncustodial fathers were enrolled in the study. 

• Measures: Variables were constructed from administrative data to describe 

employment, earnings, and child support payments of participants.

• Statistical Analyses: Not currently available.

• Attrition: 574 noncustodial fathers were enrolled in the study. 287 noncustodial parents 

did not appear at the hearing, and could not be located or were unable to attend (i.e., 

incarceration, moved out of the jurisdiction, etc.). 280 appeared at the child support hearing; 

108 of these noncustodial parents opted to resume child support payments on their own. As a 

result, 172 noncustodial parents were referred to WtW services.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support: Not currently available.

o Staff-participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: The key to the SHARE program’s operation was the 

partnerships that existed among a regional workforce development corporation, the state 

division of child support, the county attorney’s office, and community providers that 

provided employment services. 

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: Each participant received all case management 

services through a single staff person. Intake and assessment, the provision of job search 

services, and all follow-up and monitoring activities were done through a single point of 

contact. 

SHARE PROGRAM 

173 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

Participants received an assessment at a one-on-one meeting which covered education, 

work history, employment goals, family history, and potential employment barriers. The 

program work to help them secure unsubsidized employment through individualized 

plans. The noncustodial parents had the option to receive on-the-job training, work 

experience, or subsidized jobs as an intermediate steps to unsubsidized work. After an 

unsubsidized job was secured, case management continued for at least 90 days. Program 

funds could also be used for transportation, uniforms, work supplies, short-term 

emergency needs. The noncustodial parents could also be referred to outside 

organizations for other services such as anger management, conflict mediation, and 

substance abuse counseling. 

After a father was referred, progress reports were obtained from providers and child 

support payments were monitored. Initially, hearings were conducted were to check the 

noncustodial parent’s progress every 30 to 45 days. If the noncustodial parent was 

making progress and making child support payments, the hearings could be held less 

frequently. 

The Department of Child Support also allowed for payments to be reduced during 

participation in the program, reestablishment of payment agreements that were incorrect, 

and the possibility of waiving arrears. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Not currently available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Not currently available.

• Frequency of program offerings: Not currently available.

• Diversity of activities: Not currently available.

• Incentives for participation: Noncustodial parents were mandated to participate if they 

could not reestablish their child support payment, or they faced incarceration. 

Administrators of the program believed that the possibility of a temporary modification in 

child support orders and possible waivers of child support arrears were motivation for 

participation as well. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Findings represent outcomes for all noncustodial parents referred to SHARE 

• Rates of employment increased from one-fourth of the sample during the quarter 

immediately before referral to one-third of the sample during the quarter of referral. 

Following this quarter, employment rates remained just above one-third. Employment 

rates increased from 32.8% in the quarter of referral to 33.5% in the 9th quarter after 

referral. 

• Average earnings increased 40% between the quarter immediately before referral and the 

quarter of referral. In the fourth quarter after referral, average earnings were about three 

times the average earnings reported in the quarter immediately before referral to SHARE. 

Average earnings increased from $445.52 in the quarter of referral to $832.02 in the 9th

quarter after referral. 

SHARE PROGRAM 

174 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

• Child support payments almost doubled between the quarter of referral and the next 

quarter. Payment rates were between 30% and 40%. Still, most noncustodial parents did 

not pay any child support. 

• Child support collections also were higher after referral than before; before referral child 

support collections were never above $75. After referral, average collections were more 

than $125. 

• Child support payments were also more consistent after SHARE. Before referral to 

SHARE only 3% of noncustodial parents paid in all four quarters up to referral, 

compared to 14% who made payments all four quarters after referral. 

Subgroup Analysis: 

• Noncustodial parents who did not appear at contempt hearings had the lowest rates of 

employment; the highest rates of employment were for noncustodial parents who 

appeared but were not referred to WtW services. Among those who never appeared at 

their hearings, child support rates and collections were also among the lowest. 

SOURCES:

Perez-Johnson, I., Kauff, J., & Hershey, A. (2003). Giving noncustodial parents options: 

Employment and child support outcomes of the SHARE program. Final Report. 

Submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

EVALUATOR AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Project Director: Alan Hershey 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2393 

Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 

SHARE PROGRAM 

175 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES PROGRAM 6-10 

 IN NORTH CAROLINA 

OVERVIEW: The Strengthening Families Program 6-10 (SFP 6-10) was designed to break the 

inter-generational cycle of substance abuse in families with children aged 6-10 years old. 

Families in the program engaged in parental skills training, enhancing family communication and 

life skills training for children over 14 weekly two hour sessions. Evaluation of this program 

involved a quasi-experimental design comparing pre and post test means of families in an 

intervention group to those of families in a comparison group. Since this program involved a 

small number of families and the comparison group varied significantly from the intervention 

group, pre and post test measures on outcomes were evaluated for families in the intervention 

group only. Families that completed SFP 6-10 showed statistically significant declines in use of 

corporal punishment and increases in parental involvement in the lives of their children. Read 

more... 

PROGRAM GOALS: Program goals included: 

• Reduce risk factors for substance abuse and other behavioral problems among children 

whose parents were substance abusers. 

• Strengthen family units by providing parenting skills training, developing family 

communication techniques and enhancing children’s life skills. 

LOCATION: Charlotte/Mecklenburg, Raleigh/Wake and Asheville/Buncombe North Carolina. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: Characteristics of the families served were: 

• All parents completing the SFP (intervention group) were female. Eighty one (81) 

percent of parents in the comparison group were female. 

• Sixty seven (67) percent of all parents in the intervention group were African American 

compared to 38% in the control group; 33% and 62% were Euro-American respectively. 

• On average parents in the intervention and comparison group were 34 and 33 years old 

respectively. 

• Parents in the intervention group had an average of 13 years of education while those in 

the comparison group had 10 years. 

• The average age of children in the intervention group was 8.3 years with those in the 

comparison group being 7.8 years old. 

• Over 67% of parents in both groups lived in cities. Approximately 11% lived in rural 

areas. Twenty two (22) percent of parents in the intervention group lived in suburban 

areas compared to 13% of those in the comparison group. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL 

• Outcomes:

o Reduce level of family conflict 

o Improve family relations 

o Increase Parent-Child Affection 

o Lower use of physical discipline 

o Increase use of positive reinforcements (behavior) 

o Improve family attachment 

o Improve family management 

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES PROGRAM 6-10 

176 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

o Increase awareness of drug risks to children 

o Increase parental school involvement 

• Method: The evaluation conducted at three different sites used pre/post test surveys, 

administered to participating children and parents, to measure improvements. Qualitative 

analysis was completed using data collected from evaluators’ participation in SFP inservice training and discussions with SFP staff.

 

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with 

county mental health agencies identified three co-existing state funded programs from 

which to refer parents and children to the SFP 6-10 program; the perinatal, methadone 

and the Department of Corrections probation programs. SFP staff contacted referrals, 

gave them an orientation and evaluated them using questionnaires (parents and children 

were evaluated using different questionnaires). Referrals were supplemented by outreach 

programs at two of the sites. Participation in SFP 6-10 was voluntary. 

A quasi-experimental design was adopted for the quantitative analysis. The intervention 

group consisted of parents and children who chose to participate in SFP 6-10 and 

completed pre- and post-test surveys. The comparison group consisted of parents and 

children who completed orientation and the pre-test survey but opted not to participate in 

SFP 6-10. 

Families in the intervention group engaged in three areas; parent training, children’s 

skills training and family skills training. Pre- and post test surveys were completed using 

an electronic web form or in writing. Parents completed their children’s surveys. 

• Sample: A total of 9 families participated in SFP 6-10 at the three sites. These families 

consisted of 9 adults and 10 children. There were 16 families in the comparison group. 

While surveys were collected separately for adults and children, analysis was conducted 

on the family as a unit; 9 and 16 units for the intervention and comparison groups 

respectively. 

• Measures: The survey instruments administered to both parents and children consisted of 

Likert scale questions which were used to create indices to measure 9 outcomes. 

Additional information on the content of the questions used to create each index is not 

available. 

• Statistical Analyses: Mean scores from the nine developed indices of outcomes were 

used. Pre-test means of the comparison group were compared to pre-test means of the 

intervention group. Pre- and post test means of the intervention group were also 

compared. 

• Attrition: Information currently not available.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Two sites had three paid facilitators. The third site had 

two facilitators and one volunteer. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available. 

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES PROGRAM 6-10 

177 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available.

o Staff Training: Staff members attended an in-service training session.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Wage rates for paid facilitators are not available. One facilitator 

was a volunteer. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Information currently not available.

• Materials: Information currently not available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: The North Carolina Department of Health and Human 

services worked with county mental health agencies to identify sites. Participants were 

referred by state funded perinatal, methadone and probation programs. 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: 

The Strengthening Families Program 6-10 uses a family-centered curriculum targeted to 

families with children aged 6 to 10 years old and whose parents are substance abusers. 

The program consists of 14 weekly two hour meetings. These meetings focus on three 

areas; parent training, children’s and family skills training. 

 

Parents and children meet separately during the first hour. Parents worked with 

facilitators learning how to improve desired behavior in children by using positive 

reinforcement and paying attention to them. They also learned about substance use 

prevention, limit-setting and problem solving. 

Children were taught positive communication skills, understanding feelings, social skills, 

resisting peer pressure, substance abuse and accepting parental rules. These lessons were 

taught using games, projects and exercises. During the second hour the family met 

together where they employed tools such as role-playing to learn how foster 

communication, reinforce positive behavior, plan activities and solve problems together. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Information currently not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): SFP 6-10 consisted of 14 weekly 

two hour sessions. Successful participants had to complete a minimum of 7 sessions and 

8 one hour follow up sessions. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Weekly. 

• Diversity of activities: Information currently not available. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Although SFP 6-10 conducted pre and post test surveys of children and parents separately for 

both the intervention and comparison groups, only mean scores for parents were reported. Given 

the small sample sizes, the comparison group and intervention groups were not similar on key 

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES PROGRAM 6-10 

178 
“EMERGING” PROGRAMS 

traits rendering analysis of means between the comparison and intervention group untenable. 

Outlined below are statistically significant differences in the pre and post test means of parents in 

the intervention group (N=9). 

• Parental use of corporal punishment showed statistically significant declines at 

(p<0.05). 

• Parental involvement with their children improved over time (p<0.05). 

• Parents reported less familial attachment after completing the program. These results 

were statistically significant with (p<0.05). 

SOURCES:

The evaluation can be obtained from the following website. 

http://fac.ncat.edu/sfpeval/evrpt01/title.html

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Starleen Scott Robins 

Director 

North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services 

Division of Mental Health 

Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse 

Substance Abuse Section

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES PROGRAM 6-10 

179 
 

i

 Dumka, L., Prost, J., & Barrera, M. Jr. (2002). The parental relationship and adolescent conduct problems 

in Mexican American and European American families. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology,

47, 750-759. ii Grych, J.H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F.D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: 

The children’s perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558-572. iii Ahrons, C.R. (1981). The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses, The American 

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 415-428. 

iv Ibid. 

v

 Ibid. 

vi Stone, G., & McKenry, P.C. (1999). Nonresidential father involvement: A test of a mid-range theorty. 

Journal of Genetic Psychology. vii Haggerty, K., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1999). Preparing for the Drug Free 

Years. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved June 

13, 2007, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173408.pdf. viii Haggerty, Kosterman, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999. ix Ibid. 

x

 Ibid. 

xi Note that a number of studies of PFDY have been conducted, including pre-/post-test studies examining 

the efficacy of dissemination efforts. The information presented here focuses only on the experimental 

study of the of the pilot program’s effectiveness. 

xii Haggerty, Kosterman, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999. 

xiii Ibid. 

xiv Ibid. xv Ibid. 

xvi Ibid. 

xvii Hawkins, D., & Catalano, R. (1999). Preparing for the Drug Free Years. Available at 

www.strengtheningfamilies.org/html/programs_1999/05_PDFY.html. xviii Haggerty, Kosterman, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999. xix Hawkins, & Catalano, 1999. xx Haggerty, Kosterman, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999. 

xxi Hawkins, & Catalano, 1999. xxii Haggerty, Kosterman, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999. xxiii Hawkins, & Catalano, 1999. 

xxiv Haggerty, Kosterman, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999. xxv See Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and 

other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance use prevention, 

Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 64-105. 

xxvi Haggerty, Kosterman, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1999. 

xxvii Ibid. 

xxviii Ibid. xxix Ibid. xxx All outcomes were significant at the p<.05 significance level. See: Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. 

(1998). Direct and indirect latent parenting outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive 

interventions: Extending a public health-oriented research base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology, 66, 385-399. xxxi Ibid. xxxii See: Spoth, Redmond, & Shin, 1998; Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Hockaday, C., & Yoo, S. (1997). 

Protective factors and young adolescent tendency to abstain from alcohol use: A model using two waves of 

intervention study data. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 749-770.; Spoth, R., Redmond, 

C., Shin, C., Lepper, H., Haggerty, K., & Wall, M. (1998). Risk moderation of proximal parent-child 

outcomes of a universal family focused preventive intervention: A test a replication. American Journal of 

Orthopsychiatry, 68, 565-579. 33 Bedford, Foulds, and Sheffield, 1976. 

34 Moos, Cronkite, Bilings and Finney, 1984. 

180 
 

35 Spanier, 1976. 

36 Raphael, 1984. 

37 Murray, 1993. 

xxxviii Slater, M.A., & Power, T.G. (1987). Multidimensional assessment of parenting in single-parent 

families. Family Intervention, Assessment and Theory, 4, 197-228. xxxix Farran, D.C., Kasari, C., Comfort, M., & Jay, S. (1986). Parent/Caregiver Involvement Scale: 

Manual, Honolulu, HI: Center for the Development of Early Education, Kamehameha Schools/Bishop 

Estates. 

xl Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. 

Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources. 

xli Gresham, F.M., & Elliott, S.N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American 

Guidance Service, Inc. 

xlii Bayley, N. (1969). Bayley Scales of Infant Development. New York: Psychological Corporation. xliii Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. I. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). Circle 

Pines, NM: American Guidance Service. 

xliv Bzoch, K. R., & League, R. (1970). The Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Scale for the 

measurement of language skills in infancy. Gainesville, FL: Tree of Life Press. 

xlv Zimmerman, I. I., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (1979). Preschool Language Scale. San Antonio, TX: 

San Antonio Psychological Corporation. 

xlvi Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle 

Pines, NM: American Guidance Service. 

xlvii Research and Training Associates. (1985). Parent Knowledge Questionnaire. Jefferson City, MO: 

Author. 

xlviii Easterbrooks, M. A., & Goldberg, W. A. (1984). Toddler development in the family: Impact of father 

involvement and parenting characteristics. Child Development, 55, 740-752. xlix Abidin, R. R. (1986). Parenting Stress Index. Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology Press. l

 Crnic, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Ragozin, A. S., Robinson, N. M., & Brasham, R. (1983). Effects of stress 

and social support on mothers and premature and full-term infants. Child Development, 54, 209-217. li Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1984). Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. Little 

Rock, AR: University of Arkansas Press. 

lii White, B. L. (1990). Primary prevention: Beginning at the beginning. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 

58, 338-343. liii Martinez, J.M. & Miller, C. (2000). Working and earning. The impact of parents’ fair share on lowincome fathers’ employment. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/144/overview.html

liv Ibid. 

lv Ibid. 

lvi Miller, C. & Knox, V. (2001). The challenge of helping low-income fathers support their children. 

Final lessons from parents’ fair share. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/144/overview.html

lvii Ibid. 

lviii Ibid. lix Martinez, J.M. & Miller, C. (2000). 

lx Ibid. 

lxi Ibid. 

lxii Miller, C. & Knox, V. (2001). lxiii Doolittle, F., Knox, V., Miller, C. & Rowser, S. (1998, December). Building opportunities, enforcing 

obligations: Implementation and interim impacts of parents’ fair share. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/144/overview.html

lxiv Miller, C. & Knox, V. (2001). 

lxv Knox, V. & Redcross, C. (2000). Parenting and providing. The impact of parents’ fair share on 

paternal involvement. Retrieved April 18, 2007 from: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/144/overview.html

lxvi Ibid. 

lxvii Miller, C. & Knox, V. (2001). 

181 
 

lxviii Doolittle, F., Knox, V., Miller, C. & Rowser, S. (1998, December). lxix Ibid. lxx Ibid. lxxi Ibid. lxxii Ibid. lxxiii Martinez, J.M. & Miller, C. (2000). 

lxxiv Miller, C. & Knox, V. (2001). 

lxxv Martinez, J.M. & Miller, C. (2000). 

lxxvi Knox, V. & Redcross, C. (2000). 77 Lesser, et al., 2005. 

78 Jemmott, Jemmott, and McCaffree, 1996; Koniak-Griffin, et al., 2003. 79 Tello, 1998. 

80 Ibid. 

lxxxi IA systems in British Columbia and New Brunswick include disabled people who would not be able to 

work. In the US, some of these recipients would be in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program 

rather than in the welfare system. 

82 Daniel, 1983. 

83 Sanders et. al., 2000; Ralph & Sanders, 2003; Ireland, Sanders & Markie-Dadds, 2003; Sanders, 1999. 

84 Fowers and Olson, 1993. 

85 Bienvenu, 1970. 

86 Spanier, 1976. 

87 Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995. 

88 Dadds and Powell, 1991. 

89 Arnold, O’Leary, Wolff, and Acker, 1993. 

90 Eyberg and Pincus, 1999. 

91 Turner et al., 1998. 

92 Markie-Dadds, Turner and Sanders, 1998a. 

93 Sanders, Markie-Dadds, and Turner, 1996. 

94 Markie-Dadds, Turner and Sanders, 1998b. 

95 Turner et al., 1998. 

xcvi Pearson, J., Thoennes, N., Price, D., & Venohr, J. (2000). OCSE Responsible Fatherhood 

Programs: Early implementation lessons. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from 

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/rpt/process.htm. xcvii FatherhoodMD.org. (2003). Fatherhood programs: State programs by focus. Retrieved June 2, 2007, 

from http://www.fatherhoodmd.org/fh_focus.htm. xcviii Anderson, E. A., & Kohler, J. K. (n.d.). The Maryland Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration 

Program: Final evaluation report. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from 

http://www.hhp.umd.edu/FMST/fis/_docs/Maryland%20Responsible%20Fatherhood%20Evaluation%20Re

port.pdf. xcix Pearson, Thoennes, Price, & Venohr, 2000. c

 Ibid. 

ci Ibid. 

cii Anderson, & Kohler, n.d. 

ciii Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general 

population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385-401. 

civ Dunst, C. J., Jenkins, V., & Trivette, C. M. (1984). The Family Support Scale: Reliability and validity. 

Journal of Individual, Family, and Community Wellness, 1(4), 45-52. cv Pearson, Thoennes, Price, & Venohr, 2000. 

cvi Ibid. 

cvii Ibid. 

cviii Ibid. cix Ibid. cx Hayes, E., & Sherwood, K. (2000). The Responsible Fatherhood Curriculum. Retrieved June 15, 2007, 

from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/40/abstract.html. 

182 
 

cxi Pearson, Thoennes, Price, & Venohr, 2000. cxii Ibid. cxiii Ibid. 

cxiv Ibid. 

183