Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Father engagement in the child welfare system: a promising practice study
(USC Thesis Other)
Father engagement in the child welfare system: a promising practice study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Father Engagement in the Child Welfare System: A Promising Practice Study
by
Martin A. Rodriguez
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2021
© Copyright by Martin A. Rodriguez 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Martin A. Rodriguez certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Maria G. Ott
Kathy Stowe
Courtney L. Malloy, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
This study used Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory to identify how the five
systems directly affect fathers who are engaged in the child welfare system. The purpose of this
study was to use the ecological systems theory lens to identify promising practices to increase
father engagement in the child welfare system by examining the processes and impacts of the
Father Up program. This study used qualitative research and interviewed four current staff of
Fatherhood Academy California, the agency that oversees the Father Up program, and eight
former participants of the Father Up program, all of which who are current or former participants
of the child welfare system. The interview data were analyzed and identified four barriers that
prevent fathers from engaging in the child welfare system, how these barriers are addressed by
the Father Up program, the promising practices used by the Father Up program to increase
participation and engagement, and the impact felt by fathers who participate in the program. The
study identified four recommendations for future practice which will allow change in the child
welfare system to increase father engagement while also creating a network of staff and partners
that can provide additional father engagement services.
v
Dedication
To my wife, Wendy. Thank you for your patience, encouragement, and motivation over the past
three years. There is no way that I could have done this without you and I am forever grateful for
your love and support. I love you.
To my son, Ryan. Thank you for being so patient and understanding when dad had to do
schoolwork. Your jokes were always a much-needed distraction! Thank you for telling me to
“always do my homework” and providing me with the motivation to finish. I love you.
To my dad, Roldan. I only knew you for 15 years, but I learned so much from you in that short
time. You always valued the importance of education but even I don’t think we could have seen
this happen. I hope that I’ve made you proud.
To all the fathers that I have worked with, those who volunteered to participate in this study,
those who struggle in the system, those who work multiple jobs, and those who try to do what’s
best for their children and their family. I see you and I hope I am able to make a small change in
the future of father engagement.
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the following individuals who helped me throughout the
entire dissertation process, including my dissertation committee dream team. First, to my chair,
Dr. Courtney Malloy. I really believe that I won the dissertation chair lottery. Thank you so
much for your guidance, wisdom, and much-needed humor throughout the entire process. I’m so
glad you were by my side on this journey. To Dr. Maria Ott, thank you so much for being on my
committee! After being in your class early in the program, I knew I needed your expertise
throughout this process. To Dr. Kathy Stowe, thank you for your direction and your much-
needed input. Your viewpoint provided so much clarity throughout my study. I would also like to
thank Dr. Carey Regur for your early reviews and revisions of my dissertation. Your feedback
proved to be extremely invaluable. Finally, to my editor, Dr. Guadalupe Garcia Montano. Thank
you for your feedback, ideas, and corrections that provided the much-needed polish on this
dissertation.
Everyone put so much time and effort into this study and I am forever grateful to all of
you.
vii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Context and Background......................................................................................................2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ...................................................................4
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................5
Definitions............................................................................................................................6
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................9
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................10
Father Involvement Within the Child Welfare System......................................................10
Barriers to Participation in the Child Welfare System.......................................................16
Best Practices to Engage Fathers in the Child Welfare System.........................................24
Ecological Systems Theory Applied to Father Engagement and the Child Welfare System
......................................................................................................................................27
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................30
Summary ............................................................................................................................33
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................36
Research Questions ............................................................................................................36
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................36
Research Setting.................................................................................................................38
The Researcher...................................................................................................................39
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................40
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................43
viii
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................43
Ethics..................................................................................................................................44
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................45
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................46
Participants .........................................................................................................................46
Findings..............................................................................................................................48
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................73
Chapter Five: Discussion ...............................................................................................................75
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................75
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................81
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................85
Future Research .................................................................................................................86
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................87
References ......................................................................................................................................89
Appendix A: Interview Protocol—Staff ........................................................................................99
Appendix B: Interview Protocol—Participants ...........................................................................101
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources ....................................................................................................................38
Table 2: Fatherhood Academy California Staff .............................................................................47
Table 3: Father Up Program Participants .......................................................................................48
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory ...............................................................33
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Father involvement is crucial to children’s healthy social, emotional, and cognitive
development, especially for those involved in the child welfare system (Campbell et al., 2015).
Positive father involvement is associated with better academic achievement and mother-infant
attachment as well as lower depression, anxiety, and aggression (Guterman et al., 2018).
Research also found that the belief in one’s ability to be a father leads to higher quality father-
child interaction (Volker & Gibson, 2014). Unfortunately, less than 15% of fathers participate in
parent education or behavioral parent training programs (Salinas et al., 2011). A review of
research conducted between 2000 and 2010 found that child welfare cases are less likely to
include fathers due to a disapproving culture among social service staff. Child welfare workers
tend to believe that mothers are the primary nurturers due to assumptions about gender roles
(Maxwell, Scourfield, Featherstone, et al., 2012). Additionally, in a cross-sectional study of over
1,100 fathers, McGill (2014) found a negative association between the number of hours fathers
spend at work and the number of hours spent with their children. Low-income fathers involved in
the child welfare system must make a difficult choice on whether they should reduce their work
hours to spend more time with their children (McGill, 2014).
Fatherhood is an overlooked component of a family-centered practice model in the child
welfare system (Campbell et al., 2015). Child welfare workers label low-income fathers as
disengaged and irrelevant and rarely include them in child welfare cases (Swinger & Wishner,
2009). For example, out of 1,958 cases researched in 2006, only one-third of mothers chose to
identify or include fathers when asked (Maxwell, Scourfield, Featherstone, et al., 2012). In a
Canadian study, researchers found that caseworkers labeled father participation as irrelevant in
50% of all cases. In a 2009 study, fathers felt that parent education and support groups were for
2
mothers only and, when they did participate, felt self-conscious about their attendance. In a
systemic review of 92 parenting and co-parenting interventions from 20 countries, researchers
found that fathers were rarely the sole recipient of services (Panter-Brick et al., 2014). The
interventions reviewed engaged couples only, targeted only one parent at a time (usually
defaulted to mothers), or included fathers as high-risk parents only (Panter-Brick et al., 2014).
The purpose of this study was to examine the practices of one social service program,
Fatherhood Academy California, to uncover promising strategies that other social service
agencies and organizations can use to strengthen father involvement.
Context and Background
Fatherhood Academy California is a non-profit organization headquartered in San Diego,
California. The organization primarily serves the state’s nine most populous, low-income
counties: Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San
Bernardino, and San Diego. Since 2005, the organization has served over 200,000 individuals
and families by providing healthy marriage, healthy relationships, and responsible fatherhood
programming. In 2015, Fatherhood Academy California became one of 36 agencies in the
country and 13 in the state to receive a 5-year Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood
grant from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2019) to provide a responsible
fatherhood program. The funds allowed the organization to design a program that increases
father involvement and reverses the harmful impact of father absence on children (Tracking
Accountability in Government Grants Spending, 2021). This organization was awarded the grant
due to a history of strengthening positive father-child engagement, improve fathers’ employment
and economic opportunities, help fathers build healthy relationships with their spouses, co-
parents, co-workers, friends, and children, and provide fathers with the skills to foster
3
responsible parenting (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2019). The current target
population for the Father Up program is fathers between the ages of 18 and 50.
Fatherhood Academy California developed the Father Up program, which utilizes
evidence-based practices to help fathers succeed. The program focuses on the three most
important relationships (the three Rs) in successful father engagement: the relationship with their
children, the relationship with their partner or co-parent, and the relationship with co-workers.
The goal of the Father Up program is to increase the frequency and quality of father-child
interactions, improve parenting and co-parenting skills, and increase financial responsibility
(U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2019). To meet this goal, program staff meets
with participants for 6–12 weeks, depending on their cohort schedule. Each cohort begins with a
two-hour orientation, which covers program and participant expectations and where participants
take a pre-test survey. Participants then begin a 16-hour skills-based relationship education
curriculum, Raising World Class Kids, which allows fathers to strengthen their relationships with
their children. This curriculum combines two evidence-based curricula that highlight the
importance of problem-solving skills and communication skills between parent and child and
between both parents.
Next, fathers begin a 6-hour workshop that provides employment and economic support.
These six hours consist of fathers participating in financial literacy and workforce development
courses. Following the program, fathers receive at least two follow-up case management calls.
These calls allow staff to learn more about specific issues that fathers face and provide them with
the appropriate resources and referrals. In addition to these case management calls, fathers also
receive weekly calls, text messages, and emails, which remind them about their upcoming
sessions.
4
While not required, the Father Up program suggests that all participants attend a 12-
month in-person reunion. This reunion serves multiple purposes. It allows fathers to re-connect
with their cohort members and celebrate their successes and allows the agency to collect critical
long-term follow-up data to identify the program's impact on participants. Fathers who continue
to struggle receive further support and resources.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to identify promising practices to increase father
engagement in the child welfare system by examining the processes and impacts of the Father
Up program. The following questions guided the research:
1. What are the perceptions of fathers and staff regarding the barriers to participation in the
child welfare system?
2. To what extent and how are the barriers to participation addressed by the Father Up
program?
3. What are the promising strategies that the Father Up program is implementing in order to
increase father participation and engagement?
4. In what ways are the participating fathers being impacted or changed by participating in
the Father Up program?
Importance of the Study
Approximately 85% of children involved in the child welfare system have been exposed
to at least one potentially traumatic event, making it highly likely their children will also
experience a potentially traumatic event in the future (Lang et al., 2016). Youth in this system
are also four times more likely to experience four or more potentially traumatic events than their
5
peers who are not in this system. The high number of these events can lead to the onset of several
psychological disorders and increase the likelihood of substance abuse (Lang et al., 2016).
Childhood trauma directly affects a child’s brain development and the biological stress
system (De Bellis & Zisk, 2014). Children as young as 12 months old have also shown
aggressive behaviors that have been directly linked to the quality of early father-infant
interactions (Ramchandani et al., 2013). The relationship and quality of father-child interactions
continue to have an adverse effect on children, especially as they grow older. For example, one
study found that boys who grew up without a father were twice as likely to go to jail (Burrus et
al., 2012). Similar studies have found that children raised without the involvement of both
parents are more likely to be placed in foster care and are at higher risk of child abuse and
neglect. Children raised in homes without a father are also 47% more likely to live in poverty,
almost four times more than those raised by both parents (U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services, 2012). Children who were raised in fatherless environments also use mental health
services more than those who were raised in a two-parent household (Nock & Einolf, 2008). Due
to the higher use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, these children also use medical services more
than those raised in a two-parent family (Nock & Einolf, 2008). Fathers can lessen a variety of
symptoms associated with the potentially traumatic events that their children may experience by
having frequent and meaningful interactions with their children.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study was guided by ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The theory
suggests that various layers of one’s environment influence development (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). The theory describes five systems, all of which play a role in a child’s development. The
microsystem highlights the immediate environment, while the mesosystem centers on the
6
relationships between each microsystem. The exosystem focuses on relationships between each
microsystem the child is not directly involved in, and the macrosystem consists of the conditions
in which the child lives. Finally, the chronosystem highlights the events and actions which can
disrupt the child’s development over time (Cabrera et al., 2014).
Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) is appropriate to examine father
engagement in the child welfare system because it helps examine how outside influences can
affect this engagement. Bronfenbrenner notes that the microsystem is essential to children’s
healthy development (Campbell et al., 2015). Without father involvement, the child’s immediate
environment will be incomplete, placing their healthy development at risk.
For this study, I used qualitative methods. Using qualitative methods allowed for
exploring the success of the Father Up program in depth (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Definitions
The following definitions will assist in better understanding of the design, concepts, and
problem of practice discussed throughout this research.
• Child Welfare Involvement: Child welfare involvement can be a problematic phrase, as it
incorporates multiple aspects of the child welfare system. For this study, I use definitions
provided by the Child Welfare Information Gateway (2018) and the Center for Advanced
Studies in Child Welfare (2013). Child welfare involvement is the participation in public
or private services focused on children’s overall well-being. Child welfare involvement
also includes the assurance that children are kept safe and families have the supports
necessary to care for their children. A family involved in this system can be intact or have
a child placed outside of the home.
7
• Child Welfare System: According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway (2020), the
child welfare system is defined as a group of services designed to promote children’s
well-being by ensuring their safety, helping them with achieving placement permanency,
and strengthening families. This system grew from the passing of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, which was created to protect vulnerable children
in the United States (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2020).
• Chronosystem: The chronosystem consists of patterns or events which occur during an
individual’s lifetime, such as death or divorce (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Cabrera et al.,
2014). The chronosystem focuses on the continually changing expectations and events
that ultimately affect and are affected by development over an individual’s life span
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Elliott & Davis, 2020; Pleck, 2007; Xia et al., 2020).
• Exosystem: According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), the exosystem refers to settings that do
not involve the individual, but the actions that occur in these settings affect the
individual. For example, a recently promoted father will receive an increase in salary and
resources, though he will spend less time with his family, affecting the relationship
between father and child (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Cabrera et al., 2014). Another example
is when a father comes home tired due to his increase in work hours. The workplace has
indirectly affected the child in what has come to be known as the exosystem effect (Xia et
al., 2020).
• Father Engagement: For this study, father engagement is the act of providing direct care
to children (including helping with homework and dressing young children), participating
in play and recreational activities, providing indirect care (preparing meals or arranging
8
medical care), and providing financial support (child support or in-kind contributions
towards a child’s need; Cowan et al., 2008).
• Macrosystem: The macrosystem refers to the cultural, political, and geographic systems
which directly influence an individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Cabrera et al., 2014). The
macrosystem also includes policies and programs, such as parental leave laws or cultural
ideologies (Pleck, 2007). Bronfenbrenner wrote about subcultures within cultures and
noted that individuals are very likely to encompass multiple cultures, including societal,
racial, and ethnic cultures (Bronfenbrenner, 1992; Elliott & Davis, 2020; Xia et al.,
2020).
• Mesosystem: The relationship between two or more settings in which the individual
actively participates. In terms of father engagement, this includes relationships between
the family and other settings in which the family is involved (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Cabrera et al., 2014). In other words, the mesosystem is the relationship between two or
more microsystems where individuals become situated (Xia et al., 2020).
• Microsystem: The subsystem that includes an individual’s immediate environment. The
microsystem is primarily limited to events, people, and objects that directly affect an
individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Cabrera et al., 2014). The microsystem alerts us to an
environment individuals participate in on a daily basis, such as school or work, and
allows for individuals to engage in a proximal process with other individuals, symbols, or
objects (Elliott & Davis, 2020; Xia et al., 2020).
• Parent Education: Parent education is the learning activity in which parents attempt to
change their interaction methods with their children to encourage positive behavior
(Croake & Glover, 1977). Starting in the 1800s, parent education in the United States
9
began with mothers learning about child care and participating in parent groups (Croake
& Glover, 1977). In the early 1990s, more attention was placed on fathers, and the field
of father involvement and engagement was born (Doucet, 2020).
• Potentially Traumatic Events (PTEs): Using definitions from the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), PTEs
can lead to trauma and stressor-related disorders and can include events such as
significant changes in family composition, detainment, death or near-death experiences,
serious injury, or sexual violence.
Organization of the Dissertation
This promising practice study is organized into the following five chapters. Chapter One
provides a brief introduction to the problem of practice as well as an overview of the study.
Chapter Two will review the existing literature as it relates to promising practices that aim to
increase father engagement in the child welfare system. Chapter Three will introduce the
research methodology used to collect and analyze data. Chapter Four will discuss the results of
the study. Chapter Five will discuss the findings, recommendations for practice, the limitations
and delimitations from the data collected, and what the study means for the future of father
engagement in the child welfare system.
10
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter will focus on the review of the literature as it pertains to father engagement
in the child welfare system. The following five sections will make up the structure of the
literature review: (a) bias in the child welfare system, (b) barriers that prevent fathers from
participating in it, (c) best practices of father engagement programs, and (d) Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) ecological systems theory as applied to father engagement in this system.
Father Involvement Within the Child Welfare System
The child welfare system has a disproportionate focus on maternal caregivers (Campbell
et al., 2015). This system tends to focus on mothers due to potential threats and challenges
highlighted by mothers, including unhealthy relationship break-ups (Campbell et al., 2015; Malm
et al., 2006). In this system, the ideology of parent engagement emphasizes that mothers’ active
participation is required, whereas caretaking by fathers is optional (Risley-Curtiss & Heffernan,
2003). Before these concerns are discussed, it is essential to review the history of the system and
how it led to today’s iteration of it.
History of the Child Welfare System
The child welfare system in the United States dates to colonial times when infants were
first boarded out to families at the cost of $1.50 per week (Trammell, 2009). This form of paid
foster care became one of the first instances of child welfare, though some attribute the first form
of foster care and adoption to the orphan trains (Sethi, 2019; Trammell, 2009). In the early 19th
century, meeting children’s needs became a societal problem that, up to that point, had no real
organized solution (Sethi, 2019). These problems were initially left up to the parents to handle,
as they were seen as a private matter, though this changed in the 1830s when a large influx of
homeless children emerged in large northeastern cities. The Children’s Aid Society was
11
developed at this time to meet these children’s needs and, between 1854 and 1930, used the
railroad system to place over 200,000 children, primarily boys, with families in the Midwest
(The Children’s Aid Society, n.d.). Unfortunately, many of the children were adopted to be used
for labor on the farms. Background checks were not completed for adoptive parents, and there
was a lack of follow-up from the Children’s Aid Society on the health and well-being of the
children placed (Sethi, 2019).
In the late 1800s, the states began to supervise and screen potential placements and keep
their children’s individual needs at the forefront (Sethi, 2019; Trammell, 2009). Michigan’s
legislature created a state public school for dependent children and mandated that all children
under the state’s care attend (Trammell, 2009). The United States also gave states the authority
to remove children from homes when abuse and neglect were suspected (Sethi, 2019). In the
early and mid-1900s, the government established several laws and a specific department to
oversee the child welfare system. In 1912, the government established the Children’s Bureau,
which had the authority to investigate and report on all matters related to child welfare. The
Children’s Bureau disseminated this information to states and supported them while each state
remained in charge of handling child welfare issues (Trammell, 2009). Many of the existing laws
had child welfare funding lumped with social security. The lumping of funds allowed the
government to provide more incentives to mothers, including release from the wage-earning role
to spend more time at home (Testa & Kelly, 2020).
In the 20th century, legislation, such as the Aid to Dependent Children, Aid to Families
with Dependent Children, amendments to the Social Security Act, Title IV-A, and Title IV-E,
aimed to help dependent children and their families by providing funding to increase counseling
services by social workers (Testa & Kelly, 2020). These laws also provide homemaker services,
12
such as transportation services, emergency assistance, and other tangible goods (Testa & Kelly,
2020). Most recently, the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018 allowed child welfare
agencies to fund evidence-based interventions, such as father engagement programs, to prevent
the removal of children and work with families in the least restrictive setting (Testa & Kelly,
2020).
Social Worker Assumptions and Perceptions
Social workers’ assumptions play a critical role in identifying positive and negative
associations with father engagement in a child welfare setting (Campbell et al., 2015). Campbell
et al. (2015) randomly selected 600 case files to identify perceptions shown during various levels
of father engagement. Researchers then randomly selected 48 case files for further review to
identify father involvement themes. The authors found that child welfare staff did not involve
fathers partially due to wanting to honor the mother’s wishes to not contact the father and not
upset the household’s current family dynamics (Campbell et al., 2015). They also found that
fathers were often left with unclear expectations about how to participate in their child’s case
(Campbell et al., 2015). Many times, these fathers were only involved after a child was already
removed from the home (Campbell et al., 2015).
While research on father engagement is limited, studies found that social workers’
perceptions align with the importance of fathers’ being involved in their children’s lives. In a
national study of almost 4,000 families involved in the child welfare system, Bellamy (2009)
examined whether the themes of father absence and unimportance play a role in social workers’
perception. Bellamy found that social workers considered children who live with their biological
fathers 60% less high-risk than those who lived with a non-parental male. Children were less
likely to enter out-of-home care if they lived with their biological father, step-father, or adoptive
13
father. To identify specific themes related to father involvement from the perspective of social
workers, Storhaug (2013) interviewed 12 female and two male children’s social workers in a
focus group. In this qualitative study, researchers asked social workers two fundamental
questions (Storhaug, 2013). The first question asked whether their experience working with
fathers matched what research stated in regards to fathers rarely being involved in child welfare
cases. The second question asked social workers how they decide to include or not include a
father in a child welfare case. A central theme was that participants rarely had enough time to
find out if a father was an asset or risk to the child. This assessment is a cause for concern, as a
father can be omitted from the child’s case plan and, ultimately, not be considered a viable
placement option. Participants also specified that a negative perception of fathers was enough to
exclude them from the case plan. While the social workers in this study understood the
importance of engaging fathers throughout the process, many felt that existing policies provide a
barrier to father involvement. Storhaug (2013) found that many social workers understand the
importance of father involvement but often feel discouraged when facing father disengagement.
Child Welfare Data
The possible lack of data regarding fathers’ involvement in the child welfare system also
affects how their engagement is measured. Strega et al. (2008) identified possible discrepancies
in data, suggesting social workers’ inability to contact fathers or accurately follow through with
communication may explain the lack of available information on father engagement. In a
secondary data analysis of 60 foster care case records, Coakley (2013a) found that several
variables, including case plan status, residency status, and possible barriers to service, were
missing and affecting the complete understanding of father engagement. The study also
14
mentioned that much of the vital information known and provided for mothers was missing for
fathers (Coakley, 2013a).
Fathers as Temporary Caregivers
Many fathers face the perception that they are temporary caregivers for their children
(Brown et al., 2009). Storhaug and Øien (2012) conducted one-on-one interviews with fathers
who had custody of their children. The researchers found that, even when mothers had severe
substance abuse and mental health issues, fathers were a temporary solution to permanent
placement. Some researchers termed this view a “cultural lag,” meaning a traditional notion of
gender roles (i.e., placement with a mother), which often dictates child welfare decisions
(Sommer, 2012; Storhaug & Øien, 2012).
Child Welfare Policies
Historically, child welfare policies have been a roadblock to fathers wanting to be
involved in their children’s lives (Saleh, 2013). Policies automatically benefiting the mothers
caused further barriers to father engagement. To examine this issue further, Saleh (2013)
conducted a focus group to identify social workers’ views towards fathers and how existing
policies prevent fathers from participating in the child welfare system. Saleh (2013) interviewed
22 social workers, four of whom were male. Researchers asked the participants to identify
policies and procedures that can be changed to increase father participation. Researchers
identified barriers to fathers’ participation and involvement, such as individuals limiting or
inhibiting a father’s access to his children or a social worker’s use of relationship-building skills
(Saleh, 2013). When working with fathers who had past traumatic experiences with the child
welfare system, social workers felt they needed to use relationship-building skills more often.
Social workers also noted existing biases that may disengage fathers. For example, one social
15
worker stated that, in her experience, men are more violent, verbally abusive, and mistreat social
work professionals more than mothers. Child welfare professionals believe statewide policies
and internal children’s services policies are evolving to encourage more father participation in
child welfare services (Saleh, 2013).
Research suggests fathers want an increased role in raising their children, though they are
often not allowed one (Saleh, 2013; Storhaug, 2013). Researchers coined the term “ghost
fathers” in response to biases in the child welfare system (Brown et al., 2009). In an analysis of
child welfare policies and procedures, researchers discovered that this system sees fathers as
devious, dangerous, and unreliable when caring for their children. Through the ghost metaphor,
researchers emphasized that fathers’ participation in the child welfare system is non-existent. In a
review of 116 child welfare files, Brown et al. (2009) discovered that children were more likely
to be placed with their maternal grandmothers than with their fathers. If fathers show interest in
gaining custody of their children, they are highly encouraged to hire a lawyer. When one parent
provides adequate support to the child, there is no further intervention with the second parent,
usually the father.
Prevention Programs in the Child Welfare System
In many cases, to prevent a child’s detainment or placement, fathers must attend
prevention programs that provide education and support. There is also bias in these programs,
which, instead of helping fathers, becomes another roadblock. For example, Risley-Curtiss and
Heffernan (2003) found most home visitation programs aimed at preventing child abuse have
overlooked fathers, usually offering father-specific programs only if the father is the perpetrator
of a crime. Research has found a continued lack of engaging fathers. However, no research
focuses on the relationship between male social workers and fathers.
16
Research found that, while father engagement plays an essential role children’s well-
being, bias against fathers in policies, procedures, and social workers’ attitudes exists. Such
biases cause harm to the father-social worker relationship and can hinder the creation safe and
healthy families. Further studies are needed on father-specific programs that aim to decrease bias
while also helping fathers navigate the child welfare system.
Barriers to Participation in the Child Welfare System
Many barriers prevent fathers from being engaged and participating in the child welfare
system, including those created by the system itself, including (a) child welfare system factors,
(b) economic factors, (c) personal factors, (d) cultural factors, and (e) family factors.
Child Welfare System Factors
The barriers fathers face within the child welfare system include policies and procedures,
the traditional practices of social workers, and the lack of father-specific programs. In a
comprehensive study to identify the barriers to father engagement in the child welfare system,
Maxwell, Scourfield, Featherstone, et al. (2012) reviewed 30 works published between 2000 to
2010. These articles met specific criteria on father engagement, including a focus on fathers
only, included father involvement evidence, and were based on social work-related services.
These articles covered four systematic reviews, 16 qualitative studies, four quantitative studies,
and six mixed-methods studies. Researchers discovered a systemic approach labeled fixed
thinking. Fixed or rigid thinking occurs when there is a reluctance to change opinions (Brandon
et al., 2009). In father engagement, fixed thinking becomes another barrier to their involvement
in the system and their children’s lives. Fixed thinking prevents noticing a father’s change or
success primarily due to social workers’ perceptions. Researchers found that social workers’
opinions of fathers have usually derived from the mother and, many times, are formed before
17
even meeting the father (Ferguson & Hogan, 2004). In a case study that included 24 fathers, 12
mothers, and 20 social work professionals, researchers found that family members often
collaborated with social workers to construct an image of fathers as dangerous or absent. These
opinions were enough for the caseworkers to exclude fathers from services, causing irreversible
harm to the relationship between a father and child. Fixed thinking creates a barrier and allows
social workers to label fathers as bad or dangerous. Fixed thinking creates a narrative that fathers
should not have a voice in the child welfare process but still need to participate in services for
their children.
Another barrier is the policies and procedures that hinder father engagement. In one
qualitative study, a researcher interviewed 12 fathers on what could help increase their
participation in child welfare programs (Coakley, 2013b). In one instance, a father discussed he
felt that it was inappropriate for the social worker to interview his wife separately from him. The
father mentioned that he did not appreciate the questions asked or social workers’ tone.
Similarly, another father felt disrespected because the social worker only spoke to his wife, even
though he was sitting next to her (Coakley, 2013b). The relationship between fathers and social
workers is critical to the successful closure of a child welfare case. Coakley (2013b) found that
fathers who do not feel valued or respected will likely not work towards a successful case
closure. Another common theme among the group of fathers studied by Coakley (2013b) was the
perceived judgmental and disrespectful tone from social workers. A father interviewed admitted
that, while he needed help, he was unable to get it from the social workers. A majority of the
interviewees from Coakley’s (2013b) study felt they needed help but were immediately
disregarded, and they felt disheartened by the social worker’s attitude. In addition, many
interviewees stated that social workers told them what goals they needed to accomplish to get
18
their children back, but there was no assistance in accomplishing them. It is important to note
that social workers manage high caseloads of clients who are considered high-risk and often need
immediate services. It can be challenging for social workers to research and find resources while
also managing their large caseloads (Coakley, 2013b). Fathers face additional hardships by
having to find resources on their own.
The lack of father-specific resources, such as parenting support and mentorship, causes
fathers’ continued disengagement (Kaminski et al., 2008). Fathers often must complete a
parenting program or support group to show they want to be involved in their child’s case.
Fathers are left looking for father-specific parenting or support programs, which rarely exist, as
research has noted. Fathers may receive harsh consequences if they are unable to complete their
programs within a specific period. One study synthesized the published evaluations of 77
evidence-based parenting programs and found that only four were father-specific (Kaminski et
al., 2008). In another study that aimed to identify the barriers to participation in family and
parenting programs, a focus group of 17 fathers felt that father-specific programs were non-
existent (Lee et al., 2011). Participants felt the community, including the church, elected
officials, community-based organizations, and advocates, should be responsible for creating
father-specific programs. Community participation will help reverse the negative stereotype of
parenting programs introduced by child welfare services. The disparity in father-specific
programming prevents fathers from being successful in the child welfare system.
Economic Factors
Fathers in low-income households often see economic inequalities as a barrier to forming
positive relationships with their children. Multiple studies have identified how providing
financial child support often prevents fathers from seeing their children (Coakley et al., 2014;
19
Maldonado, 2004; Threlfall & Kohl, 2015). Fathers need to pay child support to meet their
children’s basic needs. Child support has led to further disengagement from the child welfare
system because fathers might not have a steady income or have difficulty paying child support
(Coakley et al., 2014). This system punishes fathers for economic situations out of their control.
Knowing that they might not support their children financially, many fathers assist with
other duties to help the family (Maldonado, 2004). Watching their children instead of paying for
childcare or cooking meals rather than buying fast food allows fathers a sense of contribution to
their children’s well-being. However, fathers may be considered delinquent or may be jailed due
to not paying child support (Maldonado, 2004). The community ostracizes these fathers and
labels them as deadbeat dads due to their economic inability to pay (Maldonado, 2004).
In one qualitative study, researchers conducted focus groups with 36 low-income fathers
to explore their views of the child support system (Threlfall & Kohl, 2015). The participants felt
the system imposes unrealistic financial demands, often high child support payments in relation
to their current income status. Participants in the study felt that even working two or three jobs
did not allow them to meet these financial demands. The participants also stated that they
understand the need for providing financial support to their children, though the high payment
amount does not allow for them to financially take care of themselves (Threlfall & Kohl, 2015).
In another study that pulled data from the National Survey of Families and Households and
included over 13,000 respondents, researchers found that fathers who maintain contact with their
children are more likely to pay child support (Maldonado, 2004; Seltzer, 1991). In other words,
fathers are more likely to pay child support if they are encouraged to engage in their child’s life.
As noted above, the economic disparity facing low-income fathers plays a role in their
relationship with their children (Nelson, 2004). One study found that one-third of non-custodial
20
fathers worked full-time year-round and still had an income just above the poverty line, at
approximately $7,000 (Nelson, 2004). Working full-time and averaging less than $600 a month
does not allow fathers to take care of themselves and their children. Programs that provide
vocational and occupational support would allow participants the economic opportunity to
increase their income and increase their engagement. In most cases, fathers want to pay child
support and be involved in their children’s lives. Many do not have the tools, skills, or education
to make themselves financially stable.
Latino families and other families of color face higher economic hardships due to barriers
related to their income levels, immigration status and culture (Ayón et al., 2010; Threlfall &
Kohl, 2015). Due to their immigration status, many fathers cannot receive financial assistance
and, therefore, must work as much as possible to support the family (Ayón et al., 2010). Low-
income fathers are often criminalized and convicted for their inability to pay child support, rather
than intentionally breaking the law (Threlfall & Kohl, 2015).
Personal Factors
Personal factors include a father’s thoughts and feelings around his parenting role, his
role within his family, and his role in the child welfare system (Coakley et al., 2014). Social
workers tend to focus more on mothers than fathers, and society often stigmatizes single fathers
or overly involved fathers (Huebner et al., 2008). Fathers often face harsh criticism of their
parenting style and are told that raising children should be left to the mother (Coakley et al.,
2014). They may refuse to participate in parenting programs because they are afraid of what
others might say or think about them or their children (Ayón et al., 2010). Research has also
found that a father’s perceptions about parenting are barriers to participating in any parenting
support system (Bayley et al., 2009). In a review of barriers and best practices in recruiting
21
fathers to parenting programs, Bayley et al. (2009) found that fathers have an ongoing concern
about how others view them, especially in settings such as parenting classes. Interviewees stated
they often felt judged when seeking services, especially services that involve children. The
review also found that many organizations are not equipped to provide father-specific services.
Staff may be unaware of how to engage fathers or have their own biases that do not allow them
to engage with fathers successfully. Fathers contend both with what others think and with what
they think about themselves. The prevalent focus on mother-centered programs and lack of
father-specific programs prevents fathers from actively engaging in the child welfare system.
A father’s self-efficacy plays a significant part in their involvement with their children
and within the child welfare system (Volker & Gibson, 2014). In a review of research on father
involvement and child development, Volker and Gibson (2014) found that fathers’ views of
themselves were a common barrier to their engagement. Further, in an observational study
consisting of 586 married fathers, their wives, and their children, researchers found that that a
mother’s attitude about father interactions directly correlates to continued positive father-child
interactions (Holmes & Huston, 2010). In other words, maternal and paternal attitudes directly
correlate to increased positive father-child interactions (Holmes & Huston, 2010; Volker &
Gibson, 2014).
Cultural Factors
Research suggests that there is a large need for cultural awareness and sensitivity when
providing child welfare services to fathers, especially when trying to engage and retain fathers in
programming (Pfitzner et al., 2017). Gathering evidence from a range of studies focused on
father engagement, Pfitzner et al. (2017) found that the interpersonal skills of social workers and
instructors were more important than their ethnic and racial background. Further examination of
22
cultural humility and father engagement found that awareness and sensitivity to different
cultures, along with the service delivery method used, was crucial in increasing participation in
child welfare programs (Cortis et al., 2009). Furthermore, research conducted using a mixed-
methods study found that the hard-to-reach population, including fathers, were more likely to
participate in services when service providers met them in the communities where they are from.
(McPhatter, 2018; Evangelou et al., 2013). The research review conducted by Pfitzner et al.
(2017) also found that establishing trust with each other was the most critical recruitment
technique when engaging fathers. Multiple groups that were studied in the review found that
sensitivity, flexibility, and adaptability were factors that were positively correlated to the
successful recruitment and retention of fathers in parenting programs.
In a study of Latino immigrant families with active child welfare cases, Ayón et al.
(2010) recommended that social workers use a father’s culture to discuss father engagement, as
culture plays a significant role among this population. Researchers also recommended that the
child welfare system needs to provide culturally responsive services be delivered to culturally
diverse families and, in order to do so, needs to incorporate culturally sensitive training as the
core component for all social work staff (Ayón et al., 2010). Equally important, Ortega and
Coulborn Faller (2011) found a need for cultural humility training to be incorporated within the
child welfare system. Training social workers with the cultural humility perspective allows them
to feel comfortable in not having to know everything about culture and creates an opportunity to
learn from their clients (Ortega & Coulborn Faller, 2011). Cultural humility training often
consists of self-awareness, openness, and awareness as it relates to culture. Proponents also argue
that cultural humility training allows workers to meet with families without the idea that they
must know everything about culture and race. Instead, workers are in a position of learning and
23
growth, allowing families to feel more knowledgeable in the relationship (Ortega & Coulborn
Faller, 2011).
In addition to cultural humility training, other actions implemented by social workers can
allow for greater success and engagement when working with fathers. In a review of child
welfare policies that should be implemented, McPhatter (2018) recommended that social workers
become familiar with the social and cultural factors that impact minority groups served by the
child welfare system. This can provide valuable insight on employment trends, health and safety,
parenting traits, and risk factors. McPhatter (2018) also emphasized the importance of learning
about culture within a family structure, including how culture affects a father’s child-rearing
practices, coping strategies, and spiritual beliefs. By immersing themselves into a father’s
culture, it is more likely that social workers can better engage fathers in the child welfare system
(McPhatter, 2018).
Family Factors
Family factors consist of a set of barriers that derive directly from the family involved in
the child welfare system. Known as gatekeeping, mothers attempting to keep the father out of
services is a barrier to father engagement (Maxwell, Scourfield, Featherstone, et al., 2012). Many
times, these attempts are justified due to a history of violence, substance abuse, or a perceived
risk of harm. In a study of almost 2,000 child welfare cases and over 1,200 interviews with social
workers, Malm et al. (2006) found that only one-third of mothers gave information about their
children’s father when asked. Mothers are reluctant to provide information due to being angry
due to a father’s new relationship or wanting to receive additional financial benefits by
withholding a father’s information (Malm et al., 2006). It may be easier for social workers to
accept the mother’s statements as truth instead of attempting to contact the father and investigate
24
further (Maxwell, Scourfield, Featherstone, et al., 2012). In a mixed-methods survey of fathers
and social workers, researchers found that social workers needed further training and assistance
on how to better support mothers with father engagement (Huebner et al., 2008). Social workers
stated that they needed further training on how to overcome a mother’s opposition and include
fathers in their child’s case plan without further pushing the mother away.
Child welfare, economic, personal, cultural, and family factors are significant barriers
that prevent fathers from participating in the child welfare system. Although it may seem that
many of the barriers can be considered a permanent part of father engagement, the addition of
programs that focus on reversing these barriers do exist. Programs need to be highly
individualized to the population and adaptable based on the situations that arise.
Best Practices to Engage Fathers in the Child Welfare System
Numerous studies have begun to identify best practices to increase father engagement in
the child welfare system (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012; Guterman et al., 2018; Swinger &
Wishner, 2009). In a study of 34 evidence-based fatherhood programs, Bronte-Tinkew et al.
(2012) identified four critical components of highly successful programs. These four best
practice categories will guide this section: (a) effective father engagement programs, (b)
selection, recruitment, and training of staff, (c) teaching methods, and (d) program replication.
Effective Father Engagement Programs
Effective father engagement programs tailor their materials to serve fathers and their
families and are culturally sensitive when delivering their curriculum (Bronte-Tinkew et al.,
2012). The programs that were identified as highly effective did not just present information on
fatherhood. Instead, these programs focused specifically on their target audience (incarcerated
25
fathers, teen fathers, single fathers, fathers involved in the child welfare system, etc.) and created
their curriculum with the specific population in mind (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012).
In one example, the Dads Matter program targets new fathers and promotes father-infant
attachment as well as verbal and non-verbal cues (Guterman et al., 2018). Researchers sought
evidence that new fathers would participate in a father-specific parenting program which targets
father-infant attachment. After four months, 92% of fathers remained in the program, further
affirming that the high retention rate means fathers are open to participating in a father
engagement program that is connected and relevant to their current role (Bronte-Tinkew et al.,
2012; Guterman et al., 2018). Similarly, the Project Fatherhood curriculum provides a three-
tiered model that encompasses a father support group, a children’s group wherein fathers and
children attend class together in a therapeutic setting, and vocational support, which provides
fathers with the skills to identify and obtain future employment (Swinger & Wishner, 2009). The
Project Fatherhood program actively recruits and engages fathers who need mentorship,
employment, and parent support for their children. By meeting the specific needs of their target
population, they can keep participation and completion rates high (Swinger & Wishner, 2009).
Effective father engagement programs also use theoretical approaches which have been
highly successful in other parenting programs (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012). Rather than re-
creating research or attempting to create new curricula, existing programs are successful because
they have been able to take previous research and apply it to their specific population. By using a
clear theoretical framework, father engagement programs can apply existing research to their
curriculum activities and greatly affect their intended outcomes.
26
Selection, Recruitment, and Training of Staff
Having highly trained and capable staff is another factor that is critical to any fatherhood
program’s success (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012). The programs that have shown the most success
were all led by trained staff not only in parenting-specific programs and modalities but were
trained on how best to engage fathers. The higher rated father engagement programs also spent
time on the selection and recruitment of staff, specifically selecting those with service delivery
experience (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012). In addition to those with service delivery experience,
programs also selected individuals who are empathetic to the population and who can connect to
the community where the population is from and create an environment that fosters father
engagement (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012). In the case of the Dads Matter program, supervisors
also went through the same training as the staff and were selected due to their previous work
experience with the population being served (Guterman et al., 2018). This allows for greater
success and provides individualized care to all participants (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012).
Teaching Methods
The most successful programs examined are able to allow flexibility in their service
delivery in order to individually tailor their program to the needs of fathers (Bronte-Tinkew et
al., 2012). For a father who is struggling with a large group setting, the program that can be
flexible and allow the father to attend a smaller group or meet one on one with the father will see
a higher level of success than those who choose to not be flexible (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012).
Another teaching method described is the use of motivation to increase participation in father
engagement programs (Storhaug & No, 2018). By being able to connect with fathers and
allowing flexibility, participants are more likely to continue participating in the child welfare
system. Storhaug and No (2018) examined 15 fathers involved in the child welfare system and
27
discovered that programs with instructors as role models are more likely to retain participants.
Creating an environment that is flexible and is able to adapt to the population of the class is
critical to the continued success of the father engagement program.
Program Replication
Finally, a program is only successful if it can be replicated multiple times in various
groups across different sessions (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012). Evidence-based practices work
because instructors use the same methods and use the same curriculum when teaching. A
program that does not deviate from the model will have higher completion rates and better
comprehension among clients (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012). The replication of the program
curriculum and corresponding results are an important piece which demonstrates program
effectiveness and understanding while also showing what works best for the specific population
(Mihalic, 2003). Program replication establishes the strength of the program by demonstrating
that it can be replicated across multiple sites with the same positive result (Mihalic, 2003).
Fatherhood programs, when successfully implemented, can provide a positive impact on
the father, partner, children, and families (Carrano et al., 2007). The relationships a father makes,
either with staff or a peer, are decisive in whether they stay engaged with a program. The
research suggests that a program that correctly implements the four factors discussed above can
remove the barriers to participation and engagement for fathers in the child welfare system.
Ecological Systems Theory Applied to Father Engagement and the Child Welfare System
Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), applied to the context of father
engagement, helps to explain how outside influences can affect the engagement of fathers
involved in the child welfare system. For this review, the following sections discuss the origins
of the theory and how it has been applied to father engagement.
28
Ecological Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory encompasses the idea that the
environment guides the development of an individual (Darling, 2007). Comparing the ecological
systems to a set of matryoshka dolls, Bronfenbrenner discussed the importance of the
environment in a child’s healthy development. When analyzing the five ecological systems
further, it is essential to note the importance culture has on a child’s development.
Bronfenbrenner purposely noted that, within one’s culture, the systems, for the most part, look
the same. When comparing different cultures, Bronfenbrenner discovered the systems look
different.
Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) presents five interrelated systems that
highlight how relationships with the environment and with other people affect a child’s
development. Children are the centerpiece of this theory. While it was always a person-centered
model, additional environmental factors show how change in development can occur when the
systems do not support healthy development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Bronfenbrenner found that,
while the environment is imperative, the person in the center is vital (Darling, 2007). In this
study, I looked at each system through the lens of a father in the child welfare system. Adapting
this lens to each system allowed me to understand the barriers and supports in each system.
Microsystem
The microsystem consists of the immediate environment that surrounds the individual
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Each relationship is significant, as they directly and indirectly influence
the child’s development (Piel et al., 2017). Applying the microsystem to a father involved in the
child welfare system can consist of his immediate environment and closest relationships, with
family, friends, and co-workers. It can include his role as father and provider as well as his living
29
situation and relationship with his children. In a child welfare setting, the microsystem can
include the spouse or co-parent, children, neighbors, relatives, and the child welfare
organizations in which they participate (Piel et al., 2017).
Mesosystem
The mesosystem involves the relationships among people in an individual’s immediate
environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For a child, this is the relationship between two or more
settings in which the child actively participates and is a part of, including their home and school.
For example, if a child was removed from their home and came to fear social workers, that child,
as an adult and father, may refuse to meet with social workers due to the relationship created at
an early age (Cabrera et al., 2014). It is important to note that interactions within the mesosystem
can either promote or inhibit functioning (Piel et al., 2017).
Exosystem
The exosystem consists of the relationship between the microsystem and another system
that does not involve the individual as an active participant, though the individual is affected by
what happens in that setting (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This can include a father’s employer or the
child welfare system. While research on the exosystem’s effect on fathers is rare, viewing the
system through this lens allows for better understanding. For example, when an unemployed
father who was caring for his child finds a full-time job, the child’s development will be affected,
as family time with the father will be limited. The exosystem also plays a role for fathers
involved in the child welfare system. The child welfare system may have an open case but
because of the existing policies, the father is not directly involved and therefore is affected by the
actions and outcomes of the system (Piel et al., 2017).
30
Macrosystem
The macrosystem looks at the cultural values and how these cultural identities play a role
in the development of a child (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Cabrera et al., 2014). When discussing the
macrosystem in terms of father engagement, it is important to look at how culture has played a
role in the parenting of their children. For example, parenting across the world is similar in that
the parents love the child and protect them from harm. As we take a closer look, we notice that
parents in Mexico speak to their children differently than those parents in Saudi Arabia. The
blueprint of parenting is there, but the methods in which the parenting occurs are entirely
different. For fathers involved in the child welfare system, the macrosystem also includes the
laws and regulations that regulate child welfare, as well as the political and social climates which
directly and indirectly affect child welfare cases (Piel et al., 2017).
Chronosystem
Finally, the chronosystem refers to events throughout the lifecycle that can have a
significant impact on an individual’s development (Cabrera et al., 2014). For example, divorce
and loss of employment fall in the chronosystem due to their direct impact on children and
adults. In the chronosystem, these events are placed in a historical context to display how they
interact across multiple ecological systems (Piel et al., 2017). For fathers involved in the child
welfare system, these events can include their relationship with their parents, previous and
current partners, and their children.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of a research study is the path used to guide the study and is
grounded firmly in theoretical constructs (Adom et al., 2018). The conceptual framework
provides an integrated way of looking at the study, using the lens of the theory selected. As noted
31
by Grant and Osanloo (2014), the conceptual framework is needed to keep the foundation of the
study focused on the problem being studied and, by doing so, allows for effectively building the
study using the structures defined in the theory. Maxwell (2013) further described the importance
of the conceptual framework, visualizing it as a story the researcher is telling using the theory to
assess what is happening in the study and why. The theory selected allows for the investigation
of the phenomenon being studied and guides the research questions selected, methods used, and
assessing any potential validity concerns (Maxwell, 2013).
The conceptual framework for this study draws on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological
systems theory, specifically how the five systems directly affect fathers who are engaged in the
child welfare system (Figure 1). As shown in this figure, the chronosystem, macrosystem,
exosystem, mesosystem, and microsystem are identified and overlap to show how each system is
correlated with each other and how a father’s engagement level is dictated by what happens in
each system.
The father sits at the center of the ecological system model as he is directly affected by
each individual system, starting with the microsystem. The microsystem in the context of father
engagement is important as it includes his immediate and close relationships, including with his
child, his spouse or co-parent, and his employer (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). These relationships
directly influence the father and ultimately affect his decision to participate in father engagement
programs (Cabrera & Volling, 2019; Cabrera et al., 2014). Next, the mesosystem includes a
father’s relationship with the various microsystems in his life. For example, this can include his
relationship with the child welfare system and father engagement programs. Based on prior
experiences, this relationship can be either negative or positive and can be seen as barriers to
participation in father engagement programs. The exosystem is the relationship between a
32
father’s microsystem and another system which does not directly affect his child but is critical to
their healthy development (Cabrera & Volling, 2019). The exosystem can include a father’s
employer, community, or his participation in father engagement programs. The macrosystem
looks at family systems and the important that culture and values play when trying to engage
fathers in the child welfare system. As noted in the literature review, cultural awareness and
sensitivity in the child welfare system plays a role on whether fathers will feel comfortable and
participate in father engagement programs, which can indirectly affect the relationship between
father and child (Pfitzner et al., 2017). Finally, the chronosystem refers to the major events that
had a significant impact on a father’s life. These are often the reasons why fathers decide to
participate in father engagement programs, including divorce, loss of employment, or child
welfare involvement (Cabrera et al., 2014).
33
Figure 1
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
Summary
The child welfare system tends to focus on maternal caregivers and often considers the
participation of fathers as optional (Campbell et al., 2015; Risley-Curtis & Heffernan, 2003).
Fathers face social worker assumptions and perceptions which actively prevent fathers from
34
participating in the child welfare system. Bias in the child welfare system comes in many forms,
including fathers not being included in case plans and not considered as viable placement options
for their children (Storhaug, 2013). Child welfare policies also play a role in preventing the
engagement of fathers, including limiting, or inhibiting a father’s access to his children (Saleh,
2013). Social worker bias and previous experiences with male clients is also seen as a roadblock
for fathers, making it difficult for fathers to be involved in their child’s cases.
There are many barriers that prevent fathers from being engaged in the child welfare
system, including existing policies and procedures, social worker practices, and the lack of
existing father engagement programs (Coakley, 2013b; Kaminski et al., 2008). Economic factors,
including the economic inequality for low-income fathers, is also a barrier to not only
participating in the child welfare system but is also a barrier to building a relationship with their
child (Coakley et al., 2014). Many low-income fathers work multiple jobs which makes
participation in father engagement programs and in the child welfare system extremely difficult
(Maldonado, 2004). A father’s perception of how he views himself as a father is also a barrier
due to their role within the family, how their parenting is viewed by others, and how the primary
focus of support programs are aimed at mothers (Coakley et al., 2014; Bayley et al., 2009;
Volker & Gibson, 2014). A father’s culture plays a role in father engagement in the child welfare
system, especially for Latino men (Ayón et al., 2010). The lack of cultural awareness and
sensitivity in the child welfare system prevents fathers from participating in the child welfare
system, especially when programs are not in their primary language or sensitive to their needs.
Finally, fathers are disengaged in the child welfare system due to the gatekeeping of mothers
who refuse to provide a father’s information in order to prevent their participation (Maxwell,
Scourfield, Featherstone, et al., 2012).
35
Best practices have been identified to increase father engagement in the child welfare
system. The use of effective father engagement programs used to engage fathers is critical to
their continued participation and success in the child welfare system, as is the staff who delivers
the program to fathers (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012). Selection and recruitment of highly trained
staff provide fathers with an experience that educates and engages, allowing for long-term
participation and success. Using a curriculum that is flexible and can be tailored to meet the
needs of fathers is critical to long-term participation and engagement (Bronte-Tinkew et al.,
2012). A program’s ability to be replicated throughout different sites allows for higher
completion rates and better comprehension among participants (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012).
Finally, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory was used as the theoretical
framework to identify barriers to father engagement in the child welfare system and identify
promising practices which increase father participation and the impact of a successful father
engagement program.
36
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the methods this study used to identify
promising practice strategies to increase father engagement in the child welfare system. By using
a descriptive qualitative case study approach, I will better describe the interventions used and
discuss how they apply in the child welfare system (Baxter & Jack, 2008). This chapter will also
provide further information on the design of the study, research setting, researcher, data sources,
validity and reliability, and limitations and delimitations of the study.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study and identified promising practice
strategies for father engagement in the child welfare system:
1. What are the perceptions of fathers and staff regarding the barriers to participation in the
child welfare system?
2. To what extent and how are the barriers to participation addressed by the Father Up
program?
3. What are the promising strategies that the Father Up program is implementing in order to
increase father participation and engagement?
4. In what ways are the participating fathers being impacted or changed by participating in
the Father Up program?
Overview of Design
Using a qualitative case study approach, I was able to provide evidence that both supports
and contradicts the topic of father engagement, which led to a case study that is more realistic
and valid (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The qualitative case study method best explores how
individuals link to social problems and consists of collecting data primarily in the participants’
37
setting. I explored the topic of father engagement in the child welfare system by using a case
study. A case study further provided me with the ability to explore the Father Up program in
depth and further investigate why it is successful, as well as how it can be applicable to fathers in
the child welfare system (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
For this study, I conducted interviews with two groups to answer the four research
questions. I used interviews to collect a first-person narrative of the program and population
being studied (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I followed a semi-structured interview protocol, which
allowed me to follow up on responses from the interviewee and not follow the order or wording
of questions. Synchronous interviews were conducted over the telephone with Fatherhood
Academy California staff members and fathers who were not geographically close to the Los
Angeles area. Follow-up questions were asked via telephone and email. Conducting interviews
virtually was also required due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. All fathers interviewed
were asked whether they would like to be interviewed in English or Spanish. All fathers chose to
be interviewed in English. The four research questions that guided this study and the methods
used to collect the data are identified in Table 1.
38
Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Interviews
with staff
Interviews with
participants
1. What are the perceptions of fathers and staff regarding the
barriers to participation in the child welfare system?
X
X
2. To what extent and how are the barriers to participation
addressed by the Father Up program?
X
X
3. What are the promising strategies that the Father Up program
is implementing in order to increase father participation and
engagement?
X
4. In what ways are the participating fathers being impacted or
changed by participating in the Father Up program?
X
X
Research Setting
Fatherhood Academy California is a non-profit organization whose mission is to improve
children’s well-being by strengthening the relationships of those around them. As part of its
Dads and Kids initiative, the organization implemented the Father Up program, a 6–12 week
evidence-informed and skills-based program that helps fathers succeed at their three most
important relationships. A father’s relationship with their children, their partner or co-parent, and
with co-workers allows them to improve their co-parenting skills, increase their engagement, and
increase their financial responsibility towards their children. Fatherhood Academy California is
currently in its final year as a grantee of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative. The funding provides responsible
fatherhood opportunities, including strengthening father and child engagement, improving
39
economic and employment opportunities, and building healthy relationships (U.S. Department of
Health & Human Services, 2019). Fatherhood Academy California’s the Father Up program
provides an ideal program to study regarding father engagement. Over the past 5 years, the
Father Up program has enrolled over 2,200 fathers.
Interview participants include the administrative staff of Fatherhood Academy California
and the Father Up program’s facilitators. Staff were able to provide feedback on the program
from their point of view, primarily on whether they see the program working and what they hope
to change through the continued implementation of their program. I used the snowball sampling
method during the first interview in order identify the other employees or key staff that were
involved with the program and who could be interviewed as part of this study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The snowball sampling method allowed me to identify the other key individuals
who can best provide the information needed for the study.
Fathers who have been attending the Father Up program or who have completed the
program were selected to be interviewed. The participants’ ages vary, as does their experience
with the child welfare system. All fathers selected for this study are Latino and live primarily in
Northern California. Fatherhood Academy California staff identified the group of potential
participants and informed me who would be available or interested in participating, thus making
for a purposeful and typical sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The Researcher
I have worked for various organizations, including the Department of Children and
Family Services and several non-profit organizations. For over 15 years, I have worked with
many children, teens, and families by providing in-home parenting support and workforce
development, as well as the supervision and management of these programs and staff. The child
40
welfare system was heavily involved in most of these cases and allowed me the opportunity to
see the disparities between fathers and this system. I have no relationship or history with
Fatherhood Academy California or the Father Up program. I also have no relationship or history
with Fatherhood Academy staff or the fathers that were interviewed. As an employee of a large
child welfare protection agency, there was potential for researcher bias. Instead of dismissing
these possible biases, I have identified them and recognize how they may shape data collection
and interpretation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I interviewed and collected interview data and
information from the mindset not of an employee of the child welfare system but as a researcher
who wants to learn more about Fatherhood Academy California, the Father Up program, and
how this program affects the lives of fathers involved in the child welfare system.
I am a father to a 9-year-old child and, while never involved in the child welfare system,
have worked with a variety of parents, caregivers, and children who have been directly involved
in this system. I also recognize the high number of Latinos involved in this system and, as a
Latino male, aims to ensure sensitivity in regard to ethnicity and race.
Data Sources
The data sources for this study consisted of the staff and program participants
interviewed. The data collection occurred in the Spring of 2021 over four weeks, with interviews
coinciding during this time. One interview was scheduled per day and allowed me to evaluate
responses and make changes to questions as needed. I conducted interviews with Father Up
program staff and Fatherhood Academy California administrators to gather first-hand
information about the Father Up program, the child welfare system, program barriers, and best
practices. I also conducted interviews with fathers who are current or former participants of the
Father Up program.
41
Participants.
The participants were selected through a purposeful sampling method, a method in which
I was able to gather the most information from those involved in the program (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Interviews were conducted with key administrative and program leaders who had
the best information relevant to this study.
In addition to the four staff of Fatherhood Academy California, I was able to interview
eight current and former Father Up program participants during the Spring of 2021. These eight
participants volunteered to participate in the study after an open-ended email request was sent by
Fatherhood Academy California. Interested participants were asked to contact me for further
information. The first eight participants to express interest in the study were selected to be
interviewed and agreed to participate. Throughout the study, I only had access to program
participants’ contact information, including phone numbers and email addresses. All information
was kept in a locked filing cabinet throughout the study, and I was the only person who had
access to this information. The computer used for this study was password protected and I was
the only person who had access. All personal contact information has since been deleted, and all
audio recordings and notes were deleted at the completion of this study. Pseudonyms were used
for the participants and staff, just as pseudonyms had been used for the agency and program
name. This policy provides an additional layer of confidentiality for the staff, participants, and
the organization.
Instrumentation
For the staff and participant interviews, I used a semi-structured process. This process
allowed me to guide the interviews using predetermined questions. It also gave me the flexibility
42
to ask follow-up questions and stray away from other questions based on the interviewees’
responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview questions used were each linked to one of
the four research questions. The research questions include various experience and behavior
questions, opinion and values questions, feeling questions, and knowledge questions. I purposely
avoided yes or no questions and those which may have led to specific answers. As part of the
interviews, I asked both staff and participants about the Father Up program, including what
makes the program successful, what they would improve on, and why father involvement and
engagement is essential. The interview protocol for staff (Appendix A) consisted of 23 questions
that highlighted the program’s components, barriers that they believe prevented fathers from
participating, and what a successful participant looks like. The interview protocol for fathers
(Appendix B) consisted of 14 questions that highlighted how they felt about the program, the
program components that they felt were most critical, and recommendations on how they would
improve the program.
Data Collection Procedures
The data was collected via interviews conducted virtually or through the telephone due to
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Each interview with staff lasted approximately between 45
and 60 minutes while interviews with fathers went longer, averaging 1 hour and 15 minutes. I
provided additional time for follow-up questions, as needed. The time and date of interviews
were selected based on the availability of the interviewer and interviewee. The data was
collected and transcribed using an external audio recording device. The audio recordings were
uploaded to my personal computer, was password protected, and uploaded to a professional
transcription service.
43
Data Analysis
This study used qualitative data analysis to identify the promising practice strategies used
for the Father Up program. The data was collected by interviewing four Fatherhood Academy
California staff and eight Father Up program participants (fathers). Interviews were completed in
the Spring of 2021 and were audio recorded so that I could focus on asking the questions to the
participants and to identify responses that are of interest to the study. The audio recordings were
transcribed by a professional service and the transcripts were saved until all interviews were
completed. Once all interviews were completed, I uploaded all the transcripts into Atlas.TI, a
qualitative coding software, and reviewed all of the transcripts for patterns and categories which
are of importance and related to the study’s research questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Finally, I coded all of the data collected and identified categories which would later become the
findings of this study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Validity and Reliability
To ensure validity and reliability, I triangulated the findings using interviews and
organization documents. Using multiple measuring points allowed me to compare the data
obtained from multiple stakeholders and participants to create a more well-rounded study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After the completion of interviews, I used member checks to clarify
statements and ensure that what I wrote and recorded accurately reflected what the interviewees
stated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I also designed the interview questions for both staff and
participants to align with the conceptual framework and research questions. The interviews
consisted of various questions designed to create further dialogue and gather appropriate
responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), all with the goal to answer the four research questions of
this study.
44
Ethics
This research serves the interests of those involved in the child welfare system, either as a
participant, family member, individual community member, or employee. The research benefits
the participants, family of the participants, the organizations working with fathers involved in the
child welfare system, the child welfare system itself, and the surrounding community. There was
very minimal risk of harm that potentially could have occurred during this study. I ensured that
all ethical concerns were addressed and outlined before collecting data. Prior to being
interviewed, all participants received an information sheet that discussed consent and the purpose
of the study. I only interviewed participants who agreed to be interviewed and used pseudonyms
for each individual, as well as the organization. I did not obtain any identifying information
regarding children, family members, co-parents, or spouses of the fathers who participated in the
study.
I am familiar with many father engagement programs in the child welfare system but was
not familiar with the Father Up program or with any individual employed by or volunteering for
Fatherhood Academy California. As part of the study, I mitigated my positions of power by
being honest about the purpose of the study. For the interviews, respondents answered the
questions remotely and were able to end the interviews at any time. I did not influence or sway
their answers. Furthermore, respondents were able to choose to skip interview questions and
remain in the study. All information collected remained confidential, and identifying information
was not made available to other respondents or the host agency. Interviewees were read the
confidentiality protocol both at the beginning and at the end of their interviews.
45
Limitations and Delimitations
This study’s limitations varied throughout the entire data collection period and were
identified as actions which occurred outside of my control (Pyrczak, 2016). First, the COVID-19
pandemic prevented in-person data collection and observations from taking place. All previously
scheduled in-person interviews occurred over the telephone and follow-ups were completed by
telephone and email, as needed. Another limitation was that the research was based on the
responses given by the participants and I was unable to verify if responses were truthful and
honest.
Delimitations of this study rested on the interview questions that I chose to ask, which
limited the study’s scope (Prczak, 2016). The interview responses were limited to the questions
asked, the availability of current and former clients, and access to electronic materials to
complete the videoconferencing or telephone interviews. Interview responses were limited by
respondents’ interpretation of the questions posed via teleconference or telephone. Another
delimitation of this study is that only one organization was examined, and the individuals
interviewed were only associated with this organization. Finally, the use of Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) ecological systems theory is also a delimitation as it was the only lens used to conduct
this study.
46
Chapter Four: Findings
To illustrate and identify the promising practice strategies used to increase father
engagement in the child welfare system, I used qualitative measurements to interview four
Fatherhood Academy California staff and eight former Father Up program participants (fathers).
Guided by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, the following research questions
guided this study:
1. What are the perceptions of fathers and staff regarding the barriers to participation in the
child welfare system?
2. To what extent and how are the barriers to participation addressed by the Father Up
program?
3. What are the promising strategies that the Father Up program is implementing in order to
increase father participation and engagement?
4. In what ways are the participating fathers being impacted or changed by participating in
the Father Up program?
Participants
I interviewed four Fatherhood Academy California employees and eight fathers who are
former participants of the Father Up program. The four employees were three current staff
members and one staff member who recently transitioned into a consultant role with Fatherhood
Academy California. All four individuals were selected because they work closely with the
Father Up program and their work history and experience in the father engagement field. I also
interviewed eight fathers who are former Father Up program participants. These interviews took
place in the spring of 2021. Table 2 identifies the staff participants using pseudonyms, position
category, and the number of years involved with the organization. Table 3 identifies the fathers
47
interviewed using pseudonyms and their ethnicity. Their child welfare system status is also
listed, which identifies whether a father currently has an open or closed case with their local
Department of Children and Family Services. Finally, the father’s current status with the Father
Up program is listed.
Table 2
Fatherhood Academy California Staff
Pseudonym Position category Years with organization
Jennifer Administrative 8
Kurt Programs 10
Megan Administrative 15
Paul Administrative 13
48
Table 3
Father Up Program Participants
Pseudonym Ethnicity Child welfare system status Father Up program status
Alejandro Latino Current participant Completed program
Benito Latino Former participant Completed program
Enrique Latino Former participant Completed program
Luis Latino Current participant Completed program
Marco Latino Current participant Completed program
Pedro Latino Former participant Completed program
Ricky Latino Former participant Completed program
Vicente Latino Former participant Completed program
Findings
To answer the four research questions, I categorized the findings during the data analysis
process, highlighting the perceptions of both fathers and staff involved in the Father Up program.
The findings will be further discussed in detail below to address this study’s four research
questions.
RQ1: What Are the Perceptions of Fathers and Staff Regarding the Barriers to
Participation in the Child Welfare System?
In interviews, the four employees and eight fathers who participated in this study
identified four barriers to participation in the child welfare system: (a) time commitment, (b)
outside influences, (c) lack of available resources, and (d) culture and stigma.
Time Commitment
The four staff interviewed recognized that one of the barriers to participation is the time
commitment needed for the program. The Father Up program provides 24 hours of education,
49
broken up across 12 sessions. For many fathers, committing a significant amount of time to the
program is an ongoing barrier, as they need to decide whether to attend the course or work to
provide for their families. As noted by Jennifer, an employee with Fatherhood Academy
California, the time commitment is a “significant reason many fathers choose not to participate
in the program.” When asked what he would change about the program, Kurt, another employee
interviewed, admitted that he would shorten the length of the program due to it being a major
time commitment for fathers:
I would probably make it [the classes] a little shorter. It is a lengthy program, and asking
somebody to take three months out of their life, somebody that hasn’t really attended
these types of courses in the past, it becomes a lot for them.
Initially developed to be a 40-hour course, the course took over 20 weeks to complete,
and the agency found that this time commitment was unattainable. After losing many fathers
early on due to work and school schedule conflicts, they went to the federal government agency
that oversaw the grant and requested a change in curriculum length.
While the change made the course schedule more manageable, most of the fathers
interviewed still felt that the time commitment made it difficult to attend regularly. Benito stated
that he works two jobs and had to ask co-workers to cover shifts to attend class. Another father,
Ricky, also works two jobs and found it challenging to make the class fit with his schedule. He
had to ask for time off to attend the classes, which ended up causing financial stress to him and
other fathers wanting to participate in the program. Six of the eight fathers interviewed also felt
that the Father Up program was worth the struggle and stress, regardless of the required time
commitment. One father, Alejandro, further recognized that while situations do arise, he was
able to make changes to his schedule to continue participating:
50
We all live a busy lifestyle, so on occasion, there was a thing where I had to push some
things aside to take part in the class, and I think it was a two-hour class. It wasn’t much.
But again, there’s family, there’s a lot of things that come up, but I toughed it out.
With the COVID-19 pandemic shutting down in-person learning for all students, Marco
and the other Father Up program participants had to attend online classes while also helping their
own children with virtual learning. Marco discussed how this new norm had become a challenge
to him and other fathers in the program. Six of the fathers interviewed felt that the course was
essential to their and their children’s well-being and was worth having to make changes in their
schedule to attend class. Ricky, a former participant of the Father Up program, stated that the
online course seemed to be an opportunity between himself and his daughter, who was also
taking online courses, to further communicate and spend more time with each other. The
COVID-19 stay-at-home order kept families at home and, in cases like Ricky, created an
opportunity where many activities were now home-based and lessened the stress of time
commitments.
It’s funny because here we are in the middle of a pandemic and we’re stuck at home with
each other. We’d remind each other about our classes and making sure we had all of our
materials for class. Then, after class, we would check-in and ask “How was your class?
What did you learn?” and it became almost like a bonding experience.
The time commitment needed for fathers to participate in the Father Up program was a
barrier that many felt was worth the struggle of attending. The COVID-19 pandemic seemed to
create an opportunity for many fathers to attend more of the classes due to having the ability to
take classes remotely. Fatherhood Academy California appears to understand the importance of
51
creating a course that is manageable and made the change in length of program to increase father
participation.
Outside Influences
Another barrier noted by staff was that many fathers feel that it is either too late for them
to participate in a father engagement program which meets the child welfare system criteria or
that these types of classes are not for them. Kurt, a Fatherhood Academy California employee,
discussed a recent case where a father felt that because his kids were teenagers, he felt it was too
late to learn anything about child development and how to be a father. He reminded the father
that it is possible he might have grandchildren one day and would also be able to use the skills
learned with his nieces and nephews. Kurt also informed the father that the skills learned are
easily transferable to other areas of his life, including his relationship with his spouse and work.
Another father was asked to attend the class but became very hesitant to go to a classroom. Kurt
later found out that this father had very little education and felt intimidated by being inside a
classroom. Often, fathers hear the word “class” and feel that they do not have the capabilities to
succeed in the program. One father, Enrique, was honest about feeling that he did not want to be
in a class where he would be blamed for his perceived failures as a father:
I just didn’t want to go. I really didn’t want to hear how I’ve been doing this wrong or
that I’m a horrible father or be blamed or whatever, but when I met the instructor, I forget
his name, but he was really cool and made me feel like this is going to be a different kind
of class. It seemed that he was there to want to help and not just to tell us what to do.
Another father, Pedro, was hesitant in attending as he was not sure on the type of program it was
going to be. Pedro believed the Father Up program was going to be “like a regular parenting
class, where both of the parents and the kids are there, like therapy.” Pedro was surprised to learn
52
that it was only a class for fathers and was more open to attending and participating knowing that
it was a class for him and others in a similar situation.
Kurt, an employee of Fatherhood Academy California, also discussed how many fathers
assume the government tracks these classes due to their funding and refuse to participate. In
some low-income regions where the Father Up program has taken place, many fathers are
undocumented and are fearful of deportation. Participating in a government-funded course
creates a barrier for those families. The self-perception barrier and the responses from fathers
and staff are supported by the research, highlighting that personal factors, such as a father’s
thoughts or feelings about his role, create a barrier to father engagement (Coakley et al., 2014).
The outside influences discussed do play a role on whether fathers will feel comfortable
in attending a father engagement program. A majority of the fathers interviewed were hesitant on
attending any type of class until they found that it was a course specifically for fathers who are
struggling with parenting. This shows that fathers are likely to attend classes which focus on
father engagement and father-specific topics, especially when participation is limited to only
fathers.
Lack of Resources
The third barrier that keeps fathers from participating in the child welfare system is the
lack of resources, including being unaware of existing resources for fathers. One father, Vicente,
felt that his social worker often struggled to find resources for him and he had to research and
find resources independently.
They didn’t tell us where to go for the classes. We had to find out ourselves. All she said
was, “You need to do parenting.” Okay. Then what? Like, we had to do the work, so we
called 2-1-1 and figured out what we needed to do and where to go.
53
Another father, Ricky, had taken parenting classes before and was looking for a father-specific
program that went more in depth about parenting from a father’s perspective. Ricky was
involved in the child welfare system, and his social worker did not give him a choice in the type
of parenting class to attend. He participated in a parenting program where the participants were
required to attend and that made the program uncomfortable because no one wanted to
participate. Ricky later found out about the Father Up program through a newsletter provided by
his child’s school:
I have gone to parenting classes before, and it was pretty generic. Do this with the kids.
Don’t do that. But I was looking for something more detailed, I guess. Something just for
guys because we as dads have been there, and sometimes we don’t have anyone to talk to.
So, I was looking for a program where I can learn and be around other dads who were
going through the same thing as me.
Another father, Benito, also mentioned how difficult it was to attend a program where he felt
comfortable in attending.
Many of the parenting classes I’ve taken were full of mom’s, which is fine, but our needs
are different. Dads do things differently and we learn differently so we have to have just a
dad’s class. I stopped going to those classes because I just felt judged the whole time.
That’s why the Father Up program works, it’s just dad’s together who can talk about
what we’ve been through.
Megan and Paul, employees of Fatherhood Academy California, each discussed how
important it is to have father-specific programs which highlight their unique strengths and
weaknesses in terms of parenting. Unfortunately, the collaboration between the child welfare
system and agencies such as Fatherhood Academy California is almost non-existent. As further
54
discussed by Paul, the child welfare system should be referring fathers to their program as they
are a grantee of the Administration of Children and Families. However, it becomes a
competition, as the child welfare system would not get credit for the referral, which also hinders
the availability of future funds. Paul further mentioned how the grants that provide these services
end of being a competition, a survival of sorts for those agencies who are able to receive funding.
Though, as Paul states below, the mission of these agencies inevitably change when funding
changes.
When you start working with different agencies, as much as they talk about collaboration,
there’s a bit of competition. And especially for the government agencies, because their
rigor of how they’re doing and what they are being engaged by is different than when it’s
a grantee. We don’t have the same clout. So the agency, for instance, will exist when a
grant is up. Our work changes when the grant is over. And so, they are less inclined to
share people, because the question is, who gets credit for that number?
The lack of father-specific resources is a barrier which prevents fathers from successfully
engaging in the child welfare system. All eight fathers interviewed mentioned how difficult it
was to find programs that are only for fathers and that provide parenting and relationship
support. Fathers felt on their own when searching for father-specific programming and often had
to identify supports on their own. The interviews with Fatherhood Academy California staff also
emphasized the importance of having funding available to provide father engagement programs.
It appears that, based on the responses from staff, that agencies are not working together to
provide these services. Rather, they are competing for funding and aligning their programs based
on whatever funding is available.
55
Culture and Stigma
A surprising statistic of the interviews with staff and fathers was the number of instances
in which culture and “machismo” were discussed as possible barriers to the child welfare system.
During her interview, Jennifer, a Fatherhood Academy California employee, noted that the
Father Up program brings dads together, but as soon as the program is over, culture takes over.
Fathers tend to retreat into their home and work life, often forgetting about their importance in
their children’s lives. Their past cultural experiences dictate the level of engagement they will
have with their children. When asked about the barriers that he believes prevent fathers from
participating, Kurt, a Fatherhood Academy California employee, described how culture and
upbringing are barriers for fathers in being engaged with their children:
Maybe it’s a culture thing sometimes, where they think that since they’re not as engaged
with their kids growing up, you know? The mom is the one that goes to all the school
events, the one that is always at the teacher conferences, the one that knows their kids,
knows who their friends are. When it comes to the child welfare system, when it comes to
that point, the fathers are just like, “I don’t know my kid that well anyway. I’m at a
disadvantage to begin with, so why even go there, right? Why even engage in that system
if I’m so disconnected with them already?” I think it might be culture.
All eight of the fathers interviewed for this study felt that their Latino upbringing plays a role in
communicating and interacting with their children. Alejandro, a former Father Up program
participant, has two brothers and remembers growing up with them and never hearing his father
say “I love you” to either of them:
Growing up, communication wasn’t always a top priority, not to stereotype the Latino
family. I mean, there’s kind of a keep to yourself attitude, and, I mean, the whole thing of
56
a father saying, “I love you.” It was never there. And, now, that’s something that every
day, multiple times a day, I tell my kid that.
Other fathers interviewed experienced a similar situation growing up and use those life
experiences to do the opposite of what they experienced as children. Marco stated,
It’s difficult because I’m Mexican, and Mexicans aren’t known for being so open with
their kids. My dad was pretty distant from us kids growing up, so I just try to do the
opposite. I want my kids to know that I love them.
Ricky added,
The program helps you with communication. I think that’s the most important. If you
can’t communicate with your kids or your wife, then you’re done. You have to learn how
to communicate with them because everyone is different. For me, growing up, there was
zero communication with my dad. He communicated by yelling, and when I had my kids,
I quickly realized that that just doesn’t work.
Part of the cultural barrier experienced by fathers in the Father Up program is the lack of feeling
comfortable enough to communicate in a setting with other men. There were concerns early on
from Fatherhood Academy California staff on whether a group of fathers would feel comfortable
expressing themselves in front of a group of strangers. Paul, an employee interviewed,
mentioned,
So, with having a dad’s only course, one of the challenges and one of the early
conversations we had was [about] what can we do to keep these dads motivated? Our
classes are dependent on participants participating in the class and in dialogue and in
questions and that kind of thing.
57
Culture plays a critical role in how fathers engage with their children, especially amongst
Latino men. The fathers interviewed overwhelmingly agreed that there are not enough resources
for them, and many times are often forced to participate in programs which are not culturally
appropriate. In summary, there were four main barriers to participating in the child welfare
system mentioned by interviewees, including time commitment, outside influences, lack of
available resources, and culture and stigma.
RQ2: To What Extent and How Are the Barriers to Participation Addressed by the Father
Up Program?
The staff and fathers interviewed for this study identified three strategies used in the
Father Up program that effectively addressed barriers to participation. The three strategies used
were having a wide range of class availability, a father engagement program that focuses on
relationship development, and a father engagement program that addresses the stigma that
fathers face when participating in such a program.
Availability of Classes
Six of the eight fathers interviewed stated that they had concerns about how they would
navigate their work and home schedules to attend classes. To accommodate fathers and to
provide more opportunities for them to attend the Father Up program, Fatherhood Academy
California staff began to discuss the possibility of using virtual platforms for the courses.
Jennifer discussed a pilot program that will allow the Father Up program to be taken virtually
and on-demand:
Fatherhood Academy California is trying something new in this grant, where they’re
going to test out offering Zoom classes and on-demand video classes that you can watch
online. Since the program is so long, sometimes that can be a barrier to participation. But
58
our thought is if we can make it available online at your own pace, whenever you’re able
to do it, we might be able to reach more dads and might be able to have an impact for
more people.
Similarly, Kurt, another employee interviewed, mentioned that the move from in-person classes
to virtual learning had been previously discussed to accommodate fathers and provide more
opportunities for them to attend courses:
We started thinking, and when writing the grant proposal for the new grants during the
summer, we decided to add that on-demand classes be a part of it. I think it’s going to be
helpful for some people that, for whatever reason, work in a hospital or they work nights.
They’re never going to be able to go to one of these classes because they’re all in the
evenings for the most part. So what can we do to bring those people on as well? So we
decided to do the on-demand classes.
There was no specific timetable for providing virtual courses. However, Fatherhood Academy
California decided to add these courses before moving to the online platform in 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. While there were initial challenges with moving an in-person class to a
virtual one, fathers continued to participate and enjoyed the new method of taking the course.
Pedro, a father who was interviewed, found that Fatherhood Academy California made the
Father Up program very easy to take, and the online platform was much easier on him and his
family. Ricky, another father interviewed, had a similar feeling and felt more comfortable taking
the class online, as he now had familiarity with the platform due to his children also doing online
classes. While there were no issues with having the necessary equipment for online learning,
Fatherhood Academy California does have funding which allows for the purchase of
Chromebooks for use by participants.
59
Focus on Relationship Development
As described by two of the four employees interviewed, Fatherhood Academy California
did not want to run a father engagement program that only teaches fathers basic parenting skills.
Instead of teaching fathers how to change a baby or ensure a car seat is installed correctly, the
organization wanted to teach fathers the skills needed to build and keep relationships with their
children, spouse or co-parent, and co-workers. The program also focuses on critical life skills
that can be transferred through other facets of their lives. For example, Paul, a Fatherhood
Academy California employee, shared that it was important to teach fathers how to deal with
conflict, both in their relationship and in the workplace.
The one thing that is most disruptive for peer relationships, couple relationships, and
work relationships is people’s inability to deal with conflict when it comes up. It gets
them fired. It gets them divorced. It gets them ostracized with their kids. And if they push
too far, then the courts get involved, and that creates a whole other myriad of problems.
So ours is really an experiential skill-based program. So, of the 24 hours, about a third of
that is spent with dads actually in class, going through experiencing the skills that we’re
teaching them. It’s not just lectures. It’s not just a bunch of videos that are a lot of feel-
good stuff. It really is about them learning and practicing the skills that we’re teaching
them.
Kurt, another employee, also discussed the importance of teaching fathers how their
relationship with their spouse or co-parents can ultimately play a role in their child’s overall
health and well-being:
We cover relationships in three areas. We talk about the relationship between the father
and his spouse because research does show that that’s one of the key indicators of how
60
successful their kids are going to be. The relationship between the spouses or the co-
parents, even if they’re not together. That relationship is key. So, we talk about
communication skills and listening skills between the father and mother.
The program, as described by Kurt, also spends time discussing the relationship between the
father and child and between the father and his employer. By making this connection, it
emphasizes the importance that the Father Up program takes in helping fathers adjust to using
their newly acquired skills in a variety of settings. Kurt said,
And then, from there, we focus on the relationship with their children. Obviously, that’s
the meat of the program. The relationship between the father and their children. We want
them to be active parents, to be engaged in their lives, be around them, get to know them,
be friends with them. And then the last one is their job. We talk about something as
simple as how to do a resume. How to create an email address. Where do I find a job?
What do I need to know for an interview? What are the key things I need to be aware of?
So, we talk about that.
Addressing the Stigma
According to the four employees interviewed for this study, Fatherhood Academy
California has made an effort to understand the population they serve, including the importance
of culture when delivering the Father Up curriculum. One employee, Kurt, had previously
mentioned that they have courses in familiar areas, many of which are locations where fathers
are already gathering. Another component of the program is delivering the program entirely in
Spanish. Kurt described the importance of this as it allows fathers to be comfortable in the
setting and more likely to understand the material:
61
The classes are in Spanish. That’s another big thing. It’s not somebody translating while I
speak English and somebody’s translating Spanish. That’s kind of awkward at times. I’m
fully bilingual, so we do it in the language of choice. If it’s Spanish, it’s 100% Spanish.
The videos are in Spanish. The materials are in Spanish. It’s well written, so that’s what
makes it unique.
In order to work on inclusivity, Fatherhood Academy California staff had to create a culture
within the program, one which allowed for emotions to be displayed and mistakes to be made.
The Fatherhood Academy staff interviewed noted the importance of providing a safe
space for fathers to open up and learn from each other. The environment allows fathers to learn
from each other and ask their peers how they handle certain situations. For example, Paul
discussed how fathers began to bond with each other by sharing struggles they had with their
children:
The dads, once they felt safe in the group and working with a bunch of other dads and
hearing…one guy opened up and said he’s having a tough time connecting with his kid
and another one saying he’s having a tough time connecting with his kids. They get a safe
place for them to be able to share and participate and look forward to because they were,
again, coming up with some of the answers to some of their deeper questions in their life
that they previously didn’t have the answers for.
Being a fathers-only course also provides a sense of safety for the participants that attend. They
do not have to feel embarrassed or feel judged by other individuals who are not a part of their
family. As Kurt mentioned, fathers are able to be open and honest without having to feel judged
by their spouse or their children:
62
Their spouse is not there. Their kids are not there. They get to speak their mind. Maybe
they’re struggling with something, and they’re just too embarrassed or ashamed to say it
in front of their spouse or their kids. We tell them confidentiality. Whatever you say here
stays here. So these men, these hard men, open up. There’s tears. There’s hugs and
whatnot.
Kurt also further attributed this to the Latino culture and how it can be difficult for fathers to
show emotion in such a vulnerable setting:
Many of the dads who attend the course have been told for years to just keep it in. You
have to be strong for everyone else. Here, they get to just take a deep breath and be like,
“You know what? We’re breaking these paradigms.” It’s okay to have emotion. It’s okay
for you to feel and to cry. It’s great to see that.
Luis, a father and former participant of the program, discussed in his interview how the classes
became an opportunity for him to share his struggles and learn from others who have been
through similar situations:
It was nice to be around other guys, other dads, and hearing what they’re going through
with their kids and their relationships. It made me feel a little normal, but also just we
were there for each other. It was a good opportunity for us to talk and learn from each
other and just be better dads. At first, I didn’t know anybody, so it was a little, I guess,
just a little awkward. You’re getting to know other people. But, like I said, you start
learning, or you start hearing what they’re going through, and you realize, “Wow, I’m
going through the same thing, too.” So it was nice. It was kind of like a bonding
opportunity.
63
The Father Up program, as evidenced by the responses from staff and participants, relies
on creating an environment where fathers feel comfortable and safe in attending the program.
Similar to the research from Storhaug and No (2018), being motivated by peers helps fathers in
continuing to participate in the child welfare system. Attending classes with other fathers in
similar situations and hearing other experiences helps fathers participate more in these courses
and are more likely to complete the program.
In summary, the barriers to participation are addressed by Fatherhood Academy
California by providing father engagement programs in multiple modalities, including in-person,
virtually, and on-demand. Fatherhood Academy’s curriculum also focuses on relationship
development, especially between a spouse or co-parent, children, and employers. Finally,
Fatherhood Academy California addresses the stigma of being involved in the child welfare
system and provides programming in a father’s native language and in their own community.
RQ3: What Are the Promising Strategies That the Father Up Program Is Implementing in
Order to Increase Father Participation and Engagement?
The four employees interviewed for this study identified two promising strategies used to
increase father participation and engagement in the Father Up program. The two promising
strategies used were the three Rs: relationship with their spouse or co-parent, relationship with
their child, and relationship with their employer. The employees interviewed also labeled the
class structure and curriculum delivery as another promising practice used to engage fathers.
The Three Rs of the Father Up Program
Fatherhood Academy California encompasses three major relationship concepts when
delivering the Father Up program. As described by staff, the three relationships are the
program’s backbone. They are the relationship with the child, the relationship with the spouse or
64
co-parent, and the relationship with their co-workers or employer. The Father Up program, as
further described by Jennifer, focuses on the soft skills that are critical to building and
strengthening the relationship between fathers and their children:
What made us stand out from other responsible fatherhood programs in our grants is that
we had a much stronger focus on relationship skills, communication skills, and how to
use them both as a parent and with your partner, in the workplace to improve your life. A
lot of the other responsible fatherhood programs out there have a much stronger emphasis
on helping dads with case management, helping them with their employment. We do
some of that too. But our primary focus is on the soft skills that can help them improve
all of the areas of their lives. That was one way we are a little bit unique when compared
to the other grantees.
Megan, another Fatherhood Academy California employee, also discussed how the Father Up
program allows for bi-directional learning, positively impacting the couple’s relationship and the
parent/child relationship. In addition to the three relationship components, Paul went further to
describe how important it is for fathers to learn empathy, a key element of the Father Up
program:
The main core of what we teach in the Father Up program is empathy. Teaching people
how to give empathy to another human being, whether it’s their kid, whether it’s their
spouse, whether it’s just another, a friend or somebody, a co-worker. And, so, everything
just kind of revolves around that and the communication skills, conflict management
skills. That all revolves around the core element, that key ingredient to help healthy
relationships, which is empathy.
65
When asked what component of the Father Up program was critical to their success as a
father, participants discussed the importance of the three Rs in their family life. One father
interviewed, Alejandro, explained how the program had enhanced his relationship with his kids
and spouse:
My kids are 6 and 7, so it was more of a matter of, okay, how do I reach out to them in a
productive, healthy manner for them to be receptive to what I have to say? And the class,
it kind of helped out a little bit, so when they speak, it was a matter of, “So what I hear
you say,” and I’d reiterate and then, of course, they look at you, “Dad what are you
talking about,” but I thought that it is helpful.
Benito, another father who volunteered to be interviewed, also took the class to improve his
relationship with his child and felt that learning how to communicate with him was an essential
piece of the program. Enrique, a former participant of the Father Up program, had a similar
feeling about how important communication is for the program and how it helped him pass on
this skill to his children:
Well, they talk a lot about communication and really how to talk to your kids. I think, for
me, I was raised with always being yelled at or nobody really understanding. So, I think
the class really helps with communication and learning how to talk to your kids. And,
hopefully, they learn how to talk to you as well. And they see how you’re talking, so then
they learn. So, I think that’s good.
Another father interviewed, Luis, also discussed the importance of including the employment
piece within the Father Up curriculum.
I liked that finding a job and learning how to communicate with your boss is included in
the program. You don’t think about it but it’s almost like another relationship, you have
66
to learn what to say and what not to say when at work, what to say to your co-workers, or
your boss. When you’re not getting along with someone, you have to find a way to
communicate and you use the same skills you would with your kids or wife.
While the three relationship components drive the program, communication appears to be
a trait that guided the conversations for all fathers interviewed. This is also the trait that they felt
helped them the most in further developing their relationships. The three Rs of the Father Up
program directly relate to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory by emphasizing
the importance of the three relationships to a father’s microsystem. A father’s microsystem is the
groundwork for the other systems and provide the foundation needed for a successful
relationship with the child welfare system.
Class Structure and Curriculum Delivery
The four employees interviewed discussed the importance of the Father Up class
structure, including how it is an interactive program that allows fathers to learn about a concept
and immediately have the opportunity to try it independently. The program consists of lectures,
videos, and real-world exercises based on situations that the fathers may be experiencing. One
employee, Paul, further discussed the methodology of the program’s material and how it’s taught
in a way that allows immediate implementation:
So, it was just sort of a combination of instructor camaraderie with the other dads, and the
content that they were received was actually working. And that’s the way that we run.
We create material to be taught. So, you learn something today, you’re practicing it
today, you can go home and try it out today.
Kurt and Megan also discussed the importance of the class structure needed to motivate fathers
to participate in the program. The Father Up curriculum includes many breakout sessions that
67
allow fathers to feel comfortable in smaller groups. Instructors also provide visual materials,
including videos and slides, and provide incentives, food, and beverages. Megan also described
the importance of the program’s class structure, noting that instructors cannot stray away from
the curriculum’s delivery structure because of the program’s funding. Megan further mentioned
that, because the program is part of a research study, the time between classes and follow-up
phone calls set as reminders must also be consistent. Information presented cannot stray away
from the original material.
Participants in the Father Up program enjoyed the program’s structure, as evident by the
responses received from all eight interviewees. Enrique, a father who participated in the Father
Up program, enjoyed the program and felt that it provided a “good mix of videos and
conversation.” Pedro, another former participant of the program, further emphasized that the
program “was really detailed and covered a lot of the information that I needed.” Another father,
Ricky, discussed the importance of how the concepts were delivered, which made it easier for
him to retain the information:
Well, the big thing was there was absolutely no judgement. No one was there because
they were threatened. Everyone wanted to be there virtually. Everyone wanted to learn,
and the program makes learning really easy. I wish this was the class I took instead of the
other one. Here, they want you to learn about the concepts, about communication, and the
importance of communication. The other classes were not like that.
Similarly, Enrique mentioned that as a participant of the program, he enjoyed that the course was
not taught from a social worker or child welfare perspective, a unique assessment that was also
indirectly mentioned by three other fathers.
68
What I liked was that it wasn’t a social worker that was teaching us. The instructors
seemed like regular people who have probably gone through the same thing that we have.
It didn’t come from a place of authority, if that makes sense. It wasn’t someone on
camera saying this is what I need to do and if not, then you’re going to get in trouble. It
came from a place of caring and wanting to make us better dads.
Fatherhood Academy California receives federal funding to provide the Father Up
program. As part of this grant, the organization must collect data and implement unique
strategies to identify whether fathers respond better to specific strategies to increase engagement.
Kurt described the process of how the organization provided different services to fathers in order
to identify which methods provided more support to fathers.
So, with this grant, the four-year project, the focus was on comparing services. One-third
of them would receive phone coaching, which is a reinforcement of the skills on a phone
call, that they had just learned the previous week, working through answering questions.
Our phone coaches had scripts that they would go through to make sure that there was a
consistency of what the dads were being asked. It was very structured and a very uniform
kind of coaching. The other third of the dads would receive case management. So, a lot of
our stuff was referral-based. So if a dad said, “Hey, my kid needs braces, and I can’t
afford it,” we would put them in touch with a local health provider or dental provider if
there happened to be one in the area. And then a third of the dads didn’t receive either.
They would just receive a reminder call. And, so, that was our test. Did phone coaching
make a difference? What kind of differences did case management make? And was there
a difference between our randomized control group, which was the ones that weren’t
receiving any phone services whatsoever?
69
Two of the four employees interviewed also discussed how they ensure fidelity among
their teaching staff and how they teach their instructors to provide the curriculum. When asked
how the organization trains its instructors, Megan discussed how the organization uses practice
teaching opportunities in order to view sample lessons and how they are able to provide
immediate feedback to potential instructors:
Train the facilitator workshops in each of the Father Up curricula, including practice
teaching and feedback from the trainer and other program participants. We also conduct
Quality Assurance visits, audits, during each of the curricula an instructor teaches for the
first time.
Fatherhood Academy California’s staff described how they ensure their instructors are
trained in the program and ensure their staff provides the curriculum as needed to ensure fidelity
and successful program replication. Based on all of the responses from employees and fathers,
the Father Up program successfully implements their Father Up program, which, according to
research, leads to a positive impact for fathers and their families (Carrano et al., 2007).
For fathers who participated in the program, program delivery was extremely important
and played a role on whether they would continue to participate in the program. Fathers agreed
that the instructors teaching methods made the class more enjoyable and engaging. Fathers also
felt that they were part of the discussion and felt comfortable in having engaging dialogue with
instructors.
70
RQ4: In What Ways Are the Participating Fathers Being Impacted or Changed by
Participating in the Father Up Program?
The employees and fathers interviewed for this study identified two specific ways that the
Father Up program has an impact on fathers. A strong community and healthy family
relationships were described as having a positive impact on participants.
Community
In addition to engaging fathers in the Father Up program, Fatherhood Academy
California aims to create a bond between fathers that can continue long after the program ends.
In order to do this, the program provides opportunities for fathers to engage with each other after
the class ends. According to Jennifer, this allows fathers to further engage with other participants
and build their own community:
One big benefit of the Father Up program is that we bring these dads together in one
cohort. Sometimes, they’ll say they’ve never been around other dads talking about their
trials and challenges being a dad in the same way before. It gives them a community they
can turn to, even after the class is over, to help them with some of their parenting
struggles and help them know that they’re not alone. Other people go through these
things, too. And then, of course, as we work with these dads, we’ve seen benefits for their
relationship with their children and with their partners, where there’s happier families.
And happier families make for happier communities.
Megan also discussed the importance of providing fathers with a community, one which helps to
strengthen their relationships at home and at work:
71
The impact is on the family relationships, less so on the community, although there is a
likely positive ripple effect. And, with increased family stability, there is less drain on
social coffers for a variety of social services caused by divorce and family breakdown.
Seven of the eight fathers interviewed also provided positive feedback when discussing the
importance of building a community of fathers who have previously participated in the Father
Up program. For example, Vicente discussed the importance of having a group of fathers that he
can reach out to when support is needed:
I think the biggest thing the program did was helped me realize that I wasn’t alone. That
we as dads are important to our kids. I know that, but it was nice to hear that. We matter
and we should be involved. The group taught me that we need to be involved. It was a
very comforting feeling, knowing we were there to help each other.
Pedro, another father interviewed, further emphasized the importance of community and
discussed how the program allowed him to grow his circle of friends that he can communicate
with when facing parenting struggles.
I’ve become friends with many of the dads who were in the group. We’ve exchanged
numbers and it’s given me a group of people that I can reach out to when I’m struggling
with my kids or when I need help with anything really. We’ve all been through
something similar and they understand what I’m feeling, and I know what they’re feeling.
The bonds made between participants build a community full of support and provide fathers with
another support system they can use throughout their fatherhood journey. The building of a
community through the Father Up program directly affects a father’s microsystem, as well as
their exosystem, providing a father with a social setting which indirectly affects their child’s life
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
72
Healthy Family Relationships
Another positive impact of the Father Up program is how it creates healthy family
relationships, often to the surprise of fathers themselves. Four of the eight fathers interviewed
felt that the information they learned in the program kept their family together, while all eight
fathers interviewed stated that the program helped them create a healthier relationship with their
children. Megan, a Fatherhood Academy California employee, further emphasized the
testimonials that have been received from fathers who felt the program was their last attempt at
keeping their family intact:
I think it has a great impact. Just the testimonials we’ve gotten from these men. Some of
them are on the brink of divorce. Some of them were on the brink of losing their kids. We
actually have had several of them use the certificates that we give them to take to court to
prove that they took a parenting course.
The Father Up program also allows fathers to create new routines with their children and
family. All eight fathers interviewed felt that the program taught them the importance of
spending time with their children. Kurt, an employee interviewed as part of this study, described
how impactful the program has been to fathers he has worked with, including those who
admittedly have never had much of a relationship with their children:
Some of these fathers, they never sat down with a kid and had a meal together just the
two of them, or just talked. Let’s talk, you know? I want to get to know you a little. Let’s
be friends, you know? That wasn’t part of their day-to-day life, and now we’re teaching
them these types of skills. We want you to be an active parent, want you to be involved in
their life. Get to know them, you know? You have to earn their trust. You have to earn
73
their respect, right? And if you want to have an influence in their lives later on, it starts
now.
Luis, another father interviewed for this study, also described how he now appreciates the time
he has with his children and how the Father Up program taught him how to be involved:
More than anything, it taught me how important I am to my kids. How much I’m needed
in their lives still. It’s hard because I don’t get to see them as much, but those times we
are together, I just have to take advantage. Learn from them, listen to them, and just build
that relationship.
Another father interviewed, Alejandro, also mentioned how the Father Up program has instilled
how important it is to build relationships with his children.
I think fatherhood in general was hard for me because my dad wasn’t around and I didn’t
really know him so I had to learn a lot about how to be a good dad. The classes helped
me understand what my kids go through and how important it is to talk to them.
In summary, fathers involved in the child welfare system and who participate in the
Father Up program are impacted by the community that was created by those participants in their
class. Fathers interviewed stated they became more than classmates during the program and have
continued to reach out to each other and discuss parenting struggles, concerns, and victories with
each other. By further building up each other’s exosystem, the fathers are able to create a
community of fathers who have experienced the child welfare system and build healthy
relationships (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). They also become better equipped to continue being
involved in the lives of their children and further engage in the child welfare system.
Conclusion
74
This study provided four employees of Fatherhood Academy California with the
opportunity to describe their Father Up program in further detail, including how they address
barriers to participation and highlight their promising practices in the field of father engagement.
The study also provided the eight Father Up program participants an opportunity to discuss their
thoughts on the program, including how it helped develop their relationship with their child and
what they need as fathers to be successful. While not surprising, the number of barriers
described, including time commitment, self-perception, lack of available resources, and culture
and stigma, make it difficult for fathers to participate in the child welfare system. Fathers have to
navigate multiple internal and external experiences in order to attend and complete the program.
Fatherhood Academy California has developed a program to help mitigate these barriers while
providing fathers with an engaging and educational curriculum. With this research completed,
Chapter Five will provide a review of the findings and provide recommendations on how best to
increase father engagement in the child welfare system using the promising practices of the
Father Up program.
75
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to identify promising practice strategies to increase father
engagement in the child welfare system, specifically by examining the processes and impacts of
the Father Up program. This study was guided by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems
theory and allowed for an examination of how outside influences can affect father engagement
within the child welfare system by answering the following four research questions:
1. What are the perceptions of fathers and staff regarding the barriers to participation in the
child welfare system?
2. To what extent and how are the barriers to participation addressed by the Father Up
program?
3. What are the promising strategies that the Father Up program is implementing in order to
increase father participation and engagement?
4. In what ways are the participating fathers being impacted or changed by participating in
the Father Up program?
This chapter will discuss the research findings, the recommendations for practice, the limitations
and delimitations of this study, future research, and the conclusion.
Discussion
The findings of this study reflected the importance of having a father engagement
program that engages, supports, motivates, and educates fathers in the child welfare system.
Barriers to Participation
This study found that both employees of Fatherhood Academy California and the
participating fathers of the Father Up program identified four barriers that prevent fathers from
engaging and participating in the child welfare system. Four employees and six fathers felt that
76
the time commitment needed to complete the program is a barrier for fathers. The views from
employees and fathers were aligned to the views found in earlier research which shows that it is
difficult for fathers to attend father engagement courses due to existing economic factors. As
Nelson (2004) noted, one-third of non-custodial fathers who work full-time still had an income
just above the poverty line. With most of the participants interviewed working two jobs, it is
difficult for them to take time off work, even though they understand the importance of
participating in these types of courses. Threlfall and Kohl (2015) found that low-income fathers
had to work two or three jobs to meet financial demands, and adding a course over 12 weeks
prevents fathers from working and providing financial support to their children. Fathers also feel
the need to work instead of participating in these programs due to the ongoing burden of possibly
falling behind on child support payments (Coakley et al., 2014). This barrier falls within the
father’s exosystem and chronosystem, which indirectly affects the relationship with the child and
prevents the father from engaging in the child welfare system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This
additional stressor creates a situation where the father feels overwhelmed and unable to parent
effectively, causing additional strain throughout a father’s ecological systems.
Fatherhood Academy California addresses this barrier by offering the Father Up program
virtually, allowing fathers to take the weekly course from their home. While the COVID-19
pandemic accelerated this move, Fatherhood Academy California was able to move their in-
person classes to a virtual platform swiftly. The agency also has plans to move to an on-demand
virtual platform that will allow fathers to participate and take the courses during a time that best
works for them. By addressing this barrier, Fatherhood Academy California has reduced
stressors faced by fathers on having to juggle work, visits with child welfare professionals, and
spending time with his family.
77
A second barrier found in this study is the outside influences that prevent fathers from
participating in the child welfare system. This finding aligns with the literature reviewed in
Chapter Two, which described how these outside influences, such as a father’s thoughts and
feelings around his parenting role, can significantly affect whether a father will participate in a
father engagement program or the child welfare system (Coakley et al., 2014). One father
described how he did not want to participate in a program where he would be judged or blamed
for his perceived failures. This directly affects a father’s microsystem and macrosystem,
specifically how his cultural influences and development have affected how a father views
fatherhood and the difficulties he has faced (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). A father’s self-perception
and life experiences create a barrier that prevents him from participating in the child welfare
system and creates a roadblock to receiving future services (Bayley et al., 2009).
Fatherhood Academy California has addressed this barrier by creating an environment
that allows for open and safe dialogue amongst its participants. By having a fathers-only course,
participants can bond with other fathers who understand their situation and can provide support
from the lens of someone who has gone through a similar situation. Fathers interviewed
discussed how it felt to be in a group with other fathers who have been in similar situations and
where they felt comfortable talking about their previous problems related to their children. While
the literature did not specifically address the importance of creating a safe space and
environment, it did mention how a father’s view of himself creates a barrier to engagement
(Volker & Gibson, 2014). If fathers are uncomfortable with the class and those participating in
the class, the less likely they will complete the program. Fatherhood Academy California also
provides instructors who are culturally competent and aware of the population being served.
Staff interviewed discussed that the courses are held in the language of choice and in
78
neighborhoods where fathers feel comfortable, all done to create a welcoming and comfortable
environment.
A third barrier that prevents fathers from participating in the child welfare system is the
lack of available resources, including the lack of father-specific programming. As noted in the
research, fathers felt that there are not enough resources available just for fathers. As described
by the fathers interviewed, many social workers are also not aware of father-specific resources
which would provide father engagement programs and services. Fathers interviewed had to find
their own resources and often joined general parenting classes to meet their requirements. The
findings are consistent with the research reviewed as it was noted that a lack of father-specific
resources causes disengagement with the child welfare system (Kaminski et al., 2008). In
previous research, fathers have also stated that father-specific parenting programs are essentially
non-existent (Lee et al., 2011). The lack of father engagement programs in the child welfare
system directly affects a father’s mesosystem, critical in developing the relationship between a
father and the child welfare system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The lack of available resources
prevents the father from building trust with the child welfare system and creates a barrier that
prevents future participation.
While not explicitly addressed by Fatherhood Academy California, this study suggests
that the lack of father-specific resources and programs continues to be a barrier for fathers. As
the literature suggests, programs that provide father-specific parenting support and mentorship
lead to fathers’ continued disengagement (Kaminski et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2011). Five of the
fathers interviewed for this study had to identify programs and support services independently as
their social worker was unaware of father-specific resources.
79
The final barrier found during this study was related to culture and stigma, especially
amongst those that identify as Latino. All eight of the fathers interviewed felt that their heritage
plays a role in how they parent their children. The research reviewed aligned with the findings
and discussed the need for programs and agencies to be culturally sensitive and aware when
providing father engagement programs and child welfare services (Pfitzner et al., 2017). The
experiences described by all fathers further emphasized the importance of having organizations
and programs that are culturally sensitive to fathers’ experiences and how best they can use these
experiences further to grow the bond between themselves and their children. This barrier affects
a father’s microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem, all of which are crucial in his continued
participation in the child welfare system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The hiring of culturally
competent staff has made the Father Up program a course that takes cultural sensitivity and
awareness and incorporates it into the program.
Promising Strategies
Fatherhood Academy California uses two specific strategies that help increase fathers’
participation and keep them participating for an entire 12-week program. First, the agency uses
their curriculum, which incorporates the three Rs: Relationship with their spouse or co-parent,
relationship with their children, and relationship with their employer. The literature reviewed
highlighted the importance of having a curriculum that is focused on fathers and that includes
them as influential caregivers in the lives of their children (Swinger & Wishner, 2009). The
Father Up curriculum is also a promising strategy as it incorporates characteristics that
researchers have identified that highly-rated programs have in common (Bronte-Tinkew et al.,
2012). The Father Up program offers a curriculum focused on parenting from a father’s point of
view and uses motivation to increase participation. The organization’s staff are highly trained in
80
the curriculum and collect data that shows the program is working. Fatherhood Academy
California also has proven that the Father Up program can be replicated across different settings,
including in different communities, age groups, and ethnicities (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012;
Storhaug & No, 2018).
This study also found that the class structure and curriculum delivery provided fathers
with a course encompassing real-world exercises that can be put into practice immediately after
the sessions. With a majority of fathers have to juggle their multiple work and family
commitments, being able to engage in new modules and immediately use them provides positive
moral support and encourages the continued participation in the program.
Impact
Staff and participants identified two meaningful ways that fathers are being impacted by
participating in the Father Up program. First, the program is meant to create a community within
the fathers who participate. According to the staff interviewed, the Father Up program creates an
environment that allows for openness, honesty, and collaboration amongst all involved. While
not required, the program staff encourage fathers to discuss their concerns and the problems they
have with their children in a setting that is made to feel like a small community. Seven of the
eight fathers interviewed described the importance of having a small community, especially
where participants can reach out and hold each other accountable.
This study also found that creating positive and healthy relationships is vital to keeping
fathers engaged in the Father Up program. Four of the eight fathers interviewed felt this program
kept their families together and attributed this to their participation in the program. Staff
interviewed also discussed the impact the program plays in the lives of fathers and their families,
especially those co-parenting or attempting to keep their families intact. More importantly, the
81
research found that the Father Up program taught fathers how to spend time with their children
and create meaningful relationships with them.
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation 1: The Child Welfare System Should Provide Training and Coaching
Opportunities to All Social Workers, Non-Profit Agency Partners, and Their Staff
As noted in the literature reviewed and confirmed in the research conducted, it is
recommended that those involved in the child welfare system, including social workers and non-
profit agency partners, receive appropriate training and coaching opportunities in relation to
working with fathers and increasing their participation in the child welfare system. The literature
reviewed and the results of this study have shown that fathers want an increased role in raising
their children, though they are sometimes prevented from doing so (Saleh, 2013; Storhaug,
2013). Fathers in this study discussed how they wanted to receive parenting support though they
were not given any direction from social workers or case managers. By requiring ongoing
training and coaching opportunities for front line staff, those that work directly with fathers can
better understand the personal factors that prevent fathers from engaging in these programs. They
would be better equipped to understand their concerns and the barriers they face while also
providing ongoing support. This recommendation also allows the father to gain a sense of trust
within his exosystem, believing that the child welfare system understands and cares about his
culture and will use his upbringing as a way to increase participation (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
The trainings provided should incorporate cultural humility in the training to create
culturally competent staff who are better equipped to engage fathers in services and keep fathers
involved for more extended periods (Pfitzner et al., 2017). Trainings should be developed in
consultation with father engagement experts, as well as the management and leadership team
82
from the local child welfare system (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, et al., 2012). Other
participants involved in the development should include top leaders from the Department of
Probation and Department of Mental Health, as well as individuals from national child protection
service programs. Finally, users of these programs should also be involved in the development of
the training. By selecting fathers who are current or former participants of the child welfare
system, a buy in from the community is being created which makes it more likely that other
fathers would participate in services (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, et al., 2012). A pilot training
program should also be completed, followed by interviews with participants and instructors to
identify strengths, weaknesses, and overall impression of the training program. This
recommendation also allows for fathers to build on their existing mesosystem, further building a
relationship between themselves and the child welfare system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Recommendation 2: Develop a Universal Resource List Specific to the County With
Father-Appropriate Resources and Support Information
It is recommended that a universal resource list that includes father-appropriate resources
and support information be created and distributed to those county offices, non-profit partners,
agencies that work with fathers, and fathers that are involved in the child welfare system. There
is currently no “master list” of resources that is available to child welfare service workers.
However, one could be created in partnership with county and local social service offices and
non-profits that work with fathers. The existing 2-1-1 system in Los Angeles County does
provide available resources, but it can be complicated and overwhelming for social workers to
use, especially when an immediate resource is needed. The resource guide should also include
job and career resources that would allow fathers to receive further employment training, career-
specific training, and financial opportunities that will allow them to complete their education or
83
job training programs to better serve their families. By creating this list, the child welfare system
positively affects a father’s microsystem, providing direct support to himself and his family
which will help build trust and increase future participation and engagement. The child welfare
system will also be building a trust between the father and the child welfare staff, allowing a
father’s mesosystem to rebuild with positive interactions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Fathers that participated in this study overwhelmingly stated that they had difficulty
finding programs and resources specific to them as fathers. Fathers interviewed also felt that
those tasked with helping them find resources also struggled and made it difficult for their
engagement in the child welfare system to continue. Creating such a list and providing it to those
who work with fathers will allow a greater ability for engagement between child welfare staff
and fathers involved in the child welfare system. By including job resources and career training
opportunities, the list would provide fathers with an opportunity to explore new job opportunities
which would allow them to better provide financially for their children.
Recommendation 3: The Child Welfare System Should Provide Services Utilizing a
Curriculum Encompassing a Father’s Three Rs: Relationship With Their Spouse or Co-
Parent, Relationship With Their Child, and Relationship With Their Employer
The Father Up program has proven that its curriculum model works to increase father
engagement, especially for those involved in the child welfare system. Incorporating these three
key components into existing and future programs and services would allow for a proven
methodology in father engagement to further reach more fathers in the child welfare system. Just
like recommendation number two, a father’s microsystem and mesosystem receives new positive
experiences and builds on the importance of focusing on the relationship between spouse or co-
parent, child, and employer (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
84
As discussed in the literature review, a three-tiered model which focuses on relationships
with children, spouse or co-parent, and employment, can keep participation levels high while
also strengthening the father and child relationship (Swinger & Wishner, 2009). The three-tiered
model provided by the Father Up program allows fathers to better understand the three key
relationships, as well as how they interact with each other. Fathers interviewed for this study also
felt that the three Rs were a reason they continued to participate in the program and what kept
them engaged. The curriculum developed should also be unique and tailored to specific groups
of fathers, including incarcerated fathers, teenage fathers, fathers involved in the child welfare
system, and Spanish-speaking fathers. (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012). The curriculum should also
provide further resources that are specific to each population, including reunification information
for incarcerated fathers and case status information and support for fathers involved in the child
welfare system (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2012).
Recommendation 4: The Child Welfare System Should Work With Their Non-Profit
Service Providers and Distribute Information on How to Effectively Address Barriers To
Participation
This research has identified the barriers that prevent fathers from participating in the
child welfare system and how Fatherhood Academy California has addressed the barriers in their
program. By working with other non-profit service providers, the child welfare system can
discuss the barriers that prevent fathers from receiving services and how these barriers can and
should be addressed. By working with non-profits who provide direct support to fathers, a
relationship is built which will allow fathers to gain and rebuild trust within a father’s
mesosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. This relationship also allows the child welfare
85
system to provide non-profits with information gained, such as how they have made changes to
their program, and the methods in which they deliver their curriculum.
One of the barriers discussed from fathers was the lack of available resources tailored to
fathers in the child welfare system. By being able to provide resources, support, and information
to other agencies who do not provide father-specific programming, it is likely that more agencies
could grow into successful father engagement programs and provide an inclusive child welfare
system. I also recommend that Fatherhood Academy California work with child protective
services throughout the state in order to provide them with their methods on addressing these
barriers and how they have been able to increase participation and engage fathers.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was focused specifically on identifying the promising practice strategies used
in the Father Up program. As with any study, there are certain limitations and delimitations
which occur throughout the research. For this study, the limitations identified are those out of the
researcher’s control (Pyrczak, 2016). This study took place between 2020 and 2021 during the
COVID-19 pandemic. This event limited the method in which I was able to interview staff and
participants and prevented me from attending and observing any in-person sessions of the
program. Another limitation is that of the honesty of the staff and participants interviewed for
this study. This research is based on the responses provided, and I cannot be sure that all
individuals interviewed provided honest answers and feedback.
Pyrczak (2016) also identified delimitations as those items or choices by the researcher
that limit the study’s scope. In this study, I focused only on Fatherhood Academy California and
the Father Up program. The research questions were specifically tailored to this organization to
identify the promising practices of the program. The responses were also limited to the
86
participant’s interpretation of the questions asked, the availability of staff and participants, and
the availability of electronic materials to complete the interviews virtually. I also chose to
interview four staff and eight participants of the Father Up program. No other programs,
additional staff, or participants were interviewed for this study. Finally, this research study was
also conducted through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, which
could also be seen as a delimitation of the study.
Future Research
While this study aimed at identifying the promising practices of a father engagement
program in order to increase engagement in the child welfare system, there remains to be more
research needed to further provide support to fathers in the child welfare system. Future research
in father engagement is needed overall as the subject matter is relatively new and remains
limited.
This study focused on one organization that provides father engagement programming as
part of the child welfare system, but future research is needed to review other organizations with
experience in providing father engagement services. This study interviewed four employees of
Fatherhood Academy California and eight participants of the Father Up program. Research that
can include a greater number of current and former participants of any father engagement
program is needed to identify trends, promising practices, and curriculum support. It is also
important to research participants of these programs over a longer period of time to identify
whether strategies and supports remained once the courses were completed.
Future research should also be conducted from others involved in the father engagement
field, specifically social workers who work closely with fathers on their caseload. By researching
father engagement from the viewpoint of social workers and the child welfare system, we can all
87
learn from their expertise in the field, difficulties and successes in working with and in engaging
fathers, and the role policy plays in providing direct support to fathers. Future research should
also be conducted on the existing policies of the child welfare system and how they influence the
engagement and participation of fathers. Policymakers could be interviewed to discuss other
previous and pending policies that can better support fathers in the child welfare system. There
should also be a focus on the future of father engagement funding. Employees interviewed for
this study discussed how their father engagement funding will change, which will eventually lead
to a programmatic change. It would be interesting to note which father engagement programs are
on the verge of changing due to a change in funding.
Another recommendation for future research can consist of researching agencies who
have recently begun to provide father engagement programming. By analyzing new agencies in
the field, researchers would allow for other agencies to identify the challenges and successes of
starting a father engagement program from the ground up, thus creating a child welfare system
with an abundance of father-specific resources. Finally, it is important for future research to
place an emphasis on the children at the center of father engagement. It would be extremely
beneficial for future research to identify the methods in which children are affected by their
fathers who are involved in the child welfare system. Future research could also look at the
positives and negatives of father engagement programs which include children as part of their
curriculum, as well as the intergenerational effects that father engagement has on the lives of
children.
Conclusion
Father engagement, especially for those involved in the child welfare system, is critical to
creating a safe and healthy environment for children. This research study aimed to identify the
88
promising strategies used by Fatherhood Academy California and, with this information, to
hopefully build a more robust network of programs that can further provide father engagement
services in the child welfare system. The Father Up program is a unique and much-needed
program that provides fathers with the necessary skills to create a strong relationship with their
child, spouse or co-parent, and employer. Most importantly, the Father Up program provides
fathers with transferrable skills that can easily be taught to their children as they continue to
navigate fatherhood while participating in the child welfare system. I hope that the child welfare
system will utilize the promising practices identified in this study and create a robust father
engagement program that would be quickly ingrained within the system and its partners.
89
References
Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Agyem, J. A. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework:
Mandatory ingredients of a quality research. International journal of scientific
research, 7(1), 438-441.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Ayón, C., Aisenberg, E., & Erera, P. (2010). Learning how to dance with the public child welfare
system: Mexican parents’ efforts to exercise their voice. Journal of Public Child Welfare,
4(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2010.496077
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
Bayley, J., Wallace, L., & Choudhry, K. (2009). Fathers and parenting programmes: Barriers and
best practice. Community Practitioner: The Journal of the Community Practitioners’ &
Health Visitors’ Association, 82(4), 28–31.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/67170694/
Bellamy, J. L. (2009). A national study of male involvement among families in contact with the
child welfare system. Child Maltreatment, 14(3), 255–262.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559508326288
Brandon, M., Bailey, S., Belderson, P., Gardner, R., Sidebotham, R., Dodsworth, J., Warren, C.,
& Black, J. (2009). Understanding serious case reviews and their impact: A biennial
analysis of the serious case reviews 2005-07. Department for Children, Schools and
Families.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
90
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child
development: Revised formulations and current issues (p. 187–249). Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental
perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. in W.
Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 993-1028). Wiley.
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Burkhauser, M., & Metz, A. (2012). Elements of promising practices in
fatherhood programs: Evidence-based research findings on interventions for fathers.
Fathering, 10(1), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.1001.6
Brown, L., Callahan, M., Strega, S., Walmsley, C., & Dominelli, L. (2009). Manufacturing ghost
fathers: The paradox of father presence and absence in child welfare. Child & Family
Social Work, 14(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00578.x
Burrus, S. W. M., Green, B. L., Worcel, S., Finigan, M., & Furrer, C. (2012). Do Dads Matter?
Child Welfare Outcomes for Father-Identified Families. Journal of Child Custody, 9(3),
201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2012.715550
Cabrera, N., Fitzgerald, H., Bradley, R., & Roggman, L. (2014). The ecology of father‐child
relationships: An expanded model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 336–354.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12054
Cabrera, N. J., & Volling, B. L. (2019). VIII. Moving Research on Fathering and Children’s
Development Forward: Priorities and Recommendations for the Future. Advancing
Research and Measurement on Fathering and Children’s Development, 107.
91
Campbell, C. A., Howard, D., Rayford, B. S., & Gordon, D. M. (2015). Fathers matter:
Involving and engaging fathers in the child welfare system process. Children and Youth
Services Review, 53, 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.020
Carrano, J., Allen, T., Bowie, L., Mbawa, K., & Matthews, G. (2007). Elements of promising
practice for fatherhood programs: Evidence-based research findings on programs for
fathers. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families.
Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare. (2013). Definitions & Questions About Services:
Child Welfare. https://cascw.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/DCWCChildWelfare
Defined.pdf
The Children’s Aid Society. (n.d.). National Orphan Train Complex.
https://orphantraindepot.org/history/the-childrens-aid-society/
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2018). What is child welfare? A guide for educators. U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services, Children’s Bureau.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2020). How the child welfare system works. U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/cpswork/
Coakley, T. (2013a). The influence of father involvement on child welfare permanency
outcomes: A secondary data analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(1), 174–
182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.023
Coakley, T. (2013b). An appraisal of fathers’ perspectives on fatherhood and barriers to their
child welfare involvement. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(5),
627–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.775935
92
Coakley, T., Shears, J., & Randolph, S. (2014). Understanding key barriers to fathers’
involvement in their children’s lives. Child and Youth Services, 35(4), 343–364.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0145935X.2014.972550
Cortis, N., Katz, I. & Patulny, R. (2009) Engaging hard-to-reach families and children.
Occasional Paper No 26. Australian Government Department of Families, Housing,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra, Australia.
Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Cohen, N., Pruett, M. K., & Pruett, K. (2008). Supporting fathers’
engagement with their kids. In J. Duerr Berrick & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Raising children:
Emerging needs, modern risks, and social responses (pp. 44–80). Oxford University
Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE.
Croake, J. W., & Glover, K. E. (1977). A history and evaluation of parent education. The Family
Coordinator, 26(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/583363
Darling, N. (2007). Ecological systems theory: The person in the center of the circles. Research
in Human Development, 4(3-4), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427600701663023
De Bellis, M. D., & Zisk, A. (2014). The biological effects of childhood trauma. Child and
Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 23(2), 185–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2014.01.002
Doucet, A. (2020). Father involvement, care, and breadwinning: genealogies of concepts and
revisioned conceptual narratives. Genealogy, 4(1), 14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy4010014
93
Elliott, S., & Davis, J. M. (2020). Challenging taken-for-granted ideas in early childhood
education: A critique of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory in the age of post-
humanism. In A. Cutter-Mackenzie, K. Malone K., & E. Barratt Hacking (Eds.),
Research Handbook on Childhoodnature. Springer International Handbooks of
Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51949-4_60-2, 1119-1154.
Evangelou, M., Coxon, K., Sylva, K., Smith, S., & Chan, L. L. . (2013). Seeking to Engage
“Hard-to-Reach” Families: Towards a Transferable Model of Intervention. Children &
Society, 27(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00387.x
Ferguson, H., & Hogan, F. (2004). Strengthening families through fathers: Developing policy
and practice in relation to vulnerable fathers and their families. Centre for Social and
Family Research
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–
26.
Guterman, N. B., Bellamy, J. L., & Banman, A. (2018). Promoting father involvement in early
home visiting services for vulnerable families: Findings from a pilot study of “Dads
matter”. Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, 261–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.10.017
Holmes, E. K., & Huston, A. C. (2010). Understanding Positive Father-Child Interaction:
Children’s, Fathers’, and Mothers’ Contributions. Fathering (Harriman, Tenn.), 8(2),
203–225. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.1802.203
94
Huebner, R. A., Werner, M., Hartwig, S., White, S., & Shewa, D. (2008). Engaging fathers:
Needs and satisfaction in child protective services. Administration in Social Work, 32(2),
87–103. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v32n02_06
Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A meta-analytic review of
components associated with parent training program effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 36(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9201-9
Lang, J. M., Campbell, K., Shanley, P., Crusto, C. A., & Connell, C. M. (2016). Building
capacity for trauma-informed care in the child welfare system: Initial results of a
statewide implementation. Child Maltreatment, 21(2), 113–124.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559516635273
Lee, S. J., Yelick, A., Brisebois, K., & Banks, K. L. (2011). Low-income fathers’ barriers to
participation in family and parenting programs. Journal of Family Strengths, 11(1), 12.
Maldonado, S. (2004). Beyond economic fatherhood: Encouraging divorced fathers to parent.
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153(3), 921–1009.
https://doi.org/10.2307/4150643.
Malm, K., Murray, J., & Green, R. (2006). What about the Dads? Child welfare agencies’ efforts
to identify, locate and involve nonresident fathers. U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/06/CW-involve-dads/index.htm
Maxwell, N., Scourfield, J., Featherstone, B., Holland, S., & Tolman, R. (2012). Engaging
fathers in child welfare services: A narrative review of recent research evidence. Child &
Family Social Work, 17(2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00827.x
95
Maxwell, N., Scourfield, J., Holland, S., Featherstone, B., & Lee, J. (2012). The benefits and
challenges of training child protection social workers in father engagement. Child Abuse
Review, 21(4), 299-310.
McGill, B. S. (2014). Navigating New Norms of Involved Fatherhood: Employment, Fathering
Attitudes, and Father Involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 35(8), 1089–1106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14522247
McPhatter, A. R. (2018). Cultural competence in child welfare: What is it? How do we achieve
it? What happens without it? In Serving African American Children (pp. 251-274).
Routledge.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mihalic, S.F. (2003). Blueprints for violence prevention: The identification of effective
programs. To be or not to be evidenced-based? Special issue of Data Matters.
Washington, DC: National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health,
Georgetown University.
Nelson, T. J. (2004). Low income fathers. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 427 – 451
Nock, S. L., & Einolf, C. (2008). The one hundred billion dollar man: The annual public costs of
father absence. National Fatherhood Initiative.
Ortega, R. M., & Coulborn Faller, K. (2011). Training child welfare workers from an
intersectional cultural humility perspective: A paradigm shift. Child Welfare, 90(5), 27–
49.
Panter-Brick, C., Burgess, A., Eggerman, M., McAllister, F., Pruett, K., & Leckman, J. F.
(2014). Practitioner review: Engaging fathers - recommendations for a game change in
96
parenting interventions based on a systematic review of the global evidence. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 55(11), 1187–1212.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12280
Pfitzner, N., Humphreys, C., & Hegarty, K. (2017). Research review: Engaging men: A multi‐
level model to support father engagement. Child & Family Social Work, 22(1), 537–547.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12250
Pyrczak, F. (2016). Writing empirical research reports: A basic guide for students of the social
and behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Piel, M. H., Geiger, J. M., Julien‐Chinn, F. J., & Lietz, C. A. (2017). An ecological systems
approach to understanding social support in foster family resilience. Child & Family
Social Work, 22(2), 1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12323
Pleck, J. H. (2007). Why could father involvement benefit children? Theoretical perspectives.
Applied Developmental Science, 11(4), 196–202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690701762068
Ramchandani, P. G., Domoney, J., Sethna, V., Psychogiou, L., Vlachos, H., & Murray, L.
(2013). Do early father–infant interactions predict the onset of externalising behaviours in
young children? Findings from a longitudinal cohort study. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 54(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2012.02583.x
Risley-Curtiss, C., & Heffernan, K. (2003). Gender biases in child welfare. Affilia, 18(4), 395–
410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109903257629
97
Saleh, M. F. (2013). Child welfare professionals’ experiences in engaging fathers in services.
Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 30(2), 119–137.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-012-0282-0
Salinas, A., Smith, J. C., & Armstrong, K. (2011). Engaging fathers in behavioral parent training:
Listening to fathers’ voices, 1, 304–311. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 26(4), 304–311.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2010.01.008
Seltzer, J. A. (1991). Relationships between fathers and children who live apart: The father’s role
after separation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53(1), 79–101.
https://doi.org/10.2307/353135
Sethi, A. (2019). A brief history of foster care in the United States.
https://www.casatravis.org/a_brief_history_of_foster_care_in_the_united_states
Sommer, D. (2012). A childhood psychology: Young children in changing times. Macmillan
International Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-36198-0
Storhaug, A. (2013). Fathers’ involvement with the child welfare service. Children and Youth
Services Review, 35(10), 1751–1759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.08.006
Storhaug, A. S., & No, A. S. S. (2018). Fathers and child welfare services in Norway: Self-
concept and fathering practice. Families, Relationships and Societies, 7(3) 483–498.
https://doi.org/10.1332/204674317X14888886530304
Storhaug, A. S., & Øien, K. (2012). Fathers’ encounters with the child welfare service. Children
and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 296–303.
Strega, S., Fleet, C., Brown, L., Dominelli, L., Callahan, M., & Walmsley, C. (2008). Connecting
father absence and mother blame in child welfare policies and practice. Children and
Youth Services Review, 30(7), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.012
98
Swinger, H. K., & Wishner, J. D. (2009). Project Fatherhood: Fathers as a solution. The Source:
Fostering Father Involvement, 19(1), 17–19.
Testa, M. F., & Kelly, D. (2020). The evolution of federal child welfare policy through the
Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018: Opportunities, barriers, and unintended
consequences. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
692(1), 68–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716220976528
Threlfall, J., & Kohl, P. (2015). Addressing Child Support in Fatherhood Programs: Perspectives
of Fathers and Service Providers. Family Relations, 64(2), 291–304.
https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12119
Tracking Accountability in Government Grants Spending. (2021). Healthy Marriage Promotion
and Responsible Fatherhood Grants. https://taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/CFDADetail?arg_
CFDA_NUM=93086
Trammell, R. S. (2009). Orphan train myths and legal reality. Modern American, 5(2), 3–13.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2012). Information on poverty and income
statistics [Current Population Survey Data]. http://aspe.hhs.gov
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2019). Responsible Fatherhood: New Pathways
for Fathers and Families Demonstration Grants. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/
programs/healthy-marriage/responsible-fatherhood
Volker, J., & Gibson, C. (2014). Paternal involvement: A review of the factors influencing.
TCNJ Journal of Student Scholarship, XVI, 1–8.
Xia, M., Li, X., & Tudge, J. R. (2020). Operationalizing Urie Bronfenbrenner’s process-person-
Context-time model. Human Development, 64(1), 10–20.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000507958
99
Appendix A: Interview Protocol—Staff
1. How long have you worked in the non-profit/social services field? (Rapport Question)
2. How long have you worked for Fatherhood Academy California? (Rapport Question)
3. Tell me about Fatherhood Academy California and specifically the Father Up program.
(RQ3, promising strategies)
4. What are the components that make up the Father Up program? (RQ3, promising
strategies)
5. What makes the Father Up program different than other types of parenting programs
available? (RQ3, promising strategies)
6. What kind of impact does the Father Up program have on the community? (RQ4, impact)
7. What do you think are the barriers that prevent fathers from participating in the child
welfare system? (RQ1, barriers to participation)
8. How are these barriers addressed by the Father Up program? (RQ2, barriers being
addressed; RQ3, promising strategies)
9. What is the Father Up program doing that is different than other father or parent
engagement programs? (RQ3, promising strategies)
10. How does the Father Up program retain participants until the program is completed?
(RQ3, promising strategies)
11. What is the average length of time that a participant is accessing your services? (RQ3,
promising strategies)
12. What might be some reasons fathers are NOT participating in the Father Up program?
(RQ1, barriers to participation)
13. How would you describe participation rates overall? (RQ2, barriers being addressed;
RQ3, promising strategies).
14. Do you work closely with Social Workers or the Child Welfare System? (RQ2, barriers
being addressed; RQ3, promising strategies)
a. If so, can you discuss the relationship between Fatherhood Academy California
and Social Workers/Child Welfare System? (RQ2, barriers being addressed; RQ3,
promising strategies)
100
15. How does Fatherhood Academy California help to mitigate the barriers that can
sometimes be caused by the Child Welfare System? (RQ2, barriers being addressed; RQ3
promising strategies)
16. How are you measuring success for fathers involved in your program? (RQ4, program
impact)
17. What does success look like for participants in your program? (RQ4, program impact)
18. What kind of support systems are provided by the Father Up program? (RQ3, promising
strategies)
19. Is participation voluntary? (RQ2, barriers being addressed; RQ3, promising strategies)
a. Are there individuals that are court mandated to participate? (RQ2, barriers being
addressed)
20. How does the Father Up program handle the participants who refuse to participate?
(RQ2, barriers being addressed; RQ3, promising strategies)
21. What specific training is provided for staff that is different than what would be provided
for a mother’s program? (RQ3, promising strategies)
22. What components of the Father Up program do you believe are critical to the success of
the program? (RQ3, promising strategies; RQ4, program impact)
23. What might you do differently in order to improve the Father Up program? (RQ3,
promising strategies; RQ4, program impact)
101
Appendix B: Interview Protocol—Participants
1. How long have you participated in the Father Up program? (Rapport Question)
2. What is the primary reason why you decided to participate in the Father Up program?
(Rapport Question)
3. Who referred you to the Father Up program? (Rapport Question)
4. What do you think of the Father Up program? (Rapport Question)
5. What was it like to be a participant in the Father Up program? (Rapport Question)
6. What has been your experience in the child welfare system been like? (RQ1, barriers to
participation)
7. What have some of your challenges been regarding being more involved in your child’s
case? (RQ1, barriers to participation)
8. To what extend has the Father Up program helped you with these challenges? (RQ2,
barriers being addressed; RQ3, promising strategies)
a. In what ways?
9. Where do you go for help or support when it comes to the child welfare system? (RQ1,
barriers to participation)
10. Do you currently have, or have you had a Social Worker? (RQ1, barriers to participation)
a. If so, did your Social Worker help you find the Father Up program?
i. If not, did your Social Worker provide you with support in finding father-
specific programs or resources for you?
11. What challenges, if any, have there been to participate in the Father Up program? (RQ1,
barriers to participation)
12. What components of the Father Up program did you feel was the most critical to your
success as a father? (RQ3, promising strategies; RQ4, program impact)
13. How would you improve the Father Up program? (RQ2, barriers being addressed; RQ4,
program impact)
14. If you could change something about the Father Up program, what would you change?
(RQ2, barriers being addressed; RQ4, program impact)
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program
PDF
Educational technology integration: a search for best practices
PDF
Multi-tiered system of supports to address significant disproportionality in special education
PDF
Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams
PDF
Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model
PDF
Transnational studies at Los Angeles University: a study of a promising practice
PDF
Integrating the industry sector in STEM learning ecosystems: a multicase study
PDF
Physical activity interventions to reduce rates of sedentary behavior among university employees: a promising practice study
PDF
Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education
PDF
Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches
PDF
School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty
PDF
Promising practices to promote and sustain a college-going culture: a charter-school case study
PDF
Uncovering promising practices for providing vocational opportunities to formerly incarcerated individuals
PDF
Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs
PDF
Promising practices for developing leadership capacity in future school administrators
PDF
Transportation security officer engagement in the Transportation Security Administration: a study of a promising practice
PDF
Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement
PDF
Preparing teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices
PDF
Environmental influences on the diversity of professional sports executive leadership
PDF
When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Rodriguez, Martin Antonio
(author)
Core Title
Father engagement in the child welfare system: a promising practice study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2021-08
Publication Date
07/29/2021
Defense Date
06/28/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Bronfenbrenner,child welfare system,ecological systems theory,father education,father engagement,OAI-PMH Harvest,Parenting
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Malloy, Courtney L. (
committee chair
), Ott, Maria G. (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
Rodr667@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15669298
Unique identifier
UC15669298
Legacy Identifier
etd-RodriguezM-9940
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Rodriguez, Martin Antonio
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Bronfenbrenner
child welfare system
ecological systems theory
father education
father engagement