Great Families 2020 Final Report

Implementation and outcomes evaluation for a service delivery 

model of united way of central indiana

October 2020

1 
2 

Prepared by

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Roxy Lawrence, Program Analyst, Center for Research on Inclusion and Social Policy, IU Public Policy Institute 

Rebecca Nannery, Senior Research Analyst, The Polis Center at IUPUI

Elle Yang, Program Analyst, Center for Research on Inclusion and Social Policy, IU Public Policy Institute 

RESEARCH SUPPORT

Deb Hollon, GIS Analyst, The Polis Center at IUPUI 

Jeramy Townsley, Research Analyst, The Polis Center at IUPUI 

Kourtney Byrd, Center for Research on Inclusion and Social Policy, IU Public Policy Institute 

Jacob Purcell, Center for Research on Inclusion and Social Policy, IU Public Policy Institute 

Destiney Faceson, Center for Research on Inclusion and Social Policy, IU Public Policy Institute 

Aunya Sutton, Center for Research on Inclusion and Social Policy, IU Public Policy Institute 

 

PROJECT LEADERSHIP

Breanca Merritt, PhD, Director, Center for Research on Inclusion and Social Policy, IU Public Policy Institute 

Sharon Kandris, Associate Director, The Polis Center at IUPUI, and Director, Community Informatics 

 

GRANTEE

United Way of Central Indiana 

SUBGRANTEES

Community Alliance of the Far Eastside (CAFÉ)

East 10th United Methodist Church Children and Youth Center

Englewood Christian Church

Edna Martin Christian Center 

John Boner Neighborhood Centers 

Hawthorne Community Center

Marion County Commission on Youth (MCCOY)

Martin Luther King Community Center

An evaluation conducted by Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IU Public Policy Institute and The Polis 

Center) for United Way of Central Indiana’s Great Families 2020 for federal award 16SIHIN001
3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FIGURES & TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... 6

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS .................................................................................................................................... 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 11

PART 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 17

Program Background .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Report roadmap.....................................................................................................................................................18

Problem statement ............................................................................................................................................. 20

Related evaluations...............................................................................................................................................21

Great Families 2020: context & model ................................................................................................................22

GF2020 model description ................................................................................................................................ 25

Recruitment ...........................................................................................................................................................25

Set and participate in meeting with family coach................................................................................................25

Initial goal setting ..................................................................................................................................................27

Initial referrals........................................................................................................................................................27

Ongoing & repeated goal setting & referrals........................................................................................................28

Administrative & organizational structure .......................................................................................................... 29

Current study ...................................................................................................................................................... 31

Implementation study questions ..........................................................................................................................31

Outcomes study questions....................................................................................................................................31

PART 2: STUDY DESIGN & METHODS ........................................................................................ 32

Implementation study ........................................................................................................................................ 33

Research questions...............................................................................................................................................33

Methodology...........................................................................................................................................................34

Data collection activities .......................................................................................................................................34

Outcomes study design ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Research questions...............................................................................................................................................38

Sample recruitment...............................................................................................................................................38

Measures and unit of analysis..............................................................................................................................39

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 3
4 

Retention and treatment of missing data ............................................................................................................41

Analytic approach ..................................................................................................................................................41

Barriers to impact study ........................................................................................................................................44

PART 3: IMPLEMENTATION STUDY FINDINGS .......................................................................... 46

Fidelity to GF2020 Model ................................................................................................................................... 47

To what extent is GF2020 operating with fidelity? ..............................................................................................47

According to GF2020 staff perceptions, has collaboration between sites and partner/contracted service 

providers and agencies improved?.......................................................................................................................50

Programmatic dimensions ................................................................................................................................. 52

What is the level of parent/caregiver and child participation at each site? ......................................................52

What participant characteristics are associated with perceptions of GF2020 programming? ........................54

For programmatic components perceived to be most beneficial for participants, what is necessary for proper 

implementation?....................................................................................................................................................54

Subgrantee and Participant Perceptions of Benefits of programmatic components........................................57

Opportunities for Implementation ...................................................................................................................... 64

How have initial implementation plans changed after program initiation? .......................................................64

What factors affect GF2020 recruitment, enrollment, and retention? ..............................................................68

What barriers exist for consistent data collection and entry? ............................................................................69

What lessons/takeaways have subgrantees and partners learned about 2Gen programming generally?.....71

What perspectives can GF2020 provide for UWCI’s ongoing local programming? ...........................................74

Summary of implementation findings ................................................................................................................ 78

Fidelity to the GF2020 model ...............................................................................................................................78

Programmatic dimensions ....................................................................................................................................78

Opportunities for implementation.........................................................................................................................78

PART 4: OUTCOMES STUDY FINDINGS ...................................................................................... 79

What proportion of GF2020 children are performing at age-appropriate functioning, compared to aggregate 

scores of other children? Which GF2020 parent characteristics and/or program components are associated 

with child outcomes? ......................................................................................................................................... 80

Data matching .......................................................................................................................................................80

State-level policy changes.....................................................................................................................................81

Descriptive analysis...............................................................................................................................................81

To what extent do GF2020 participant outcomes change from baseline to follow-up? ..................................... 83

Intended outcome: monthly income.....................................................................................................................84

Intended outcomes: Family Success Plan indicators ..........................................................................................85
5 

Which GF2020 program components are associated with parent outcomes? .................................................. 91

Financial indicators ...............................................................................................................................................92

Family Success Plan indicators ............................................................................................................................92

To what extent do participant outcomes vary by site? ....................................................................................... 94

To what extent do GF2020 participants differ from CWF participants on short-term GF2020 outcomes? ........ 95

Summary of outcomes findings .......................................................................................................................... 99

PART 5: LESSONS & NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................... 100

Summary of key findings .................................................................................................................................. 101

Local adoption of a two-generational model......................................................................................................101

Recommendations for future programming ..................................................................................................... 104

PART 6: APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 106

Appendix A. Descriptive statistics of program participants .............................................................................. 107

Appendix B. Description of outcome variables ................................................................................................. 111

Validated outcome measures .............................................................................................................................111

Nonvalidated Outcome Measures ......................................................................................................................112

Appendix C: Descriptive statistics of subset of program participants included in outcome analysis ............... 114

Appendix D. Fidelity checklist ........................................................................................................................... 117

Appendix E. Survey results for subgrantee and participant satisfaction surveys ............................................. 118

Appendix F. Outcome analysis results .............................................................................................................. 126
6 

FIGURES & TABLES Figure 1. GF2020 logic model ..................................................................................................................................24

Figure 2. Flow chart of GF2020 service delivery .....................................................................................................26

Table 1. GF2020 model: key activities & intended outcomes................................................................................28

Table 2. Participating subgrantee organizations .....................................................................................................29

Table 3. Implementation study research questions ................................................................................................33

Table 4. Data collection methods.............................................................................................................................34

Table 5. Outcome study research questions ...........................................................................................................38

Table 6. Overview of GF2020 outcomes data .........................................................................................................40

Table 7a. Fidelity to the GF2020 model, five domains ...........................................................................................48

Table 7b. Fidelity to the GF2020 model, program compliance ..............................................................................49

Figure 3. Subgrantee perception of ratings of collaboration with partners (2018–2020)...................................50

Figure 4. Percentage of subgrantee staff who agree the partnerships developed as a result of GF2020 have 

improved their organization's ability to serve families (2018–2020)....................................................................51

Table 8. Rate of participation in key components of GF2020, by site ...................................................................52

Table 9. Coaching interactions and goal setting per participant, by site ...............................................................53

Table 10. Participation and bundling of CWF services............................................................................................54

Figure 5. GF2020 participant satisfaction of GF2020 services .............................................................................55

Figure 6. Program implementation framework........................................................................................................55

Table 11. Competency, leadership, and organization drivers.................................................................................56

Table 12. Summary of programmatic perceptions..................................................................................................58

Figure 7. GF2020 implementation plan changes (2017-2020).............................................................................65

Table 13. Site-specific differences in response to COVID-19 .................................................................................67

Table 14. Barriers and facilitators to GF2020 recruitment, enrollment, and retention........................................68

Table 15. Data collection and entry barriers for GF2020.......................................................................................70

Figure 8. Percentage of subgrantee staff who agree they perceived effects of GF2020 on families and 

community (2018–2020) .........................................................................................................................................71

Figure 9. Subgrantee perceived effectiveness of UWCI-subgrantee communication (2018–2020)...................75

Figure 10. Percentage of subgrantee staff who agree with statements about subgrantee collaboration with 

UWCI (2018–2020)...................................................................................................................................................76
7 

Table 16. Summary of outcomes with significant changes, by effect sizes...........................................................83

Table 17. Number of complete financial assessments submitted by adult participants......................................84

Figure 11. Participant monthly income and change in monthly income ...............................................................85

Table 18. Number of Family Success Plan surveys completed by adult participants ...........................................85

Figure 12. Social capital outcomes with significant changes, by follow-up ..........................................................86

Figure 13. Health and well-being outcomes with significant changes, by follow-up ............................................88

Figure 14. Protective factors outcomes with significant changes, by follow-up ...................................................90

Table 19. Relationships between program components and GF2020 program outcomes..................................91

Table 20. GF2020 summary statistics for continuous variables............................................................................95

Table 21. CWF-only summary statistics for continuous variables ..........................................................................95

Table 22. GF2020 & CWF-only adult participant frequencies of categorical variables ........................................96

Table 23. Changes in monthly income by demographic characteristics................................................................98

Figure A1. Family enrollment by GF2020 services................................................................................................107

Table A1. GF2020 adult participation characteristic and summary statistics for continuous variables ...........107

Table A2. GF2020 adult participant characteristic and frequencies for categorical variables ..........................108

Table A3. GF2020 child participation characteristic and summary statistics for continuous variables............109

Table A4. GF2020 child participant characteristic and frequencies for categorical variables...........................110

Table A5. GF2020 adult participant characteristic and summary statistics for continuous variables ..............114

Table A6. GF2020 adult participant characteristic and frequencies for categorical variables ..........................115

Table A7. Description of GF2020 core components .............................................................................................117

Figure A2. Subgrantee perceptions of the effectiveness of CWF services (2020)..............................................118

Figure A3. Subgrantee perceptions of the effectiveness of social capital programming (2018–2020) ...........119

Figure A4. Subgrantee perceptions of the effectiveness of ECE (2018–2020)..................................................119

Figure A5. Subgrantee opinions surrounding warm referrals (2018-2020)........................................................120

Table A8. Participants’ perception of the services and benefits of financial coaching.......................................121

Table A9. Participant perception of the services and benefits of employment coaching ...................................122

Table A10. Participant perception of the services and benefits of income support............................................123

Table A11. Participant perception of the services and benefits of social capital................................................123

Table A12. Participant perception of the services and benefits of ECE...............................................................124

Table A13. Participant perception of the services and benefits of health and well-being..................................124
8 

Table A14. Participant characteristics associated with perception of the five domain services........................125

Table A15. Results of Wilcoxon signed ranks tests and descriptive statistics on monthly income....................126

Table A16. Results of Wilcoxon signed ranks tests and descriptive statistics on family success plan survey 

groupings..................................................................................................................................................................126
9 

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS 

CENTERS FOR WORKING FAMILIES (CWF): 

Indianapolis’ local adaptation of an evidence-based model providing coaching financial, employment, and 

income supports

CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND (CCDF): 

A federal program that provides low-income families with financial resources to afford high-quality child care

COMBINED FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT (CFA) 

A form provided to adults receiving financial coaching which tracks their income, debts, and assets. This form is 

entered into the Efforts to Outcomes (ETO) system. 

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION (ECE) 

Child care and preschool programming for children ages 0–6 

EFFORTS TO OUTCOMES (ETO) 

A system maintained by United Way of Central Indiana (UWCI) and licensed by Social Solutions, Inc. and used for 

data collection and management by subgrantees 

FAMILIES FIRST OF INDIANA (FAMILIES FIRST) 

A mental health care provider formally contracted to provide mental health services for families

FAMILY SUCCESS PLAN (FSP) 

The primary tool used by family coaches to help families set goals and track progress in the program

ISTAR-KR 

A tool initially developed and discontinued by the State of Indiana to assess children’s kindergarten readiness

ON MY WAY PRE-K 

An Indiana program that provides grants allowing 4-year-olds in low-income families to attend high-quality pre-K 

programming

PARTNER 

Organizations that have formal or informal relationships with subgrantees to provide additional support services 

or receive referrals
10

PEER LEARNING 

Trainings hosted by UWCI to provide subgrantees and their partners with tools and information to improve the 

effectiveness of their programming

SITE 

Groups of subgrantee organizations collaborating to implement GF2020. These groups have historically been 

based in specific Indianapolis neighborhoods. 

SOCIAL CAPITAL EVENTS 

Activities designed and promoted by sites to boost families’ social connections and peer network.

PARENT CAFÉ 

Physical and emotional safe spaces where parents and caregivers talk about the challenges and victories of 

raising a family

SUBGRANTEE 

One of eight organizations awarded a grant by UWCI to implement GF2020

TWO-GENERATIONAL APPROACH (2GEN) 

The general approach to providing services to entire families, including services for children, parents, and the 

family. The “2Gen” model is a specific two-generational approach developed by Ascend at the Aspen Institute 

that specifies financial supports, education for adults and children, employment coaching, social capital, and 

health and well-being as key prongs of two-generational service provision.

UWCI 

United Way of Central Indiana

WARM REFERRALS 

Also called “warm handoffs,” this is the process of meaningfully guiding a family to a service provider or other 

agency after making a referral instead of having the adult handle all arrangements.

 

 
11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PROGRAM SUMMARY 

In 2016, the United Way of Central Indiana (UWCI) was awarded a grant from the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) to 

develop and implement the Great Families 2020 (GF2020) service delivery model in Greater Indianapolis. The 

goal of GF2020 is to improve financial stability among families in Indianapolis by using a two-generational (2Gen) 

approach to service delivery. Specifically, GF2020 is based on the 2Gen model developed by Ascend at the 

Aspen Institute, using family case management to direct families in need of financial services to evidence-based 

interventions and wraparound services. Children enroll in high-quality early childhood education and their 

parents participate in activities related to economic assets, employment coaching and education. Adults and 

children also attend social capital activities and are referred to health services.

GF2020’s target population is at least one custodial parent or caregiver and at least one child (age 0-6), living 

together as part of a family, who need economic support or stabilization services. The family unit (participating 

child and parent/caregiver) participates in GF2020 by committing to receive family-focused case 

management provided by a family coach. The family coaching process involves developing a relationship with a 

family coach to (1) set and maintain goals in the five areas of the 2Gen model—high-quality early childhood 

education, economic assets, postsecondary and employment pathways, social capital, and health and wellbeing—using a Family Success Plan (FSP), and (2) connect families to services in those five areas that are 

provided by participating subgrantee agencies. The model is implemented across eight subgrantee organizations 

and their partners located within five geographic areas of Indianapolis. Ultimately, the aim is for the service 

delivery model to improve multiple outcomes for participating families, including socioemotional development 

and kindergarten readiness for children; financial and employment-related outcomes for parents, and 

social capital, community engagement, protective factors, and health-related outcomes for parents that also 

benefit the entire family unit. By the end of the program, 734 families (with at least one parent/caregiver and at 

least one child) enrolled in GF2020. In all, 789 adults and 1,121 children enrolled in the program.

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Low parental educational attainment, unemployment, parenting challenges, and mental health issues are some 

of the main environmental factors that worsen the short- and long-term effects of family financial instability 

among children. These income-related factors collectively lead to toxic stress—the prolonged activation of 

traumatic experiences that adversely affect a child’s chance at success over time. These structural factors also 

negatively impact opportunities for parents/caregivers to attain financial stability and self-sufficiency. As a result, 

understanding the effectiveness of models that mitigate the effects of poverty for both adults and the children 

in their lives are increasingly important. GF2020 is based on a two-generational framework that uses a wholefamily approach to reduce negative outcomes associated with persistent childhood poverty by addressing the 

needs of low-income parents and children simultaneously. 
12

This approach has been used for fifty years as a service-delivery model that targets low-income parents and their 

children, with the ultimate aim of improving social development for children. Two generational models typically 

consist of programs that aim to reinforce economic stability for parents, including job training, connections to 

public benefits, management of personal finances, and educational services for both adults and children. 

Beyond improving economic stability, additional programming involved in some two-generational models 

concurrently provides other beneficial assistance to parents and children. Such programming may include 

physical and mental health services, social capital building programs, and high-quality early childhood education.

As a result of these core services, children experience stable, positive academic and socioemotional 

development, while parents improve their economic stability and personal wellbeing. 

PRIOR RESEARCH 

GF2020 was evaluated in a feasibility and implementation study in late 2018 and in an additional 

implementation evaluation internal to UWCI in late 2019. These studies highlighted that the GF2020 service 

delivery model was operating with fidelity across three of the major programmatic components, including 

economic assets, postsecondary and employment pathways, and early childhood education. Full implementation 

of GF2020 was challenging, particularly for social capital and health and well-being aspects of programming. 

The studies identified low family attendance and participation in social capital events. The stigma associated 

with seeking and receiving mental health therapy discouraged family participation in mental health services. The 

studies also found improvement in key parent outcomes from baseline to initial follow-up periods. These findings 

would need to be built upon by understanding the extent to which fidelity was adhered to across sites and over 

time, assessing trends across sites and families, and understanding whether positive outcomes experienced by 

GF2020 parents were better than those for families outside of the program.

TARGETED LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 

The current research design aims to achieve a preliminary level of evidence through an intensive implementation 

study including an evaluation of outcomes. Preliminary evidence was targeted because of the inability to secure 

a sufficient matched comparison group for the study for both children and adults enrolled in GF2020 and Centers 

for Working Families (CWF) models. This preliminary evidence aims to identify changes in short-term 

outcomes, the effectiveness with which the service delivery model is implemented and the associations of 

specific components of the service delivery model on parent outcomes.
13

EVALUATION DESIGN 

Implementation study 

To understand how GF2020 was implemented and the extent to which it was completed with fidelity, the study 

employed a mixed-methods approach, including interviews and focus groups with UWCI GF2020 staff and 

GF2020 subgrantees and web-based pre- and post- surveys of staff at each subgrantee site, descriptive analysis 

of GF2020 programmatic and administrative data, participant interviews and surveys, and a review of 

subgrantee documents. Descriptive statistics and thematic analyses were used to describe program 

implementation as well as staff and participants’ perceptions of the GF2020 program. The implementation study 

addressed implementation fidelity, with an emphasis on program dosage, adherence, quality of delivery, 

collaboration, and program participants’ satisfaction with GF2020 services. 

Outcomes study 

To assess the extent to which the GF2020 model is associated with improvements in defined participant 

outcomes, the outcomes study analyzed programmatic data collected from the Efforts to Outcomes (ETO) 

database. The study includes data on 675 out of 789 adult GF2020 participants.1 The statistical analyses 

included t-tests, Wilcoxon signed rank tests, general linear models, and multilevel models to understand three 

key areas: statistical differences across groups, factors associated with individual outcomes across program 

components, and—when possible—outcomes to GF2020 participants compared to a group of similar program 

participants. Statistical findings were contextualized using qualitative data obtained through key informant 

interviews and focus groups with program participants, subgrantees, grantees, and UWCI. 

MEASURES & INSTRUMENTS 

For this report, implementation-related outcomes included participant attendance and levels of program delivery, 

such as coaching and goal setting. This information is collected and entered into the program’s data system by 

GF2020 staff. Most demographic information and outcomes related to economic assets, education, and 

employment coaching are collected by GF2020 partner agencies using the GF2020 goal-setting tool (i.e., FSP). 

Additional outcomes include questions from validated instruments, including the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Health Related Quality of Life (HRQOL), the Social Capital Community Benchmark 

Survey, and the Protective Factors Survey. 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

Implementation questions 

• To what extent is GF2020 being implemented with fidelity? 

• According to GF2020 staff perceptions, has collaboration between sites and partner/contracted service 

providers and agencies improved? 

1 The number of adult participants in the statistical analysis (n=675) is fewer than the summary statistics throughout the 

report (N=789, all adult participants). Cases with outliers on key continuous variables were removed as a part of data 

preparation for the outlier analysis. The statistical analysis of ETO data is the only area in this report that uses the n=675 

adult participants. 
14

• What factors affect GF2020 participant recruitment, enrollment, and retention? 

• In what ways has programming differed by site? 

• How have initial implementation plans changed after program initiation? 

• To what extent do participants perceive opportunities and short-term and long-term benefits of the 

following programmatic component 

• What participant characteristics are associated with perceptions of GF2020 programming? 

• To what extent do subgrantee staff perceive short-term and long-term benefits of the programmatic 

components? 

• For programmatic components that are perceived to be most beneficial for participants, what is 

necessary for proper implementation? 

• What is the level of parent/caregiver and child participation at each program site? 

• What barriers exist for consistent data collection and entry? 

• What lessons/takeaways have grantees and subgrantees learned about 2Gen programming generally? 

• What perspectives can GF2020 provide for UWCI’S ongoing local programming?

Outcomes questions 

• What proportion of GF2020 children are performing at age-appropriate functioning? 

• To what extent do GF2020 participants differ from CWF participants on short-term outcomes? 

• To what extent do GF2020 participant outcomes change from baseline to follow-up? 

• Which GF2020 program components are associated with parent outcomes? 

• To what extent do participant outcomes vary by site? 

• Which GF2020 parent characteristics or program components are associated with child outcomes?

KEY FINDINGS 

Implementation findings 

The key findings from the implementation evaluation included that GF2020 is largely being implemented with 

fidelity across three core components of early childhood education, economic assets, and employment coaching, 

with subgrantees varying slightly in how they implement the model. More than half (60%) of the participating 

adults are bundling CWF services, and financial counseling continues to be the most popular CWF service. 

Subgrantees have improved data collection and entry, primarily due to continued technical support from UWCI, 

though capturing and documenting data for referrals and social capital events can be improved. Coaching is 

largely perceived as an integral component of GF2020. Frequent engagement with participants and flexibility of 

engagement approaches help to retain families and ensure services are appropriate. More families set and work 

toward their goals, though the type and number of goals differ by subgrantee. These variations can be attributed 

to differences in participants’ abilities to reach goals and the nature of short-term versus long-term goals. 
15

Collaboration between subgrantees and partners slightly improved. Participating organizations have benefitted 

extensively from GF2020 partnerships, including increased understanding of partner organization’s services, 

enhanced sharing of resources and information, and increased capacity to serve families. Participants are 

satisfied with all services received through GF2020. CWF services and child care are particularly appreciated by 

parents/caregivers in the program, though transportation assistance and support with utilities persisted as 

unmet needs throughout the program. 

Proper implementation of GF2020 involves hiring skilled staff, building staff capacity, allowing flexibility in 

program implementation, developing effective cross agency partnerships, and providing ongoing technical 

assistance to subgrantees.

Outcomes findings 

• Programmatic components, including length of coaching interactions and referrals were associated with 

improvements in some parent outcomes. Adults with longer coaching interactions, referrals from a 

GF2020 coach, and who attended a referral appointment were linked to better parent outcomes.

• Despite slight variations in GF2020 implementation, site-level differences did not affect participant 

outcomes. However, key programmatic aspects—such as the proportion of referrals to health activities, 

length of coaching interactions, and perceived quality of collaboration—matter for participant outcomes. 

Participants at sites with higher levels of perceived collaboration experienced improvements in 

nurturing, attachment, and social support. When accounting for site-level differences, the average 

length of coaching was also positively and significantly associated with nurturing, attachment, and 

change in income

• Sociodemographic characteristics—like race, ethnicity, baseline income, and age—did not affect 

improvements in income. This indicates that GF2020 did not contribute to disparate outcomes related 

to income. At the same time, being Hispanic/Latinx was associated with greater concrete supports. 

IMPLICATIONS & LESSONS LEARNED 

2Gen programming enabled local subgrantees to serve more families. Not only has 2Gen programming 

expanded the scope of subgrantee services, it also enhanced collaboration between local agencies and social 

service providers. This suggests that local adaptation of the 2Gen model supported parents, children, and 

participating organizations.

Key takeaways and lessons learned from the GF2020 programming include:

• The 2Gen model is an innovative way for local community organizations to provide wraparound services 

to underserved families in the community. This service delivery approach is not just a program model. 

It provided a philosophical foundation and practical approach toward addressing complex 

socioeconomic issues.

• The local adaptation of this 2Gen model also has several challenges, including age eligibility restrictions 

and limitations in programmatic design for specific service provisions. 
16

• GF2020 demonstrated key elements of success, including effective and intentional partnerships, 

expansion in organizational capacity and staffing needs, and greater knowledge and sharing of 

resources among grantees and subgrantees. 

NEXT STEPS 

As a result of GF2020, in 2019, UWCI launched a funding mechanism called the Family Opportunity Fund. This 

effort provides funding for local community-based organizations to build capacity for serving an entire family’s 

needs in areas highlighted by the 2Gen model. The evaluation findings helped highlight gaps and key 

implementation opportunities in their development of that fund, including:

• Build successful partnerships with ongoing engagement efforts and leverage existing long-term 

relationships among collaborators.

• Provide clear and consistent communication between grantees and subgrantees through designated 

program officers.

• Integrate grantees, subgrantees and other partners in decision-making processes.

• Provide consistent and ongoing learning, networking and information sharing opportunities via various 

channels to strengthen knowledge and relationships among key program participants.

• Support data needs from subgrantees, including: database management; data collection and entry 

process training, and mentorship; troubleshooting with individual sites; and education on data quality 

improvement.

• Help families prepare for the transition when their children age out of the program to ensure continuous 

family-site engagement and support.

• Consider incorporating existing UWCI programming components into the 2Gen model, such as utility 

help and transportation assistance through local partners. 
17

PART 1: INTRODUCTION 
18

PROGRAM BACKGROUND In 2016, UWCI was awarded a grant from the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) to develop and implement the GF2020 

service delivery model. The goal of GF2020 is to improve financial stability among families and educational 

outcomes of children Indianapolis by using a two-generational approach to service delivery. The two-generational 

approach uses a whole-family perspective to reduce negative outcomes associated with persistent childhood 

poverty by addressing the needs of low-income parents/caregivers and children simultaneously. Twogenerational models can consist of programs that aim to reinforce economic stability for parents, including job 

training, connections to public benefits, management of personal finances, and educational services both for 

adults and children. Specifically, GF2020 is based on Ascend’s 2Gen model, using family case management to 

direct families in need of financial services to evidence-based interventions and wraparound services. Children 

enroll in high-quality early childhood education, and their parents participate in activities related to economic 

assets, employment coaching, and education. Adults and children also attend social capital activities and receive 

referrals for health services. 

GF2020’s target population is at least one custodial parent or caregiver and at least one child (ages 0–6) living 

together as part of a family, and who need economic support or stabilization services. The family unit 

(participating child and parent/caregiver) participates in GF2020 by committing to receive family-focused case 

management provided by a family coach. The family coaching process involves developing a relationship with a 

family coach to (1) set and maintain goals in the five areas of the 2Gen model (high-quality early childhood 

education, economic assets, postsecondary and employment pathways, social capital, and health and wellbeing) using a Family Success Plan, and (2) connect families to services in those five areas that are provided by 

participating subgrantee agencies. The model is implemented across eight subgrantee organizations and their 

partners located within five geographic areas of Indianapolis. Ultimately, the aim is for the service delivery model 

to improve multiple outcomes for participating families: socioemotional and kindergarten readiness for children; 

financial and employment-related outcomes for parents; social capital: community engagement; protective 

factors; and health-related outcomes for parents that also benefit the entire family unit. 

REPORT ROADMAP 

This final report assesses the implementation of Great Families 2020 (GF2020), a two-generational approach 

to service provision for families in Indianapolis, Indiana. The purpose of the implementation study was to assess 

how this service delivery model provides services as designed to delineate barriers to implementation and 

identify relationships between programmatic activities and key outcomes through June 30, 2020. This study 

treated GF2020 as an evaluation of a systems change strategy. The SIF Evaluation Plan (SEP) previously 

approved by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), included a series of research questions 

for each of the following categories: model fidelity, opportunities for implementation, and outcomes to the service

delivery model.
19

This report serves to document how GF2020 was implemented, the extent to which that implementation was 

conducted with fidelity to the model, and improvement of participant outcomes. The primary intended audience 

of this document is CNCS reviewers and staff. This document may also serve to inform practitioners aiming to 

implement similar service delivery models. Finally, it can be used by SIF awardees, the United Way of Central 

Indiana (UWCI), and subgrantees as a guide for moving toward integrating 2Gen approaches throughout their 

work. 

Part 1 of this report includes a description of prior related research and the background of the GF2020 model. 

Part 2 provides an overview of the study design, and Part 3 reports the findings of the implementation study, 

including barriers and facilitators encountered during implementation, and an assessment of fidelity to the 

proposed model and a summary of the outcome analysis. Part 4 includes recommendations for ongoing 

programming and evaluation. 
20

PROBLEM STATEMENT 

By addressing several factors that contribute to parental economic instability, families are better able to cope 

with social and economic change, thus ensuring that children are better positioned to experience reduced 

poverty early in their lives. GF2020 is intended to address parental economic instability and related contributing 

factors to reduce the long-term negative outcomes associated with persistent childhood poverty.

Youth who experience persistent poverty are more likely to experience cognitive deficits, low academic 

achievement, behavioral problems, and adverse health outcomes.2,3,4 Even with positive school environments, 

these developmental deficits have been repeatedly linked to a child’s home environment.5 Specifically, low 

parental education6, unemployment, poor parenting skills, and exposure to unhealthy behaviors and mental 

health issues7 are some of the main home environmental issues that exacerbate the negative short- and longterm effects of family poverty among children.8

These poverty-related factors collectively lead to toxic stress—the prolonged activation of traumatic experiences 

that adversely affect a child’s chances at success over time. Parents who consistently experience economic 

instability tend to put their children at greater risk for long-term social and pecuniary problems, including: teen 

pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, incarceration, and low educational attainment, among others.9 Understanding 

the effectiveness of models that can mitigate the effects of childhood poverty and resulting toxic stress are 

increasingly salient.

2 Korenman, S., Miller, J. E., & Sjaastad, J. E. (1995). Long-term poverty and child development in the United States: Results 

from the NLSY. Children and Youth Services Review, 17(1-2), 127-155. 3 Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The future of children, 55-71. 4 McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American psychologist, 53, 185. 5 Miller, J. E., & Davis, D. (1997). Poverty history, marital history, and quality of children's home environments. Journal of 

Marriage and the Family, 996-1007. 6 Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: the indirect role of 

parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of family psychology, 19(2), 294.

7 Hair, E. C., McGroder, S. M., Zaslow, M. J., Ahluwalia, S. K., & Moore, K. A. (2002). How do maternal risk factors affect 

children in low-income families? Further evidence of two-generational implications. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in 

the Community, 23(1-2), 65-94. 8 Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The future of children, 55-71. 9 Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I., Earls, M. F., McGuinn, L., ... & Committee on Early Childhood,

Adoption, and Dependent Care. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), 

e232-e246. 
21

The two-generational approach uses a whole-family perspective to mitigate the negative outcomes associated 

with persistent childhood poverty by addressing the needs of low-income parents and children together. The 

approach has been used for fifty years as a service-delivery model that targets low-income parents and their 

children. The model aims to develop human capital within a family, leading to positive social development for 

children.10 Two-generational mode provide programs to reinforce economic stability to parents, including job 

training, connections to public benefits, educational services. Meanwhile, other programs can concurrently 

provide other services to parents and children, including physical and mental health services, social capital 

building programs, and quality early childhood education.11 As a result of these core services, children 

experience positive academic and socioemotional development, while parents improve their economic stability.

GF2020 intends to operationalize the two-generational service delivery model to a) reduce the effects of factors 

associated with high poverty and negative family outcomes among families, and b) streamline existing service 

provision to more efficiently and effectively assist low-income families in need. Programmatic definitions of the 

service delivery model are provided in a later section.

Three critical components of the two-generation framework are at the core of the combination of services that 

constitute the GF2020 model: integrated goal setting and service delivery for families; high-quality early 

childhood education (ECE); and workforce pathways and financial coaching as administered through the 

evidence-based Centers for Working Families (CWF) framework.12 While programs aimed at improving social 

capital and health supports also have a strong evidence base in the two-generational approach, all five 

components have not been incorporated into an evidence-based, existing service delivery framework. Focusing 

its primary efforts on these evidence-based programs allows UWCI to a) leverage and expand its existing 

relationships with the subgrantee agencies and their organizational partners to deliver services to families as 

efficiently as possible, and consistently between the five target neighborhoods; and b) allow an opportunity to 

identify whether including the two-generation approach in the CWF service delivery model improves family 

outcomes.

RELATED EVALUATIONS 

This model is based on research assessing two-generational approaches,13 as well as best practices identified 

by Indianapolis’ Centers for Working Families (CWF) model, which is administratively housed at UWCI. CWF 

provides the wraparound services related to employment, financial, and income supports coaching. Related 

studies for both two-generational approaches and the local CWF model have identified several key points for 

similar research. They include the importance of understanding and eliminating barriers for families external to 

the program, positive outcomes as a result of engaging families for longer periods of time, benefits from adults 

bundling CWF services, and the need to understand program impact beyond initial outcomes. 

10 Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2014). Two-generation programs in the twenty-first century. The Future of 

Children, 24(1), 13-39. 11 Ibid 12 Roder, A., First Steps on the Road to Financial Well-Being: Final Report from the Evaluation of LISC's Financial 

Opportunity Centers. 2016, Economic Mobility Corporation: New York. p. 58.

13 Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2014). Two-generation programs in the twenty-first century. The Future of 

Children, 24(1), 13-39. 
22

The evaluators built on these findings by conducting feasibility and implementation evaluations in fall 2018 and 

fall 2019. These studies aimed to highlight and correct process-related challenges to improve programming and 

outcomes for GF2020 families. The studies found that the GF2020 model was being implemented with fidelity 

across core components of early learning, economic assets, and employment coaching, with subgrantees varying 

slightly in how they implement the model, mostly due to differences among their service populations and 

expected variation in goal setting and coaching. Key barriers to effective implementation included initial slow 

start-up to recruitment, inconsistent marketing within and across sites, perceiving place-based approaches as a 

hindrance to recruitment, concerns about long-term engagement among participants, and ensuring consistent 

access to child care across sites. As a result of these findings, UWCI clarified and refined some programmatic 

efforts to ensure consistency in implementation across sites. 

The program previously reached preliminary evidence, with GF2020 families experiencing statistically significant 

(p<.05) improvements in family functioning and resiliency, child development and parenting knowledge, feelings 

of anxiety, and civic engagement: factors that directly and indirectly are associated with longer-term child and 

parental outcomes. During these studies, UWCI also incorporated a 2Gen approach for partner organizations 

through its Family Opportunity Fund, which builds on the GF2020 model by funding local programs that adhere 

to a 2Gen structure. Given progress in GF2020, it is important to understand how to maximize implementation 

for additional iterations of the model with other organizations and to assess how effectively GF2020 may have 

improved outcomes for participating families.

GREAT FAMILIES 2020: CONTEXT & MODEL 

GF2020 is a service delivery model that uses family coaching to direct families in need of financial services to 

evidence-based interventions and wraparound services using the Aspen Institute’s Ascend 2Gen model.14 The 

Ascend 2Gen model focuses on providing two-generational services to parents and their children. This approach 

emphasizes high-quality early learning for children and employment pathways and economic asset-building for 

the parents. Furthermore, the 2Gen approach stresses the need for social capital and health and wellbeing for 

the whole family to improve long-term outcomes for both parents and children, recognizing each of these 

components is critical. In summary, the five key components to this model are (1) early childhood development, 

(2) postsecondary and employment pathways, (3) economic assets, (4) health and wellbeing, and (5) social 

capital.

Figure 1 shows a graphic version of the logic model for GF2020. The program is based on the premise that family 

coaches will help participants enroll in activities that address multiple issues within families, with special 

emphasis on education and financial stability. Family coaches link parents to programs that improve children’s 

early learning, increase parental income, improve parental employment, increase parents’ civic engagement, 

improve the quality of their social networks, and improve mental health for both parents and children. As such, 

the program unit for this model is the coaching session.

14 The Aspen Institute, T. (2015). What is 2Gen? Retrieved from http://ascend.aspeninstitute.org/two-generation/what-is2Gen/12
23

In the short term, the model aims to address several outputs and outcomes across the five components of the 

model. For outputs, the model assesses school attendance, kindergarten readiness, family attendance at 

GF2020 events and referral providers, and participation in skill-building activities across areas of economic asset 

building and employment coaching. Participation in these activities as a result of coaching is theorized to lead 

to better outcomes.

Outcomes include improvements in socioemotional development and kindergarten readiness for children; 

improvements in social support, protective factors and self-reported health for families; and improved civic 

engagement, educational attainment, employment or job retention, and financial stability (e.g., debt reduction 

or monthly income improvements). Through the opportunities offered by these programs, parents and families 

will improve and maintain economic stability, and children will experience long-term academic success due to 

early education and parental stability. 
24

FIGURE 1. GF2020 logic model
25

GF2020 MODEL DESCRIPTION The GF2020 service delivery model was implemented by UWCI through eight subgrantee organizations. Though 

many social service providers exist in Indianapolis, UWCI noted a lack of comprehensive service provision for 

two-generational poverty reduction. While planning the structure of GF2020, program leaders at UWCI aimed to 

attract community organizations located in and directly serving families living in five neighborhoods that UWCI’s 

internal research team identified as having high poverty, crime, and unemployment rates. Therefore, 

implementing GF2020 in those neighborhoods was an effort to provide services to individuals with the greatest 

need. The process for a family to enroll and participate in GF2020 occurs in multiple phases. Figure 2 provides 

an overview of how those in need are identified, enrolled, and engaged in programming. 

RECRUITMENT 

Eligible families are defined as at least one custodial parent or caregiver and at least one child (ages 0–6), living 

together as part of a family, who need economic support or stabilization services. Like the CWF model on which 

core components of the GF2020 model is based, there are no income requirements to participate because it 

assumes it will attract families in need of one of those services. The family participates in GF2020 by receiving 

family-focused coaching and any referral-related activities.

Families are recruited in three main ways: identifying eligible parents of children (ages 0–6) who are not yet in 

kindergarten but are already enrolled with a high-quality early learning provider; identifying parents who are 

active in the CWF model who have age-eligible children not enrolled in a high-quality provider; and through 

outreach activities, such as community events, flyers, neighborhood partners, and other means of canvassing. 

By the end of the program, 734 families (with at least one parent/caregiver and at least one child) were enrolled 

in GF2020. In all, 789 adults and 1,121 children enrolled in the program.

SET AND PARTICIPATE IN MEETING WITH FAMILY COACH 

Once recruited, parents are connected to a family coach at their respective GF2020 site. Family coaches are 

staff members at subgrantee agencies who serve as a family’s central point of contact for connecting them with 

services in each of the five areas of the 2Gen model. These individuals typically have training or experience 

working directly with vulnerable populations and in a social service setting. They also receive training about the 

2Gen model and related theories. The coaching model, as opposed to case management, promotes participants’ 

personal responsibility for goal setting and emphasizes results through self-efficacy. The coach serves as a 

catalyst and resource for participants in reaching their personalized goals.
26

FIGURE 2. Flow chart of GF2020 service delivery
27

The family coaching process ensures that the participating parent(s)/caregiver(s) and their child(ren) receive 

needed and desired services. The process involves developing a relationship with a family coach to (1) set and 

maintain goals in each of the five areas of the 2Gen model using a tool called the Family Success Plan (FSP), 

and (2) connect families to services that are provided by participating subgrantee agencies and/or community 

partners. The FSP is structured to facilitate conversation between participants and family coaches by discussing 

participants’ personal and family challenges and strengths while guiding them through a goal-setting process. In 

addition to facilitating family coaching, several questions on the FSP are intended to track measurable shortterm participant outcomes.

INITIAL GOAL SETTING 

Participants consider goals in areas that span the five core components of the 2Gen model, as discussed above. 

More specifically, goals may fall into the categories of employment and education; parenting skills, including 

engagement in child’s learning; social capital (relationships with others and neighborhood perceptions); financial 

stability; and health (physical, emotional, and mental). The FSP is a tool to facilitate case management and goal 

setting for parent participants. Coaches use the goals section of the FSP to document action steps for both the 

coach and family, along with target dates by which to reach those goals. Both families and coaches maintain 

hard copies of the goals for future reference. 

INITIAL REFERRALS 

After setting goals, coaches identify which referral partners may be best for participants to consider helping them 

achieve their goals in the five areas of GF2020. Some referrals may not be to formal partners (i.e. organizations 

with which subgrantees have a contractual relationship), but to activities or events that address one of the goals. 

These referrals are intended to be “warm” and prepare families for visits to new service providers. In other words, 

coaches aim to not simply give families an organization to contact, but to ensure they feel comfortable doing so 

and to follow up with them to confirm they followed through with the referral. Additionally, subgrantees are 

expected to collaborate with other partner organizations to provide streamlined services for referrals to 

participating families. 

Referral partners include providers in (primarily mental) health providers with community-based family services. 

CWF staff serve as referral partners for income support as well as financial and/or employment coaching. 

Families also are encouraged to attend events hosted by the organization and attended by community residents 

and/or other GF2020 participants. To ensure the family receives integrated services with reduced duplication of 

effort, the family coach will use the FSP and related goals to guide case conferences with providers who work 

with each participating family. Each of these activities is evidence-based. Table 1 shows the types of services 

and activities to which coaches refer participants, as well as the outcomes they aim to improve.
28

TABLE 1. GF2020 model: key activities & intended outcomes

KEY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION OUTCOMES

Early childhood 

education (ECE)

Enrollment and participation in high-quality child 

care, defined as a provider at Level 3 or 4 on 

Indiana’s Paths to Quality Rating system

• ECE enrollment

• School attendance 

• Kindergarten readiness

Economic assets

Financial coach connecting participants with public 

benefits; financial coaching and education, which 

emphasizes the importance of debt reduction, 

maintenance, and development of good credit, 

reducing expenses, and building assets

• Net income (adults)

• Monthly income 

(adults)

Postsecondary 

pathways/ 

employment 

coaching

Employment coach helps with employment 

assistance, including basic job readiness training, 

job placement, and skill development

• Educational attainment 

(adults)

• Employment (adults)

• Job retention (adults)

Social capital

These events emphasize parenting skills and other 

protective factors, and family nights discuss 

neighborhood and community issues, in addition to 

family-oriented discussions and activities.

• Civic engagement 

(parents)

• Social networks and 

support (families)

Health and 

well-being

Mental and/or physical health counseling and 

treatment; insurance enrollments for parent or child

• Mental and physical 

health (families)

• Protective factors 

(families)

ONGOING & REPEATED GOAL SETTING & REFERRALS 

Participating families build relationships with their family coach by following through with referral activities, 

attaining goals, and meeting with their coaches to refine existing or set new goals, as well as to identify new or 

modified referrals. In this way, the participation in the model does not have a set end goal but allows participants 

to continue engaging with their coach for services that benefit their entire family. Ultimately, participating families 

should receive better access to desired services with fewer barriers to accessing supports than non-participants. 

Family needs can be better met by service providers due to families’ personal relationships with and continued 

follow-up with coaches. 
29

ADMINISTRATIVE & ORGANIZATIONAL 

STRUCTURE 

Through an application and review process, UWCI allocated SIF funds to eight subgrantees located across five 

Indianapolis neighborhoods. Because multiple subgrantees collaborate formally to implement GF2020, the 

subgrantees and their corresponding neighborhoods are commonly referred to by their neighborhood location 

(Table 2). This report refers to neighborhood clusters of subgrantees as subgrantees for ease of discussion.

TABLE 2. Participating subgrantee organizations 

NEIGHBORHOOD/SITE SUBGRANTEES 

Far Eastside Community Alliance of the Far Eastside (CAFÉ)

Near Eastside

John Boner Neighborhood Center

East 10th United Methodist Church Children and Youth Center 

Englewood Christian Church

Near Westside

Hawthorne Community Center

Marion County Commission on Youth (MCCOY)

Northeast Edna Martin Christian Center

Northwest Martin Luther King Community Center

Subgrantees had to house or partner with an existing CWF model or demonstrate the capacity to receive an 

assessment and training from UWCI to incorporate such a model into its service provision. As such, all but one 

of the subgrantees have a formal CWF center serving the adult population involved in GF2020. All subgrantees 

provide core and supplemental services to participants through their own organizations and/or partner agencies. 

Five organizations primarily manage the CWF or employment coaching/financial stability elements of the 

GF2020 model. Two primarily manage child care, and a third focuses on social capital and health and well-being 

activities.

In May 2019, UWCI contracted with Families First to provide mental health counseling, education, crisis 

intervention, and other support services for GF2020 families. Through this partnership, families received a 

plethora of services. Those included individual, couple, and child therapy; parenting education; family wellness; 

and additional support services to help them address family trauma and other toxic stress-related issues. UWCI 

also contractually partnered with Center of Wellness for Urban Women (CWUW) and Arts for Learning to create 

greater access to social capital-related activities for families.
30

Importantly, due to its existing management of the local CWF network, UWCI housed the Efforts to Outcomes 

(ETO) database used by subgrantee organizations. As such, the GF2020 team was rounded out by UWCI’s 

internal research team, which created data collection forms, provided database oversight, management, 

technical support, troubleshooting, training for the ETO system, and data report development. Staff working with 

the ETO system followed up with subgrantees about issues in data entry and quality. The evaluation team 

provided ongoing descriptive data reports to UWCI and sites summarizing site-specific GF2020 participant 

enrollment, participation, and demographic trends as well as data quality issues. UWCI also delivered ongoing 

programmatic insights disseminated through email, newsletters, trainings, and webinars. A key component of 

this programmatic support was monthly Peer Learning sessions, where subgrantee staff regularly met with UWCI 

staff and evaluation team members to learn about and discuss common issues or helpful topics, such as 

recruitment, site capacity building, partnership development, data management, grant writing, and operations 

during COVID-19.
31

CURRENT STUDY To develop moderate evidence for GF2020, the evaluation team initially proposed a quasi-experimental, 

matched-group design to assess family program impact by the year 2020. This proposed design was discussed 

in the original SEP, but findings suggested that this research design was not feasible for the program. As such, 

the primary change to the SEP included moving the current study to achieve preliminary evidence—yielding 

promising programmatic results—with a future plan to reach moderate evidence that yields causal conclusions. 

This evaluation is an ongoing implementation study that (1) examines the implementation of the GF2020 service 

delivery process and model, and (2) an outcomes study that assesses the extent to which the GF2020 model is 

associated with improvements in outcomes of the GF2020 model to achieve a moderate level of evidence. As 

such, the current research questions do not aim to identify the model’s impact. Instead, we focus on processes, 

immediate outputs and short-term outcomes during the first six months to two years of enrolling families. The 

following questions are those updated in the SEP to reflect the modified study:

IMPLEMENTATION STUDY QUESTIONS • To what extent is GF2020 being implemented with fidelity? 

• According to GF2020 staff perceptions, has collaboration between sites and partner/contracted service 

providers and agencies improved? 

• In what ways has programming differed by site? 

• How have initial implementation plans changed after program initiation? 

• To what extent do participants perceive opportunities and short-term and long-term benefits of the 

following programmatic component 

• What participant characteristics are associated with perceptions of GF2020 programming? 

• To what extent do subgrantee staff perceive short-term and long-term benefits of the programmatic 

components? 

• For programmatic components that are perceived to be most beneficial for participants, what is 

necessary for proper implementation? 

• What is the level of parent/caregiver and child participation at each program site? 

• What factors affect GF2020 recruitment, enrollment, and retention? 

• What barriers exist for consistent data collection and entry? 

• What lessons/takeaways have grantees and subgrantees learned about 2Gen programming generally? 

• What perspectives can GF2020 provide for UWCI’S ongoing local programming? 

OUTCOMES STUDY QUESTIONS • What proportion of GF2020 children are performing at age-appropriate functioning? 

• To what extent do GF2020 participants differ from CWF participants on short-term outcomes? 

• To what extent do GF2020 participant outcomes change from baseline to follow-up? 

• Which GF2020 program components are associated with parent outcomes? 

• To what extent do participant outcomes vary by site? 

• Which GF2020 parent characteristics or program components are associated with child outcomes?
32

PART 2: STUDY DESIGN & 

METHODS 
33

IMPLEMENTATION STUDY 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

The implementation evaluation was guided by several research questions to identify barriers and facilitators to 

implementation. This process also entailed an assessment of fidelity to the proposed GF2020 service delivery 

model. These questions were categorized into three main areas: (1) fidelity to the GF2020 model, (2) 

programmatic dimensions, and (3) barriers to program implementation. Table 3 describes these research 

questions and the methodologies used to answer them. 

TABLE 3. Implementation study research questions

RESEARCH QUESTIONS SOURCE & METHOD 

Fidelity to GF2020 model

To what extent is GF2020 being implemented with fidelity? Participant data analysis and 

interviews and focus groups 

According to GF2020 staff perceptions, has collaboration between 

sites and partner/contracted service providers and agencies 

improved?

Subgrantee interviews and 

focus groups, subgrantee staff 

survey 

Programmatic dimensions

In what ways has programming differed by site? Interviews and focus groups 

To what extent do participants perceive opportunities and short-term 

and long-term benefits of the following programmatic component

Participant interviews, 

participant survey

What participant characteristics are associated with perceptions of 

GF2020 programming?

Participant interviews, 

participant survey

To what extent do subgrantee staff perceive short-term and long-term 

benefits of the programmatic components?

Interviews and focus groups, 

subgrantee survey

For programmatic components that are perceived to be most 

beneficial for participants, what is necessary for proper 

implementation?

Interviews and focus groups 

What is the level of parent/caregiver and child participation at each 

program site?

Participant data analysis via ETO 

data

Opportunities for implementation

What factors affect GF2020 recruitment, enrollment, and retention? Interviews and focus groups 

How have initial implementation plans changed after program 

initiation? Interviews and focus groups 

What barriers exist for consistent data collection and entry? Interviews and focus groups 

What lessons/takeaways have grantees and subgrantees learned 

about 2Gen programming generally? Interviews and focus groups 

What perspectives can GF2020 provide for UWCI’S ongoing local 

programming?

Interviews and focus groups, 

subgrantee survey 
34

METHODOLOGY 

The following section describes the methods employed to answer the above research questions. Table 4 provides 

an overview of the methodologies, participants involved, and the purpose of each method.

TABLE 4. Data collection methods 

METHOD PARTICIPANTS PURPOSE 

Document review Subgrantee applications, work 

plans

To gather additional information regarding 

program sustainability and organizational 

response to COVID-19, etc.

Focus groups 

GF2020 staff (combination of site 

directors, family coaches, and 

other staff unique to GF2020 

subgrantees) (n=17) 

To understand barriers and facilitators to 

program implementation, including 

recruitment, enrollment, retention, data 

entry, and partnerships 

Focus group ECE Providers affiliated with three 

subgrantee sites (n=9)

To assess barriers and facilitators associated 

with implementing ECE-related activities and 

understand benefits and challenges with 

partnerships

Focus group Families First (n=5) To gauge barriers and facilitators with 

coordinating mental health services 

Key informant 

interviews

UWCI GF2020 program officers, 

UWCI ETO staff, UWCI GF2020 

director (n = 5)

To understand barriers and facilitators to 

managing program implementation 

Pre/post subgrantee 

surveys

GF2020 staff (site directors, family 

coaches, and other staff unique to 

GF2020 subgrantees)

To assess participant interaction, adherence 

to best practices, communication with 

grantee, preparedness for implementation, 

perceived impact on families, working 

relationships with program partners

Participant 

interviews

Interviews with GF2020 

participants from each subgrantee 

site (n=34)

To gauge participant perspectives about 

GF2020, including barriers and facilitators to 

participation for themselves and similar 

families

Participant data 

analysis (collected 

through ETO)

All GF2020 enrollees (n=734 

families, n=789 adults, n=1,121 

children)

To discern overall participant recruitment 

numbers and demographics, frequency and 

type of coaching sessions (dosage), child 

ECE attendance, and social capital event 

attendance 

Administrative data 

analysis GF2020 staff To assess peer learning attendance 

Participant 

Satisfaction Survey 

GF2020 adult participants from 

each GF2020 subgrantee site 

(n=44)

To gauge participants' level of satisfaction 

with, use of, and benefits of services at their 

respective GF2020 sites 

DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES 

Focus groups 

Subgrantees 

Focus groups with subgrantee staff members took place between February and June 2020 (n=17). Participants 

varied by site, but typically included a GF2020 director or key leader at each site and at least one family coach. 

Each focus group lasted approximately 75 minutes. 
35

Using a semi-structured protocol, researchers asked staff to identify barriers and facilitators to program 

implementation associated with key components of the GF2020 service delivery model, including recruitment, 

enrollment, retention, partnerships, and data management. Some of the questions also gauged fidelity to the 

overall GF2020 model and aimed to understand how initial implementation of the model changed throughout 

the course of the GF2020 grant period. Additionally, the evaluation team assessed subgrantee perceptions of 

different programmatic components, including CWF and coaching, ECE, social capital, and referrals. Other 

pertinent topics included the impact of COVID-19 on GF2020 programming and plans for sustainability. The 

research team used thematic coding techniques to analyze the interview data with QSR International’s NVivo 12 

Software (NVivo). Interviews and focus group responses were transcribed, and key themes were identified after 

each set of inquiry was completed. 

ECE Providers 

Focus groups with nine ECE Providers took place between April 2020 and June 2020 via Zoom. ECE participation 

varied by subgrantee site. Specifically, ECE partners connected to three subgrantee organizations were involved 

in the study. Subgrantees were asked to recruit ECEs for participation in the evaluation. Each focus group lasted 

approximately one hour, and generally included the director and staff working primarily with the GF2020 

program. Using a semi-structured protocol, the evaluation team asked questions pertaining to barriers and 

facilitators with implementing ECE services, perceptions of the benefits of ECE, the 2Gen model, and 

collaboration with subgrantees. Questions pertaining to the impact of COVID-19 on ECE services was also 

addressed. 

Families First 

An additional focus group was conducted with five key GF2020 staff members at Families First in April 2020 via 

Zoom. The focus group lasted about 90 minutes. The research team asked specific questions pertaining to the 

effective implementation of mental health services. Staff discussed the current and longer-term impact of access 

to mental health services for GF2020 participants as well as opportunities for increasing family usage of these 

services. 

Both ECE and Families First focus groups were transcribed verbatim, coded, and thematically analyzed in NVivo 

12. Themes were synthesized to gauge overall alignment with the main research questions. 

Participant interviews 

Participant interviews (n=34) took place between March and June 2020 using online conferencing platforms 

and phone calls. Each interview lasted approximately 30–40 minutes. GF2020 adults, both currently active and 

previously enrolled, participated. Due to COVID-19 limitations, participants were recruited through convenience 

sampling. Guided by specific instructions from the evaluation team, coaches were asked to contact participants, 

inform them of the interview, and gauge interest in participating. If a participant was interested, the coach shared 

his/her name, phone number, and email address with the evaluation team. Interested participants were 

contacted by a member of the evaluation team, who provided additional information about the study, confirmed 

their willingness to participate, and scheduled a time to conduct the interview. Participants who completed an 

interview were mailed a $10 gift card. 
36

Using a semi-structured questionnaire, the research team asked participants questions related to their overall 

experience in GF2020. Specifically, questions addressed the effectiveness of the family coaching model, 

perceptions of benefits of key programmatic components, including, CWF, ECE, social capital, and health and 

well-being services. Other topics included the impact of COVID-19 on their family situations. These interviews 

were also coded and thematically analyzed using NVivo 12. 

Surveys 

Participant satisfaction survey 

This survey was administered online via Qualtrics between May and June 2020 to understand participant 

perspectives on GF2020, particularly, the extent to which they benefitted from core GF2020 services and overall 

satisfaction. Once again, the coaches recruited participants and sent out emails with the link to the survey. 

Participants were mailed a $10 gift card upon survey completion. 

The survey consisted of 15 to 21 Likert scale questions to assess participant satisfaction with GF2020 services 

and agreement with specific statements pertaining to benefits of key programmatic components. Each survey 

took approximately 15–20 minutes. A total of 67 responses were recorded. Of these, only 44 were included in 

the analysis due to incompletion and/or large amounts of missing data. 

The participant survey was analyzed descriptively to understand trends among participants. It was further 

analyzed using statistical correlations to understand relationships between participant perceptions of GF2020 

and key demographic characteristics. 

Subgrantee staff survey 

To capture the opinions, attitudes, and program practices of GF2020 subgrantee organizations, the evaluation 

team administered an online survey via Qualtrics. The subgrantee staff survey had several data collection 

periods. The first occurred in September of 2018 (n=15), followed by another in September of 2019 (n=12), 

followed by a final data collection period in May of 2020 (n=26). The survey used in September 2019 and May 

2020 was a slightly modified version of the survey conducted in September 2018. 

The survey asked about key aspects of the program implementation, including the effectiveness of services, the 

extent of partner collaboration, the subgrantee relationship with UWCI, and relationships with participants, 

particularly regarding warm referrals practices. The survey consisted of 22 to 23 questions. Nine incomplete 

surveys were excluded from analysis. The subgrantee survey was analyzed descriptively to note trends among 

GF2020 subgrantee staff. 

The evaluation team modified two existing, validated instruments for the purposes of the subgrantee survey. The 

team utilized questions from the Organizational Change Questionnaire (OCQ–C, P, R),15 and modified them to 

integrate GF2020 terms. The team also utilized the Levels of Organizational Integration Rubric (LOIR) to measure 

the levels of collaboration between subgrantees and partner organizations, which utilizes a numerical scale from 

zero (no or unstructured collaboration) to four (extensive and integrated collaboration).

15 Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational change questionnaire–climate of change, 

processes, and readiness: Development of a new instrument. The Journal of psychology, 143(6), 559-599.
37

Document reviews 

Subgrantee response to COVID-19 

The evaluation team reviewed documentation that described subgrantee efforts in response to the COVID-19 

pandemic. Details included challenges and successes with adapting GF2020 programming during COVID-19, 

the types of programmatic and technical assistance provided by UWCI, and additional structures such as new 

partnerships and organizational policy changes in response to the pandemic.

Sustainability plans 

The evaluation team reviewed subgrantee sustainability plans to better understand current and future efforts 

for sustaining 2Gen work, family and staff retention, and partnerships beyond GF2020. 

Participant and administrative data 

ETO participant records

Family and CWF coaches collected data from families through regular meetings with parents/caregivers at intake 

and at least every six months thereafter and entered the data into ETO. UWCI shared de-identified participant 

intake and outcome data with the evaluation team throughout the program using ETO-based summary reports.

Key data points include overall enrollment in CWF services, referrals to additional services, goal-setting, and 

baseline demographic trends. The evaluation team conducted descriptive analyses to understand overall 

participant recruitment numbers, participant characteristics, frequency and type of participant interactions with 

GF2020 coaches (dosage), referrals to additional community resources, child care attendance, and participant 

attendance at social capital events. These are summarized in the implementation findings section of this report 

(Part 3).

This study reflects data from all enrolled families from October 9, 2017, through June 30, 2020, including 

records for 734 families with at least one adult and at least one child. These 734 families include 789 adults 

and 1,121 children and are considered the enrolled family population for this analysis (See Appendix A for a 

more detailed summary of GF2020 participants).

Participant attendance 

Attendance was measured through presence at program activities and coaching appointments. Subgrantee staff 

kept records of participant participation via sign-in sheets, as well as whether incentives were provided or 

publicized at that event. 

Service delivery 

Family coaches recorded services provided and referrals given to participants as well successful participant 

contacts. Referral tracking included identifying in ETO whether a referral was made and to what type of 

organization. Successful participant contact, or interaction, is defined as the family coach reaching a participant 

through a call, e-mail, text message or other means. Additionally, CWF financial or employment services are 

logged in ETO. 
38

OUTCOMES STUDY DESIGN This section highlights the data and statistical analyses used to answer the research questions (Table 5) for the 

outcomes study of this evaluation. 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

TABLE 5. Outcome study research questions

RESEARCH QUESTIONS METHOD 

What proportion of GF2020 children are performing at age-appropriate 

functioning? N/A

To what extent do GF2020 participants differ from CWF participants on shortterm outcomes? Wilcoxon rank sum tests

To what extent do GF2020 participant outcomes change from baseline to 

follow-up?

Wilcoxon signed rank 

tests 

Which GF2020 program components are associated with parent outcomes? General linear model

To what extent do participant outcomes vary by site? Multi-level mixed effects 

model

Which GF2020 parent characteristics or program components are associated 

with child outcomes? N/A

SAMPLE RECRUITMENT 

The study comprises a convenience sample of families who met the GF2020 enrollment criteria. As discussed 

earlier, UWCI used three recruitment strategies for families: ECE centers, existing CWF program participants, and 

formal outreach through community events. Adults whose children were enrolled in a partner ECE facility were 

identified and asked whether they would also like to receive financial stability and other services offered by 

GF2020. Adults being recruited through CWF sites were already receiving core CWF services, but lacked 

participation opportunities for the other GF2020 components, namely high-quality childcare for their children, 

mental health supports, and social capital/community building activities. Participants were asked by CWF staff 

whether they would like to participate in GF2020 to receive additional supports. Participants were retained 

through ongoing coaching and contact through various engagement methods (e.g. phone calls, texting).
39

MEASURES AND UNIT OF ANALYSIS 

The unit of analysis used to assess parent outcomes in this report is adult participants, of whom there were 789 

from the 734 one-adult, one-child families enrolled in GF2020. Adult participants, rather than families, are the 

unit of analysis for the outcome analysis because key outcome variables, including monthly income and Family 

Success Plan16 survey responses, are measured on the adult participant level, not the family level. To prepare 

the ETO data for statistical analysis, key continuous variables with outliers greater than three standard deviations 

from the mean were excluded from the dataset, resulting in a remaining 675 adult participants, who were 

included in the statistical analyses described in this section of the report. 17 However, the number of adult 

participants included in any given statistical comparison or model may be fewer than 675 based on the amount 

of missing data for the variables included therein. Table 6 highlights the measures and data sources for each 

variable in the outcome evaluation, with detailed evidence and descriptions of those measures located in 

Appendix B.

16 See Appendix A of Feasibility Report for full version of FSP: 

https://nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/UWCI_Feasibility_Report_GF2020_Apr.25.2019_FINAL

%20_508.pdf

17 The participants who remained in the dataset differed from those who were removed from the dataset for select 

independent variables utilized in the multivariate analysis portion of this report. They differed on the following variables or 

categories: Program site 2, program site 3, female, African-American/Black, White/Caucasian, monthly income at intake, 

employed full-time at program intake, employed part-time at program intake, completed some college, completed a college 

degree or greater, living in an owned home, living in an unsubsidized rental home, living in some other situation, and 

number of social capital events attended. The participants who remained and who were removed were compared using 

Wilcoxon sum rank texts. 
40

TABLE 6. Overview of GF2020 outcomes data

OUTCOMES DATA MEASURE

INSTRUMENT 

USED

SOURCE

ADMINISTERED 

BY

INTENDED 

RESPONDENTS

VALIDATED?

ASSESSED 

IN CURRENT 

STUDY

Early childhood 

education (ECE)

Kindergarten 

readiness

Indiana 

Standards 

Tool for 

Alternate 

Reporting – 

Kindergarten 

Readiness 

(ISTAR-KR)

Indiana 

Department of 

Education

ECE provider Children Yes No

Postsecondary 

education/ 

employment 

coaching 

Educational 

credential 

Employment 

Job retention 

CWF client 

enrollment 

form

Centers for 

Working 

Families 

administrative 

data 

GF2020 

family coach 

Adults

No (nonsurvey 

data) 

Only 

descriptiv

e trends

Economic assets 

Monthly 

income 

CWF 

Combined 

Financial 

Assessment 

(CFA)

Centers for 

Working 

Families 

administrative 

data 

GF2020 

family coach 

Adults

No (nonsurvey 

data) 

Yes, 

baseline 

and 

follow-up 

measures

Health and wellbeing

Perceived 

mental health 

Perceived 

physical health 

Protective 

factors 

(nurturing and 

attachment, 

child 

development, 

family 

functioning and 

resiliency, 

social supports, 

concrete 

supports)

Health 

Related 

Quality of 

Life 

(HRQOL); 

Protective 

Factors 

Survey 

GF2020 Family 

Success Plan 

(FSP)

GF2020 

family coach

Adults Yes

Yes, 

baseline 

and 

follow-up 

measures

Social capital 

Civic 

engagement 

Social networks

Social 

Capital 

Community 

Benchmark 

Survey 

GF2020 Family 

Success Plan 

(FSP) 

GF2020 

family coach 

Adults No 

Yes, 

baseline 

and 

follow-up 

measures
41

RETENTION AND TREATMENT OF MISSING DATA 

The outcome analyses specifically examine the outcomes of those who completed two or more Center for 

Working Families (CWF) Complete Financial Assessments (CFAs) to measure income outcomes, and those who 

completed two-or-more Family Success Plan (FSP) surveys to measure outcomes related to Protective Factors, 

health and well-being, and social capital. For each indicator from each of these two data sources, a baseline 

measurement was compared to a follow-up measure(s) to assess change over time. When program data needed 

for the baseline and follow-up comparison were missing either measurement, those participants were not 

included in the analyses. 

Like similar programs, retention rates decline throughout the life of the study, as participants drop out of the 

program or are unable to participate as intended. In this study, sites continued to enroll participants up to six 

months prior to the end of the study, which affected the potential for comparing multiple measurements over 

time for those participants. While GF2020 participants were to receive services from the CWF sites, submission 

of a CFA was required within six months of program enrollment, and every six months thereafter. However, this 

requirement was implemented midway through the program, in December 2018, which may partly explain low 

CFA completion rates. Likewise, there were fewer FSP measurements over time due to program attrition or 

greater than intended lengths of time between measurements. 

Analyses comparing CFA data from baseline to follow-up excluded 478 adults (190 who did not complete a CFA 

and 288 who completed only one). Analyses comparing FSP data from baseline to follow-up excluded 299 

individuals (75 who did not complete an FSP and 224 who completed only one). Despite the missing data 

resulting from a lack of paired baseline and follow-up measures, these variables were included in the analysis, 

but because the majority of outcome data are not normally distributed for the majority of outcome variables, we 

were unable to impute estimates for the missing data.18

Two variables were excluded from the outcome analysis due to missing data. There were only 42 observations, 

with education credentials, and none had follow-up measurements. There were only 87 cases with before and 

after measures related to job retention. However, because some of these outcomes (e.g., number of days at 

current job) change based on employment history, it is not possible to determine if a participant is at the same 

or a different job. 

ANALYTIC APPROACH 

We analyzed adult participant-level data collected at different points in the program to test for changes between 

baseline enrollment and a follow-up period after initial enrollment, and to understand programmatic elements 

that contribute to these changes. We accomplished this through application of difference-of-means tests, 

multivariate analyses, and descriptive analyses. The findings are described in Part 3 of this report. 

18 Sterne, J., White, I., Carlin, J., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M., Wood, A., and Carpenter, J. (2009). Multiple 

imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research. BMJ 338: b2393.
42

To assess pre- and post-test differences between baseline and six-month follow-up assessments, Wilcoxon sign 

rank tests were computed in SPSS Statistical Software. Changes from these paired sample tests were identified 

as significant if p<.05. The effect sizes of the changes were calculated using Cohen’s d statistic, where “no 

effect”=0-0.2, “small”=0.2-0.5, “medium”=0.5-0.8, and “large” > 0.8.19 The larger the effect size, the stronger 

the relationship between the paired variables.

The evaluation team also conducted multivariate analyses to determine which program components influenced 

program outcomes. Because the outcome variables discussed in this report do not exhibit a linear relationship 

between the predictor and control variables, a general linear model (GLM) was used, which relaxes the ordinary 

least squares (OLS) regression model assumption of linearity.]20,21 Effect sizes were computed as partial etasquare values. Additionally, modeling with mixed effects was conducted to account for site-level differences in 

implementation. These analyses were conducted using SPSS and Stata Statistical Software.

Because some participants completed more FSP surveys than others, the change in FSP indicators was 

calculated as the difference in score between the baseline survey and the last survey completed. This allowed 

the team to include outcome variable changes without losing data over time. To account for differing lengths of 

time between when the baseline and last surveys were completed, the team included the number of days 

between these two measurements in each multivariate analysis, although it was not statistically significant in 

any of these. Similarly, a change in the outcome variable for participant income was computed with data for 

more than one CFA monthly income measurement. The team subtracted the difference in income between the 

baseline and last CFA completed. The number of days between these two measurements was also included in 

the multivariate analysis with monthly income as the outcome variable—but this value also was not statistically 

significant.

The independent variables considered for inclusion in the multivariate models consisted of the following: 

• Predictor variables related to GF2020 programming: 

o Average length of coaching sessions (continuous) 

o Presence of at least one goal, both set and completed (dichotomous) 

o Presence of at least one referral, both given and attended (dichotomous) 

o Number of CWF services accessed (continuous) 

o ECE attendance of at least one child in family (dichotomous) 

o Number of social capital events attended (continuous) 

o Nested models

 Site-level averages of perceived quality of collaboration

 Percentage of referrals related to housing, health, or community

19 LeCroy, C. W. and Krysik, J. Understanding and Interpreting Effect Size Measures. Social Work Research, 31(4), 243-248. 

20 Field, A. 2018. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

21 Variables that were not significant were removed from the model one by one, until only significant variables remained, as 

the goal of this analysis is to identify significance, not make predictions. Next, Cook’s Distances were calculated for the 

remaining independent variables, and influential values were removed from the data in each model prior to reporting the 

results. 
43

• Control variables 

o Personal characteristics, including employment status, educational attainment, and living 

arrangement 

o Number of days between baseline and last CFA or FSP submission 

o Site at which GF2020 was accessed 

The adult participants included in the statistical analysis (n=675) had a median age of 29, and the majority 

(90%) were female. Nearly two-thirds (62%) were African American or Black, and 18% were white or Caucasian 

race. Twenty-two percent were of Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. One-third (36%) were employed full time, 19% were 

employed part time, and 30% were unemployed and seeking employment. One-quarter of adults (23%) reported 

not having a high school diploma, while 29% reported their highest level of education as a high school diploma 

or equivalency. At program enrollment, nearly three-quarters of participants rented their homes. Of these, 30% 

had a rental subsidy. Adult participants reported a median annual household income of $10,100 at program 

enrollment, although one-quarter of participants reported having no annual income.

Of the 675 adults included in the quantitative analysis, 87% had a child who attended at least one day of early 

childhood education (ECE). These participants had a median of five interactions with a GF2020 coach, each 

lasting a median length of 30 minutes. Two-thirds set at least one goal, and more than one-third of those also 

completed at least one of their goals. More than 40% of participants enrolled in the program received at least 

one referral. More than 40% of those who received a referral attended at least one referral. Half of adult 

participants attended a median of two social capital events. Finally, participants bundled a median of two CWF 

services. A summary of characteristics of adult participants included in the statistical analysis of this report is 

available in Appendix C.

Finally, to investigate the prospects for multivariate analysis to compare change in monthly income of GF2020 

and CWF-only participants, a variable representing change in income between baseline and last CFA submission 

was constructed as the difference between these two measurements. Using R statistical programming, 

independent (non-paired) Wilcoxon rank sum tests were conducted to compare the GF2020 group to the CWFonly group. A categorical subset of each program group was tested to determine if there was a difference 

between the change in income experienced by GF2020 and CWF-only participants. 
44

Comparison group analysis 

As discussed earlier, the study was unable to incorporate a quasi-experimental design with a formal comparison 

group. Four GF2020 sites offered CWF services in addition to GF2020 services. Those sites provided a direct 

comparison between adults who were potentially eligible to participate in GF2020 but chose not to, and GF2020 

participants who participated in CWF and receiving additional programmatic supports as part of GF2020.

Because both sets of individuals have outcome data in the ETO system, we compared change in monthly income 

between GF2020 participants (who receive CWF services as part of the program, in addition to other supports), 

and a convenience sample of CWF participants who only participated in CWF (CWF-only). The analysis allowed 

us to highlight potential differences between these two groups. The CWF-only group consisted of adults from the 

CWF programs associated with the four GF2020 who participated in CWF programming between October 2017 

and June 2020￼. These individuals had children who were age-eligible for GF2020 but did not enroll in GF2020. 

Because their outcomes and characteristics were accessible through the ETO system, the participants from this 

group were then were included in the analysis based on similar personal characteristics to GF2020 participants. 

These characteristics included race (reconstructed as Black/white/other), ethnicity (Hispanic/Latinx and nonHispanic/Latinx), annual household income at program intake ($0 to $17,000 and $17,000 to $50,000), and 

age at time of family enrollment (younger than 35 and 35 and older). Because a large majority of GF2020 adults 

are female, gender was not used as a parameter when creating the two similar groups for comparison. In total, 

148 GF2020 participants and 589 CWF-only participants were identified and included in the analysis. Due to 

higher rates of missing data for other CFA outcome variables, other planned analyses were not possible.

BARRIERS TO IMPACT STUDY

The evaluation team initially developed a quasi-experimental impact study to assess GF2020 programmatic 

outcomes. Specifically, the evaluation would have utilized a matched comparison group design to compare 

GF2020 programmatic outcomes—referred to as the treatment group—to those participating only in CWF 

(comparison group) across all 11 CWF sites in Indianapolis. It was clear during the feasibility study that obtaining 

long-term outcomes for adults and children would be difficult for a few reasons. First, the significant findings 

from the feasibility study among adults were for short-term outcomes within the FSP, such as protective factors. 

However, the FSP was only provided to those enrolled in GF2020, not CWF. Second, obtaining child outcomes 

would be dependent upon both the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and early learning partners to help 

obtain sufficient numbers of children to produce enough matches to inform kindergarten readiness. The matches 

would need to be sufficient not just for GF2020 enrollees, but for children either within partner ECE providers or 

through other children within the IDOE system who were not enrolled in GF2O2O. 
45

For adults, the SEP was updated to assess short-term outcomes in the CWF comparison group by encouraging 

CWF participants to complete a survey containing key indicators from the FSP provided to GF2020 families. 

Despite buy-in from CWF sites along with encouragement and incentives for CWF sites and participants, very few 

CWF participants completed these surveys during the initial six-month period targeted to obtain sufficient 

numbers of participants for a comparison study (n=27). Using the same completion criteria from the client 

satisfaction survey, some of the responses were also not valid. The number of responses from the sites would 

not have resulted in sufficient participants for a comparison group study. Instead, the team compared changes 

in monthly income—an outcome available for CWF participants receiving financial coaching—for CWF participants 

and GF2020 participants. For child outcomes, the SEP was modified to compare aggregate kindergarten 

readiness scores from IDOE data of similar children to scores among children enrolled in GF2020. As discussed 

later in the report, those matches were also difficult to make through the IDOE system.

Threats to internal validity 

For the current study, attrition is an issue for internal validity because not all participants completed follow-up 

CFAs as noted above. This resulted in fewer numbers of GF2020 participants with follow-up data on income. As 

such, those who participated in such coaching with resulting outcomes may not have been representative of all 

GF2020 participants. This issue is not unique to GF2020 participant data, however; CWF participant data also 

reflect attrition. Selection bias is also a potential validity threat. Based on findings from the feasibility study, the 

GF2020 program required that GF2020 participants receiving CWF services complete a CFA within a certain 

timeframe. Yet, all sites did not consistently meet the criteria for completion. As a result, there may be differences 

between early participants and later participants in motivation to progress or other characteristics, which may 

impact the outcome variables.
46

PART 3: IMPLEMENTATION 

STUDY FINDINGS 

This section highlights factors related to implementing the GF2020 model, focusing on fidelity to the GF2020 model, 

programmatic dimensions, and opportunities for implementation. 
47

FIDELITY TO GF2020 MODEL 

TO WHAT EXTENT IS GF2020 OPERATING WITH FIDELITY? 

Fidelity describes the extent to which GF2020 service delivery adheres to the program model as originally 

intended. A fidelity checklist (see Appendix D) was developed by the evaluation team and UWCI in 2018 based 

on the findings of the Feasibility Report. The purpose of the fidelity checklist is to assess the extent to which 

subgrantees are implementing GF2020 with levels of identified fidelity. As such, fidelity of GF2020 service 

delivery was assessed through model alignment with core 2Gen services and program compliance. Fidelity to 

key 2Gen services includes adherence, exposure, quality of delivery, and participant responsiveness to early 

childhood education (ECE), social capital, health and well-being, postsecondary education, and employment 

services. Program compliance, alternatively, incorporates elements such as data collection, enrollment and 

retention, capacity building, and partnerships. 

Tables 7a and 7b summarize the extent to which the GF2020 service delivery model operated with fidelity. Levels 

of fidelity included calculating the proportion of items on the checklist with which subgrantees complied. High 

fidelity indicates that programmatic features were implemented as planned. Moderate fidelity demonstrates that 

some aspects of programming elements were implemented successfully. Low fidelity suggests that the program 

elements were not implemented according to its original design.
48

TABLE 7a. Fidelity to the GF2020 model, five domains

DESCRIPTION EFFECTIVENESS EVIDENCE 

Education (child)

Child between the ages of 0–6 

is enrolled in a high-quality early 

learning center

High

Among the 1,121 children age 0–6 enrolled in GF2020 from October 

2017–June 2020, 781 or 70% attended at least one day of ECE. ECE 

enrollment varies by site, primarily due to partnerships.

Child care attendance is being 

tracked in ETO Moderate

Children attending at least one day of ECE attended a median length 

of 87 days. Some subgrantees struggled with getting attendance data 

from ECEs, resulting in lack of ECE data or underreporting of 

attendance.

ISTAR-KR tracked in ETO Low

Data was inconsistently accessible due to issues with matching 

identified students. Additionally, IDOE discontinued use of the exam 

on August 31, 2019, which prevented continued use of ISTAR-KR as 

an instrument to assess child outcomes.

Postsecondary education/pathways to employment (enrollment in Center for Working families) 

Combined Financial Assessment 

(CFA) is completed within 90 

days of enrollment and updated 

every six months

Moderate

Of the 789 enrolled adults, 85% completed at least one CFA, with 83% 

of those completing the CFA within 90 days of enrollment. Only 38% 

completed at least two CFAs while enrolled.

Completion of Family Success 

Plan within 60 days of 

enrollment

High

89% of the total 789 adults enrolled in the program completed at 

least one FSP and 58% completed at least two. Of those completing at 

least one, 74% completed their first FSP within 60 days of enrollment. 

Setting and achieving goals 

related to the five core areas Moderate

3,323 goals were set overall, with an average of 6.1 goals set per 

person. 25% of goals set were related to education/work. 19% of 

goals set were achieved, primarily due to the long-term nature of 

several goals (e.g., increasing credit scores).

Additional indicators (survey 

portion of the FSP) are updated 

every six months

Moderate

75% of adults who completed at least two surveys completed the 

second survey within 210 days (the 180-day requirement plus an 

additional 30-day buffer).

Adults meet regularly with coach 

(financial, social capital, etc.) 

and natural caregiver/ 

community connector

High

92% of 789 enrolled adults met with a coach. These adults scheduled 

an average 8.1 meetings, at an average of 27 minutes per meeting. 

50% of coaching interactions were in person, 27% by phone, 15% by 

text messages, and 9% by email or other means.

Social capital 

Site hosts social capital 

activities to strengthen the 

family and tracks attendees in 

ETO

High 

Grantees hosted 166 social capital events.47% of GF 2020 families 

attended social capital events. Of those attending, 36% participated in 

one event, 46% in two to five events, and 18% in five or more events.

Sites communicate events to 

UWCI and evaluation team for 

participation

High 

Sites worked with UWCI and the evaluation team to notify and 

document social capital events.

Health and well-being 

Site is tracking warm referrals in 

ETO. A warm referral is the 

process of meaningfully guiding 

a family to a service provider 

after making a referral. 

High

1,222 warm referrals were given during GF2020. 43% of warm 

referrals given were in the community and family services category;

19% in mental and behavior health services; 15% in housing; 13% in 

food and nutrition; 3% in medical health; 3% in physical activity; and 

3% in health care coverage. Of warm referrals attended, food and 

nutrition referrals had the highest rate of attendance at 43%. 

Site follows up with enrollees to 

ensure they are attending and 

documents referral 

appointments and tracking in 

ETO. Note that tracking 

referrals, specifically follow-ups, 

were intended to help with the 

evaluation design. 

Moderate

27% of referrals given were scheduled, and 29% were attended by 

participants. Lower rates for scheduled referrals are likely due to data 

entry issues. A total of 57 records had data for attended referrals 

without an associated record for a scheduled referral.
49

TABLE 7b. Fidelityto the GF2020 model, program compliance

DESCRIPTION EFFECTIVENESS EVIDENCE 

Enrollment and retention

Continued enrollment and 

recruitment of eligible families 

(children and 

parents/caregivers) that meets 

the sites’ goals

High

734 families composed of at least one adult and at least one child 

was considered enrolled families. Of these families, 88% have 

enrolled children who attended at least one day of ECE, 95% have 

completed at least one FSP, and 44% have adults enrolled in CWF. 

These three program requirements are not met by all enrolled 

families, due either to data entry issues or noncompliance by 

participants: 94 families did not have a record of having a child attend 

at least one day of ECE; 38 families did not have a record of 

completing an FSP; and 408 families did not have an adult enrolled in 

CWF. 

A total of 321 families (44%) met all of these criteria (child attending 

ECE, completion of an FSP, and enrollment in CWF). Families were 

enrolled for an average of 10.1 months. UWCI’s removal of 

neighborhood boundaries helped substantially increased enrollment 

after 2018.

Capacity building 

Attendance and participation at 

monthly subgrantee leadership 

meetings

High Subgrantees reported meeting regularly with program officers and 

other partners monthly.

Attendance at Peer Learning 

sessions. Peer Learning 

sessions started in 2018 and 

were developed to provide 

ongoing training on discussion 

about key topics related to 

implementing GF2020.

High

UWCI hosted a total of 28 Peer Learning sessions. Meetings were 

almost always attended by at least one staff member from each of the 

five neighborhoods. On average, 15 subgrantees attended each of 

these meetings.

The benefits of Peer Learning sessions, as noted by subgrantees are 

explained later in the report.

Attendance at relevant trainings High

UWCI provided substantial support related to data entry and 

management, training on specific 2Gen-related topics (e.g., social 

capital activities), as well as overall service provision (e.g., implicit 

bias training).

Organizational 

growth/expansion as a result of 

GF2020

High

Discussed in greater detail in the report, high proportions of staff 

reported greater knowledge about 2Gen and an expanded ability to 

serve families.

Partnerships 

Ongoing collaboration with 

contracted service providers 

and ECE such that all GF2020 

components are available to 

participants

High

Subgrantees developed partnerships with multiple child care agencies 

instead of one. These partnerships bolstered recruitment. They also 

increased capacity for developing and implementing social capital 

events and providing high-quality child care. A contractual partnership 

with mental health services also increased access to those services 

for sites and families.

Building partnerships with 

supportive services High

As demonstrated by survey findings discussed later in the report, 77% 

of surveyed staff reported they are likely to continue existing 

relationships with partner organizations, broadly defined.
50

ACCORDING TO GF2020 STAFF PERCEPTIONS, HAS COLLABORATION BETWEEN 

SITES AND PARTNER/CONTRACTED SERVICE PROVIDERS AND AGENCIES 

IMPROVED? 

Collaboration between sites and partners improved throughout program implementation, increasing site capacity 

to serve families. Subgrantees identified 77 community partners via the subgrantee survey with which they 

worked to implement GF2020. The survey included a list of partner organizations that were submitted by 

subgrantees to UWCI for approval in 2017. Subgrantees also had the option to identify organizations with which 

they no longer worked and incorporate organizations that reflect new partnerships.

Community partners included organizations with which subgrantees have both formal and informal relationships, 

such as partnerships with ECE providers, mental health agencies, and other community-based organizations with 

programs that span the core 2Gen domains. Subgrantee staff rated their current levels of collaboration with 

partners compared to their perceived (ideal) levels of collaboration with partners on a scale of no collaboration 

(0) to highly integrated (4). 

Figure 3 shows modest increases in current average collaboration from September 2019 to May 2020, from 

1.90 in 2019 to 2.11 in May 2020, indicating shared and frequent communication, defined roles, and shared 

decision-making. Additionally, 77% of subgrantees agreed that the partnerships developed as a result of GF2020 

will extend beyond the grant period, suggesting longer-term partnerships. 

FIGURE 3. Subgrantee perception of ratings of collaboration with partners (2018–2020)

 
51

Subgrantees and their partners reported substantive benefits obtained through their GF2020 collaborations, 

including (1) increased understanding/knowledge of partner organization services and programs, (2) enhanced 

sharing of resources and information, (3) increased capacity to serve families, and (4) stronger partnerships. 

Subgrantees perceived that partnerships through GF2020 improved their agencies’ capacity to support families. 

Eighty-five percent of subgrantee staff agreed that they are more equipped to support families now compared to 

during the implementation period of GF2020 in September 2018 (Figure 4). Subgrantees explained that GF2020 

partnerships increased their organizations’ financial, human, and knowledge resources to help meet families’ 

needs.

FIGURE 4. Percentage of subgrantee staff who agree the partnerships developed as a 

result of GF2020 have improved their organization's ability to serve families (2018–

2020)
52

PROGRAMMATIC DIMENSIONS 

WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF PARENT/CAREGIVER AND CHILD PARTICIPATION AT 

EACH SITE? 

Participation in programming that comprises the GF2020 model varied widely across the five sites, depending 

on the programmatic dimension and the site. As shown in Table 8, participation in social capital events varied 

the most, ranging from 15% at Site 1 to 85% at Site 2. Coaching had the highest participation rate for every site, 

ranging from 75% to 92%, with an overall participation rate of 86%, 

TABLE 8. Rate of participation in key components of GF2020, by site

SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4 SITE 5 ALL SITES

Coaching 

(n=789)

87% 75% 92% 83% 91% 86%

CWF services 

(n=789)

81% 42% 94% 83% 83% 77%

Social 

capital 

events 

(n=789)

15% 85% 67% 41% 49% 53%

ECE 

(n=1,121)

73% 62% 77% 68% 67% 70%

ECE Average 

days in 

attendance 

90 152 100 91 162 116

GF2020 early childhood education 

Across all sites, 70% of the 1,121 children enrolled in GF2020 attended at least one day of ECE, and of these, 

one out of five attended a total of twenty or fewer days. Among the five sites, Site 3 had the greatest percentage 

of enrolled children who attended ECE, at 77%, while Site 2 had the lowest, at 62% (Table 8). Additionally, 

children who attended ECE attended an average of 116 days, regardless of site. Children at Site 5 attended the 

most days of ECE on average (162). Children at Sites 1 and 4 attended the fewest number of days on average 

(90 and 91, respectively).

GF2020 coaching 

Among the 789 adults enrolled in GF2020, a total of 679 (86.1%) engaged in coaching services across the five 

sites (Table 8). Among those adults who received coaching, the average number of interactions across all five 

sites was 8.6 interactions (Table 9). Sites 3 and 4 had the greatest average, at 12.4 and 11.6 interactions, 

respectively. Site 1 had the least, at an average of 5.4 interactions. Coaches reported that these differences are 

due to the needs of the family, where some may need or want to develop more goals, which range from short- to 

long-term in nature. 
53

TABLE 9. Coaching interactions and goal setting per participant, by site

SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4 SITE 5 ALL SITES 

Mean number of 

coaching 

interactions

5.4 5.8 12.4 11.6 6.2 8.6

Mean length of 

coaching 

interactions 

34 27 25 22 37 27

Mean number of 

goals set

6.1 5.7 6.7 3.9 7.4 6.1

Mean number of 

goals completed

1.7 1.0 0.8 0.2 1.6 1.1

 

In all, 540 participants set 3,323 goals with a coach’s support across all five sites. For those participants setting 

goals, the mean number of goals set across all sites was 6.1 per person. Site 5 had the highest mean number 

of goals set at 7.4. The mean number of goals completed per person was 1.1 across all sites with Site 1 having 

the highest mean at 1.7 goals completed per person. Goal completion rates should be interpreted with care, as 

it is not possible to differentiate between simple and complex nor short-term and long-term goals in these data. 

Coaches also give program participants warm referrals to a variety of services, based on the needs of their 

families. A total of 1,222 referrals were made across all five sites, with Site 1 having 32% of all referrals made. 

However, Site 5 had the highest attendance rate for those referrals. 

CWF financial and employment services 

A total of 608 GF2020 participants, representing 77% of all participants, received services from CWF. Of those 

receiving services, 96% participated in financial counseling, 71% participated in employment counseling, and 

50% participated in income support services (Table 10). Across all sites, financial counseling was the most 

popular service accessed, with the exception of Site 5, where employment counseling was the most commonly 

used service. Bundling also varied. Four sites had most of their participants bundling services, while one had 

most participants not receiving CWF services. These differences in services may reflect the work of coaches 

ensuring that participants are ready and interested in receiving all three services as part of their goal-setting 

processes.
54

TABLE 10. Participation and bundling of CWF services

SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3 SITE 4 SITE 5 TOTAL 

Participation rate among those receiving CWF services 

Financial 

counseling

93% 97% 97% 98% 93% 96%

Employment 

counseling

69% 34% 69% 81% 100% 71%

Income 

supports

90% 47% 8% 48% 95% 50%

Bundling of services among all enrolled adults 

No services 19% 58% 6% 17% 17% 23%

One service 8% 19% 29% 17% 2% 17%

Two services 23% 10% 59% 30% 6% 30%

Three 

services

51% 13% 5% 37% 75% 30%

Note: percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 

WHAT PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH PERCEPTIONS 

OF GF2020 PROGRAMMING? 

Statistical correlations of survey participants (n=44) showed that few adult characteristics were associated with 

the overall satisfaction with the five areas of GF2020 (see Appendix E). Except for the pair of length of enrollment 

(p < .024, r=.301) and financial coaching in the program. In other words, the adults who participated in GF2020 

for longer periods of time tended to have positive perceptions of financial coaching. None of the other tested 

parameters were significantly correlated with satisfaction with employment coaching, income supports, social 

capital, child care or health and well-being. The strongest correlation was with the site and participant 

perceptions (i.e., where someone received services may influence perceptions of those services), but none of 

these factors were statistically significant. These findings suggest that per previous research on the local CWF 

model, the length of time in the CWF-related activities is associated with positive financial outcomes. In this case, 

those positive perceptions toward the coaching and associated financial programming may help explain those 

positive outcomes. 

FOR PROGRAMMATIC COMPONENTS PERCEIVED TO BE MOST BENEFICIAL FOR 

PARTICIPANTS, WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR PROPER IMPLEMENTATION? 

Findings from the Participant Satisfaction Survey revealed that income supports, financial coaching, and 

employment coaching were the top three services perceived by participants to be most beneficial (Figure 5). 
55

FIGURE 5. GF2020 participant satisfaction of GF2020 services (n=44)

To understand how implementation should support those perceived benefits, the team used the Program 

Implementation Framework22 to assess drivers for successful implementation in alignment with GF2020 

programming. Based on this model, an integrated service delivery model incorporates competency, organization, 

and leadership drivers. 

FIGURE 6. Program implementation framework

22 Bertram, R. M., Blase, K. A., & Fixsen, D. L. (2015). Improving programs and outcomes: Implementation frameworks and 

organization change. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(4), 477-487.
56

As such, UWCI and subgrantee staff, and partners identified that successful implementation of GF2020 was 

driven by several factors, including (1) hiring skilled program staff, (2) building staff capacity through ongoing 

trainings and mentorship, (3) guaranteeing flexibility in program implementation, (4) developing effective crossagency collaborations, (5) providing ongoing technical guidance and support, and (6) applying adaptability in 

periods of transition (Table 11). 

TABLE 11. Competency, leadership, and organization drivers

ELEMENT DESCRIPTION GF2020 

IMPLEMENTATION

DRIVER ANALYSIS

Competency drivers

Staff selection

Organizations seek staff based on 

their experience, model-pertinent 

knowledge, or aptitude for 

engaging the target population.

Program manager, 

coaches, and other 

GF2020 staff 

background and 

experience

Proper implementation of 

GF2020 requires the sites to 

(1) identify staffing positions 

during the planning phase of 

the program, (2) hire skilled 

program staff who are 

knowledgeable about the 

participant population and 

who believes in the 

underlying tenets of the twogenerational approach, and 

(3) build staff capacity to 

meet programmatic needs.

Training

Training should develop knowledge 

of population, context, and the 

rationale of service delivery model.

2Gen model training, 

ETO training, and an 

understanding of the 

service population

Coaching

Best coaching practices include 

developing and adhering to the 

formats, frequency, and focus 

delineated in a coaching plan, as 

well as ensuring that supervisors 

and coaches are well-selected, 

trained, coached, and held 

accountable for enhancing staff 

development.

Continuous support 

from UWCI GF2020 

leadership, GF2020 

subgrantee/grantee 

leadership for staff

Organization drivers 

Facilitative 

administration

Facilitative administration adjusts 

work conditions to accommodate 

and support new functions needed 

to implement the practice model 

effectively and with fidelity.

Staff availability and 

organizational 

adaptability in 

accommodating 

participant needs. 

GF2020 implementation 

requires (1) flexibility and 

adjustability in programmatic 

design for site-specific 

features and communityspecific needs, (2) crossagency collaborations that 

encourage resource and 

information sharing, building 

GF2020 site capacity, and (3) 

integrated data management 

system with ongoing 

technical support and 

training.

System-level 

intervention

System-level intervention requires 

internal and external collaboration 

for optimal outcomes

GF2020 collaborations 

with CWF and other 

local community-based 

organizations 

Decision 

support data 

system

Decision support data systems 

should be established before or 

during the initial implementation. 

The organization can also adjust 

programmatic data as needed.

ETO support and 

guidance

Leadership drivers 

Technical 

leadership

Technical leadership embraces 

greater certainty by program 

design.

UWCI, GF2020 site 

leadership

Proper GF2020 

implementation requires (1) 

adjustments in program 

requirements to remove 

geographical boundaries as 

needed by site, and (2) 

adaptation of innovative 

strategies to continuously 

engage families and the 

serving community amid 

COVID-19.

Adaptive 

leadership

Adaptive leadership is necessary 

when there is less certainty and 

less agreement about problems 

and solutions.

Removal of 

neighborhood 

boundaries, COVID-19

 
57

SUBGRANTEE AND PARTICIPANT PERCEPTIONS OF BENEFITS OF 

PROGRAMMATIC COMPONENTS

This section highlights subgrantee and participant perceptions of the benefits of GF2020 programmatic 

components. The programmatic components discussed are coaching (financial coaching, employment coaching, 

and income supports), social capital, ECE, and referrals. 

The questions discussed in this section are:

• To what extent do subgrantees perceive opportunities and short-term and long-term benefits of 

programmatic components? 

• To what extent do participants perceive short-term and long-term benefits of programmatic 

components?

The evaluation team assessed how subgrantee and participants perceived benefits associated with the GF2020 

service delivery model, including opportunities for improvement. Subgrantees were asked to rate the 

effectiveness of specific GF2020 services, which has levels of effectiveness on a four-point Likert scale, ranging 

from “very effective” to “not currently being implemented.” During initial program implementation in 2017, the 

option of “not currently being implemented” was incorporated as a survey response to gauge service areas or 

activities that were not implemented across all GF2020 sites. Participants were asked to share their overall 

experiences with the different programmatic components, specifically selecting from pre-determined responses 

of ways in which they benefitted from core GF2020 services. Tables for key trends related to these perceptions 

can be found in Appendix E. Table 12 summarizes subgrantee and participant perceptions of key GF2020 

programmatic components.
58

TABLE 12. Summary of programmatic perceptions

GF2020 

PROGRAMMATIC 

COMPONENT 

BENEFITS OF PROGRAMMATIC COMPONENTS 

Subgrantees Participants 

Coaching

Financial 

54% and 36% of subgrantees 

perceived financial coaching as 

very effective and effective, 

respectively. 

Participants agreed that financial coaching 

helped them to follow a budget (91%), make 

payments on time (78%), save money each 

month (87%), increase their knowledge of 

financial management (84%), and manage debt 

(90%) 

Employment

41% and 43% of subgrantees 

described employment coaching 

as very effective and effective, 

respectively.

60% of participants improved their interview 

skills, and over 70% increased their abilities to 

identify and communicate with prospective 

employers. 70% of participants also agreed that 

employment coaching increased their confidence 

in seeking and attaining job opportunities 

Income 

supports

62% of subgrantees agreed that 

income support was very 

effective.

28 out of 44 survey respondents received income 

supports via subgrantee organizations. Of these, 

78% of participants agreed that these services 

met their expectations. 82% of participants were 

satisfied with rent and utility assistance and less 

than 40% were satisfied with transportation 

assistance. 

Social capital 

 

In 2020, 29% of subgrantees 

described social capital events 

as “effective” compared to 21% 

in September 2019 and 17% in 

September 2018.

Subgrantees described 

qualitatively that participation in 

social capital activities are 

associated with increased 

participant knowledge of and 

access community resources 

and improved peer network.

A quote representing these 

findings is specified below in the 

summary text 

57% of participants agreed that they connected 

with other families outside of the GF2020 

program. As a result of participating in GF2020, 

51% of participants agreed they could trust more 

people in their neighborhood. 75% of participants 

agreed that they learned more about 

organizations in the community. 

 

Early Childhood Education (ECE) 

 

All subgrantees perceived childcare services as very effective 

(85%) or moderately effective 

(15%). 

The benefits of ECE included 

family access to high-quality 

child care and increased family 

engagement and support. 

51% of participants agreed that their coaches 

helped them apply for public assistance, such as 

CCDF. With the support of their coaches, 50% of 

participants highlighted that they successfully 

received child-care funding through the State of 

Indiana’s Family and Social Services 

Administration (FSSA) though the exact source 

was not specified. 
59

Referrals 

 

88% of subgrantees believed 

that referrals are more 

successful when they can help 

describe their family’s needs to 

service providers. 81% of 

subgrantees also introduced 

their families to other providers 

in person, compared to by 

phone or email (63%). 

Subgrantees conveyed that the 

referral system allows them to 

connect families to the services 

related to their goals. 

50% of the participants agreed that they were 

able to better take care of their physical health 

since enrolled in the GF2020 program. More than 

50% of surveyed participants said that they 

benefited from mental health counseling 

sessions

Coaching 

The GF2020 service delivery model uses family coaching to direct families to services. The coaching process 

entails developing a relationship with a family coach to set and maintain goals in the 2Gen domains and 

connecting families to services offered in these service areas. 

Income supports, financial, and employment coaching 

In May 2020, 54% of subgrantees perceived financial coaching as “very effective”, 62% agreed that income 

supports were “very effective”, and 41% described employment coaching as “very effective”. Irrespective of the 

type of coaching, subgrantees conveyed that the coaching model centers services on their family’s needs to help 

them become more stable and self-sufficient. Coaches also served as a support system for families: encouraging 

them to meet their goals and often assuming the role of “cheerleader” through demonstrating enthusiasm for 

participants’ accomplishments and provided ongoing support during successes and periods of difficulties.

“The coaching service has been really beneficial . . . because folks can really have another 

sounding board. Maybe they do not get that support for their family, friends, or people 

they know. Sometimes these things are not there, and this is where [coaching] comes in”. 

–Subgrantee staff member 

Subgrantee perceptions of the benefits of coaching were reinforced by GF2020 participants. Participants agreed 

that financial coaching helped them follow a budget (91%), make payments on time (78%), save money each 

month (87%), increase their knowledge of financial management (84%), and manage debt (90%). Additionally, 

60% of participants believed employment coaching improved their interview skills, and more than 70% increased 

their abilities to identify and communicate with prospective employers. Seventy percent of participants also 

agreed that employment coaching increased their confidence in seeking and attaining job opportunities.
60

Twenty-eight out of 44 participant survey respondents received income supports via subgrantee organizations. 

Of these, 78% of participants agreed that these services met their expectations. Eighty-two percent of 

participants were satisfied with rent and utility assistance and less than 40% were satisfied with transportation 

assistance. Not all subgrantees provided income supports. In addition, income support-related services were not 

intended to be provided on an ongoing basis, which might explain the lack of participant satisfaction with these 

services.

Opportunities for improvement 

One of the most common challenges faced by subgrantees is limited resources. Coaches often have multiple 

responsibilities, such as data collection, entry, and management of participant data, and participant outreach. 

The nature of these responsibilities often limits the amount of time dedicated towards coaching families. 

Subgrantees noted that data entry can take up to several days if they were not initially entered into ETO 

appropriately and/or on time. Subgrantees should consider reducing coaching responsibilities, such as 

allocating funds for a data steward to manage data. Although UWCI encouraged subgrantees to hire a designated 

data expert, only one subgrantee had a full-time data person throughout the grant period. UWCI ETO team also 

provided ongoing data support to help subgrantees mitigate data related challenges. Separate from data, each 

subgrantee had a designated UWCI program officer who helped them think through programmatic issues.

Social capital 

In 2020, 29% of subgrantees described social capital events as effective compared to 21% in September 2019 

and 17% in September 2018. Subgrantees highlighted that the benefits of social capital activities included 

increased participant knowledge of and access community resources and an improved peer network. 

Subgrantees noted that that a barrier for GF2020 adults is developing and maintaining meaningful relationships 

in their communities. As a result, subgrantees hosted a variety of community wide events to increase family 

support and engagement, such as Parenting Cafes and Family Nights. Parent Cafes emphasized parenting skills 

and other protective factors, and family nights discussed neighborhood and community issues. One described 

working with ECEs to organize events around specific child age groups to increase interactions between 

parents/caregivers and children of similar age. To encourage participation in these events, subgrantees also 

planned for and provided child care. These efforts helped to facilitate discussions, build camaraderie, and peer 

support among participants. 

“Social capital events] help people feel comfortable with learning and sharing with each 

other. When families feel comfortable with what they know and with what’s given to them, 

they feel more comfortable advocating for themselves and other people. That kind of 

trickles down to the person across from them. Our families have learned to trust to one 

another, and they have developed relations overtime. They have learned to build an 

alliance with other families they met in the program”. –Subgrantee staff member 
61

Subgrantee perceptions of the benefits of social capital programming were corroborated by GF2020 participants. 

Fifty-seven percent of participants agreed that they connected with other families outside of the GF2020 

program. As a result of participating in the program, 51% of participants stated they could trust more people in 

their neighborhood. Likewise, 75% of participants agreed that they learned more about organizations in the 

community, and as a result, they could identify local resources to help their families, if/when needed. Some 

families also volunteered to help with planning events, which increased their interactions with community 

partners who are organizers of some of these events.

Opportunities for improvement 

Subgrantees established a clear definition of social capital, including types of activities, which helped facilitate 

better implementation. In addition, increased coordination between subgrantee and ECEs can improve family 

engagement through reducing the number of scheduled activities. Families interact extensively with ECEs and 

as a result, ECEs may have more opportunities to bolster participation in social capital events. In 2019 and 

2020, UWCI directed substantial efforts at addressing gaps with social capital programming, such as 

establishing formal partnerships with community-based organizations to plan, implement, and offer these 

services. Notable partnerships included the Center for Wellness for Urban Women (CWUW), Kheprw Institute, 

and Arts for Learning. Additionally, a Peer Learning session exclusively devoted to increasing knowledge and 

practices around social capital programming was held. It is possible that these efforts positively influenced 

subgrantee perception of social capital programming from 2018 – 2020. 

Early Childhood Education 

Early Childhood Education provides high-quality child care that also includes family engagement activities. Some 

subgrantees have on-site locations while others partner with child-care partners to provide these services to 

families. All subgrantees perceived child-care services as very effective (85%) or moderately effective (15%). 

Subgrantees conveyed that ECE services provided access to high-quality child care and enhanced family 

engagement and support. Primarily, ECE programming incorporated activities for all family members and brought 

them together with educators, social service providers, and other community stakeholders. Subgrantees noted 

that parents/caregivers gained knowledge and skills to support their child/children's learning, which increased 

confidence in their parenting skills.

“Because mom had resources from Great Families, it helped her champion herself, be 

more confident in herself, and pursue goals. She really focused on how important it was 

for her to get her daughter to do different activities, to take simple tasks and turn them 

into a learning experience. I think a lot of parent engagement activities with child care 

partners helped. Across the board . . . I see parents becoming more confident in 

themselves.” –Subgrantee staff member 
62

Similarly, 51% of participants agreed that their coaches helped them apply for public assistance, such as CCDF. 

With the support of their coaches, 50% of participants highlighted said they successfully received child-care 

funding through the State of Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA), though the exact source 

was not specified. Participants also revealed they felt a sense of relief knowing their children were receiving 

services through a trusted child-care partner. 

“For one, I could take my child to [child-care agency], I don't have to feel bad, like 

something is happening to them or nothing, and I really trust the place. So that's a big 

thing for me. And I can go to work through the day because I hate working nights, but I 

was finding myself having to work more nights when I didn't have child care so my kids 

could keep getting sleep”. –GF2020 participant 

Opportunities for improvement 

Implementing a variety of ECE activities throughout different times of the day can help to better accommodate 

parents/caregivers’ working schedules and family participation. Subgrantees and ECEs balanced identifying the 

most favorable times of the day to organize family engagement activities. They explained that parents/caregivers 

juggled multiple activities, which limited their participation in activities. Starting in 2019, ECEs coordinated more 

activities during pick-up and drop-off to encourage parent engagement in classroom and out-of-class activities.

Referrals 

Families set goals within the five domains of GF2020, after which their coaches connect them to services in the 

community that aligned with their goals. Based on participants’ needs, subgrantees may not have adequate 

resources available on-site. Therefore, external referrals were an integral feature to the GF2020 service delivery 

model. Not all referrals include formal meetings with community partners. Some consist of activities or events 

in the participant’s neighborhood. Based on their individual and family goals, participants are connected to 

health services (physical, mental and behavioral health), community and family, CWF services, and others. 

Eighty-eight percent of subgrantees believed that referrals are more successful when they can help describe 

their family’s needs to service providers. Eighty-one percent of subgrantees also introduced their families to 

other providers in person, compared to by phone or email (63%), indicating subgrantee adherence to the practice 

of warm referrals. Warm referrals entail the process of meaningfully guiding a family to a service provider after 

making a referral.

Subgrantees conveyed that the referral system allows them to connect families to services that fit their goals. 

For the most part, subgrantees explained that families are not always aware of the resources in their community 

and how to access them. Furthermore, the search for these services can be daunting. As a result, connecting 

families with different services in their communities also increase their awareness of that are available to them.
63

“By even being able to have that conversation with the families letting them know that 

resources and services are there and doing that through a referral was significant. By 

having some partners, like Families First, we have seen an uptake in mental health. And I 

think by us understanding what these services are, those referrals helped families get 

mental health services” –Subgrantee staff member

Participants highlighted that they received referrals through both subgrantee and child care agencies. 

Specifically, some parents/caregivers were connected to postsecondary education and employment 

opportunities. However, there are insufficient data to discuss the associated benefits of referrals from a 

participant perspective. Nine survey participants perceived overall improvements in psychological and physical 

health conditions through GF2020. Most of the participants (more than 50%) addressed that they felt less 

stressed, depressed or hopeless, and more interested and energetic 

“[In the group therapy] Hearing other people’s experiences and tell them about mine. 

From there I take the best [approaches] and apply them to my life.” –GF2020 participant

Opportunities for improvements 

ETO data does not always capture whether participants follow through on most external referrals given. 

Subgrantees highlighted that some types of referrals, such as health-related ones were difficult to provide followups. Subgrantees were concerned about probing too deeply into medical records, which is a violation of HIPAA 

policies. Nor could they contact social service providers to determine whether participants had scheduled or 

attended referral appointments. For these reasons, tracking and documenting referrals were intended for 

evaluation purposes to gauge the effect of referral practices on participant outcomes. Limited referral data, 

specifically related to the proportion of referrals scheduled or attended, affected the types of conclusions that 

can be made about the impact of referrals on adult and child outcomes. 
64

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION 

HOW HAVE INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS CHANGED AFTER PROGRAM 

INITIATION? 

Implementation of GF2020 changed, which is discussed here as four stages: program planning and initiation 

(2017), program development (2018), program maintenance (2019), and program maturity (2020). Figure 7 

displays a timeline of major implementation changes related to several GF2020 programmatic components. The 

overall GF2020 programmatic structure and service delivery model remained the same from 2017 to 2020. In 

the first two years, GF2020 sites devoted extensive time towards strengthening participant recruitment, 

enrollment, and retention. During this period, the sites attempted to increase family enrollment based on sitespecific situations, objectives, and goals, particularly around CWF services. 

Greater emphasis on expanding recruitment and enrollment efforts created opportunities for new partnerships. 

In 2019, most of the sites had new partners that increased their organizational capacity for serving families. 

Additionally, sites focused more on refining social capital and mental health programming; two domains that 

were outside of core CWF service areas. During GF2020, the most significant implementation changes included 

the removal of neighborhood boundaries, an official contractual relationship with Families First, and formal and 

informal support for social capital programming. 

While GF2020 funding ended, UWCI continuously offered support, such as the Family Opportunity Fund, for local 

organizations implementing a 2Gen approach, including subgrantees with relevant program models, to sustain 

2Gen service delivery in their service delivery frameworks. All sites leveraged additional funding opportunities to 

continue serving families who were enrolled in GF2020.
65

FIGURE 7. GF2020 implementation plan changes (2017-2020)

In early 2020, subgrantees and partners encountered unexpected challenges due to the novel coronavirus 

(COVID-19). Table 13 demonstrates how subgrantees adapted their GF2020 programming in response to COVID19. Social distancing mandates affected the implementation of core components of GF2020, including coaching 

engagements, social capital events, mental health services, and child care. GF2020 staff interactions with 

participants were no longer offered in person, instead shifting to remote interactions via phone, emails, and/or 

online platforms. As a result, some programs, such as social capital activities, required the physical presence of 

participants and staff were either suspended, cancelled, or changed to virtual options in later months. 
66

Child-care services were provided with limited capacity due to safety concerns. However, many child-care 

partners pivoted to virtual programming with both children and parents/caregivers. The need for mental health 

services became more urgent as the pandemic created increasing financial instability and mental stress for 

GF2020 families. Families requested more meetings with mental health providers to individually and collectively 

process the stressors of COVID-19. GF2020 sites also shifted their focus to providing emergency relief to ensure 

that families have the necessary resources to navigate the pandemic. 
67

TABLE 13. Site-specific differences in response to COVID-19 

 SITE CHALLENGES SUCCESSFUL 

CHANGES

SUPPORTS 

RECEIVED

PARTNERSHIP AND 

COLLABORATION

Site 1

Realignment of 

agency priorities on 

emergency relief; 

remote 

engagement; ECE 

partners 

suspended 

services—no child 

care attendance 

data

Continued efforts 

in engaging 

families in need

Training supports 

from UWCI for (1) 

proposal writing 

and (2) nonprofit 

leadership

Continuous 

engagement with 

partners for future 

2Gen programming

Site 2

Staff turnover; low 

family attendance 

at virtual social 

capital events 

Deepened 

relationships with 

Family Navigators; 

CWF offered 

prerecorded 

workshops for 

program 

participants; online 

child-care services 

and self-care kits

N/A N/A

Site 3

Remote sessions 

with families; 

Suspension of 

Family Nights; 

Changes in the 

Child Care 

Development Fund 

(CCDF) process 

change, loss of 

family information 

Provided additional 

income support for 

families in need; 

Increased mental 

health assistance; 

Increased staff 

capacity to engage 

Latinx families 

Extra funding from 

On My Way Pre-K 

and Child Care and 

CCDF

Continued 

partnership with 

Holy Family Shelter 

to provide stable 

housing; MOU with 

Charity Child Care, 

Head Start 

Southwest, and 

New Beginnings 

Site 4

Increasing demand 

for basic needs 

assistance; 

suspension of ECE 

services

Continuous 

engagement with 

families for 

coaching and child 

care

Motivational 

interview training 

for Family Success 

Coaches from the 

University of 

Indianapolis

New partnership 

with University of 

Indianapolis

Site 5

Emerging needs 

from families; lack 

of child 

care/daycare

Continuous online 

support for the 

families 

N/A N/A
68

WHAT FACTORS AFFECT GF2020 RECRUITMENT, ENROLLMENT, AND 

RETENTION? 

Table 14 summarizes key barriers and facilitators related to GF2020 recruitment, enrollment, and retention. 

Overall, quality relationships among coaches, organizations, families, and partners were primary facilitators, 

while balancing family needs with organizational supports and coordination served as barriers. 

TABLE 14. Barriers and facilitators to GF2020 recruitment, enrollment, and retention 

DESCRIPTION BARRIERS FACILITATORS

Recruitment 

Any activities and strategies related 

to the ongoing recruitment of 

GF2020 participants

 

• Lack of integration 

between interagency 

programming 

(collaboration between 

CWF and GF2020 staff)

• Lack of formalized 

partnerships with ECE 

service providers

• Staff turnover 

• Relationships with families and 

partner organizations 

• Familiarity with coaching 

model

• Coordinated marketing 

strategies 

• Hiring of bilingual staff

Enrollment 

The act of making a participant’s 

engagement with GF2020 official, 

including completing any process or 

assessment that substantiates 

participation (such as the Family 

Success Plan)

 

• Inconsistent access to 

child care

• Clarity of CWF model 

(timeframe for enrolling 

GF2020 participants and 

quantity of CWF services) 

• Balancing enrollment of 

participants in crisis 

mode versus those that 

may benefit from the all 

the services

• Developing 

coaching/participant 

relationships through 

administering the FSP 

• Alignment of GF2020 services 

with family’s needs

• Knowledge of and familiarity 

with ETO

• ETO support from UWCI 

Retention 

Any activities post-enrollment related 

to ongoing participant engagement 

and retention

• Complicated schedules 

due to competing 

responsibilities 

• Effect of children aging 

out of the program 

• Incentivizing participation in 

GF2020 activities 

• Cross-agency collaborations

• Internal cultural changes and 

adaptability 

 
69

WHAT BARRIERS EXIST FOR CONSISTENT DATA COLLECTION AND ENTRY? 

Overall, data collection and entry presented limited challenges for GF2020 programming, with a few exceptions 

related to missing data and data undercounts. These issues occurred for a variety of reasons, including 

prioritizing participant needs over data collection, lack of staff capacity, and the impact of COVID-19 (Table 15).

Missing data 

Missing ETO data was common for all programmatic components, including core GF2020 services. Referrals 

tend to have missing data due to (1) compliance with HIPAA policies, which prevents providers from verifying 

participants’ appointments and (2) lack of organizational capacity in data entry for referral and follow-ups. The 

outcome measures were divided into (1) CWF-related indicators already captured in the ETO system and (2) 

supplemental indicators that capture social capital, health and well-being, and family dynamics. The lack of CWF 

service data was largely due to insufficient communication between CWF and GF2020 teams within each site. 

The supplemental indicators—such as referrals, referral follow-ups and social capital event attendance—were not 

fully captured at the beginning of program. This was due to three primary reasons: (1) many of the staff were still 

in the training phases of ETO, (2) the priority of data collection lay on the FSP indicators, or (3) activities were 

being developed. 

Possible data undercount for social capital, child care, and health and well-being 

Three domains—social capital, child care, and health and well-being—were less likely to be captured in the 

system. Data collection for these data points might occur in settings where it could be difficult to obtain complete 

and accurate information, and the amount of information gathered might vary depending on the context of the 

situation.
70

TABLE 15. Data collection and entry barriers for GF2020

BARRIER SUMMARY RELEVANT QUOTE 

Staff turnover and 

hiring delays 

negatively affected 

data collection 

 

At some point during GF2020, all 

subgrantee sites experienced staff 

turnover. Hiring, replacing, and training 

new staff on best practices for data 

collection can take an extended period 

of time. Furthermore, most GF2020 

staff are not only responsible for data 

entry. Thus, newly hired staff also have 

to learn about overall programming 

requirements, compliance, and 

implementation. Recurrent incidents of 

staff turnover impeded timely data 

collection and reporting. 

“I think turnover was a key barrier to 

momentum. [Another UWCI staff] kind of 

mentioned that, and I think we've all 

kind of mentioned that at some point. 

From the data side, it was so hard to get 

them to the point where we could dive 

into the data when we spent so long just 

getting to the point where they're 

entering it right. And then once we get a 

staff trained, it seems like they would 

leave the organization.”–UWCI staff 

member

The lack of 

designated data 

specialists created 

barriers for data entry 

and reporting

Many GF2020 coaches shouldered the 

responsibilities of coaching and data 

entry at the same time. Agreeing with 

UWCI and leadership on stressing highquality data, the coaches found they 

sometimes struggled to make data 

collection a priority.

“We actually follow up with our families 

all the time and we make sure that they 

are attending their appointments. You 

know, the thing is, we don’t always put 

the data in ETO. When these 

conversations happen in passing, the 

first thing on our mind is not to make 

sure that we reflect this in ETO but to 

make sure the family gets the service 

they need, you know what I mean.” –

Subgrantee staff member

COVID-19 influenced 

the types of 

programming offered, 

and data collected 

and entered into ETO 

Social capital and ECE programming 

were less likely to be offered during 

COVID-19. Although subgrantees and 

some grantees maintained some level 

of engagement with families, data 

related to child care and social capital 

attendance were either nonexistent or

difficult to report due to limitations with 

virtual programming. Also, both GF2020 

staff and participants reported 

difficulties with accessing the internet. 

For staff particularly, the lack of stable 

internet hindered consistent data 

collection and entry into ETO. 

“So, I think it [virtual child care activities] 

would be a little bit more challenging but 

not impossible, just a little bit more 

challenging. And to be honest, I mean, 

we have been a little bit more busy than 

normal. So, even for us, I would only say 

it for myself as an employee, [I feel more 

stressed out] because a lot's going on 

personally and with our family... I mean 

it's a good idea, but I do feel it would be 

a little bit challenging, especially if a lot 

of people are not very technology-savvy. 

Like now, just even getting for them to 

send me an email or, you know, it is a 

little bit challenging.” –Subgrantee staff 

member
71

WHAT LESSONS/TAKEAWAYS HAVE SUBGRANTEES AND PARTNERS LEARNED 

ABOUT 2GEN PROGRAMMING GENERALLY? 

This section discusses key takeaways about 2Gen programming from a subgrantee perspective. The findings 

highlighted are from uniform themes obtained across interviews and focus groups with subgrantees and partners 

and survey data. Subgrantees and partners explained that the incorporation of 2Gen programming in their 

organizations enabled them to serve more families. Specifically, the opportunity to collaborate with missionminded organizations expanded their reach in the community. They were able to provide a diverse set of services 

and connect families to opportunities that help them navigate common challenges. Subgrantees also noted that 

two-gen had a positive impact on parents/caregivers, families, and neighborhoods (see Figure 8). 

FIGURE 8. Percentage of subgrantee staff who agree they perceived effects of GF2020 

on families and community (2018–2020) 

“I liked the concept. I liked the two-generation approach where you can work with the 

entire family and identify goals that is relative for the whole entire family. I enjoyed 

engaging with the families with different backgrounds in different ways of thinking and 

outlooks. Every day I wake up wanting to come to work just so I can engage with the 

families and assist them in any way possible to meet their goals in life. Just kind of helping 

in that process of creating the life that they want to live.” – A subgrantee staff member

88%

85%

85%

88%

92%

82%

75%

75%

73%

80%

80%

53%

My organization is better positioned to serve children and

families as a result of GF2020

The implementation of GF2020 has had a strong impact

on the families we serve

The implementation of GF2020 has had a strong impact

on the parents we serve

The implementaiton of GF2020 has had a positive impact

on the neighborhood we serve

September 2018

(n=15)

September 2019

(n=12)

May 2020

(n=26)
72

Limitations of the local adaptation of the 2GEN model 

Age eligibility restrictions

The age eligibility requirements of the GF2020 program targeted specific demographics, namely children 0-6 

years old and their parents or guardians. Subgrantees explained that children older than 6 and older adults (such 

as grandparents) in the same household also could have benefitted from these services offered through 

GF2020. If sites do not offer other child care options for children older than six, this presented challenges for 

families who depended on the program for before- or after- school child care services and were unable to acquire 

child care opportunities elsewhere once their children age out of the GF2020 program. This experience 

complicated a family’s situation, especially if they were not prepared to transition out of GF2020. 

“When we go out and visit families, we ask about the entire family. Though we are 

supposed to categorize it as parent slash caregiver and child under age 5, we do not. No, 

we are not supposed to, but we do it anyway because that is what the program requires of 

us. I wish there were just more time to really understand the framework to its fullest. ... 

More of the philosophical understanding of what the program or what two-generation is or 

what like, multi-generation is. I mean in all truth, 2Gen does not fit our families because 

our families are living with grandparents, our families are living with aunts, our families, 

you know, they are living with mom and aunt. It is almost like 2Gen is like too limiting. Like 

it is more about like three-gen, four-gen, like full-family perspective.” –Subgrantee staff 

member

Gaps in services 

Access to reliable transportation

Assistance with transportation is a service area in the Ascend/Aspen Institute 2Gen model but this was not a 

targeted service area in GF2020. Both subgrantees and participants highlighted that lack of access to 

transportation was a significant barrier for families hoping to participate in GF2020 programming, particularly 

social capital events. Families encountered transportation challenges in two main ways: (1) inaccessibility to 

private transportation and (2) lack of funds to access public transportation. Combined, these barriers affected 

family’s levels of engagement in specific types of programming. Subgrantees implemented innovative strategies, 

such as virtual coaching to reach families who experienced transportation issues. Relatedly, they provided bus 

passes and gas cards to help families attend GF2020 events and get to work. 

“Transportation. We can use program dollars for that, but when we get into programming 

that is conceptual and not, does not have necessarily dedicated dollars. I think 

transportation can be an issue. I mean, one of the issues I think that came up inherently 

in Great Families.” -Subgrantee staff member
73

Assistance with rent and utilities

Rent and utility assistance are not core services provided through GF2020. Subgrantees did not always have the 

resources to help families with these needs. As a result, they often provided a one-time stipend to offset these 

expenses. Both subgrantees and participants pointed out that more families would have benefitted from these 

services on an ongoing basis.

“That would have been really great if they were able to help with the utilities, light bill, and, 

rent. Those would really be the basic needs. Just keeping a roof over my head for me and

my kids”. –GF2020 participant

Low-cost, high-quality child care services

Subgrantees explained that the cost of ECE services is a barrier to accessing child care and maintaining 

employment. Often, when a parent does not work, staff noted that this can be due to lack of access to affordable 

and sufficient child care. An unintended consequence of better-quality ECE is the increase in child care costs for 

families. GF2020 does not typically offset the costs of child care. One subgrantee allocated ECE payments in 

their budget for GF2020 families. Others sought additional funding to help support child care expenses. When 

ECEs transition to higher levels in the state’s Path to Quality program, the cost of their child care services also 

increases, resulting in additional challenges for families. 

“There's got to be a reconciliation on promoting quality child care but doing it in a way that 

reconciles that by the better-quality centers secure for themselves, the more they can 

charge. And so, once again, if you're providing better quality, under normal circumstances, 

you should be able to charge more, but you're charging more for a service that people 

can’t afford in the first place and so are you unintentionally, by striving for quality, 

creating barriers for people to access it in the first place.” –Subgrantee staff member

 2GEN lessons and takeaways 

2Gen is an organizational approach

Subgrantee staff reported that 2Gen helped them facilitate a more coordinated and integrated service delivery 

approach through building capacity and forging partnerships. Some subgrantees noted that the concept of 

implementing 2Gen was fairly-new, from a program and/or organizational perspective. In retrospect, one 

subgrantee noted that taking an organizational 2Gen perspective can bolster service delivery as well as reach 

more families. Subgrantees plan to continue 2Gen work in their organizations through UWCI’s Family Opportunity 

Fund. 
74

“I’ve often gone back and forth of the concept that—I don't think 2Gen works well as just a 

program. I feel like it needs to be an entire model of doing business embedded in an 

organization to have large impact. All the programs of the organization should be 2Gen 

and connect with each other. It is a restructuring. It needs to be a restructuring of an 

organization rather than just a program that is funded. I think there is a philosophical 

breakdown. I think folks want to put pen to paper and connect A to B and we are 2Gen, 

which, yeah, you might be offering multigenerational services, but philosophically you are 

not 2Gen. I think there has been a breakdown of fully grasping it as an integral part of 

service delivery and systems shift and how folks do things that I don't think we've seen 

yet.” –Subgrantee staff member 

Effective 2Gen work involves developing intentional partnerships

Inter-agency and cross-agency collaboration area key components of facilitating effective two-generational work. 

Subgrantees explained that it is important for staff within subgrantee and partner organizations to understand 

and commit to 2Gen practices. For example, one subgrantee replaced their program staff when the program 

director realized that the staff were not fully dedicated to core values of the 2Gen approach. Positively, 

subgrantees also noted that they have learned how to collaborate more effectively with staff and communitybased organizations. Relatedly, developing open and trusting relationships with families helped increase 

engagement with the program. Subgrantees noted that families are more engaged when their concerns are 

validated, successes are celebrated, and perspectives are valued. Cultivating meaningful relationships help 

them to feel more comfortable asking questions and seeking help from organizations. Most importantly, families 

would feel more supported in their goals, which helps parents/caregivers working to achieve those goals. 

“Buy-in from staff and room for collaboration is rooted in trust and communication. And I 

often think that sometimes program staff are not given that luxury. It is like, we are doing 

this new strategy, we are pivoting to 2Gen. So, I would say being really intentional, I think 

Great Families is very much relationship based. I think allowing room for that in the 

beginning, particularly when you're dealing with new concepts, making sure everyone is 

on the same page and there's that level of trust and communication because effectively 

that partnership is not going to work if that is not the baseline. Having trust and open 

communication with all of your partners.” –Subgrantee staff member

WHAT PERSPECTIVES CAN GF2020 PROVIDE FOR UWCI’S ONGOING LOCAL 

PROGRAMMING? 

GF2020 provided valuable insights that UWCI can leverage for future local programming, such as strategies to 

facilitate effective collaboration, communication, and coordination across community-based organizations 

through building staff and organizational capacity. One area that UWCI can utilize for ongoing local programming 

is their success with coordinating and maintaining effective partnerships with community-based organizations. 

Subgrantee perceptions of collaboration with UWCI was overwhelmingly positive. In September of 2018, 47% of 

all subgrantee staff described communication with UWCI as very effective. By May of 2020, it had increased to 

64%. 
75

FIGURE 9. Subgrantee perceived effectiveness of UWCI-subgrantee communication 

(2018–2020) 

Subgrantees were involved in program decision-making 

Sixty-two percent of subgrantees agree that UWCI discussed changes in programming with them (see Figure 10). 

UWCI provided many opportunities for subgrantees/grantees to become more involved in planning and decisionmaking related to GF2020. For instance, each subgrantee has a designated program officer who checks in 

regularly with program leadership and staff. Generally, in these meetings, the program officer fields suggestions 

and ideas from staff on various programmatic components of GF2020. The emphasis on subgrantee/grantee 

involvement in program decisions aligns with UWCI’s goal of giving subgrantees full autonomy in how they 

manage their program while providing guidance and structure as needed. 

“Our communication and collaboration with UWCI have changed since the program 

started. At first, I feel like we were not very involved with the types of decisions that are 

made about the program but that really got better as the program gained momentum. 

More and more, I think our team felt like we were really a part of GF2020 because were 

more integrated into whatever decisions were made.” –Subgrantee staff member

46%

50%

64%

47%

50%

36%

7%

September 2018

(n=15)

September 2019

(n=12)

May 2020

(n=25)

Extremely or very effective Moderately or slightly effective Not effective at all
76

FIGURE 10. Percentage of subgrantee staff who agree with statements about 

subgrantee collaboration with UWCI (2018–2020) 

UWCI took subgrantee feedback into consideration 

In May 2020, 54% of subgrantees agreed that UWCI considered their remarks and feedback (Figure 10). UWCI’s 

willingness to take subgrantees’ insights into consideration fostered a more collaborative relationship. Efforts to 

actively engage subgrantees, including welcoming their feedback and remarks, led to a better working 

relationship. 

“I think it was a learning experience for everybody. I mean, I do not think anyone was ever 

a pro at this program. So, we were all kind of learning together and I think [UWCI] were 

welcoming any type of outlooks and suggestions which helped to build relationship with 

them overtime.” –Subgrantee staff member

More consistent communication

In May 2020, 88% of subgrantees reported receiving clear information from UWCI about GF2020, compared to 

only 27% in September 2018. (Figure 10). During the grant period, UWCI addressed inconsistences in 

communication with sites and developed more robust strategies to engage partner organizations. The 

subgrantee-designated program officers played a key role in keeping GF2020 sites current on new information 

and relaying staff feedback to UWCI’s GF2020 leadership team. 

85%

88%

76%

62%

54%

50%

58%

42%

17%

50%

40%

27%

60%

13%

47%

I am regularly informed by UWCI about how change related

to GF2020 is going

Information provided from UWCI on GF2020 is clear to me

Two-way communication between UWCI and my

organization is very good

UWCI always discusses changes in GF2020 programming

with all the people affected

UWCI takes account of our organization's remarks

September 2018

(n=15)

September 2019

(n=12)

May 2020

(n=26)
77

“I feel like we have a good relationship with United Way... [program officer] reaches out to 

me on average about once a month just to see how things are going and see if there's 

ways that they can help. And us providing our services. I do know like when we first got 

started, there were some communication challenges but that got better as time went on.” 

–Subgrantee staff member

Learning opportunities 

UWCI provided a host of opportunities for subgrantees and partner organizations to enhance knowledge in key 

GF2020 programmatic areas as well as site and staff capacity building. Subgrantees most frequently mentioned 

peer learning sessions, ETO data support and additional trainings, such as implicit bias training. 

Monthly Peer Learning sessions

Regular Peer Learning sessions were implemented to share best practices and lessons learned, with the goal of 

improving program implementation. Subgrantees explained that Peer Learning sessions were useful in helping 

them better understand aspects of GF2020 programming. Specifically, the Peer Learning session on social 

capital allowed staff to expand their knowledge of the activities/events that constituted social capital 

programming and how they would be beneficial to the participants. Relatedly, subgrantee staff gained the 

opportunity to fellowship with others, troubleshoot together, and learn from each other. 

“The Peer Learnings that we attend monthly has given us the opportunity to meet other 

organizations and the employees of those organizations and build our own personal 

relationships with them so that we could provide families with services. These Peer 

Learnings gave us the opportunity to build some ongoing last lasting relationships as 

well.” –Subgrantee staff member 

ETO support and guidance

Data entry and management were consistent challenges encountered by subgrantees and grantees. Therefore, 

UWCI offered more consistent data support. For instance, the UWCI ETO team held regular trainings and 

meetings with sites to review data entry in ETO and troubleshoot any challenges they faced. These one-on-one 

sessions helped build data capacity at the sites. Additional data training and ongoing support were also provided 

to new GF2020 staff or any staff who requested extra help, including trainings in Excel and pivot tables. 

Subgrantees explained that they felt more confident navigating the ETO data management system which will not 

only prove beneficial for GF2020 but also for other programs they have at their sites. Additionally, subgrantees 

appreciated the data reports that highlighted key trends at their sites. These reports helped them better 

contextualize and understand their program’s reach and impact. 

“One of the things I do want to give them credit for is looking at the data. It is really 

interesting and neat to be able to see those numbers. Without the ETO help and those 

reports, it is hard to kind of internalize those lessons and identify where your areas of 

growth still are or what your priorities could be or what you need to still be working on.” 

–Subgrantee staff member 
78

SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION FINDINGS The implementation study identified multiple positive areas of the GF2020 service delivery model, along with 

opportunities for improvement and expansion of the existing work.

FIDELITY TO THE GF2020 MODEL 

• Subgrantees largely adhered to fidelity while implementing the model, especially related to areas of 

capacity building. Health and well-being and social capital activities were difficult to implement, with 

adjustments made to better support subgrantees in those efforts. Collecting ECE data also presented 

issues for subgrantees, primarily given state-level changes to child outcome data.

• Collaboration, a crucial component of the GF2020 model, was widely perceived as beneficial by 

subgrantee staff and partners, with many planning to continue those relationships.

PROGRAMMATIC DIMENSIONS 

• Sites varied widely in participation among adults and children, with differences primarily related to 

attempting to meet participants where they were for goal setting and activity participation.

• Participants generally enjoyed and perceived benefits from participating in various aspects of GF2020, 

especially for financial-related services. Subgrantees identified areas for improvement in the model, and 

primarily rated their site’s coaching abilities and CWF-related programming higher than other areas. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION 

• Implementation shifted from focusing on recruitment and compliance before moving to ingrained 

structures and sustainability. Implementation was affected by COVID-19, with subgrantees adapting to 

provide services indefinitely in different formats for families. 

• Barriers to recruitment, enrollment, retention, and data collection were typical for programs relying on 

obtaining and maintaining participant-level data reporting and entry into systems, such as staff turnover.

• Recruitment, enrollment, and retention processes benefitted greatly from external partnerships, 

developing meaningful relationships with families, and incentivizing participation.

• GF2020 was not designed to address other factors affecting families’ experiences which are mostly due 

to local policy barriers, such as transportation and other extraneous costs.

• Several factors supported site and model growth, including learning opportunities for subgrantees and 

their partners involved in implementing GF2020 and ongoing communication with UWCI and the sites.

• Working toward an organizational approach and systems change to GF2020 with intentional 

partnerships served as cornerstones for implementing the model well.
79

PART 4: OUTCOMES 

STUDY FINDINGS 

This section highlights the key statistical findings of GF2020. Specifically, the findings include a descriptive 

analysis of the child-level outcomes, a summary of the relationship between programming activities and 

participant outcomes, a description of adult participants’ changes from baseline to follow-up periods (n=675), 

an assessment of the role of site-level characteristics on participant outcomes, and an assessment of differences 

among CWF participants (n=589) and adult GF2020 participants (n=184).
80

WHAT PROPORTION OF GF2020 CHILDREN ARE 

PERFORMING AT AGE-APPROPRIATE FUNCTIONING, 

COMPARED TO AGGREGATE SCORES OF OTHER 

CHILDREN? WHICH GF2020 PARENT CHARACTERISTICS 

AND/OR PROGRAM COMPONENTS ARE ASSOCIATED 

WITH CHILD OUTCOMES? 

The analysis of child outcomes depended on the collection of data assessing each child’s readiness for 

kindergarten. To this end, UWCI, IUPUI, and Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) overcame a major obstacle 

and successfully reached a data-sharing agreement to allow the evaluation team to collect personally identifiable 

student data from IDOE. Specifically, the agreement was to connect student outcome data—their ISTAR-KR 

readiness assessment results from IDOE—to data from GF2020 participant records. However, challenges such 

as a low match rate between IDOE and GF2020 records, a state policy change that shifted to new assessment 

tools, and lack of reporting requirements for child care centers that are not affiliated with a school affected the 

collection of outcome data for children and ultimately prevented the in-depth analysis related to child outcomes. 

Findings from descriptive analysis suggest that using education-based measures is a promising approach for 

evaluating program outcomes in future 2Gen efforts.

DATA MATCHING 

According to the data-sharing agreement, IDOE carried out matching processes, matching a roster of GF2020 

children provided by the evaluation team to IDOE’s student records and then shared the linked data with the 

evaluation team. In the first matching attempt in the summer of 2019, a roster of 335 students was provided to 

IDOE, and only 22 were matched with ISTAR-KR scores, a match rate of 6.6%. The low match rate is most likely 

due to misspellings or incorrect names (e.g., nicknames) and limited matching capabilities within IDOE. IDOE 

suggested student identification numbers (STNs) would be useful in increasing match rates, allowing them to 

match children’s names with their ISTAR-KR scores. However, this method would require On My Way Pre-K 

teachers to collect and input these STNs into the Efforts to Outcomes software, which may have been challenging 

for the teachers because of limited access to technology in the classroom. Additionally, a previous attempt to 

gain STNs failed after talks with IDOE, so the teachers may not be permitted to share these with UWCI and IUPUI. 

Additionally, any attempts by subgrantee staff to collect these STNs would be a violation of the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 
81

STATE-LEVEL POLICY CHANGES 

Regardless of match quality, state-level policy changes affected the type of assessment data collected. In 2019, 

IDOE changed the standardized tests used to assess student achievement, resulting in the replacement of the 

ISTAR-KR with the Indiana Student Performance Readiness and Observation of Understanding Tool (ISPROUT). 

The ISPROUT is only required for Indiana children as a part of an Individualized Education Program (IEP), but can 

be used to assess the skills and knowledge of other students in language and literacy, math, motor development, 

and other areas, At the time of policy implementation, it was not clear whether ISTAR-KR questions were 

analogous with those of the ISPROUT, as a cross-walk comparison between the two was not scheduled to begin 

until Summer 2020. Additionally, ISPROUT continued to be available to early childhood providers during Spring 

2020, although IDOE did not mandate its administration by providers, in response to challenges related to COVID19. 

In September 2019, the Indiana State Board of Education adopted a requirement that On My Way Pre-K 

programs administer the Kindergarten Readiness Indicators (KRI) to children annually. The KRI assesses 

students based on literacy, oral language, and math skills. While the ISTAR-KR (now the ISPROUT) was only 

required of children with an IEP, the new KRI now requires all On My Way Pre-K children to be tested annually. 

Even though it might have represented an opportunity to obtain at least some early childhood education 

assessment data, a challenge of the implementation of KRI is that it is completely online-based, rather than 

either online- or paper-based like the ISTAR-KR. Because not all On My Way Pre-K providers/teachers have ready 

computer access to complete the test online, programs were allowed to apply for a one-year waiver exempting 

them from this assessment. This resulted in the loss of a year’s worth of early childhood education assessment 

data that might have been used to understand the skills and knowledge of GF2020 children. Even if the data 

were available, KRI data are not reported at the individual-level of analysis, preventing matching of KRI scores 

to children enrolled in GF2020. Finally, On My Way Pre-K providers who had the capacity to assess GF2020 child 

participants with KRI, may have struggled to do so, as a result of COVID-19-related childcare interruptions and 

restrictions.

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS 

Descriptive statistics of ISTAR-KR assessment scores of GF2020 children (n=22) for whom data were available 

at two points in time demonstrated preliminary improvements in 2Gen-related outcomes, as of September 2019. 

Using the ISTAR-KR instrument, students were assessed on 30 performance threads—a specific learned skill—

which fall into one of two categories: Mathematics/English Language Arts (Math/ELA) and Functional Indicators 

(which include hygienic and socioemotional skills). At the time they exited the program, 32% of children had 

mastered all functional performance threads and 95% had mastered at least half. Eighteen percent had 

mastered all Math/ELA threads at exit; 55% had mastered at least half. Comparing the number of children 

mastering 50% or more of performance threads from time they entered the program until the time they left, the 

largest gains based on age at entrance were:

• A 25-point increase in Functional threads for 3-year-olds 

• A 25-point increase in Math/ELA threads for 4-year-olds 

• A 50-point increase in Math/ELA threads for 5-year-olds 
82

Higher percentage gains were seen when a child had been in the program for less than one year than when the 

child had been in the program for one to two years. This may be due to the fact that most of the children who 

were in the program for less than one year and had two assessments were older children (ages 4 and 5).

• Participation for less than one year (12 children)

o 25% more children performed at or above age level on 50% of Functional threads

o 25% more children performed at or above age level on 50% of Math/ELA threads

• Participation for one to two years (10 children)

o 10% more children performed at or above age level on 50% of Functional threads

o 20% more children performed at or above age level on 50% of Math/ELA threads

While conclusions related to significant gains in child outcomes cannot be drawn because the number of children 

with two measurements in this dataset (n=22) do not meet the 30-pair threshold necessary to conduct statistical 

paired difference-in-means testing, the preliminary descriptive statistics do demonstrate that using educationbased measures to assess program outcomes is a promising and potentially meaningful approach for future 

2Gen program evaluations. 
83

TO WHAT EXTENT DO GF2020 PARTICIPANT 

OUTCOMES CHANGE FROM BASELINE TO 

FOLLOW-UP? Seven outcome variables representing participant progress in areas addressed by the GF2020 program 

exhibited significant changes over time (Table 16). Notably, adult participants (n=675) experienced an increase 

in monthly income during their participation in program. Gains were made in social capital related to participant 

social networks. Participants who remained in the program over longer periods of time also reported gains in 

their physical and mental health. Finally, participants reported improvements in areas related to their knowledge 

of parenting, how well their families work together to resolve challenges, and knowledge about how to obtain 

necessary resources during times of need. While the effect sizes of these changes are small, families 

experienced change in multiple areas of their lives while participating in GF2020. Table 16 summarizes the 

findings; detailed results are located in Appendix F. 

TABLE 16. Summary of outcomes with significant changes, by effect sizes

OUTCOME VARIABLES

BASELINE TO 

FIRST 

FOLLOW-UP

BASELINE TO 

SECOND 

FOLLOW-UP

BASELINE TO 

THIRD 

FOLLOW-UP

BASELINE TO 

LAST 

FOLLOW-UP

Economic assets

Change in monthly income 

small **

d=0.29

n=137

Social capital

Civic engagement 

no effect *

d=0.12

n=350

no effect † 

d=0.15

n=127

no effect 

d=-0.09

n=49

 

Social networks 

small ***

d=0.27

n=352

small *

d=0.20

n=128

no effect

d=0.08

n=49

 

Health and well-being 

Physical and mental health 

no effect *

d=0.14

n=351

small **

d=0.35

n=127

small **

d=0.46

n=50

 

Child development & knowledge of parenting 

no 

effect ***

d=0.19

n=356

small ***

d=0.35

n=132

small *

d=0.34

n=50

 

Family functioning and resiliency 

no effect

d=0.08

n=356

small *

d=0.23

n=132

no effect

d=0.18

n=50

 

Concrete supports 

small ***

d=0.29

n=347

small ***

d=0.36

n=127

small †

d=0.28

n=48

 

† p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

Interpretation of Cohen’s d: “no effect”=0-0.2, “small”=0.2-0.5, “medium”=0.5-0.8, and “large” > 0.8
84

INTENDED OUTCOME: MONTHLY INCOME 

Change in monthly income was collected as a part of adult participant CFA submissions. Not all participants 

(n=675) completed both baseline and a follow-up CFA. In fact, only 197 GF2020 participants completed more 

than one and are included in the analysis (29% of participants; Table 17). Depending on the timing of the CFA, 

missing data for the monthly income variable itself further diminished the number of participants included in the 

analysis. 

TABLE 17. Number of complete financial assessments submitted by adult participants

No CFAs 190

One CFA (baseline) 288

Two CFAs (First follow-up) 99

Three CFAs (Second follow-up) 55

Four or More CFAs 43

Because time-limit criteria for CFA submission was implemented in December 2018, after the program had 

already begun, the change in monthly income between baseline and follow-up is defined as the difference 

between the first CFA submitted by a participant and the last CFA submitted by a participant (Figure 11).23 While 

the mean change in monthly income is significant (p<.001) with an increase of $223, its effect size is small 

(Cohen’s d=0.29), suggesting that the relationship between monthly income at baseline and follow-up is weak 

(Table 16). This may be explained in part by a median income change of $0, representing 37% of participants 

with an income change of $0. There were also a few participants with greater changes in income large enough 

to create a small, but measurable change in the group mean.

23 The ns in Table 17 and Figure 11 may differ because of missing data for the monthly income variable, which is one field 

of the CFA.
85

FIGURE 11. Participant monthly income and change in monthly income (n=137)

INTENDED OUTCOMES: FAMILY SUCCESS PLAN INDICATORS 

The FSP survey administered to adult program participants (n=675) contains the components of indicator 

groupings used to describe a family’s protective factors, social capital, and health and well-being. Because not 

all participants completed at least two (baseline and one follow-up) FSP surveys, the results of 376 surveys are 

included in this analysis (56% of participants; Table 18). The actual number of responses for each FSP grouping 

may be slightly lower, depending on the number of missing responses for individual questions. 

TABLE 18. Number of Family Success Plan surveys completed by adult participants 

No FSPs 75

One FSP (baseline) 224

Two FSPs (First follow-up) 236

Three FSPs (Second follow-up) 86

Four FSPs (Third follow-up) 50

Five or More FSPs 4 

 
86

Social capital 

Civic engagement

Significant change

• Baseline to second follow-up

The civic engagement grouping of indicators is the mean value of a series of questions that ask about participant 

attendance at a variety of events and social interactions with friends and family. Figure 12 illustrates the changes 

over time experienced by GF2020 participants, who exhibited a significant change (p<.05) between baseline 

and the first follow-up survey, although there was no effect (d=0.12) due to a weak relationship between the 

measurements. Neither change from baseline to second or third follow-up was statistically significant. Efforts to 

connect program participants to communities and individuals may make a small difference in the short term. 

However, for this change to be substantive, increased or new opportunities to encourage or engage participants 

in activities that lead to increased engagement with others may lead to an increase in social engagement and 

overall social capital.

FIGURE 12. Social capital outcomes with significant changes, by follow-up
87

Social networks

Significant changes

• Baseline to first follow-up 

• Baseline to second follow-up

The social networks grouping also exhibited significant change among participants, from both baseline to first 

follow-up (p<.001) and baseline to second follow-up (p<.05). The effect size, or strength of association between 

each of these pairings is small (d= 0.27 and 0.20, respectively). Thus, while participating in the program, GF2020 

participants experienced a small, measurable change in how they perceive the community where they live and 

interact with others. This change may be related to efforts of GF2020 staff to encourage families to participate 

with each other in group settings, such as social capital events. In interviews, participants expressed the positive 

impact of connecting with others who experienced the same challenges.

Health and well-being 

FSP indicators related to participant physical and mental health, as well as perception of and engagement with 

the community around them, demonstrate gains in participant health and well-being during the course of 

participation in GF2020.

Physical and mental health

Significant changes

• Baseline to first follow-up 

• Baseline to second follow-up

• Baseline to third follow-up 

Participants who engaged in the program for longer lengths of time reported small gains in their physical and 

mental health (Figure 13). While the change between the baseline and first follow-up measurements did not 

have an effect, there was a significant change between baseline and second follow-up (p<.001) as well as 

baseline and third follow-up (p<.05), with small effect sizes (d= 0.35 and 0.46, respectively). While the 

multivariate analysis does not indicate that particular program elements in interviews—such as number of 

referrals or attending referrals had an impact on participant physical and mental health— participants reported 

that the meaningful, trust-based relationships they developed with their coaches enabled them to be more open 

with their coaches and learn to see challenges from a different perspective, and effectively respond to these 

issues.
88

FIGURE 13. Health and well-being outcomes with significant changes, by follow-up

Protective factor: child development and knowledge of parenting

Significant changes

• Baseline to first follow-up 

• Baseline to second follow-up

• Baseline to third follow-up 

GF2020 participants exhibited measurable change among three of the five protective factor survey groupings, 

including child development and knowledge of parenting, a series of questions assessing their knowledge of how 

to effectively interact with their child (Figure 14). Participants reported that their perception of their own 

understanding of child development and parenting improved significantly over the course of GF2020 enrollment. 

This change was significant over all three time periods: from baseline to first follow-up (p<.001), baseline to 

second follow-up (p<.001), and baseline to third follow-up (p<.05). While the time period to first follow-up does 

not have a meaningful effect size (d=0.19), by the second and third follow-up measurements, this effect size 

was small, yet meaningful (d= 0.35 and 0.34, respectively). This improvement among those who engaged in 

GF2020 for a longer period of time is related to the coaching efforts of GF2020 staff and attendance of warm 

referrals made by the staff. The support provided through the coach-participant relationship and other supports 

that a family might need resulted in greater knowledge of how to effectively parent children.
89

Protective factor: family functioning and resiliency

Significant change

• Baseline to second follow-up

Participants also experienced a measurable change in the ability of their family to work through problems

together. The change between the baseline and second follow-up measurements was significant (p<.05), with a 

small effect size (d=0.23). Changes over shorter and longer periods were not significant. While family functioning 

and resiliency is not significantly related to any program characteristics tested in multivariate modeling, 

participants reported in interviews that participating in social capital events and developing relationship with 

other families added to their knowledge about navigating family dynamics. 

Protective factor: concrete support

Significant changes

• Baseline to first follow-up 

• Baseline to second follow-up

The concrete support protective factor grouping relates to participant confidence in their knowledge about what 

steps to take and who to ask for help when their families face challenges. GF2020 participants exhibited 

significant gains in concrete support between baseline and first follow-up (p<.001) and baseline and second 

follow-up measurements (p<.001), with small effect sizes for each of these (d= 0.29 and 0.36, respectively). The 

change between baseline and the third follow-up measurement neared significance (p<.1). These changes are 

related to receiving a referral from a GF2020 coach. While there is not a relationship between increased concrete 

support and attending a referral, the receipt of a referral may be enough to give a participant the knowledge 

about where to seek help when the need arises.
90

FIGURE 14. Protective factors outcomes with significant changes, by follow-up
91

WHICH GF2020 PROGRAM COMPONENTS ARE 

ASSOCIATED WITH PARENT OUTCOMES? 

Multivariate analysis of adult participant (n=675) program outcomes revealed that three main program 

components had measurable effects on program outcomes: longer coaching interactions, receiving referrals 

from a GF2020 coach, and attending referrals from a GF2020 coach.24 These findings are summarized in Table 

19. While other control variables were not significant, in most cases, being of Hispanic/Latinx origin was 

associated with increased concrete supports, while housing instability was associated with diminished concrete 

supports. Outcomes in nurturing and attachment, family functioning and resiliency, health and well-being, social 

networks, and job satisfaction were not associated with any programmatic components.

TABLE 19. Relationships between program components and GF2020 program outcomes

OUTCOME VARIABLE p 

EFFECT 

SIZE

N 

Participants with longer coaching sessions experienced an increase in: 

Monthly income ** 8.8% 116

Civic engagement *** 4.4% 328

Child development & knowledge of parenting ** 1.4% 325

Social support † 1.0% 325

Participants who received a warm referral experienced an increase in: 

Concrete support *** 5.5% 330

Participants who attended a warm referral experienced an increase in: 

Child development & knowledge of parenting ** 3.0% 325

Participants who attended a warm referral experienced a decrease in: 

Civic engagement * 2.4% 328

Social support † 0.9% 325

† p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

24 All models discussed are significant at p<.05.
92

FINANCIAL INDICATORS 

Periodic updates of monthly income as a part of a participant’s CFA submission show that longer coaching 

interactions are associated with increases in a participant’s monthly income, explaining 8.8% of how much the 

change in income varies from participant to participant. However, CWF services, which typically include 

employment and/or financial counseling services—are expected to lead to an increase in participant income, but 

do not. During coaching interactions, coaches help participants customize goals related to family needs, 

including those related to educational attainment and obtaining employment. The coaching interactions during 

which participants work toward these goals may set the stage to allow participants to increase their earnings. 

FAMILY SUCCESS PLAN INDICATORS 

The FSP survey completed by participants yielded significant relationships between GF2020 components and 

improvements in several social capital and protective factors indicators. Changes in health and well-being 

indicators were not associated with program components.

Social capital 

Increases in participant civic engagement—including attending religious and public events or visiting with family 

and friends— is related to longer coaching interactions among GF2020 participants. While the effect sizes of 

meetings are small, both the average length of a participant’s coaching interactions and attending a warm 

referral have measurable impacts on participant civic engagement, which is an indicator of social capital. As part

of the coaching interaction, a GF2020 coach may inform participants of and encourage them to attend 

community events or engage in meaningful ways with others. Unexpectedly, attending a referral is negatively 

associated with civic engagement, although at 2.4%, it explains little of how much change in civic engagement 

varies among participants. However, because it is unlikely that attending a referral would discourage or displace 

a participant’s involvement in various events or socializing with family and friends, it is possible that the negative 

association between attending a referral and civic engagement is due to chance.

Health and well-being: protective factors 

The results indicate that longer coaching interactions are related to greater knowledge of child development and 

parenting skills among program participants. When parents work with their coaches to learn more about how 

they can better understand and interact with their children, it better equips them to succeed at putting this into 

practice. Attending referrals is also related to greater knowledge of child development and parenting skills. This 

result is also consistent with the intention of GF2020 coaching, which is to connect families to customized 

services, including those related to family life and physical and mental health, such as Families First 

programming. Additionally, while attending a referral does not necessarily mean that participants received 

services that directly helped them to improve their knowledge of child development and parenting, receiving the 

support they need to succeed in other areas of life will impact their ability to effectively parent their children.
93

The social support category seeks to understand the emotional support systems of program participants. While 

not significant at p=0.07, longer coaching interactions approaches significance, exhibiting a positive relationship 

with increases in participant social supports. The primary intention of the participant-coach relationship may not 

be to provide emotional support to GF2020 participants, but the more time participants spend with a coach, the 

more likely they are to report an increase in emotional support. Approaching significance at p=0.09, attending a 

warm referral is associated with a reported decline in social supports.25 This result is unexpected, as referrals 

include connecting participants to a mental health provider. However, attending a warm referral simply may not 

have a positive impact on a participant’s emotional support system, as not all referrals lead to the interactions 

or relationships that facilitate a strong emotional support system. 

The final protective factor associated with a GF2020 program component is the concrete support category, which 

assesses participant perception of ability to access needed resources, should this become necessary. Simply 

receiving a warm referral from a coach explains 5.5% of how much a change in concrete support varies among 

GF2020 participants, although attending a warm referral is not significantly related to this outcome. Receiving 

a referral that results in an increase in the understanding of how a family can pursue addressing its needs, 

should the occasion arise. This result is critical to building family resiliency and being able to meet the basic 

needs of a family, both of which are goals of the GF2020 model and its approach to warm referrals.

25 Because the p-values for this value approached p<0.10, influential values were identified using Cook‘s Distance and 

removed to determine whether or not they influenced significance. The result was 0.05>p>0.1. 
94

TO WHAT EXTENT DO PARTICIPANT OUTCOMES 

VARY BY SITE? Due to small sample sizes (e.g., 40 adults with follow-up outcomes at one site), we were unable to conduct 

statistical models for each site individually, but were able to identify key characteristics from each site to account 

for specific activities, including proportions of site referrals to health, housing, and community and family 

activities; perceived quality of collaboration based on average subgrantee survey responses, perceptions of ECE 

providers; and sites with an ECE provider as a subgrantee. In models that simply controlled for site, site location 

was not significantly associated with participant outcomes. This is an important finding, as it suggests that 

despite slight variances in implementation, site-level differences did not substantially affect differences in 

participant outcomes. 

However, some site-level qualitative factors were associated with outcomes in nested models (n=374) that 

accounted for factors at the site and participant levels. Participants at sites with higher levels of perceived 

collaboration experienced improvements in nurturing and attachment (b=.85, p=.00, d=.02), and social support 

(b=.92 p=.014, d=.03), but fewer gains in child development skills (b=-1.47, p=.00, d=.01). This finding raises 

a question about not just perceived quality of collaboration, but additional clarity about the meaningfulness of 

some partnerships. For example, higher-quality collaborations (i.e. deeper collaboration) are not the same as 

having the best partners to address certain family issues. Even though sites rated their collaborations positively 

and plan to work with them long term, it may be equally important to continually assess how they meet participant 

needs. Sites with higher proportions of health referrals were associated with greater improvements in child 

development skills (b=5.9, p=.001, d=.01), but lower levels of social support, family functioning, and resiliency 

(b=2.7, p=.00, d=.07). This corroborates participants’ perspectives that they may have sought mental health 

supports due to self-perceptions of loneliness and coping with parenting, among other factors. Overall, while 

these findings were statistically significant, they were not of practical significance given small effect sizes.

When accounting for site-level differences, individual-level characteristics were also important. The average 

length of coaching interactions was positively and significantly associated with nurturing and attachment (b=.14, 

p=.01, d=.04) and change in income (b=12.6, p=.00, d=.03). Participants with higher numbers of completed 

goals were associated with improved child development skills (b=.08, p=.01, d=.02) Again, these findings 

suggest that while outcomes don’t vary significantly by site, site-level activities and decisions like cross-agency 

collaboration may condition participant outcomes and experiences.
95

TO WHAT EXTENT DO GF2020 PARTICIPANTS 

DIFFER FROM CWF PARTICIPANTS ON SHORTTERM GF2020 OUTCOMES? A comparison of GF2020 participant CWF financial outcomes to those of CWF participants who were not enrolled 

in GF2020—referred to as CWF-only—found that there was not a significant difference in the change in monthly 

income between groupings of participants with the same characteristics. This comparison was constrained by a 

lack of outcome follow-up data. 

A subset of program participants—including 148 GF2020 participants and 589 CWF-only participants was 

created. Key characteristics submitted at enrollment were recoded for ease of comparison. Participants in these 

groups did differ on select personal characteristics (Tables 20–22). The median age of GF2020 participants was 

10 years younger than that of CWF-only participants. Additionally, GF2020 participants were more likely to be 

female, Hispanic/Latinx, or live in subsidized housing than CWF-only participants included in the analysis.

At $1,409, GF2020 participants had a higher baseline median monthly income than CWF-only participants, who 

had a baseline median income of $909. While both groups experienced mean increases in income over time, 

the median change for both groups was $0, because a large number of participants had an annual household 

income of $0.

TABLE 20. GF2020 summary statistics for continuous variables (n=148) 

VARIABLE NAME MEAN MEDIAN

STANDARD 

DEVIATION

VALID 

OBSERVATIONS 

Age at enrollment 29.8 28.5 7.5 148

Annual household income at intake $13,165 $12,575 $11,079 146

CFA initial monthly income $1,448 $1,409 $863 148

CFA last monthly income $1,393 $1,657 $891 148

Change in CFA monthly income (first to last) $224 $0 $811 148

TABLE 21. CWF-only summary statistics for continuous variables (n=589) 

VARIABLE NAME MEAN MEDIAN

STANDARD 

DEVIATION

VALID 

OBSERVATIONS 

Age at enrollment 39.9 38.0 12.9 589

Annual household income at intake $13,307 $11,400 $12,570 527

CFA initial monthly income $1,039 $909 $925 589

CFA last monthly income $1,672 $1,360 $940 589

Change in CFA monthly income (first to last) $354 $0 $720 589
96

TABLE 22. GF2020 & CWF-only adult participant frequencies of categorical variables

Category GF2020 

(n=148) 

CWF-ONLY 

(n=589)

Frequency % Frequency % 

Program site 

Site 1 51 34.5 238 40.4

Site 2 22 14.9 219 37.2

Site 3 38 25.7 27 4.6

Site 4 34 23.0 105 17.8

Site 5 3 2.0 0 0.0

Gender 

Female 140 94.6 395 67.1

Male 8 5.4 190 32.3

Other 0 0.0 1 0.2

Missing 0 0.0 3 0.5

Race 

African American/Black 107 72.3 473 80.3

American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 1.4 6 1.0

Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0

Biracial 1 0.7 8 1.4

Caucasian/White 20 13.5 72 12.2

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0.0 1 0.2

Multiracial 2 1.4 14 2.4

Other 16 10.8 10 1.7

Missing 0 0.0 5 0.8

Ethnicity 

Hispanic/Latinx 25 16.9 28 4.8

Non-Hispanic/Latinx 123 83.1 553 93.9

Missing 0 0.0 8 1.4

Employment status at enrollment 

Employed full time (35 hrs or more per week) 48 32.4 186 31.6

Employed part time (less than 35 hrs per week) 33 22.3 72 12.2

Not in the workforce (homemaker, disabled, retired) 8 5.4 54 9.2

Unemployed (seeking employment) 49 33.1 205 34.8

Other 2 1.4 13 2.2

Missing 8 5.4 59 10.0
97

Educational attainment at enrollment 

No high school diploma 23 15.5 134 22.8

High school/GED 36 24.3 231 39.2

Some college 29 19.6 122 20.7

Two-year degree 7 4.7 52 8.8

Four-year degree 9 6.1 0 0.0

Graduate-level degree 1 0.7 9 1.5

Missing 43 29.1 41 7.0

Living arrangement at enrollment 

House/apt. is owned by household member 9 6.1 79 13.4

House/apt. is rented by household member—subsidized 51 34.5 90 15.3

House/apt. is rented by household member—unsubsidized 62 41.9 259 44.0

Household is homeless (without a roof) or in a shelter 9 6.1 40 6.8

Household stays in the house/apt. for free 14 9.5 77 13.1

Missing 3 2.0 44 7.5

Participants with the same characteristics were chosen from each group. The change in income between the 

groups was tested to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between change in income for 

GF2020 participants and change in income for CWF-only participants Table 23 illustrates the results from these 

comparisons. For instance, the change in income of African American/Black GF2020 participants was not 

statistically different than the change in income of African American/Black CWF-only participants. While the 

change in income of white GF2020 participants was not statistically different from the change in income of White 

CWF-only participants, it does near significance at a 95% confidence level (p<.1). None of the other comparisons 

of participants from different demographic groups revealed a statistically significant difference in the change in 

monthly income of GF2020 participants versus CWF-only participants. 

These results suggest that there is not a measurable difference between the monthly income of GF2020 

participants when compared to CWF-only participants. An increase in participants who complete a follow-up CFA 

would increase the sample size, which might reveal differences between these groups. However, based on the 

number of participants in this subset of data as well as the results exhibited in Table 23, further exploration 

through multivariate analysis will not yield statistically significant differences between the two groups. As the 

primary difference for adults from GF2020 and CWF were social capital and health and well-being activities, 

additional time in those activities may be critical for seeing strong effects and differences between these two 

groups’ outcomes. The findings also highlight the importance of the shorter-term metrics initially pursued by the 

evaluation team, where differences between program participation may have been more apparent. Research on 

the CWF model suggests individuals who spent two years in CWF saw the most meaningful changes in income, 

whereas most GF2020 participants did not stay in the program for that amount of time.
98

TABLE 23. Changes in monthly income by demographic characteristics

DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP

WAS THE CHANGE IN INCOME FROM 

BASELINE TO LAST CFA STATISTICALLY 

SIGNIFICANT? 

P-VALUE 

Race 

African American/Black No 0.62

White/Caucasian No 0.06

All Other Races No 0.749

Ethnicity 

Hispanic/Latinx No 0.99

Non-Hispanic/Latinx No 0.39

Income at enrollment 

$0–$16,999 No 0.65

$17,000–$50,000 No 0.99

Age 

18–34 No 0.13

35 and older No 0.23
99

SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES FINDINGS 

The outcomes findings identified several opportunities and implications for future research and programming 

priorities. Overall, while numerous statistical findings were significant and promising for relationships with 

participant outcomes, the associated changes in program outcomes were small. Ensuring more adult 

participation in key outcome measures and being able to retain families in GF2020 for longer periods of time 

may ensure a higher sample size and greater program exposure that might support more practically significant 

outcomes. Despite numerous attempts to obtain a sufficient sample of longitudinal, child-level kindergarten 

readiness assessment data to understand programmatic effects on their well-being, the evaluation team was 

unable a large enough sample of child-level outcomes to complete statistical analysis. However, parent 

outcomes related to child development and parenting skills may serve as a proxy for better understanding 

qualitative perceptions of how GF2020 encouraged outcomes for children whose parents received services.

• Participants experienced significant improvements from baseline to their last follow-up period in 

monthly income, social networks, physical and mental health, child development and knowledge of 

parenting, family functioning and resiliency, and concrete supports.

• Several programmatic factors were associated with parent outcomes, such as length of coaching 

sessions and warm referrals.

• Site-level differences in collaboration and health referrals were significantly associated with 

improvements in protective factors like nurturing and attachment, social support, and child 

development.

• Differences in net monthly income between CWF-only and GF2020 participants were not significant, 

suggesting that the programs may not have created substantive differences. However, the focus on a 

longer-term outcome like income may simply take longer to see more meaningful effects.
100

PART 5: LESSONS & NEXT 

STEPS 
101

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 

LOCAL ADOPTION OF A TWO-GENERATIONAL MODEL 

Great Families 2020 is based on the two-generational approach; adults receive several services, including job 

training, referrals to public benefits, financial coaching, and education services while their children are enrolled 

in high-quality early childhood education programs. GF2020 had overall positive impacts on families, 

communities, and participating organizations, including:

• Subgrantees being able to serve families in a more holistic way.

• The opportunity to collaborate with mission-minded organizations has expanded organizations’ reach in 

the community. 

• Organizations can provide a diverse set of services and connect families to opportunities that help them 

more effectively navigate common challenges.

• Organizations have increased capacity to collect, manage, and use data to inform their operational and 

strategic decision-making and learn from the GF2020 work.

• Improved relationships, communication, and collaboration between organizations working to address a 

common agenda. 

The local adaptation for the 2Gen model was met with several challenges and limitations, including:

• Age eligibility restrictions limit the opportunity to serve youth and seniors in the families enrolled in the 

program, despite the fact that they too face challenges that could be addressed with adequate 

programming opportunities. This impacts upward mobility of families. Many families were not 

adequately prepared for their child(ren) to transition out of the GF2020 program when they exceeded 

the age limit.

• Geographic restrictions early in the program presented barriers for program enrollment, leading UWCI 

to eliminate this practice.

• The need to comply with federal guidelines presented challenges for programmatic development. Staff 

at both UWCI and subgrantee organizations reported feeling constrained by balancing federal 

requirements for SIF funding (e.g., strong evaluation and ongoing reporting requirements) with the ability 

to be adaptive and creative with programming. Similar efforts may face fewer external hurdles, 

especially if more local or internal funding sources can be leveraged for programming.
102

• Gaps in services were a challenge for participants, and GF2020 funding was not necessarily designated 

to address these gaps. A lack of transportation limited participation in some programming, such as 

social capital events. Utility assistance was a common need among subgrantees, but because utility 

support was not a major component of the GF2020 program, subgrantees did not have the financial 

resources to fully support families with this need. Participants often needed child care in evenings during 

nonstandard service hours, limiting their ability to take on new employment opportunities. An 

unintentional consequence of better-quality child care is increase in costs for families. When ECEs move 

to a higher status of child care quality, it is inevitable that their prices also increase. This introduces new 

challenges for economically deprived families already struggling to secure affordable child care.

• Data collection and data entry challenges were common among grantees and subgrantees. Data 

collection was an integral part of the implementation to inform both for evaluation and improved service 

delivery. In some cases, organizations were learning new case management software, staff turnover 

required training of new staff. Another challenge came from inadequate data entry workflows resulted 

in many data gaps. Additional training and support helped to mitigate these challenges to some extent.

• A project like this—dependent upon other data providers, measurement instruments, and policies—

leaves many opportunities for barriers and challenges. Developing an advisory committee with key data, 

policy, and program stakeholders can help build buy-in, assure that the appropriate measurements and 

methods are carried out, and help identify alternatives should barriers arise.

Three key elements of a successful implementation:

• 2Gen is an organizational approach, not just a program model. This was a recurring theme among 

subgrantees, who noted that implementing the model as a stand-alone program introduces restrictions 

and inefficiencies in implementation that limit their ability to serve some families and populations who 

could otherwise benefit from the services. Adopting this approach across all programs offered by an 

organization would allow them to benefit from the integrative and coordinated structure that the 2Gen 

model provides, connecting more families with more services. 

• Organizational collaboration is a key component of facilitating effective two-generational work. 

Subgrantees explained that it is important for all organizational partners to understand and believe in 

the purpose of 2Gen work. Ensuring that there is role clarity and dedication to the core values of twogenerational approach can help encourage more meaningful and sustainable partnerships. Developing 

open and trusting relationships with families help to increase engagement with the program. 

Subgrantees and grantees noted that families are more engaged when their struggles are validated, 

successes are celebrated, and perspectives are valued. Cultivating meaningful relationships help them 

to feel more comfortable asking questions and seeking help from organizations. Most importantly, they 

feel more supported in their goals which facilitates greater movement towards achieving them. 
103

• Building staff capacity—especially around coaching—strengthens program implementation and 

outcomes. Early lack of knowledge about the two-generational model and a shared mission and vision 

for the approach by subgrantees often presented challenges with interagency and cross-agency 

collaborations and program implementation. Training—such as the opportunities provided by UWCI—and 

level setting can help those who are invested and committed to the whole family model enhance their 

work and mitigate staff turnover, which was an ongoing challenge. While staff turnover cannot be 

completely prevented, subgrantees highlighted the importance of hiring staff that are fully on board with 

the 2Gen framework. 
104

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE 

PROGRAMMING Findings from the evaluation suggest there are several opportunities for UWCI to capitalize on the successes and 

lessons of the program as it embraces the two-generational model going forward, most of which are applicable 

to other organizations or communities considering implementing this model. 

Leverage success with GF2020 organizational partnerships and relationships for ongoing 

programming 

Building relationships and partnerships is challenging, long-term work. The investment in these relationships has 

resulted in more trust between organizations as well as an increased understanding of what it takes to 

implement and embrace the two-generational model. The organizations in GF2020 are best positioned to 

implement this model going forward and serve as a peer network to others primed to implement this model.

Provide clear and consistent communication with grantees/subgrantees 

Data showed considerable improvement over time in communication between UWCI and subgrantees 

throughout the course of GF2020. Program officers played a critical role with communication and relationships 

between UWCI and grantee/subgrantees.

Integrate grantees/subgrantees in decision-making processes 

UWCI efforts to actively engage subgrantees—including welcoming their feedback and remarks—led to a better 

working relationship and ultimately stronger programs. Improvements in communication ratings correspond with 

reported increases in collaboration factors, such as taking into account subgrantees remarks and discussing 

changes with subgrantees.

Provide ongoing learning and networking opportunities to increase capacity and relationships 

among subgrantees 

The educational opportunities in GF2020 were helpful for improving understanding of two-generational 

programming and a variety of related topics. Additionally, the events provided opportunities for networking and 

idea exchange.

Provide ongoing data support for subgrantees 

Data entry and management were consistent challenges encountered by subgrantees and grantees navigating 

ETO and complying with data entry. The trainings, one-on-one sessions, and ongoing support that the UWCI ETO 

team provided staff helped build capacity and confidence at the sites to enter and manage data. Building data 

workflows early in the process will set the stage for quality data collection. Engaging staff at all levels in the 

organization in understanding the value-add for the organization beyond compliance requirements (e.g., 

demonstrating ways peers are using the data for organizational benefit) also may increase the quality of the data 

collection at sites.
105

Consider including transition planning into the program to help families with children prepare for 

changes as the children age out of the GF2020 program 

This is particularly important for families who are depending on that programming. Ensuring sufficient time for 

integrating the model, especially when relying on externa funding and timelines, helps reduce the pressure from 

organizations to achieve high levels of outcomes early in the effort. Doing so also allows for fluidity and innovation 

from the project staff.

Consider the role of policy-related barriers 

Parents/caregivers and staff repeatedly discussed issues related to transportation and available bus lines, 

housing issues, and child care costs, many of which are regulated by local or state government. Though the sites 

offered barrier-busting funds—such as funding for emergency needs like transportation and utility assistance—

working with local government officials may further inform support for families.

Develop an advisory board or other partnership with local agencies and stakeholders 

These partnerships, especially with state education leaders, may inform the work of the model in an ongoing 

way, and alert staff and leadership to opportunities and changes in the broader community to better adapt to 

ongoing needs. This should include GF2020 participants who receive services as stakeholders in the decisionmaking process to better understand and incorporate their lived experiences.

Invest in data-specific positions 

Complaints about data entry were common among staff, even though UWCI had allocated funding to support a 

staff position for each site for data-related needs. Such a role would ensure necessary data points are captured 

for ongoing review, without disrupting the work of coaches.
106

PART 6: APPENDICES 
107

APPENDIX A. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF 

PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS The following statistics describe the members of the 734 families (with at least one adult and one child) who 

participated in the program at some point during the period October 2017-June 2020.

FIGURE A1. Family enrollment by GF2020 services

Table A1. GF2020 adult participation characteristic and summary statistics for 

continuous variables (n=789) 

VARIABLE NAME MEAN MEDIAN

STANDARD 

DEVIATION

VALID 

OBSERVATIONS

Age at enrollment 30.4 29.0 7.4 789

Annual household income at intake 16,494 12,000 21,862 761

Number of coaching interactions 8.6 6.0 8.4 679

Average length of coaching 

interactions (minutes)

32.6 30.0 17.6 679

Number of CWF services received 

(1-3 services)

2.2 2.0 0.8 608

Number of social capital events 

attended

4.6 3.0 5.5 415
108

Table A2. GF2020 adult participant characteristic and frequencies for categorical 

variables (n=789)

CATEGORY FREQUENCY % 

Program site 

Site 1 182 23.1

Site 2 165 20.9

Site 3 224 28.4

Site 4 115 14.6

Site 5 103 13.1

Gender 

Female 708 89.7

Male 79 10

Transgender 2 0.3

Race 

African American/Black 473 59.9

American Indian/Alaskan Native 4 0.5

Asian 3 0.4

Biracial 6 0.8

Caucasian/White 164 20.8

Multiracial 17 2.2

Other 120 15.2

Missing 2 0.3

Ethnicity 

Hispanic/Latinx 173 21.9

Non-Hispanic/Latinx 613 77.7

Missing 3 0.4

Employment status at enrollment 

Employed full time (35 hrs or more per week) 293 37.1

Employed part time (less than 35 hrs per week) 139 17.6

Not in the workforce (homemaker, disabled, retired) 37 4.7

Unemployed (seeking employment) 227 28.8

Other 15 1.9

Missing 78 9.9

Educational attainment at enrollment 

No high school diploma 174 22.1

High school diploma or equivalency 222 28.1

Some college 142 18

Two-year degree 28 3.5

Four-year degree 49 6.2

Graduate-level degree 22 2.8

Missing 152 19.3

Living arrangement at enrollment 

House/apt. is owned by household member 110 13.9

House/apt. is rented by household member—subsidized 167 21.2

House/apt. is rented by household member—unsubsidized 364 46.1
109

Household is homeless (without a roof) or in a shelter 46 5.8

Household stays in the house/apt. for free 68 8.6

Missing 34 4.3

Child attended at least one day ECE 

Yes 691 87.6

No 98 12.4

Goals 

One or more set 540 68.4

One or more completed 230 29.2

Referrals 

One or more made 387 49

One or more attended 176 22.3

Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Table A3. GF2020 child participation characteristic and summary statistics for 

continuous variables (n=1,121)

VARIABLE NAME MEAN MEDIAN

STANDARD 

DEVIATION

VALID 

OBSERVATIONS

Age at enrollment (ages 0-6) 2.8 3.0 1.6 983

Number of days of ECE attendance 115.9 87.0 106.7 781
110

Table A4. GF2020 child participant characteristic and frequencies for categorical 

variables (n=1,121)

CATEGORY FREQUENCY % 

Program site 

Site 1 237 21.1

Site 2 252 22.5

Site 3 278 24.8

Site 4 177 15.8

Site 5 177 15.8

Gender 

Female 531 47.4

Male 517 46.1

Transgender 1 0 

Other 1 0 

Missing 71 6.3

Race 

African American/Black 655 58.4

American Indian/Alaskan native 2 0.2

Asian 1 0.1

Biracial 48 4.3

Caucasian/White 186 16.6

Multiracial 36 3.2

Other 117 10.4

Missing 76 6.8

Ethnicity 

Hispanic/Latinx 223 19.9

Non-Hispanic/Latinx 823 73.4

Missing 75 6.7

Child attended at least one day ECE 

Yes 781 69.7

No 340 30.3

Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
111

APPENDIX B. DESCRIPTION OF OUTCOME 

VARIABLES

VALIDATED OUTCOME MEASURES 

Health & well-being 

The Protective Factors Survey aims to capture the extent to which parenting skills have improved throughout the 

program, and whether parents have developed protective assets, like social support, that safeguard children 

and their social development in the long term. This information is included under health and well-being because 

the existence of protective factors should help moderate toxic stress in the long term, per the logic model. These 

indicators were also selected for their ability to help identify short-term changes in child development and 

parenting outcomes that are associated with longer-term outcomes in child development and academic 

attendance.

Based on factor analyses, the survey subscales include family functioning, emotional support, concrete support, 

and nurturing and attachment. These subscales—aimed to measure positive parenting—have been negatively 

correlated with depression, child abuse, and stress, and trauma reduction within families. This survey has been 

repeatedly tested for different types of validity and reliability, with positive results for both. The current study 

used factor analyses to identify the reliability of the measures in the current sample population, with similar 

findings of reliability. The five scales ranged from α=.70 to .88, indicating sufficient to high levels of reliability in 

the current sample.

Additional health-related questions were obtained from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). 

This survey is administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to identify national trends in 

health. The instrument collects self-reported health information using random-digit dialing. Validity tests indicate 

that the self-reported health indicators—namely a lack of health insurance—and self-rated health are valid 

measures of actual health and health care access. For health access, participants are asked, “Is there a place 

that you usually go to when you are sick or need advice about your health? What kind of place is it—a clinic, 

doctor’s office, emergency room, or some other place?”

The Healthy Days Symptoms Module from the Health-Related Quality of Life Survey from the CDC is used to 

gauge overall health. These questions have been validated across multiple indicators and tested for various 

types of reliability.

The questions are:

• During the past 30 days, for about how many days:

o Did pain make it hard for you to do your usual activities, such as self-care, work, or 

recreation?

o Have you felt sad, blue, or depressed?

o Have you felt worried, tense, or anxious?

o Have you felt you did not get enough rest or sleep?

o Have you felt very healthy and full of energy?
112

The indicators were modified to range from never, rarely, about half the time, frequently, and always to reflect 

staff input on administering the questions. The grouped indicators suggest this developed scale has some 

reliability (Cronbach’s α=.80). For the purpose of this analysis, these values were reverse coded so that findings 

could be interpreted as higher values suggesting better health outcomes.

NONVALIDATED OUTCOME MEASURES 

Economic assets & educational/employment coaching 

The Combined Financial Assessment (CFA) used in CWF financial coaching asks standard questions about 

homeownership, finances, and net worth. Our analysis focuses on questions about monthly income.

The FSP also asks questions about job placement goals and training:

• Current educational attainment

• Employment status

• Employment retention (employment status, measured at different time points)

These measures have been used in other studies of the CWF model but lack reliability and validity testing due 

to not being part of survey instruments.

Social capital 

Social capital measures are taken from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, developed for use in 

applied research. The survey has been tested across multiple communities—indicating reliability, though 

information on formal testing does not appear to be readily available through the project’s website or other 

sources—and used to validate other social capital surveys.

The evaluation team, in conjunction with subgrantees, identified key topics that would be relevant for their 

participants and programming, with an emphasis on indicators related to civic engagement and increasing 

formal and informal networks. Subgrantees suggested one of the biggest hurdles was for participants to 

establish and maintain quality relationships with peers and in their community. 

The measures used to gauge building and strengthening networks broadly include participants’ perceptions of 

close friends, socialization activities, and neighborhood trust. For civic engagement, the team used questions 

related to participation in neighborhood activities, civic affairs, and self-efficacy. Some of the questions were 

modified to capture relevant social capital events for the racial/ethnic groups and low-income populations who 

will participate in this research. The team conducted exploratory factor analyses to identify the extent to which 

these measures cluster around social networks and community engagement, respectively. The social networks 

measures had a Cronbach’s alpha of .78, and the community engagement measures were .50, suggesting high 

and low reliability, respectively. As such, the community engagement indicators are reported individually.

Social networks

The following outcomes are measured in a Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree)

• I believe that I can make my community a better place to live.

• I enjoy interacting with people in my community.
113

• People in my part of town are willing to help their neighbors.

• I can trust people in my neighborhood. 

Community engagement

The following outcomes are measured in a Likert scale (at least once a week to never)

• How many times in the past six months have you: 

o Attended religious services (not including weddings and funerals) or event?

o Attended a celebration or event in your community? 

o Attended any public meeting, like for your neighborhood association or school board?

o Visited relatives in person or had them visit you? 

o Visited a friend’s place or had friends over to your place?
114

APPENDIX C: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF 

SUBSET OF PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS INCLUDED 

IN OUTCOME ANALYSIS 

The following summary statistics describe the 675 adults included in the outcomes analyses. The number of 

adult participants in the statistical analysis (n=675) is fewer than the number of GF2020 adult participants 

(N=789). This is because, in preparation for analysis, cases with outliers on key continuous variables were 

removed as a part of data preparation to improve the accuracy of multivariate modeling estimates. The outcomes 

methods and findings sections of this report are the only area in this report that uses the n=675 adult 

participants.

TABLE A5. GF2020 adult participant characteristic and summary statistics for 

continuous variables (n=675)

VARIABLE NAME MEAN MEDIAN STANDARD 

DEVIATION

VALID 

OBSERVATIONS

Age at enrollment 30.2 29 7.3 675

Annual household 

income at intake

$13,216 $10,100 $13,629 650

Number of 

coaching 

interactions

7.4 5 6.6 576

Average length of 

coaching 

interactions 

(minutes)

31.8 30 16.0 576

Number of CWF 

services received 

(1 to 3 services)

2.2 2 0.7 516

Number social 

capital events 

attended

3.5 2 3.3 333
115

TABLE A6. GF2020 adult participant characteristic and frequencies for categorical 

variables (n=675)

CATEGORY FREQUENCY % 

Program site 

Site 1 158 23.4

Site 2 123 18.2

Site 3 207 30.7

Site 4 104 15.4

Site 5 83 12.3

Gender 

Female 612 90.7

Male 62 9.2

Transgender 1 0.1

Race 

African American/Black 416 61.6

American Indian/Alaskan Native 4 0.6

Asian 3 0.4

Biracial 6 0.9

Caucasian/White 123 18.2

Multiracial 16 2.4

Other 105 15.6

Missing 2 0.3

Ethnicity 

Hispanic/Latinx 148 21.9

Non-Hispanic/Latinx 525 77.8

Missing 2 0.3

Employment status at enrollment 

Employed full time (35 hrs or more per week) 240 35.6

Employed part time (less than 35 hrs per week) 128 19.0

Not in the workforce (homemaker, disabled, retired) 31 4.6

Unemployed (seeking employment) 201 29.8

Other 13 1.9

Missing 62 9.2

Educational attainment at enrollment 

No high school diploma 153 22.7

High school diploma or equivalency 193 28.6

Some college 129 19.1

Two-year degree 24 3.6

Four-year degree 33 4.9

Graduate-level degree 9 1.3

Missing 134 19.9

Living arrangement at enrollment 

House/apt. is owned by household member 65 9.6

House/apt. is rented by household member—subsidized 145 21.5

House/apt. is rented by household member—unsubsidized 330 48.9
116

Household is homeless (without a roof) or in a shelter 45 6.7

Household stays in the house/apt. for free 61 9.0

Missing 29 4.3

Child attended at least one day ECE 

Yes 587 87.0

No 88 13.0

Goals 

One or more set 446 66.1

One or more completed 169 25.0

Referrals 

One or more made 290 43.0

One or more attended 122 18.1
117

APPENDIX D. FIDELITY CHECKLIST 

TABLE A7. Description of GF2020 core components

GF2020 CORE 

COMPONENT

DESCRIPTION 

Education 

(child)

• Child is enrolled in a high-quality ECE center

• Child care attendance is being tracked in ETO

• ISTAR-KR tracked in ETO

Postsecondary 

education/ 

pathways to 

employment 

(enrollment in 

Center for 

Working 

Families)

Includes follow-up data collection and entry:

• Combined Financial Assessment is completed within 90 days of enrollment and 

updated every 6 months

• Completion of Family Success Plan within 60 days of enrollment**

• Additional indicators (survey portion of the FSP) are updated every 6 months

• Parents meet regularly with coach (financial, social capital, etc.) and natural care 

giver/community connector

 

**Includes setting/achieving/making goals related to the five core areas

Social capital

• Site hosts events and tracks attendees in ETO

• Sites communicate events to UWCI and evaluation team for participation

• Site plans and hosts social capital activities to strengthen the family and track 

attendance in ETO

Health & wellbeing

• Site is tracking that warm referrals are happening in ETO

• Site following up with enrollees to insure they are attending referral appointments 

and tracking in ETO.

Enrollment & 

retention

Continued enrollment and recruitment of eligible families (children and parents) that is 

meeting the sites goals.

Data collection

Effectively collect:

• All baseline information and demographics within 60 days of enrollment

• Completed full Family Success Plan Additional Indicators w/in 60 days of enrollment 

(updated every six months)

• Goals Completion Status updated regularly (at least every six months)

• Completed full or modified CFA within 90 days (updated every six months)

• All CWF coaching and natural care giver/community connector meetings.

• Input child care attendance data and indicator that ISTAR-KR assessment has been 

conducted in ETO

• Input information about service referrals

• Social capital event attendance is recorded

 

**Site meets timelines to collect data per the grant agreement and PO direction.

Capacity 

building

• Attendance and participation at monthly subgrantee leadership meetings

• Attendance at Peer Learning sessions

• Attendance at relevant training

• Organizational growth/expansion as a result of GF2020

Partnerships

• Ongoing collaboration with contracted service providers and ECE such that all 

GF2020 components are available to participants

• Match partners (funders)

• Building partnership with supportive services
118

APPENDIX E. SURVEY RESULTS FOR 

SUBGRANTEE AND PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION 

SURVEYS 

FIGURE A2. Subgrantee perceptions of the effectiveness of CWF services (2020) (n=26)

 
119

FIGURE A3. Subgrantee perceptions of the effectiveness of social capital programming

(2018–2020)

FIGURE A4. Subgrantee perceptions of the effectiveness of ECE (2018–2020) 
120

FIGURE A5. Subgrantee opinions surrounding warm referrals (2018-2020) 
121

TABLE A8. Participants’ perception of the services and benefits of financial coaching

 STRONGLY 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

DISAGREE

NEITHER 

AGREE NOR 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

AGREE

STRONGLY 

AGREE

With the advice from my coach, I am 

able to stick to my monthly budget 

(n=32)

3% 3% 3% 22% 69%

With the advice from my coach, I am 

able to make payments (e.g., mortgage, 

student loans) on time (n=29)

3% 3% 14% 14% 66%

With the help from my coach, I am able 

to save some money each month 

(n=30)

7% - 6% 17% 70%

The advice from my coach has 

increased my knowledge on building 

assets (n=31)

6% 3% 6% 13% 72%

With the advice from my coach, I have 

learned how to manage my credit 

(n=31)

6% - 4% 29% 61%

My coach and I made a good plan that 

has helped me with my financial 

situation. (n=32)

3% 3% - 6% 88%

My coach provided good instructions on 

how to make or improve my budget 

(n=29)

- 3% 3% - 94%

My coach has taught me how to more 

effectively manage my debt(s) (n=31)

 

3% 3% 3% 26% 65%

 
122

TABLE A9. Participant perception of the services and benefits of employment coaching

 STRONGLY 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

DISAGREE

NEITHER 

AGREE NOR 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

AGREE

STRONGLY 

AGREE

With the help of my coach, I increased 

my skills on how to prepare for an 

interview (e.g., writing resumes and 

appropriate dressing) (n=17)

- 6% 12% 6% 76%

The advice from my coach increased my 

ability to network with employers (n=17) - - 6% 29% 65%

With the help of my coach, I now know 

where to look for jobs (n=17) - - - 6% 94%

The advice from my coach has 

increased my confidence in getting a 

job (n=18)

- 6% 6% 6% 82%

I obtained a 

license/certificate/credential with the 

advice and/or help from my coach (e.g., 

GED) (n=10)

- - 10% 20% 70%

I was able to get a (better) job with the 

help from my coach (n=12) - 8% 8% 25% 59%

My coach and I made a good plan that 

has helped me with my career 

development (n=20)

- - 5% 15% 80%

My coach connected me with multiple 

job opportunities (n=18) - - 6% 33% 61%

 
123

TABLE A10. Participant perception of the services and benefits of income support

 STRONGLY 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

DISAGREE

NEITHER 

AGREE NOR 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

AGREE

STRONGLY 

AGREE

When I needed transportation, I 

received enough support from my 

coach (e.g., bus passes, rides) (n=12)

 

8% - - 17% 75%

My coach helped with my rent and/or 

utilities as I needed (n=24)

 

- 4% - 13% 83%

My coach helped me apply for public 

benefits (e.g., food stamps, 

unemployment insurance, CCDF, 

Disabilities, Section 8) (n=17)

 

- - 6% 18% 76%

My coach helped connect me with 

resources for other basic needs (e.g., 

food pantry, clothes donations) (n=24) - - 4% 8% 88%

The advice from my coach has helped 

me increase my monthly income (n=23) 4% - 9% 35% 52%

TABLE A11. Participant perception of the services and benefits of social capital

 STRONGLY 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

DISAGREE

NEITHER 

AGREE NOR

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

AGREE

STRONGLY 

AGREE

Since enrolled in the GF2020 program, 

I have developed new relationships with 

other families (n=13)

8% 8% 15% 15% 54%

Since enrolled in the GF2020 program, 

I feel I can trust more people in my 

neighborhood (n=14)

7% - 36% 14% 43%

Since enrolled in the GF2020 program, 

I know of more local resources in the 

community to help my family (n=16)

6% - 19% 25% 50%

Since enrolled in the GF2020 program, 

I attend more community events (n=14) - - 14% 50% 36%

I would have liked for organization to 

host more family events (n=8) - - 12% 25% 63%

To encourage families to hang out 

together, I hope the organization can 

host family events more regularly 

(n=13)

- - 15% 8% 77%

 
124

TABLE A12. Participant perception of the services and benefits of ECE

 STRONGLY 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

DISAGREE

NEITHER 

AGREE NOR 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

AGREE

STRONGLY 

AGREE

The discount offered through GF2020 is 

helpful for me to pay for child care 

(n=13)

- - 8% - 92%

I trust the child care center to keep my 

child(ren) healthy and safe (n=16) - - - - 100%

The child care center provides a good 

learning environment for my child(ren) 

(n=5)

- - 7% - 93%

My child(ren) learned based on a 

planned curriculum (n=15) - - 7% - 93%

My coach helped me apply for CCDF 

(n=10) - 10% 10% 20% 60%

With the help from my coach, I was able 

to enroll in CCDF (n=9) 11% - - 11% 78%

TABLE A13. Participant perception of the services and benefits of health and well-being

 STRONGLY 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

DISAGREE

NEITHER 

AGREE NOR 

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT 

AGREE

STRONGLY 

AGREE

I feel I am better able to cope with 

stress and anxiety (n=7) - - 14% 29% 57%

I no longer feel down, depressed, or 

hopeless (n=6) - - 17% 17% 66%

I feel good about myself and my ability 

to provide for my family (n=6) - 17% - 33% 50%

I have more interest or find more 

pleasure in doing things (n=6) - - 17% 17% 66%

I feel more emotionally connected to my 

family and close friends (n=6) - - 17% 17% 66%

I am more knowledgeable about health 

insurance and how to enroll in it (n=6) - - 17% 17% 66%

I am able to better take care of my 

physical health (n=6) - - 33% - 67%

I exercise more frequently (n=6) - 17% 50% - 33%

I enjoyed my mental health counseling 

sessions (n=6) - - 33% 33% 34%
125

TABLE A14. Participant characteristics associated with perception of the five domain services (n=30) 

SITE RACE AGE ED

HHSIZE

INCOME LENGTH

FINANCIAL 

COACHING

EMPLOYMENT 

COACHING

INCOME 

SUPPORT

SOCIAL 

CAPITAL

CHILD

CARE

HEALTH & 

WELL-BEING

Correlation 

Site 1.000 -0.042 .000 -.148 -.090 .143 .217 -.138 0.049 -.245 -.154 -.070 -.175

Race -.042 1.000 .217 .053 .225 .141 -.161 .195 .135 .048 .114 .102 -.110

Age .000 .217 1.000 .213 .113 .268 -.120 .037 .076 .090 .034 -.053 -.154

Ed -.148 .053 .213 1.000 -.019 .378 -.280 -.145 -.047 .002 -.139 -.022 -.138

HH-size -.090 .225 .113 -.019 1.000 .067 -.219 -.022 .060 .091 -.071 -.187 -.089

Income .143 .141 .268 .378 .067 1.000 -.092 .149 .120 .115 -.021 .135 -.041

Length .217 -.161 -.120 -.280 -.219 -.092 1.000 .301 .250 .012 .088 .159 .214

Financial coaching -.138 .195 .037 -.145 -.022 .149 .031 1.000 .591 .650 .614 .595 .488

Employment 

coaching -.049 .135 .076 -.047 .060 .120 .250 .591 1.000 .509 .688 .589 .604

Income support -.245 .048 .090 .002 .091 .115 .012 .650 .509 1.000 .701 .589 .604

Social capital -.154 .114 .034 -.139 -.071 -.021 .088 .614 .689 .701 1.000 .657 .606

Childcare -.070 .102 -.053 -.022 -.187 .135 .159 .595 .812 .589 .657 1.000 .588

Health & well-being -.175 -.110 -.154 -.138 -.089 -.041 .214 .488 .526 .604 .606 .588 1.000

Sig (1-tailed)

Site .392 .499 .169 .281 .177 .079 .186 .376 .054 .159 .326 .129

Race .392 .087 .371 .079 .190 .157 .111 .199 .382 .239 .264 .246

Age .499 .087 .082 .232 .039 .219 .406 .312 .282 .414 .366 .159

Ed .169 .371 .082 .451 .006 .033 .174 .381 .495 .184 .444 .186

HH-size .281 .079 .232 .451 .336 .082 .445 .353 .283 .328 .118 .288

Income .177 .190 .039 .006 .336 .309 .207 .257 .266 .454 .230 .411

Length .079 .157 .219 .033 .082 .309 .024 .051 .459 .285 .152 .081

Financial coaching .186 .111 .406 .174 .445 .207 .024 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001

Employment 

coaching

.376 .199 .312 .381 .353 .257 .051 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001

Income support .054 .382 .282 .495 .283 .266 .469 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001

Social capital .159 .239 .414 .184 .328 .454 .285 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Childcare .326 .264 .366 .444 .118 .230 .152 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001

Health & well-being .129 .246 .159 .186 .288 .411 .081 .001 .001 .000 000 .001
126

APPENDIX F. OUTCOME ANALYSIS RESULTS 

TABLE A15. Results of Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests and Descriptive Statistics on Monthly Income (n=675)

 BASELINE FOLLOW-UP

Mean SD n Mean SD n z d n 

Monthly Income 1,499.6 940.1 433 1,722.3 882.6 162 -3.44 *** 0.29 137

† p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

TABLE A16. Results of Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests and Descriptive Statistics on Family Success Plan Survey Groupings (n=675)

BASELINE FIRST FOLLOW-UP SECOND FOLLOW-UP THIRD FOLLOW-UP 

Mean SD n Mean SD n z d n Mean SD n z d n Mean SD n z d n 

Physical and 

mental 

health

3.6 0.8 362 3.7 0.7 363 -2.49 * 0.14 351 3.8 0.63 133 -3.48 ** 0.35 127 3.9 0.6 54 -

2.96

** 0.46 50

Child 

development 

and 

knowledge of 

parenting

4.1 0.6 363 4.2 0.6 367 -3.52 *** 0.19 356 4.3 0.5 137 -3.69 *** 0.35 132 4.4 0.6 54 -

2.25

* 0.34 50

Concrete 

supports

3.3 1.1 355 3.6 1.0 366 -5.15 *** 0.29 347 3.8 0.9 135 -3.71 *** 0.36 127 4.1 1.0 54 -

1.77

† 0.28 48

Family 

functioning 

and 

resiliency

4.2 0.8 362 4.3 0.7 368 -1.26 0.08 356 4.4 0.6 137 -2.35 * 0.23 132 4.5 0.5 54 -

1.30

0.18 50

Nurturing 

and 

attachment

4.8 0.4 362 4.8 0.4 368 -0.11 0.01 356 4.8 0.4 137 -1.19 -0.11 132 4.9 0.2 54 -

0.71

0.10 50

Social 

supports

3.9 0.9 357 3.9 0.8 367 -0.62 -0.04 350 3.9 0.7 136 -0.66 -0.05 129 3.8 0.8 54 -

1.20

-0.18 48

Civic 

engagement

2.6 0.6 359 2.6 0.5 364 -2.41 * 0.12 350 2.7 0.5 134 -1.83 † 0.15 127 2.6 0.6 54 -

0.42

-0.09 49

Social 

networks

3.5 0.7 361 3.7 0.7 363 -4.81 *** 0.27 352 3.7 0.5 134 -2.25 * 0.20 128 3.7 0.6 54 -

0.72

0.08 49

† p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
115