Initial Implementation of a Community-based Fatherhood Program: Perspectives from the Field

Abstract

Limited research exists on effective processes for implementing community-based fatherhood programs. Applying an implementation research framework, we interviewed team members of a fatherhood program during initial implementation. Four key factors emerged: (1) development and execution of capacity-building processes, (2) effective communication, (3) program factors, and (4) organizational culture and context. This study may inform future program planning and implementation by centering the shared and distinct perspectives of program leadership, organizational administrators, and frontline providers implementing community-based fatherhood programs.

Headnote

Limited research exists on effective processes for implementing community-based fatherhood programs. Applying an implementation research framework, we interviewed team members of a fatherhood program during initial implementation. Four key factors emerged: (1) development and execution of capacity-building processes, (2) effective communication, (3) program factors, and (4) organizational culture and context. This study may inform future program planning and implementation by centering the shared and distinct perspectives of program leadership, organizational administrators, and frontline providers implementing community-based fatherhood programs.

Acknowledgements: The production of this manuscript was supported by Grant 90Z]0047-0200 from АСЕ Its content is the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of АСЕ

Reh demonstrates significant impacts fathers have on their children and families. Children of involved fathers may perform better academically, demonstrate pro-social behaviors, and experience fewer social-emotional problems (Cabrera et al., 2017; Yoder et al., 2016). Paramount to these positive outcomes is the quality of fathers' relationships with partners, children's mothers, and other coparents (Coley & Hernandez, 2006; Osborne & Ankrum, 2015). Low fatherchild engagement is associated with interparental conflict (Coley & Hernandez, 2006), and positive child outcomes are associated with strong coparenting relationships (Carlson et al., 2008). In addition to the academic, social, and relational benefits, involved fathers contribute critical financial resources vital to mitigating the adverse effects of poverty on children (Magnuson & Votrubal-Drzal, 2009; Reardon, 2011).

Existing Research of Fatherhood Programs

Considering the unique implications of father involvement on children's health and well-being (Adamsons & Johnson, 2013; McWayne et al., 2013; Robin Dion et al., 2015), many researchers have identified a need to evaluate and expand the evidence on fatherhood programs (Anderson et al. 2002; Kim & Jang, 2018). Collectively, past studies on fatherhood programs showed positive outcomes related to father involvement and increased knowledge about parenting and positive attitudes toward fatherhood. (Hobler, 2001; Nievar et al., 2020; Robbers, 2005; Wilson et al., 2019). In a meta-analysis, Holmes and colleagues (2020) found evidence for the effectiveness of fatherhood programs targeting fathers who had low income, were unmarried, and were nonresidential. Specifically, their analysis demonstrated small but statistically significant impacts on three outcomes related to parenting, coparenting, and involvement. The strongest influence associated with fatherhood programs was on improving coparenting behaviors (Holmes et al., 2020). However, the meta-analysis did not find significant program impacts on father employment, economic prospects, and payment of child support (Holmes et al., 2020). Moreover, additional research has shown increased engagement in these programs is associated with improved outcomes (Fagan & Pearson, 2020).

While these studies demonstrate effective fatherhood programs may improve outcomes, they do not provide insight on implementation conditions or components enabling program success. Implementation science suggests conducting process and implementation studies to ensure routine uptake and usage of quality programs (Bauer & Kirchner, 2020). An implementation science framework articulating the breadth and depth of implementation constructs may illuminate activities and factors critical to successful implementation, especially during initial implementation (Metz & Bartley, 2012). The few implementation studies that exist focused specifically on fathers' satisfaction with the program, fidelity, and challenges related to recruitment, engagement, or retention of fathers (Fluegeman et al., 2020; Hayward & McKillop, 2020; Will & Milligan, 2020). Each of these studies provides a contribution to implementation research on fatherhood programs; however, no study utilized a guiding implementation science framework, and none focused on initial implementation.

Aim of Current Study

Given the emphasis on program effectiveness and outcomes, existing research lacks discussion of how to implement fatherhood programs successfully. Conducting implementation studies may support filling this gap. The current study aims to understand and evaluate the processes and strategies of the initial implementation of a community-based fatherhood program. Evidence from this study supports additional quality improvement and scale up activities of this fatherhood program and informs future planning efforts for community-based fatherhood programs.

Program Context

The program associated with this study receives funding from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance (OFA) through an initiative called Fatherhood FIRE (Family-Focused, Interconnected, Resilient, and Essential) (OFA, 2020). Local Fatherhood FIRE programs focus on promoting parenting skills, economic stability, and healthy relationships (OFA, 2020). The implementing organization is a faith-based organization providing a myriad of adoption, foster-care, and community-based services in Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas. The Fatherhood FIRE program is a satellite program within the larger organization and consists of a 9 to 13-week series of group-based workshops, paired with individual case management. Program workshops draw from multiple evidence-based curricula, including 24/7 Dad, The Parent Project, Inside Out Dad, Connections to Success, and Nurturing Fathers. The implementing organization receives referrals primarily from state child welfare systems and, to a lesser extent, departments of corrections and other community-based partners. Our university-based evaluation team works with the program team to carry out a federally required local program evaluation, independent of the implementing organization. We are responsible for designing and executing a thorough and independent process and impact evaluation while ensuring the protection of human subjects.

Guiding Framework

An adapted version of Proctor and colleagues' (2009) conceptual model for implementation research guided this study's research framework. Proctor and colleagues (2009) classified implementation factors into five levels: (1) systems environment, (2)organizational; (3) group; (4) supervision; and (5) individual. The systems environment encompasses structural factors including policy, funding and reimbursement, system relationships and interactions, and legal and regulatory factors (Akin et al., 2014; Proctor et al., 2009; Shortell, 2004). The organizational context and culture of the implementing organization also influences the acceptance and implementation of evidence-based interventions (Akin et al., 2014; Proctor et al., 2009). An organization's mission and vision, policies and procedures, capacity, and resource availability determine readiness and implementation (Akin et al., 2014; Proctor et al., 2009). The group/team context influences factors critical to implementation success including the need for professionals and service providers to work together and established processes for shared learning, knowledge mobilization, supervisions, and program fidelity (Akin et al., 2014; Proctor et al., 2009; Shortell, 2004). Finally, the individual context addresses provider and client factors impacting implementation given individuals" diverse backgrounds and experiences that make them unique. Providers' skills, attitudes, and beliefs are key implementation considerations (Akin et al., 2014; Gray et al., 2013).

Methods

Design

We used an exploratory case study design to gain deeper understanding of the initial implementation process based on the perspectives of Fatherhood FIRE program providers, administrators, and leaders. Two research questions guided this study: (1) which implementation factors were utilized during the initial implementation of fatherhood program; and (2) what are key barriers and facilitators of the initial implementation? The Institutional Review Board at the University of Kansas approved this study.

Participants

Participants included 14 program staff involved with the initial implementation of the Fatherhood FIRE program across various leadership and frontline roles from the implementing agency. We grouped participants based on their implementation role (i.e., program leaders, organizational executives, and frontline staff), to allow participants to speak freely about their experiences without concerns for the organizations staffing hierarchy. We conducted three individual interviews with project leaders and four focus groups. The first two focus groups included a total of four executive leaders. The third focus group included two facilitators. The fourth focus group included five case managers who also facilitated workshops as part of their responsibilities.

Procedures

We recruited participants via email who consented to participate in Zoom-based interviews and/or focus groups. Interviews averaged 75 minutes and focus groups averaged 90 minutes. We recorded interviews with participant permission and had recordings professionally transcribed. One evaluator listened to each recording, reviewed transcriptions for accuracy, and imported transcripts into Dedoose software.

Measures

We developed a semi-structured interview guide around two main questions: (1) what strategies were used to implement program activities and interventions; and (2) how the program providers prepared for implementation of the activities and interventions. Question topics included decision-making, resources, staff support, training and recruitment, continuous quality improvement, adaptive and technical challenges, and engagement with families, providers, and community partners. We adapted the guide for varying staff roles while maintaining the core content of each question. We incorporated clarifying and probing questions as necessary and encouraged participants to provide additional thoughts about their experiences with program implementation. Appendix A contains the full semi-structured interview guide by staff role.

Analysis

We analyzed interview data to identify patterns and themes based on a pre-determined theoretical framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We conducted two rounds of coding. First, three evaluators performed initial coding using one focus group transcript to establish major coding categories. Next, each evaluator conducted a second round of coding, reviewing all other qualitative data for emergent codes and patterns. We organized codes into themes characterizing strengths, challenges, and characteristics of initial implementation, with supporting quotations. Evaluators discussed all codes and themes and resolved discrepancies as needed.

Findings

Four major themes emerged initial program implementation that collectively encompassed four implementation factors: (1) systems environment, (2) organizational context, (3) group/team context, and (4) individual context.

Theme 1: Program leaders prioritized prompt development and execution of implementation processes to build capacity during initial implementation.

Initial implementation prioritized building capacity for complex service delivery over focusing on the broader program purpose. Two messages emerged, highlighting the delicate balance of competing priorities. First, there was a need to focus on implementation details to establish a strong foundation. Program leaders concentrated on developing and documenting practice processes, following an iterative approach driven by real-time needs. This resulted in detailed procedures for referral, enrollment, documentation, and evaluation. These proved valuable to frontline staff in carrying out program activities. One implementation leader described it supported guiding day-to-day practice:

really working with each individual staff, like, "Okay, are you understanding this process?" We talk about processes a lot... And we try to think of future questions, and then when those questions come up, we put it into the process so that it became more and more detailed. And we found out with our team, they like everything extremely detailed, down to click.

Executives viewed this iterative, meticulous approach as promoting program adaptation and strengthening quality improvement, describing a state of "constant quality improvement" to ensure processes "truly changed" agency systems. Moreover, program leaders praised the approach for enabling co-design between program leaders and frontline staff. One program leader described that co-creation with frontline staff led to refined program procedures:

We have a process for everything that we can think of and were continuing to add processes when it comes to programming and implementation. But we had to make a lot of refinements, because we would take this process on what we thought would be successful... then take it to the case managers and the facilitators and get their feedback.

Despite being viewed as a strength, this prioritization of implementation processes was contrasted by a second message, highlighting three tradeoffs resulting from a lack of shared vision and responsibility with internal frontline staff and external partners. First, frontline staff reported a lack of confidence adjusting their implementation practices in response to iterative procedures and policies. One case manager noted for future reference, "it would be nice to have a set way to do things at the beginning... since I was hired on...I think we've been through at least five or six changes on just the case manager referral process."

The second tradeoff is the approach limited frontline staffs' and program leaders' abilities to communicate and establish a shared understanding of the program, its vision, and their collective responsibility for implementation. When in doubt, frontline staff leaned on their professional training and experience to improvise and fill in gaps of understanding of the big picture themselves. When asked to describe the goals of the FIRE program, one case manager shared:

[I] feel like I created my own outcome in my head...I dont think it was ever communicated... I just know what I hope my clients get out of what were doing...so I think I created my own outcome for my clients.

The third tradeoff was limited opportunities to leverage external resources to support early marketing and referral partnerships. While program leaders developed and distributed marketing materials, they did not engage in robust or systematic follow-up and relied on internal referral sources (i.e., state child welfare contract). While they made initial efforts to engage in marketing and outreach to diversify the referral pipeline and maximize program reach, they limited developing additional referral sources to meet other emergent needs fathers may experience, rather than generating new referrals for the fatherhood program:

...What we tried to do was create relationships with and connections with outside agencies that we knew we would probably need... anywhere from housing, financial, anything that could possibly be a barrier for a parent. We tried to think ahead of that and then make those connections with those agencies.

Theme 2: Communication (internal and external) is a critical component to implementation success.

Effective communication emerged as a major theme addressed at each interview and focus group. Frontline staff, program leaders, and executive leaders alike described implementation scenarios where effective communication facilitated implementation success and where communication challenges inhibited implementation success. Internally, frontline staff and executive leaders recognized open lines of communication and adherence to meeting schedules with program leaders as a core strength, creating space for teamwork and encouraging staff input and feedback. Frontline staff commended program leaders for "listening if we have questions or concerns."

Frontline staff also wanted to engage in more bi-directional communication with program leaders. Two case managers described a desire to be involved in decision-making and to feel more included and empowered in their role:

Case manager 1:

There's an open forum at a lot of our meetings... brainstorming time might be very helpful because anytime you start to shut down those, then people quit giving them. Give us a chance to at least throw out those ideas without any issue one way or the other.

Case manager 2:

Somebody being able to be there [during decision-making], [to] advocate on a case manager's behalf, because otherwise, you have other people that are just thinking, "Oh, it's fine, we'll just have them do this, that, and the other thing," but they're not the one implementing it.

One program leader echoed these sentiments, saying, "We really had to listen to what their suggestions were and come up with a process that we thought we really could implement." The program leader went on to acknowledge that feedback from case managers was critical to iterating and improving program implementation, "The case managers and facilitators come back and say, 'Hey, this was a challenge, this isn't really working, and then were able to go back and make those refinements."

Executive leaders acknowledged the development and leveraging of a multi-disciplinary workgroup as another communication strength of the initial implementation. This workgroup consisted of members representing the program's implementation team, quality assurance team, administrative team, and the external university-based evaluation team. This workgroup ensures open communication and oversight on the project's design, accountability processes, and evaluation and implementation issues. One executive leader emphasized the workgroup's importance to program implementation, sharing "I think [the evaluators] and our quality [assurance] folks... just know how to take information and then articulate it into something measurable that gets at what the vision is."

Despite strong intraorganizational communication, all respondent groups noted challenges with external communication during initial implementation. Oversight involved multiple federal agencies and contractors with differing priorities, causing confusion about who to contact and what approvals were needed to move forward. Program leaders, especially as new grantees, were vocal about this: "We've never been through a grant cycle... So, we didn't know what to expect... the guidance we were getting were at times confusing." Frontline staff suggested lack of involvement in external communications may have contributed to their limited understanding of the program's purpose (see Theme 1). When asked about their understanding of federal requirements and goals, a case manager stated, "I dont know if I missed that process maybe, and that's why I don't have the clear outcomes."

Theme 3: Program factors can influence staff and staff capacity.

Frontline staff and executive leaders reported challenges related to their understanding of staff expectations and capacity that may have influenced program acceptability during initial implementation. Two common messages emerged within this theme. First, frontline staff frequently requested a need for clear role distinction and responsibilities between the program's two service delivery roles-case managers and workshop facilitators. Frontline staff noted inconsistent messages about their individual job duties. They described scenarios where some believed they were hired as case managers only and others believed they were hired as facilitators only while some believed they were hired to fulfill both roles. A dialogue between case managers in the focus group demonstrates this dynamic.

Case manager 1:

I feel like we got more facilitator training, even though, honestly, I didnt know I was gonna be a facilitator when I got hired. I was hired as a case manager.

Case manager 2:

I was hired for both... I didnt expect to do much of the facilitating. [Leadership] said at the time one class a week. I'm doing two.

Facilitators also addressed the need for clear role distinction, with one commenting: "Facilitators should facilitate, case managers should case manage, period... There's a lot that goes into teaching these classes, but there's also a lot that goes into the case management... it's hard to put that all on one."

The distinct role of case manager seemed to be the least clear to frontline staff. One case manager described practice approaches that differed from one case manager to the next when it comes to "how we handle the treatment plan or goals... I treat it like a life coach, but I have a lot of life coach experience." Case managers suggested more training targeted at key elements of case management such as treatment planning and goal setting would benefit their understanding of the intervention. Demonstrating this point, another case manager commented they "don't really have a training for [case management] ... there's so much more that we can do that might be very useful for this whole program.

The second common message under this theme underscored the need for alignment between organizational and staff capacity and delivering program components as intended. Two key informant groups at opposite ends of the organizations hierarchy-frontline staff and executive leaders-discussed this topic. Executive leaders stressed the importance of not getting "into the weeds" and posing questions for program leaders to consider regarding feasibility of the program given current staffing capacity during initial implementation:

Is that feasible for one 40 hour a week person?... A lot of what we do is to bring that perspective back in and [say], so is this really going to work? Can you actually serve the number of people you need and have sane employees at the end of the day with this workload?

Frontline staff provided additional perspective, commenting the program's comprehensiveness may have created redundancies in service delivery further contributing to staff capacity issues. Because the program's curricula integrate workshops across multiple intervention models, frontline staff noticed content redundancies content across workshop sessions and materials. One case manager said, Tm not quite sure why he had to teach that [part of the curriculum], just because the other three [parts of the curriculum] are plenty." Frontline staff concerns about implementing redundant content is that it may eventually lead fathers to disengage by extending the program's length and consume facilitators' capacity.

Theme 4: Organizational culture and context influence implementation.

A final theme highlighted the impact of organizational culture and context on initial implementation. Both executives and program leaders discussed these factors. One executive noted how leadership changes made it harder to communicate program design and expectations, saying, "We had a lot of changes at [the organization] it made it more difficult to share the information that needed to be shared." This reflects how broader organizational systems affect program implementation.

Another issue raised was the challenge of implementing established curricula within a faith-based organization while adapting to changing societal views on the family unit. A program leader suggested reviewing materials to improve inclusivity and expressed concern that perceptions of the program might deter families or fathers from participating. Suggestions included removing gendered, traditional language around family structures and expanding inclusivity for LGBTQIA+ families:

I would change the curriculums to be a little more inclusive, a lot more inclusive... they re a little bit older, which is okay, but it's not as evolving, as I think we are as a whole.... Language, especially. It's very specific to the mother and the father and child... sometimes our families are a little apprehensive about attending our classes... especially being a faith-based organization... I think it would create more comfortability and conversations, and we can even provide resources to families... whatever their family unit is and creating that acceptance.

Discussion

This study sought to understand processes and implementation factors used in the initial implementation of a community-based fatherhood program and identify facilitators and barriers to initial implementation. Relying on an adapted version of the conceptual model for implementation research (Proctor et al., 2009), this study examined initial implementation across multiple factors nested within four levels including systems environment, organizational context, group/team context, and the individual context. Qualitative interviews and focus groups with program leaders, executive leaders, and frontline service staff comprising the organizations implementation team revealed four themes:

(1) program leaders prioritized prompt and responsive development and execution of implementation processes; (2) communication is a critical component contributing to the level of implementation success; (3) program factors can influence staff and staff capacity; and (4) organizational culture and context influence implementation. The themes from this study influenced the initial implementation of the community-based fatherhood program across the four levels of implementation factors. The discussion below explores these themes within the context of each level.

Systems Environment

Two key findings from this study emphasize the importance of addressing outer system factors for success during initial implementation. First, ongoing outreach and communication with external partners are crucial to expanding the programs referral pipeline. Although the organization initially relied on a strong internal pipeline through its child welfare services, if these services end, the fatherhood program will need to adjust to reach its target audience. This aligns with Akin et al.'s (2014) suggestion that engaging external partners is essential for successful implementation.

Second, consistent with previous research (Akin et al., 2014; Kimber, Barwick, & Fearing, 2012; Maher et al, 2009), this study found that effective communication with both internal and external partners during initial implementation is challenging and requires intentional effort. This study adds to the literature by highlighting the challenges faced by a first-time federally funded organization navigating complex federal accountability structures. These included new data collection requirements, expanding the fatherhood program, integrating rigorous evaluation, and working with federal technical assistance providers. Future grantees should develop a communication plan with regular, structured interactions and protocols for involving cross-systems partners (Akin et al., 2014; Metz & Bartley, 2012).

Organizational Context

This study adds to the literature on how organizational factors affect initial implementation. Interviews with frontline staff, program leaders, and executives revealed three key insights into the organizations context. First, there was consensus that iterative program development was necessary for initial implementation (Theme 1), offering both benefits and challenges. While this approach allowed for reflection, refinement, and capacity-building, it also exposed weaknesses across competency and leadership-based implementations drivers involving staff hiring, training, and communication (Fixsen et al., 2009). Frontline staff experienced role confusion, and leaders' changes to case management and referral processes contributed to unclear program goals. Staff also felt excluded from decision-making, which hindered their buy-in and leadership development. Previous research acknowledges the challenges this program faced, such as making changes during planning and initial implementation (Akin et al., 2013). However, a key weakness here was the lack of a usability testing phase. Such testing would have allowed for early detection of problems by implementing the program with a smaller group, enabling timely adjustments (Akin et al., 2013). This process would continue as the program scaled up. These findings suggest that programs should remain agile during initial implementation while staying focused on their broad goals and purpose.

Second, executive leaders played critical roles during initial implementation. Consistent with previous research, engaged and supportive leaders led to more positive perceptions of success, while a lack of leadership created barriers (Akin et al., 2014). A key strength was the support executives provided program leaders through regular and ad hoc meetings. Program leaders appreciated executive guidance during grant writing and planning. However, leadership changes during the transition to implementation made it harder to share information, complicating the process. This aligns with research emphasizing the need for stable leadership to champion programs and address challenges efficiently (Akin et al., 2014; Damschroder et al., 2009).

Third, as shown in previous literature (Proctor et al., 2009), this study found the implementing organizations culture and climate influenced initial implementation. For this specific implementation, members of the program leadership team addressed the need to adapt program language and organizational messaging to be inclusive and reflective of the multitude of ways family compositions are structured beyond the traditional, nuclear family. Fostering an organizational culture that accepts and serves families of all types may promote fathers' willingness to engage in services, especially within a faith-based organization. To maximize inclusivity of programs moving forward, organizations should consider thorough reviews and adaptations of curriculum materials with all members of the organizational hierarchy.

Group/Team Context

Building upon other implementation studies (Akin et al.,2014; Kimber et al, 2012), supportive teamwork and peer collaborations were important implementation factors emerging as both facilitators and barriers of implementation success across multiple themes. Effective communication, as shown in other contexts of this study, was a strength present in group and team contexts related to implementation success leading to feelings of inclusion and support for the frontline staff. Like Akin and colleagues (2014) study, frontline staff and program leaders viewed frequent and intentional team meetings as an effective method for timely problem-solving and collaboration that enhanced implementation.

Group and team communication was a strength but tended to focus on addressing emergent needs rather than conveying key messages. No participants expressed a clear understanding of the programs overarching goals. Research shows that clarity on program goals is crucial for building champions for effective delivery (Damschroder et al., 2009). Confusion among frontline staff about these goals may have hindered early champion-building, impacting long-term sustainability. Additionally, there was role confusion between case managers and facilitators, highlighting the need for clear hiring protocols (Fixsen et al., 2009). While the focus on emergent needs is understandable, future implementations could leverage communication strengths to engage staff in developing a shared vision.

Individual Context

Finally, this study provides insight into supporting initial implementation at the individual level. When frontline staff felt involved in co-creation of the program, a part of decision-making about curriculum adaptations and processes directly related to their practice, and informed about external requirements, they expressed more confidence in their ability to deliver program services well. As suggested in previous research (Akin et al, 2014), initial implementation presented challenges for frontline staff when their individual skills, experiences, or expectations misaligned with the work itself (e.g., confusion regarding their role as case manager versus group facilitator).

Furthermore, the unique needs of fathers participating in the program can affect implementation. This study highlights the need to update curricula to better include diverse family units and address challenges specific to fathers who are involved in child welfare. For instance, program attrition may occur if fathers no longer see a need for services due to changes like family reunification or termination of parental rights. Improving implementation could involve engaging both frontline staff and fathers in program planning and decision-making. This approach aligns values across organizational, group, and individual levels, enhancing program acceptability and uptake.

Limitations

Even though the qualitative data used in this study generated key insights into the initial implementation of a community-based fatherhood initiative, there are limitations. First, this study focused exclusively on the initial implementation of one community-based fatherhood program. The study may offer insights and lessons learned to support future initiations of similar programs, but it is unknown how generalizable these findings are. Moreover, given that this study examined only one stage of implementation, it cannot provide insight to other phases such as the full implementation phase (Metz & Bartley, 2012).

Second, the study relied heavily on perspectives of the implementation team, and no fathers or program participants participated in the study. Even though case managers relayed experiences they heard from fathers during direct practice, the study lacks direct insights from participants as a key informant group. As a result, perceptions of initial implementation may be biased toward staffing and organizational needs. Future studies should include explorations of additional implementation stages beyond initial implementations and include the perceptions of fathers and program participants for the relevant insight they have to offer to understanding fatherhood program implementations.

Lessons Learned

Both evaluators and service providers planning and implementing their own programs can learn from this study. For evaluators, this study offers a theoretical framework and practical model for situating and planning implementation evaluations within the context of an implementation science framework. The adapted conceptual model for the implementation research provided a structure for qualitative measurement of a variety of factors and strategies influencing initial implementation at multiple systems levels including external, organizational, group, and individual contexts (Proctor et al., 2009; Proctor et al., 2013). Additionally, the study shows the importance of capturing perspectives of implementation team members spanning an organization's hierarchy. At times, their perspectives aligned, which created pathways for qualitative theme development and logical entry points for immediate program improvement.

Organizations implementing new community-based programs may also benefit from these lessons. Organizations should consider applying principles of implementation science in program planning, development, and implementation. Furthermore, organizations should address key activities in future implementations, including cultivating buy-in around a shared vision of the program, establishing clear roles and responsibilities across the implementation team, and developing clear communication and feedback loops with internal and external partners. Finally, for both service providers and evaluators, we recommend a co-creation design and implementation process that involves bidirectional communication and shared decision-making among implementation and evaluation teams. Doing so may ensure a balance between the needs of the target population and the rigor and usability of the evaluation.

Conclusion

This study addresses a gap in literature by exploring the initial strategies and processes for implementing a community-based fatherhood program, focusing on implementation rather than outcomes. Initial implementation is a challenging phase, requiring teams to balance enthusiasm with organizational and external complexities (Fixsen et al., 2013). The study highlights the value of existing conceptual models for evaluation and planning and offers insights from multiple organizational levels. It aligns with other research showing that successful implementation involves iterative process development, clear program vision, frequent communication with staff and partners, and alignment with organizational and staff needs.

References

References

Adamsons, K., & Johnson, S. К. (2013). An updated and expanded meta-analysis of nonresident fathering and child well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 589- 599.

Akin, В. A., Bryson, S. A., Testa, М. F., Blase, К. A., McDonald, T., & Melz, H. (2013). Usability testing, initial implementation, and formative evaluation of an evidence-based intervention: Lessons from a demonstration project to reduce long-term foster care. Evaluation and Program Planning, 41, 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. evalprogplan.2013.06.003

Akin, В. A., Mariscal, S. E., Bass, L., McArthur, У. B., Bhattarai, J., & Bruns, К. (2014). Implementation of an evidence-based intervention to reduce long-term foster care: Practitioner perceptions of key challenges and supports. Children and Youth Services Review, 46, 285-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.09.006

Anderson, E. A., Kohler, J. K., & Letiecq, В. L. (2002). Low-income fathers and 'responsible fatherhood' programs: A qualitative investigation of participants' experiences. Family Relations, 51(2), 148-155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2002.00148.x

Bauer, М. S., & Kirchner, J. (2020). Implementation science: What is it and why should 1 care?. Psychiatry research, 283, 112376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.04.025

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research In Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp0630a

Cabrera N., Karberg E., Malin J., & Aldoney D. (2017). The magic of play: Low-income mothers' and fathers' playfulness and children's emotion regulation and vocabulary skills. The Journal of Infant Mental Health, 38(6), 757-771. https://doi.org10.1002/ imhj.21682.

Carlson, M., McLanahan, S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Coparenting and nonresident fathers' involvement with young children after a nonmarital birth. Demography, 45, 461- 488.

Coley, R. L., & Hernandez, D. C. (2006). Predictors of paternal involvement for resident and nonresident low-income fathers. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1041- 1056.

Fixsen, D. L., Blase, К. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 531-540. https://doi. org/10.1177/1049731509335549

Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional children, 792), 213-230. https://doi. org/10.1177/001440291307900206

Fluegeman, 5. Hernandez, A. Young, М. (2020). Impact Evaluation of the Brothers United Fatherhood Program in Toledo, Ohio. Educational Evaluators, Inc.

Gray, M., Joy, E., Plath, D., &Webb, S. A. (2013). Implementing evidence-based practice: A review of the empirical research literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(2), 157-166.

Hayward, R.A., McKillop, A.J., Hong, H.P., & Hammock, A. (2020). Descriptive evaluation of the Suffolk County Fatherhood Initiative.

Hobler, B. (2001). The awakening of fatherhood: A program for incarcerated men. Journal of Correctional Education, 52, (3), 108-113.

Holmes, E. K., Egginton, В. R., Hawkins, A. J., Robbins, N. L., & Shafer, К. (2020). Do Responsible Fatherhood Programs Work? A Comprehensive Meta-Analytic Study. Family Relations, 69(5), 967-982. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12435

Kim, Y.-L, & Jang, S.J. (2018). Final Evaluation Report: A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effectiveness of a Responsible Fatherhood Program: The Case of TYRO Dads. 46.

Kimber, M., Barwick, M., & Fearing, С. (2012). Becoming an evidence-based service provider: Staff perceptions and experiences of organizational change. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 39(3), 314-332.

Magnuson, K., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2009). Enduring influences of childhood poverty. Focus, 26, 32- 37.

Maher, Е. J., Jackson, L. J., Pecora, P. J., Schultz, D. J., Chandra, A., & Barnes-Proby, D. 5 (2009). Overcoming challenges to implementing and evaluating evidence-based iinterventions in child welfare: A matter of necessity. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(5), 555-562.

McWayne, C., Downer, J. T., Campos, R., & Harris, R. D. (2013). Father involvement during early childhood and its association with children's early learning: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 24, 898- 922.

Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active implementation frameworks for program success: How to use implementation science to improve outcomes for children. Zero to Three, 32,11-18.

Nievar, M. A., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Saleh, M. F., & Cabrera, N. (2020). Families Offering Children Unfailing Support (FOCUS) Fatherhood Program: Changing child welfare through child support and parenting skills. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, 105321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105321

Osborne, C., & Ankrum, N. (2015). Understanding today's changing families. Family Court Review, 53, 221- 232.

Proctor, E. K., Landsverk, J., Aarons, G., Chambers, D., Glisson, C., & Mittman, В. (2009). Implementation Research in Mental Health Services: An Emerging Science with Conceptual, Methodological, and Training challenges. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 36(1), 24-34. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4

Proctor, E. K., Powell, B. J., & McMillen, J. C. (2013). Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science, (1), 139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139

Reardon, S. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of low-income children (pp. 91- 116). Russell Sage Foundation Press.

Robbers, M. L. P. (2005). Focus on Family and Fatherhood: Lessons from Fairfax County' Responsible Fatherhood Program for Incarcerated Dads. 27.

Robin Dion, M., Zaveri, H., & Holcomb, P. (2015). Responsible fatherhood programs in the Parents and Children Together (PACT) evaluation. Family Court Review, 53(2), 292 303. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12140

Shortell, S. М. (2004). Increasing value: A research agenda for addressing the managerial and organizational challenges facing health care delivery in the United States. Medical Care Research and Review, 61(3), 125-305.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Healthy marriage & responsible fatherhood. (n.d.). Administration on Children and Families. https://www.ac£hhs.gov/ ofa/programs/healthy-marriage-responsible-fatherhood

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/NE_FL Healthy Start Desc riptive_Report%20.pdf

Will, J. A., & Milligan, T. A. (2020). Descriptive evaluation of Growing Responsible Fathers Through Support and Education in Northeast Florida - Fatherhood PR.I.D.E.

Wilson, R. E., Obure, R., Omokaro, P., Salihu, Н. M., Berry, E., Austin, D. A, & Christner, J. G. (2019). Effectiveness of a 24/7 Dad® Curriculum in Improving Father Involvement: Profiles of Engagement. International Journal of Maternal and Child Health and AIDS (IIMA), 9(1), 34-41. https://doi.org/10.21106/ijma.338

Yoder, J. R., Brisson, D., & Lopez, A. (2016). Moving beyond fatherhood involvement: The association between father-child relationship quality and youth delinquency trajectories. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 65(3), 462-476.