Part 2: Aims and Methodology
- 2.1 The research context
- 2.2 Aims of the engaging fathers project
- 2.3 Method
- 2.4 Sampling and recruitment
2.1 The research context
The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy (SFCS)
The overarching aims of the SFCS are to help families and communities build better futures for children; build family and community capacity; support relationships between families and the communities they live in; and improve communities' ability to help themselves. This study considered father engagement across three strands of the SFCS: Communities for Children (CfC), Invest to Grow (ItG) and Local Answers (LA).
Under the CfC initiative, non-government organisations were funded as Facilitating Partners (FPs) in 45 community sites around Australia to develop and implement a strategic and sustainable whole-of-community approach to early childhood development, in consultation with local stakeholders (referred to as the FP model). In implementing each local initiative, FPs established Communities for Children Committees and managed the overall funding allocation in their communities. Most of the funding was allocated to other local service providers called Community Partners (CPs) to deliver the activities identified in the local Community Strategic and Service Delivery Plans. This funding model was used in an effort to foster service coordination and cooperation and was based on the logic that service effectiveness is dependent not only on the nature and number of services, but also on the degree of service integration.
Another discrete component of the SFCS program, ItG, provided funding for early childhood programs and the development of tools and resource materials to be used by families, professionals and communities supporting families and young children. Like CfC, ItG had a prevention and early intervention focus. The program aimed to develop the Australian evidence base around these issues and support the expansion of successful program models.
The third strand to the SFCS program, LA, funded local, small-scale, time-limited projects that aimed to help communities identify opportunities to develop skills, support children and families and foster proactive communities. Local Answers also aimed to listen to local communities and use local knowledge and experience to develop effective, practical solutions to meet their particular needs. It aimed to build community capacity and develop initiatives that communities could create for themselves in partnership with local government, business and community organisations. The initiative funded a diverse range of projects. Some projects focused on early childhood, parenting and family relationships, while others concentrated on mentoring, leadership, volunteering and community building.
The national evaluation of the SFCS
The national evaluation of the SFCS comprises a number of integrated components. This study is the second of three themed evaluations (indigenous and hard-to-reach groups are the other two overarching themes). Themed evaluations have been included in the evaluation design to allow flexibility to explore particular priority issues in-depth.
The choice of fathers for the second themed study is in response to awareness that, despite best intentions, it can be difficult to engage fathers in child and family services. It also recognises the need to address the issue by sharing good practices in engaging fathers with other programs and services across the SFCS.
2.2 Aims of the engaging fathers project
The aim of this study was to provide an in-depth, largely qualitative account of the nature and extent of fathers' involvement in selected SFCS programs. As a themed study, the aim was not to measure the effectiveness of individual programs but rather to describe the role of fathers in selected programs and identify successful strategies for engaging fathers.
Specifically, the research aimed to:
- quantify the extent to which fathers were engaging with SFCS programs and services
- understand the perceptions of fathers and fatherhood that inform service provision and the engagement of men
- gain insight, from the provider and consumer perspective, on how responsive services and programs were to the interests and needs of fathers, as well as insight into perceived outcomes
- identify unmet needs, challenges and good practice in engaging fathers.
2.3 Method
The aim of the study was to provide assessment and evaluation of father engagement with SFCS-funded child and family services. Although there was a strong focus on biological fathers, for our purposes the term 'father' was inclusive of stepfathers, grandfathers, the mothers' partners, non-biological gay parents and other men who are parenting (Fletcher, Silberberg & Baxter 2001; Sullivan 2000).4 Father involvement in the SFCS was operationally defined as fathers' participation in program activities such as attendance at group sessions, meetings with a professional or involvement in a management group.
There were two phases to the project. Phase 1 of the study was designed to gather information about the types of services and programs that fathers were involved in, the proportion of fathers involved, and strategies that services and programs were employing to facilitate father engagement. This involved mailing a self-complete survey about father engagement to relevant programs and services across the CfC, LA and ItG streams.
Phase 2 was an in-depth study of select services identified in phase 1. The research team conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with service managers, and visited service and program sites to hold focus groups with fathers and interviews with project facilitators and workers.
The objective of this qualitative research was to gather data from the different stakeholders about father participation in SFCS-funded services and programs. The aim was to explore how fathers perceive and explain their participation, and how service managers and facilitators/workers understand the fathers they work with and the issue of father engagement more broadly (see Ezzy 2002 for a rationale for the qualitative methodology). The use of focus group interviews enabled the researchers to gather rich insights into individual experiences and perceptions as well as to draw on group dynamics and processes to explore how issues emerged and were worked out as participants interacted with each other and the researchers (Travers 2006).
2.4 Sampling and recruitment
Phase 1 survey sample
All SFCS programs and services that targeted fathers specifically, targeted parents or families generally, or sought to engage parents in issues relating to child development and wellbeing, formed the population for the current study. We identified 223 LA and 20 ItG programs and services within scope of the study based on information supplied by FaHCSIA. FaHCSIA also sought feedback from ItG services as to whether they were interested in being involved in the study. As a result, only eight of the 20 ItG services were approached about the research. In the CfC sites, Facilitating Partners administer the activities of the Community Partners operating services and programs in the CfC areas. FaHCSIA contacted the Facilitating Partners on our behalf informing them of the study and requesting that they identify Community Partner activities that were likely to fall within the scope of the study. Thirteen of the 45 Facilitating Partners responded, identifying 22 Community Partners to whom the researchers could send the survey.
Early in 2008, surveys about engaging with fathers were mailed to CfC (22), LA (223) and ItG (8) program managers using service contact details provided by FaHCSIA (253 services in total). This correspondence included covering letters from FaHCSIA and the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) explaining the study (Appendix A and B). Just prior to this correspondence, a courtesy letter was sent to the 13 Facilitating Partners to advise them of the timing of this contact (Appendix C). The father engagement survey itself is presented in Appendix D.
There were 59 returns, or a 23 per cent response rate. Of this number, 46 (78 per cent) were from LA services, three (5 per cent) were from ItG services, and 10 (17 per cent) were from CfC services. This distribution reflects the relatively greater number of LA projects that were mailed a survey: 223 (79 per cent) LA projects compared to eight (4 per cent) ItG services and 22 (17 per cent) CfC services. While returns were received from all states and territories, the majority were from New South Wales (n=20, 34 per cent) and Victoria (n=17, 28 per cent), again reflecting a higher proportion of surveys distributed in these states: 91 (36 per cent) and 64 (25 per cent) respectively. Services based in urban, regional, remote and rural locations were also represented in the survey responses, with some overrepresentation of services in rural areas.
In order to interpret sample representatives, inform the selection of programs for phase 2 of the study, and assist the analysis, the original 253 services were grouped according to their objectives (for example, parenting skills development, relationship building) and target population/s (for example, young parents, indigenous parents). Codes were then assigned to each group (see Appendix E). All service types and client groups were adequately represented in the survey responses.
Phase 2 interview sample
Programs were selected for phase 2 of the study on the basis of responses to the phase 1 father engagement survey. At the end of the survey respondents had the opportunity to indicate whether or not they would be willing to participate in phase 2 of the study. Of those services that agreed to take part, a purposive sample of 15 potential services and programs was identified on the basis of two criteria. The first criterion was that fathers were directly involved in service or program activities. The second criterion was that the selected services and programs overall were to reflect, as far as possible, the diversity of programs and services identified in phase 1 of the study.
It was intended to conduct site visits with up to 10 programs and services involved in phase 1 of the study. Fifteen programs were included in the initial fieldwork sample to compensate for services and programs that declined to participate, were unable to recruit a group of fathers for a focus group, or had other commitments that prevented their participation in the study.
Eight services comprised the final fieldwork sample. Of the seven services that were not included, two services felt that asking their particular client group to participate was not appropriate; one was excluded because its program had not yet commenced, one no longer had fathers participating in program activities; and one service manager felt that her service would not make a useful contribution to the study. It was not possible to involve a further two services because they were not able to work within the timeframes for the study.
The phase 2 service sample is described in Table 1. It shows that two urban programs, one regional program, one remote program and four rural programs were included in the sample. Services were located in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland. They targeted a diverse client base, including CALD fathers, fathers of children with additional needs, new fathers, young fathers and fathers in high-need communities. Six LA and two CfC services were included in fieldwork. Unfortunately, none of the ItG services that returned the survey were suitable to be included as they could not provide father participants for focus groups.
(a) once we began speaking to service managers, it became clear that several were overseeing other services funded through different streams of the SFCS. During interviews, managers did not make any meaningful distinctions between programs based on their funding source. Instead they talked more broadly about their aims, practice and experience.
Note: LA=Local Answers; CfC=Communities for Children.
Seventeen professionals were involved in phase 2 of the study. Seven managers (two male) participated in interviews. In addition, one male manager/facilitator was interviewed. Of the nine project facilitators/workers who were interviewed, three were male. One interview was also conducted with a female volunteer facilitator/service user at one of the project sites.
A flexible approach to gathering data was adopted to offer professionals different ways to participate in the study while minimising the demands placed on their time. A total of seven semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with program managers. Two telephone interviews were also held with project workers who were unavailable for a face-to-face meeting. A further four individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews were held with project workers and facilitators at their service sites. One face-to-face service site interview was conducted with a program manager/facilitator. One group interview was held with three project facilitators at their organisation's offices.
Groups of between two and 11 fathers participated in seven focus groups conducted across six service sites. One program was able to recruit fathers from two of their SFCS-funded projects and the focus groups were held separately. Another service was not able to recruit fathers for a focus group but requested to be involved in manager and facilitator interviews. Additionally, two individual telephone interviews were held with fathers who were involved with a service but unable to attend a focus group. A total of 34 fathers participated in the fieldwork.
As information was not collected on fathers who declined to participate, it is not known whether there were any systematic biases in the study's sample of fathers. However, in the interpretation of findings it should be borne in mind that the study may have attracted fathers who were already highly involved with their children and highly dedicated to being involved in their children's lives. Additionally, the focus groups may have engaged fathers for whom contact with services and programs had been a positive experience. As such, the findings may have limited applicability for fathers who are more ambiguous about being an active presence in their children's lives, or for fathers who have had less positive experiences with services and programs.
Basic demographic information was collected from fathers who participated in the fieldwork. The fathers ranged in age from 20 -62 years (M=35 years). The fathers had between one and five children (M=2). Just over half (56 per cent, n=19) of the sample were married while 23 per cent (n=8) reported that they were in de facto relationships. Of the remaining fathers, 12 per cent (n=4) and 9 per cent (n=3) respectively identified themselves as single or separated.
In terms of employment, 73 per cent (n=25) of the fathers stated that they were working, 24 per cent (n=8) stated that they were not working and 3 per cent (n=1) did not respond to the question. Just under half (47 per cent, n=17) of the participants were in full-time employment, 18 per cent (n=6) worked part-time and nine per cent (n=3) worked casually.
The fathers were also asked about their educational background. Less than half (41 per cent, n=14) had completed either a university or a TAFE qualification. One-quarter (26 per cent, n=9) of the fathers stated that they had completed their education to a year 9 level or below. Approximately one-fifth (18 per cent, n=6) of the fathers had completed their education to year 10, while 9 per cent (n=3) had completed year 12 and 6 per cent (n=2) declined to respond to the question.
To gain a sense of the fathers' cultural and ethnic identities, the fathers were also asked if they spoke any languages other than English at home. While 5 per cent (n=19) reported that they did not speak any other language, 44 per cent (n=15) reported speaking another language at home. Languages and dialects identified included Telugu, Italian, Dari, Farsi, Pushto, Cerdu, Hazaragi and Persian. Two participants stated that they did speak another language but did not identify it. One participant (3 per cent of the sample) identified himself as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) descent.
While the study aimed to include ATSI services in phase 2, very few completed surveys were received from ATSI services, and it was not possible to conduct interviews with staff or clients from these services primarily due to the tight timeframe for the study. However, this should not be construed as meaning that ATSI fathers were not engaged under the SFCS. During the fieldwork, service providers discussed various communities where successful and respected work was being conducted with indigenous fathers. It is also significant that none of the fathers who participated in the fieldwork indicated that they were the sole care giver of their child/ren. It is possible, therefore, that the current findings do not extend to these special groups of fathers, and should be read with this caution in mind.
Phase 2 recruitment methodology
Program managers
Returning a completed survey served as consent for program managers to be contacted regarding phase 2 of the study. Researchers telephoned the selected programs and services to thank them for returning the survey and to canvas their interest in being included in phase 2 of the research. Managers were asked to provide verbal consent to participate in a telephone interview and facilitate access to project facilitators and father participants. Verbal consent was considered sufficient as project managers had already indicated their written consent to be contacted by researchers on the initial survey.
Telephone interviews were recorded using a commercial teleconferencing service. Interviewees were informed that an external recording service was being employed to provide a sound file of the interview. The interviewee was asked to provide their verbal consent for the recording to continue. The confidentiality of participants was maintained through a verbal agreement with the teleconferencing service that the operators would not listen in to the interviews. Further, sound files of the interviews were immediately removed from the service's computer system as soon as researchers had downloaded the sound file of each interview. These files were then forwarded to a professional transcription service for documentation. The program manager interview schedule is presented in Appendix F.
Program facilitators
Program managers provided written information to program facilitators about the study on AIFS's behalf (Appendix G). Workers were then contacted by telephone to seek their involvement in the study and assistance in recruiting fathers where required. Workers were read a plain language statement (Appendix H) when they met with researchers and asked to sign a consent form (Appendix I) agreeing to both their informed participation and the recording of the interview. Two program workers were unavailable for face-to-face interviews and instead participated in telephone interviews. In these cases, participants provided their consent verbally. The program facilitator interview schedule is presented in Appendix J. Interviews with program facilitators were digitally recorded and transcribed.
Fathers
Program managers and facilitators were asked to assist in the recruitment of fathers to the study. A flexible approach to gathering data was adopted and fieldwork visits were arranged at the convenience of services and programs. Facilitators circulated written material about the study to fathers. They had the opportunity to read the material and follow-up with AIFS researchers if they had any questions. Father participants were read a plain language statement (Appendix H) when they met with researchers and asked to sign a consent form (Appendix I) agreeing to both their informed participation and the recording of the focus group. At the end of the focus group interview participants were given a $50 gift voucher in recognition of the time they contributed to the study. The focus group interview schedule is presented in Appendix K. Focus group interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed.
A professional interpreter was used for one focus group with fathers from a Victorian service targeting a specific CALD population. The need for an interpreter was discussed and agreed upon during telephone contact with the program facilitator. Prior to the focus group interview, the interpreter translated the plain language statement.