Alternative Supporting Statement for Information Collections Designed for
Research, Public Health Surveillance, and Program Evaluation Purposes
Coparenting and Healthy Relationship and Marriage Education for Dads (CHaRMED)
OMB Information Collection Request
0970-0540
Supporting Statement
Part B
December 2019
Revised April 2020
Submitted By:
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE)
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
4th Floor, Mary E. Switzer Building
330 C Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20201
Project Officer:
Nicole Constance, ACF/OPRE
Part B
B1. Objectives
The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have implications for this section, particularly the appropriateness of study design, as described below.
Study Objectives
This study has three overarching objectives:
To describe the current approaches fatherhood programs use to support fathers’ healthy relationships (romantic and coparenting).
To explore the extent to which programs’ current approaches to supporting fathers’ healthy relationships (romantic and coparenting) align with participants’ needs around their relationships.
To identify promising fatherhood program implementation strategies for healthy romantic and coparenting relationship services, including strategies around recruitment, retention, and engagement.
Generalizability of Results
This study is intended to present an exploratory, descriptive, internally-valid description of fatherhood services and activities that support fathers’ healthy romantic and coparenting relationships in chosen sites, not to promote statistical generalization to other sites or service populations.
Appropriateness of Study Design and Methods for Planned Uses
As noted in Supporting Statement A, this information is not intended to be used as the principal basis for public policy decisions and is not expected to meet the threshold of influential or highly influential scientific information.
The study design approved in Feb 2020 proposed utilizing both semi-structured interviews and focus groups for qualitative data collection. The current request proposes utilizing only semi-structured interviews to collect this information. Semi-structured interviews are appropriate to address the study objectives because they are designed to elicit conversations around themes that can speak to the larger study objectives and specific research questions, while allowing the respondents to guide the discussions. They allow flexibility for the respondent(s) to guide the interview and provide in-depth discussion about topics that are understudied and therefore not well understood. Semi-structured interviews can be adapted to a variety of respondent types, which supports data collection from multiple participants with varied perspectives and improves the quality of the data (Rubin, 2011). This study therefore plans to utilize semi-structured interviews with participating fathers, coparents, nonparticipating fathers, program staff, partners, and curriculum developers to explore both broad topics as well as more focused research questions that are better addressed from an individual’s perspective.
Participating and nonparticipating fathers and coparents will also be asked to complete brief questionnaires on their demographic characteristics. Data on participants’ demographic characteristics allows for interpretation and contextualization of the results of the qualitative methods described above. Questionnaires are the most effective method to obtain quantitative descriptive data collected consistently across participants.
B2. Methods and Design
The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have implications for the study methods and design, particularly for the definitions and estimated sample sizes of the target population, as described below.
Target Population
The study team will recruit up to 13 fatherhood programs for participation, and all participating individuals will be associated in some way with a fatherhood program. We will prioritize federally-funded RF grantees for participation, but will also include non-RF programs to fill any gaps in the study’s sampling frame (see Appendix E. Screening Matrix CHaRMED Data Collection for more on the sampling frame). Non-federally funded programs will be identified through a web search and input from study experts and stakeholders.
Our target populations include fatherhood program staff, their program partner staff, fathers and coparents affiliated with the programs, and curriculum developers.
The study design approved in Feb 2020 proposed that data would be collected primarily during program visits. The current request proposes instead to conduct data collection primarily via telephone or videoconference, with the possibility for program visits. For each program selected for participation, respondents will participate in one-on-one semi-structured interviews.
The target populations and estimated sample sizes for the semi-structured interviews include:
Fatherhood program staff: 24 directors and 24 facilitators (1-2 directors and 1-2 facilitators per site)
Program partner staff: 14 (0-2 partner staff per site)
Nonparticipating fathers: 20 (1-2 nonparticipating fathers per site)
Participating fathers: 52 (2- 4 participants per site)
Coparents: 24 (1-4 participants per site at up to 6 sites)
In addition to the data collected from and about fatherhood programs, the study team will conduct semi-structured interviews via telephone with up to seven curriculum developers.
Participating fathers, coparents and nonparticipating fathers will also complete an interviewer-administered brief questionnaire at the end of their interviews.
The following paragraphs define our target populations:
Program Director refers broadly to an individual who oversees fatherhood program operations. This individual may oversee more than one type of program and may or may not implement or facilitate sessions that directly address healthy romantic or coparenting relationships. They are likely responsible for hiring and training staff, choosing curricula and programming based on community need and funding requirements, reporting to funders, and maintaining partnerships with other organizations. The study team will speak with up to 24 directors during semi-structured interviews (see Instrument 2. Interview Protocol with Fatherhood Program Staff).
Program Facilitators are the individuals implementing responsible fatherhood programming and working directly with fathers. The study team will speak with up to 24 facilitators during semi-structured interviews (see Instrument 2. Interview Protocol with Fatherhood Program Staff).
Program Partners could include a range of personnel who work for an organization that partners directly with fatherhood programs to provide healthy romantic or coparenting relationship services, such as a community center that implements a coparenting program for new parents. Program partners could include administrators, facilitators, university staff, or others identified during the recruitment process. The goal of speaking with program partners – up to 14 during semi-structured interviews – is to get a sense of what, if any, healthy romantic or coparenting relationship services they offer to fatherhood program participants, how program partners find out about fatherhood programs, and why they choose to partner with the fatherhood program (see Instrument 3. Interview Protocol with Program Partner Staff).
Nonparticipating Fathers are fathers who are either currently enrolled in the fatherhood program but never received coparenting or marriage/romantic relationship education services; currently enrolled in the fatherhood program, received coparenting or marriage/romantic relationship education services, but dropped out of these services before they were complete; or are no longer enrolled in the program and stopped the program before completing coparenting or marriage/romantic relationship education services. Because the study is interested in existing and ongoing coparenting relationships, the study team will target fathers of children that are minors under the age of 18. However, fathers who do not have minor children will not be excluded from the study. Finally, as per the change request submitted in April 2020, some fatherhood programs work with incarcerated fathers or with fathers that have been recently released from prison. Our sample of nonparticipating fathers will therefore include fathers that have been recently released from prison. The goal of speaking with nonparticipating fathers – up to 20 during semi-structured interviews – is to learn why they were not interested in or stopped healthy romantic or coparenting relationship services (see Instrument 4. Interview Protocol with Nonparticipating Fathers).
Curriculum Developers include authors of curricula commonly used by fatherhood programs. The study team will conduct semi-structured interviews with up to seven developers. The goal of these discussions is to better understand how the curricula were developed, their target audiences, and how well suited they are for fatherhood program settings (see Instrument 7. Interview Protocol with Curriculum Developers).
Participating Fathers are those currently enrolled in the fatherhood program and attending healthy romantic or coparenting relationship services. Participating fathers may also be those who completed a fatherhood program including attending healthy romantic or coparenting relationship services within the past six month. The study team will target participating fathers of children that are minors under the age of 18, but fathers who do not have minor children will not be excluded from the study. Finally, as per the change request submitted in April 2020, some fatherhood programs work with incarcerated fathers or with fathers that have been recently released from prison, and our sample of participating fathers will include fathers that have been recently released from prison. The study team will speak with up to 52 fathers during semi-structured interviews (up to 4 fathers per site) (see Instrument 5. Interview Protocol Fathers).
Coparents are any adults that share responsibility for raising the father’s child(ren). Coparents are most often the child(ren)’s mother but could also include the child(ren)’s maternal or paternal grandparent or another relative. As for the fathers, the study team will target coparents of children that are minors under the age of 18, but coparents who do not have minor children will not be excluded from the study. The goal of speaking with coparents – up to 24 during semi-structured interviews (up to 4participants per site at up to 6 sites) – is to understand whether and how fatherhood programs engage them in services. The study team plans to engage coparents of any fathers participating in programming at the site, not specifically coparents of the fathers participating in the study interviews. They anticipate one of the challenges of implementing coparenting services in fatherhood programs is that fatherhood programming is usually targeted toward an individual (the father) whereas coparenting programming tends to be targeted toward a dyad (the coparents). Thus, targeting one individual for services can make it difficult to address a dyadic relationship like coparenting. Speaking with coparents and fathers, in addition to program staff, will help us understand how fatherhood programs handle this challenge and the target clientele’s perspective on the services (see Instrument 6. Interview Protocol Coparents).
Sampling and Site Selection
Program-level
The study team began identifying fatherhood programs for participation by examining information about fatherhood programs’ geographic location, populations served, coparenting and romantic relationship services, and partnerships. This information was obtained from a) applications and progress reports for current federally funded grantees, and b) program websites and other documents for federally and non-federally funded fatherhood programs. As program selection continues, the study team will seek input from federal staff in ACF, and if needed, technical assistance providers, experts, and stakeholders. Programs whose services seem to be reflective of the overall RF grantee program population in the United States will be prioritized for inclusion (see Appendix E. Screening Matrix CHaRMED Data Collection for selection criteria). For example, the study team will prioritize a cross section of programs that represent: both rural and urban settings; the South, Midwest, and both coasts; programs that serve participants from specific populations of interest (e.g., underemployed); services offered in-house and through a partner organization; and services offered to coparents (both with and without the requirement that fathers’ be present). Additionally, the study team will select programs that collectively allow us to observe both healthy romantic relationship and coparenting services. These priorities will help us ensure the information gathered is reflective of a broad range of program approaches and is useful for the broader fatherhood field.
Once priority programs were identified, the study team began screening programs via telephone (see Instrument 1. CHaRMED Program Screener). The study team aims to screen up to 20 programs in order to select up to 13 programs for participation. The team estimates that having up to 13 fatherhood programs would allow for a diverse set of programs to be included in the study while remaining within the pre-determined data collection budget. The respondent universe for screening interviews includes the Program Director or another designated staff member from all identified fatherhood programs. During the screening process, the study team will track characteristics of organizations that are suitable for participation in the study at the organizational level to ensure that the 13 programs selected for participation in the study reflect a broad range of fatherhood programs (see Appendix E. Screening Matrix CHaRMED Data Collection).
Participant-level sampling
Individual study participants will be identified via convenience sampling. Once programs have been selected for participation in CHaRMED, the program director at each site will be asked to help coordinate data collection and identify and recruit participants for participation.
Staff interviews: The study team aims to speak with 1-2 program directors and 1-2 program facilitators from each fatherhood program, depending on the staffing patterns at each site and staff availability. The program directors will identify the staff that they think would be best positioned to respond to the research questions. We expect that a minimum of one director and one facilitator per site would be adequate to answer the research questions.
Program partner staff interviews: Program directors will indicate whether they have any program partner organizations that work directly with their program to provide romantic relationship and/or coparenting services. If so, they will indicate which staff at those organizations would be best positioned to answer questions about the fatherhood program. The study team aims to speak with 0-2 partner staff per site, depending on the number of partner organizations and the availability of their staff to participate. For sites that have no partner organizations providing romantic relationship and/or coparenting services, we will not interview any partner organization staff; for sites that have one or more partner organizations providing romantic relationship and/or coparenting services, we expect that a minimum of one staff person would be adequate to answer the research questions.
Nonparticipating fathers: The study team aims to speak with 1-2 nonparticipating fathers from each site to allow us to understand the varied reasons for not participating in romantic relationship or coparenting services. Program directors will identify potential participants based on their enrollment status in a given program. We expect that one nonparticipating father per site will be enough to provide some information about the perspectives of nonparticipating fathers. We also expect that it may be difficult to recruit nonparticipating fathers, and may not be feasible to recruit more than one per site.
Fathers and coparents: The study team aims to speak with up to 4 fathers from each site. We also plan to speak with up to 4 coparents at up to 6 sites. Program directors will identify potential participants based on their enrollment or participation in a given program. We expect that a minimum of 2 fathers per site will be enough to provide useful information about the perspectives of participating fathers. We also expect that it may be difficult to recruit coparents, and it may not be feasible at all sites. Therefore, we anticipate that a minimum of 1 coparent at up to 6 sites will be enough to provide useful information about the perspectives of coparents.
Curriculum developers: For interviews with curriculum developers, the study team will compile a list of curricula commonly used by RF grantees and other fatherhood programs to review based on grantee documents and web searches. We will select curriculum developers for interviews when the curriculum they developed does not have enough publicly-available information to determine how it addresses healthy romantic relationships or coparenting with fathers. Based on a preliminary scan of curricula commonly used in fatherhood programs, we anticipate that we will need to speak with no more than seven curriculum developers.
B3. Design of Data Collection Instruments
The requested changes submitted in April 2020 include modifications to data collection instruments, as described below.
Development of Data Collection Instrument(s)
For the qualitative protocols, designed specifically for this study, the study team began by developing a list of specific questions that could address each of the three study objectives, then translated those questions into qualitative protocols appropriate for the intended participants. Given the qualitative nature of the proposed study, the study team is interested in obtaining multiple perspectives on the same topics (e.g., asking both program staff and fathers whether and how fatherhood program services meet fathers’ needs). However, the study team made efforts to streamline data collection instruments so that only questions necessary to achieve the study objectives are included. Questions are aligned with the larger questions/objectives they were intended to answer and the intended respondent. See Appendix A. Table of Objectives, Questions, and Respondents for more information about which respondents/ instruments will help address each study objective. Each of the protocols was shared with several of the study’s experts to ensure they will be understood by respondents and produce findings that will be relevant to the field.
The study team then piloted the instruments designed for fathers (Instrument 4. Interview Protocol with Nonparticipating Fathers and Instrument 5. Interview Protocol with Fathers). The study team reached out to the project’s expert consultants for assistance in identifying potential fathers for the pilot. Pilot interviews were conducted with individual fathers by phone. The team conducted one pilot interview using Instrument 4 and three pilot interviews using Instrument 5 (the protocol, which was originally written as a focus group protocol, was modified slightly so that it could be used to interview an individual father). Based on the pilot interviews, the team modified Instruments 4 and 5; the team also revised Instrument 6. Interview Protocol with Coparents to align with the changes made to the father protocols.
The change request submitted in April 2020 includes additional updates to all instruments based on study team staff training feedback, early data collection and in response to current events related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data collection began in March 2020. After holding a study team training on all protocols and conducting two interviews with program staff using Instrument 2. Interview Protocol with Fatherhood Program Staff, the team made modifications to instruments 2-6. These changes include reorganizing existing content, editing for clarity and consistency across protocols, and removing redundant or unnecessary questions. At the same time as these changes were being made, states and local jurisdictions began to implement social distancing guidance to contain the spread of COVID-19. To accommodate remote data collection with program sites, the study team adapted protocols 5 and 6 – which were originally developed for focus groups – to be administered as semi-structured interviews (see Instrument 5. Interview Protocol Fathers and Instrument 6. Interview Protocol Coparents). The team also added new questions to all interview protocols to address emerging questions related to how COVID-19 may be affecting fathers, coparents, and the programs that serve them (see Instruments 2-6).
Two brief questionnaires – one for fathers and one for coparents –will provide demographic data to describe study participants, which will aid in the interpretation of the qualitative results (see Instrument 8. Brief Questionnaire – Fathers and Instrument 9. Brief Questionnaire – Coparents). In developing these questionnaires, the study team used validated survey questions whenever possible, drawing primarily from the Fatherhood and Marriage Local Evaluation and Cross-Site Data Collection study (OMB Control No. 0970-0460), which has the questions each RF grantee must answer in their required federal reporting.
B4. Collection of Data and Quality Control
The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have implications for the data collection process, particularly for semi-structured interviews with nonparticipating fathers, participating fathers, and coparents, as described below.
Child Trends, under contract to ACF’s Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), will be collecting the data for the proposed study.
Once fatherhood program sites are selected for participation, the study team will reach out to program directors to confirm their ability and willingness to participate. Because these individuals have already participated in screening interviews, which include a question about whether they are interested in participating in the study, the study team anticipates high participation rates. Outreach will happen by email and phone, and will primarily address logistics of scheduling data collection (see Appendix B. CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts). During this correspondence, if not obtained during the screening interview, the study team will ask the point of contact to recommend potential participants for interviews including fatherhood program facilitators, other director-level staff, program partners staff, nonparticipating fathers, participating fathers and coparents.
For the semi-structured interviews with fatherhood program staff, program directors will notify staff that the program is participating in the study and help schedule their interviews. Based on planning conversations with experts and Child Trend’s experience with similar populations, the study team anticipates directors will be willing to help coordinate the interviews and will even prefer to take on this role given their knowledge of the program schedule and staff availability. If program directors are not able or willing to schedule program staff interviews, the study team will follow up with potential interviewees by email or phone to describe the study and to confirm their contact information for further follow up (see Appendix B. CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts). The study team will send an electronic copy of the consent form during the scheduling process, and will review the consent form verbally prior to the start of the interview (see Appendix G. CHaRMED Consent Forms).
For the semi-structured interviews with program partner staff, program directors will provide contact information for the point of contact at the partner organization, and the study team will follow up with potential interviewees via email or phone to describe the study (see Appendix B. CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts). The study team will send an electronic copy of the consent form during the scheduling process and will review the consent form verbally prior to the start of the interview (see Appendix G. CHaRMED Consent Forms).
For the semi-structured interviews with nonparticipating fathers, participating fathers, and coparents, the team will rely on fatherhood program staff to inform potential participants about the study and either (a) recruit participants and schedule interview times or (b) identify nonparticipating fathers, participating fathers, and coparents who are interested in participating and put the study team in touch with these potential participants, depending on the preferences of the program directors. If directors choose to recruit and schedule with participants, the study team will provide directors with information about coordinating the interviews (see Appendix B. CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts). If the program directors prefer to put the study team in touch with potential participants, they will either introduce the potential participants to the study team via email or text, provide the study team with the potential participants’ phone numbers to call, or provide the potential participants’ with the study team’s phone number to call. The study team will then follow up with potential interviewees via their preferred method of communication to describe the study and to schedule an interview time (see Appendix B. CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts). The study team will send an electronic copy of the consent form in advance to participants that have email access. For all participants, the study team will review the consent form verbally prior to the start of the interview (see Appendix G. CHaRMED Consent Forms). Notably, the change request submitted in April 2020 also seeks approval to use a new set of consent forms for nonparticipating and participating fathers who have recently been released from incarceration. These consent forms, located within Appendix G. CHaRMED Consent Forms and titled Consent Form - Nonparticipating Father Interview (Form B) and Consent Form - Father Interview (Form B), contain specific language indicating that study participation will not impact parole or probation and information obtained will not be shared with participants’ parole officers.
Recruited participants will receive a reminder email or call one week and one day before their interview (see Appendix B. CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts). Based on the study team’s prior experience, these procedures seem to minimize the number of cancellations and no-shows. All participants will be asked to provide verbal consent at the start of their interview. Following their interview, they will receive thank you letters (see Appendix B. CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts). Nonparticipating fathers, participating fathers, and coparents will also receive a thank you gift card of $30 for participating in the study (see SSA9. Tokens of Appreciation).
Note that the study design approved in Feb 2020 proposed that data collection with program staff, partner staff, fathers and coparents would primarily occur in-person during program visits. The current request proposes instead to conduct data collection primarily via telephone or videoconference, with the possibility for program visits.
The curriculum developers will be recruited via email (see Appendix B. CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts). In past projects with similar interviews, this recruitment process was very effective for curriculum developers and imposed minimal burden for scheduling the interview. Curriculum developers will receive an electronic copy of the consent form via email prior to completing the interview (see Appendix G. CHaRMED Consent Forms) and a thank you letter after (see Appendix B. CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts).
To reduce participant burden, no participants will be re-interviewed. The team will audio record the interviews so that verbatim transcripts can be made. Up to two interviewers will attend each interview with at least one interviewer being a senior, experienced qualitative interviewer. This process allows two trained interviewers to be checking for complete answers as well as consistent procedures across interviews. This in combination with rigorous training and monitoring processes has proven sufficient for data quality and consistency in the past.
All interviewers have been trained on the overall goal of the study and related research questions, data security and storage, obtaining participant consent, how to ask interview questions, and recruitment/data collection logistics. The training included role plays to practice asking the interview questions.
B5. Response Rates and Potential Nonresponse Bias
The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have implications for response rates, as the study team will no longer recruit for focus groups.
Response Rates
The study team expects that the study design and procedures will enable us to successfully recruit the minimum numbers of participants for each study activity. To ensure the study team can identify up to 13 fatherhood programs suitable to participate in the study, they plan to conduct initial outreach to up to 20 programs. To maximize participation rates, the study team will schedule interviews during dates and times that are most convenient for participants. The study team will call and email the day before scheduled interviews to remind participants of the interview.
Non-Response
Program-level
This study is not intended to produce generalizable information about the prevalence of strategies or challenges faced by fatherhood programs, and the information will not be presented as representative of the grant program. If an eligible program declines to participate in the study, the interviewer will discuss the program’s concerns and attempt to address the concerns. If the program cannot or will not participate in the research, the study team will select another organization with similar characteristics.
Participant-level
As participants will not be randomly sampled and findings are not intended to be representative, non-response bias will not be calculated. For fatherhood program staff and partners, the study team will emphasize to program staff who will be recruiting participants the importance of recruiting a variety of different participants to help ensure we capture a broad range of perspectives. If sites have more than one program facilitator, the study team will also ask the sites to stratify recruitment by program facilitator to help to ensure a diversity in participant experiences.
B6. Production of Estimates and Projections
The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.
The data will not be used to generate population estimates, either for internal use or dissemination.
B7. Data Handling and Analysis
The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have slight implications for data analysis, as the study team will no longer include focus groups.
Data Handling
All interview recordings will be transcribed verbatim, reviewed for completeness, and de-identified before being imported into Dedoose software for coding and organization of data. Transcripts and program observation summaries (see Appendix C. Program Observation Protocol) will be coded and analyzed for emerging themes in an iterative process, by two to four trained qualitative researchers. Coding will begin by developing a codebook that mirrors the protocol questions and includes the code name, definition, and how to apply the code. Then, researchers will engage in a collective and individual process of coding, which allows for additional codes to emerge. Specifically, at least two researchers will code the same transcript line by line together to test and refine the codebook by creating or refining the codes through discussion. This process will be repeated with additional transcripts until the codebook works satisfactorily for all team members and requires minimal additions/changes. Then, the remaining transcripts will be divided and coded independently among team members. The team will meet to review codes and reconcile any discrepancies through consensus throughout this process. Initial themes may begin to emerge during these discussions and will be documented. A senior team member will oversee this process to minimize errors and ensure quality of coding, and to facilitate theme development meetings. An independent Child Trends staff member will also review the codebook for quality control, checking for errors, duplicate codes, missing culturally or topically important codes, code names that may be confusing, as well as appropriate application/use of the codes on transcripts.
Dedoose is a cost effective and user-friendly qualitative analysis software that incorporates several levels of industry-standard physical and electronic security measures to protect data. It also allows for mixed methods analysis, with an opportunity to link interview data with brief questionnaire data at the site level.
Data Analysis
Once interview transcripts and program observation summaries are coded, the study team will meet to develop themes from the codes and examine interconnections between themes to help answer the larger research questions. Developing themes involves all coders and task leads meeting together multiple times to discuss themes that arose across interviews with supporting evidence in the form of quotations. The study team also will look for themes that are similar and different across respondent types, for example whether program staff have different perceptions of fathers’ challenges than fathers themselves. Data from the program screeners (Instrument 1) will also be entered as descriptors into Dedoose, which will facilitate comparisons by program characteristics—for example, whether the challenges fathers face are different for programs in urban vs. rural areas.
To supplement the qualitative data collected, the study team will run descriptive statistics using information collected from the site screener forms (see Instrument 1. CHaRMED Program Screener), and the brief questionnaires (see Instrument 8. Brief Questionnaire – Fathers and Instrument 9. Brief Questionnaire - Coparents) to present a profile of fatherhood programs and their participants, as well as detailed information about the programs and participants included in this study.
The analytic write up will include a description of the data collection methods, analysis, themes that arose with supporting quotations from respondents, and a synthesis of implications of those themes.
Data Use
The study team will register the study through the Open Science Framework. Through this registry, information such as a study overview and other ACF-approved study materials, such as the data collection instruments and data analysis plan, will be made available to the public.
B8. Contact Person(s)
The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.
The CHaRMED study team at Child Trends is led by Dr. Mindy Scott, principal investigator ([email protected]). Dr. Scott is supported by Dr. April Wilson, senior research scientist; Dr. Elizabeth Karberg, senior research scientist; Dr. Ellen Wilson, senior research scientist; Samantha Ciaravino, senior research analyst; Andrea Vazzano, senior research analyst; Lisa Kim, senior research assistant; Anushree Bhatia, senior research assistant; and Huda Tauseef, research assistant. The CHaRMED Federal Project Officer is Dr. Nicole Constance, with support from advisor, Dr. Kathleen McCoy.
Attachments
The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have implications for this section. Notably, Appendix H: Handout and Recruitment Flyer for Focus Group Participants and Appendix I: Consent Script for Focus Groups were removed because focus groups will no longer be conducted. We have renamed Appendix E: Screening Matrix CHaRMED Data Collection and Instrument 1: CHaRMED Program Screener, but the content remains unchanged.
Previously Approved Appendices:
Appendix A: Table of Objectives, Questions, and
Respondents
Appendix D: 60 Day Federal Register Notice
Appendix E: Screening Matrix CHaRMED Data Collection
Appendix F: Study Description
Appendices Revised in this Request:
Appendix G: CHaRMED Consent Forms
Previously Approved Instruments:
Instrument 1: CHaRMED Program Screener
Instrument 7: Interview Protocol with Curriculum Developers
Instrument 8: Brief Questionnaire – Fathers
Instrument 9: Brief Questionnaire – Coparents
Instruments Revised in this Request:
Instrument 2: Interview Protocol with Fatherhood Program Staff
Instrument 3: Interview Protocol with Program Partner Staff
Instrument 4: Interview Protocol with Nonparticipating Fathers
Instrument 5: Interview Protocol Fathers
Instrument 6: Interview Protocol Coparents
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| Author | Nicole Constance (ACF) |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-14 |