Engaging Fathers in Home-Based Parenting Education: Home Visitor Attitudes and Strategies

Abstract

Much U.S. research supports the effectiveness of parenting education delivered via the home visiting method. Home visitors are essential to reaching fathers in this context, but not all have favorable attitudes toward father engagement or feel confident working with fathers. Given that father involvement is important for a wide range of child and adolescent outcomes and that fathers benefit from parenting education, it is important to better understand the forces that shape home visitors’ attitudes toward fathers, and thus their subsequent efforts to include them in publicly funded programming. Using survey data from 95 home visitors in Tennessee, this study explores whether home visitors’ beliefs about fathers and attitudes toward father engagement vary as a function of home visitor or agency characteristics. Results suggest training in social work, reporting father-friendly organizational attitudes and behaviors at one’s agency, and reporting supervisor support specifically for father engagement relate to various favorable fathering attitudes. Home visitors’ strategies to engage fathers in home visiting are presented, including strategies for before, during, and after the home visit. Overall, family service agency administrators are in key positions to make decisions that can improve agency father-friendliness, home visitor attitudes toward fathers, and subsequent outcomes for fathers, mothers, and children.

1. Introduction

Over the past fifteen years there has been an increased emphasis on early home visiting services in the United States, with federal agencies allocating over USD five billion to services (Administration for Children and Families, 2024). This model consists of a trained home visitor meeting weekly with new, lower-income parents in their homes to provide parenting education and support. Although home visiting provides important advantages over other parenting education approaches (e.g., overcoming transportation barriers, developing personal relationships, seeing families in their natural environment), there is concern that home visiting prioritizes mothers relative to fathers (Stolz et al., 2020; Toluhi et al., 2023). Providing parenting education services to residential fathers has been linked to a number of positive outcomes including high co-parenting quality, hands-on care for children, high father–child relationship quality, and reduced child behavior problems (Burcher et al., 2021; Holmes et al., 2010). Studies of low-income and non-resident fathers also suggest that giving these fathers parenting education and support may also improve fathering outcomes (Cowan et al., 2009; Stolz et al., 2020).

Home visitors (HVs) play a pivotal role in determining whether fathers are invited to and engaged in the home visiting setting. HVs have been found to hold negative stereotypes about fathers’ capabilities as childcare providers (Bellamy et al., 2024; Burcher et al., 2021), and service providers’ beliefs and stereotypes about fathers’ emotions have been shown to impact engagement and treatment effectiveness (Phares et al., 2006). Given the importance and effectiveness of parenting education for new fathers, the present study seeks to better understand the factors that contribute to home visitors’ attitudes toward fathers, and thus their likely efforts to include fathers in this important, publicly funded parenting education mechanism. Specifically, we investigated the role of home visitors’ background characteristics and agency context variables in predicting home visitors’ beliefs and attitudes about fathers and father engagement. Additionally, we report father engagement strategies used by those HVs who do encourage father involvement in the early home visiting setting. By understanding the sources of negative attitudes toward fathers, as well as the strategies in use to engage them, we can more effectively intervene to ensure fathers are included in all publicly funded parenting education opportunities. Given the importance of fathers’ involvement with young children, both for the children and for their mothers, it is essential that we direct attention toward the way we engage with them in family programming.

1.1. Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in Bandura’s (1978) theory of triadic reciprocal causation. According to this theory, three sets of factors—personal factors (e.g., affective, cognitive, and biological events), the environment, and behavior—interact to determine human functioning. In other words, a person’s behavior both influences and is influenced by personal factors and the social environment. Personal factors may include, but are not limited to gender, social position, and various cognitive factors including attitudes and beliefs. Although at times behavior and environment can be the most powerful contributors to overall functioning and performance, person-related factors, especially cognitions, are usually the strongest determinants of outcomes. Drawing from this theory, we focus on the relationships among several person-based HV characteristics, as well as environmental (family service agency) factors that may predict attitudes toward fathers and father engagement and may, according to this theory, further shape HV behaviors related to including fathers in programming.

1.2. Fathers’ Contributions to Children

There is a vast body of research supporting the important role of fathers in young children’s development. Infants with involved fathers are less likely to experience cognitive delays (Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2008), and father involvement is related to improved cognitive, language, and fine motor development (Pekel-Uludağlı, 2024) as well as later academic achievement (McWayne et al., 2013). In the socio-emotional realm, children with involved fathers are better able to regulate their emotions (Cabrera et al., 2007; Lopez et al., 2024; Pekel-Uludağlı, 2024). Children with involved fathers are more likely to experience educational and occupational mobility and have positive role models, all of which reduce the likelihood of adult criminality for both girls and boys (Featherstone & Trinder, 2001; Hadebe & Adanlawo, 2024). Fathers’ involvement may also be particularly protective in various risk contexts including poverty (Garcia et al., 2022; for a review, see Weinman et al., 2002).

1.3. Fathers’ Involvement in Home Visiting

Research suggests that home visiting can positively impact outcomes in several domains, including quality of parenting as well as indicators of child maltreatment and positive child development (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2022). Fathers as well as mothers can benefit from home visiting services and other parenting education programs (Stolz et al., 2020). According to a meta-analysis, providing services to residential fathers was related to a number of positive outcomes including high co-parenting quality, hands-on care for children, high father–child relationship quality, and reduced child behavior problems (Holmes et al., 2010). Studies of non-resident fathers also suggest that giving these fathers parenting education and support may improve fathering outcomes (Holmes et al., 2020). Interventions that focus on developing fathers’ confidence have been shown to enhance their involvement, self-esteem, and relationship-related communication (Gearing et al., 2008). Fathers’ participation in parenting education programs, and particularly in home visiting programs, may also be related to improved outcomes for mothers (Burcher et al., 2021). Despite this evidence, fathers do not consistently participate in home visiting services (Holmberg & Olds, 2015). Thus, although the one-to-one nature of home visiting could be ideal for developing fathers’ sense of confidence, most family service agencies do not include fathers as part of family interventions.

1.4. Home Visitor Characteristics and Attitudes

HVs play a key role in determining the manner and extent to which fathers are encouraged to participate in parenting education. Their overall effectiveness with families as well as their attitudes toward fathers and thus willingness to engage them in programming may be a function of various demographic and background variables. For example, background variables such as child-rearing experience and personal characteristics such as conscientiousness and persistence have been linked to parent engagement in the home visiting context (Brookes et al., 2006). Differing levels or types of education may also be related to overall HV effectiveness as well as their beliefs about or attitudes toward fathers. The Administration for Children and Families (2018) reported that HV education level varied across states and programs, with some studies indicating only 30% of HVs held college degrees. Some research suggests that family and child outcomes show greater improvement when the program is delivered by a trained professional (Olds et al., 2004). It could be that education level contributes to and/or is correlated with cognitive development, which is related to perspective taking and openness (Lawson & Foster, 2005). It also may be the case that HVs’ interpersonal skills, which predicted positive outcomes in home-based work with families (Lawson & Foster, 2005), may improve over time. Accordingly, those who have worked in the field for many years may have better interpersonal skills and improved job-related efficacy and client outcomes, and may thus have more capacity to reach out to engage fathers. Alternatively, some research suggests that home visitors reported increasing levels of burnout and emotional exhaustion over time (Gill et al., 2007); thus, time in the field may not have an overall positive effect on interpersonal skills and efficacy in working with fathers.

1.5. Agency Context

In addition to the background characteristics of home visitors, there are several agency-level factors that may affect an HV’s willingness and ability to work with fathers. Firstly, HVs may experience varying amounts of encouragement and support from their supervisors to work with fathers, and may have little control over their caseloads (Harden et al., 2010; Sandstrom et al., 2020). Harden and colleagues (2010) reported that, in general, HVs experienced insufficient support from their supervisors. HVs in that study reported “overwhelming amounts of responsibility in their organization,” and “insufficient support from administrators” (p. 375). Another agency-level variable that has the potential to impact HVs’ willingness and ability to engage fathers is the number of families on their caseloads. In the study by Harden and colleagues, all participating HVs reported that they had “little” or “very little” control over the number of families for which they were responsible. HVs reported that some caseloads were quite large, and this limited their ability to perform their jobs well. In this context, HVs who have very large caseloads and/or are not supported and encouraged to engage with fathers may not, of their own accord, add additional tasks (e.g., contacting fathers, scheduling visits to meet fathers’ needs, identifying materials to engage fathers) to their workload. The overall climate of the agency with regard to father involvement may also impact father engagement attitudes and efforts of HVs. Men often feel marginalized in the parenting and parenting education spheres (Pfitzner et al., 2020), but agencies can generate a father-friendly climate through the attitudes they promote, the policies they set, and the behaviors in which they engage (Vann & Perry, 2022). As Hooley (2009) summarized:

Researchers have found that agencies who explicitly invite fathers to participate, have flexible service hours, maintain a father-friendly environment (e.g., gender neutral art work in the waiting room, forms/paperwork designed to not solely rely on mother report, etc.), do not focus on deficits, provide hands-on activities, have clinicians sensitive to fathering issues, and allow fathers to determine certain aspects of the interventions designed for them are more likely to engage fathers as participants in their programs.

(p. 4)

It could be that those father-friendly agency characteristics and strategies also help shape more favorable HV attitudes toward fathers.

1.6. The Present Study

Although research suggests fathers make important contributions to their children, and home visiting provides an effective opportunity for developing fathers’ knowledge and skills, home visitors vary in their beliefs about the importance of fathers and attitudes toward including fathers in the home visiting setting. That variation may have important consequences for fathers and families; thus, it is important to identify underlying sources that may contribute to less favorable attitudes toward fathers and father engagement. Also, since home visitors are on the front-line of in-home father engagement efforts, it is beneficial to identify the strategies used by those who do make efforts to engage fathers. Given these goals, the research questions for the present study are as follows:

• Do home visitors’ attitudes toward fathers (father importance beliefs, father engagement efficacy, and father engagement enjoyment) vary as a function of HV characteristics (education level, education field, or years in home visiting field) or agency context variables (agency father-friendliness, father engagement support from supervisors, or caseload)?
• What strategies do home visitors employ to engage fathers in home visiting programs?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample and Instrument

Data for the present study stem from the Agency Partner Background Survey of the IRB-approved Tennessee Dad project, a cluster randomized controlled trial of an in-home fathering education curriculum. At the beginning of the overall study, “Tennessee Dad Welcome Events” were conducted at four locations across the state. Agency personnel were encouraged to anonymously complete either a paper survey or an online Qualtrics survey at the end of each Welcome Event. Participants who preferred a paper survey completed their survey, sealed it in an envelope, and handed it to a research team member. These surveys were later entered into Qualtrics by a research team member. All home visitors from Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Healthy Families America (HFA) sites in Tennessee participated in the overall project. Ninety-two percent of the home visitors who attended the Welcome Events elected to complete the survey. Thus, the sample for the present study consisted of home visitors (N = 95) from 7 home visiting agencies operating at 10 sites across the state. Participants were exclusively female and 82% were White.

2.2. Measures

Education level. Education level was measured with the item, “What is the highest level of education you have completed?” Given the distribution of responses, we constructed a variable with three categories: less than bachelor’s degree (n = 9; 9%), bachelor’s degree (n = 71; 75%), and graduate degree (n = 15; 15%).

Education field. Education field was measured with the item, “What fields were you trained in as part of your formal education (e.g., degree programs, majors, minors, or concentrations; check all that apply).” Results were as follows: child development (n = 32), early childhood education (n = 23), nursing (n = 2), psychology (n = 41), public health (n = 7), social work/social welfare (n = 38), or other (n = 29). Given this distribution, we limited our investigation to child development, early childhood education, psychology, and social work/social welfare.

Time in field. Home visitors’ time in the field was measured with the item, “How long have you worked in the field of home visiting?” Some were new to home visiting while others had been in the home visiting field for 20 years (M = 50.77 months; SD = 57.70 months).

Attitude toward father importance. Nine items were adapted from the Role of the Father Questionnaire (Palkovitz, 1984) to be used with home visitors. These items were measured on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and were intended to tap home visitors’ perspectives on the importance of fathers. After a principal factor analysis, the items loaded on two factors; thus, we specified a two-factor model using Promax rotation. The first factor had six items with primary loadings ranging from 0.55 to 0.80. The resulting attitude toward father importance scale demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.82). A sample item is, “Fathers play a central role in the child’s personality development.” The remaining three items loaded (0.53–0.74) on the second factor. These items related to fathers’ sensitivity; thus, we labeled this scale attitude toward father sensitivity (α = 0.71). One sample item is, “It is difficult for men to express tender and affectionate feelings toward babies” (reverse scored).

Father engagement efficacy. Four items from Guterman and colleagues’ (2018) HV Father Engagement Scale were used to measure HVs’ self-reported preparedness to engage fathers (α = 0.78). A sample item was “I know how to include fathers in home visiting services.”

Father engagement enjoyment. Father engagement enjoyment was measured with the single item, “I enjoy working with fathers during visits,” measured on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Agency father-friendliness. Six items from the organizational attitudes subscale and seven items from the organizational behaviors subscale of the Dakota Father Friendliness Assessment (White et al., 2011) were used. The thirteen items loaded on two factors as hypothesized. For agency father-friendly attitudes (factor loadings of 0.74–0.88, α = 0.93), a sample item was, “All staff at our center believe in the need for a positive attitude toward working with fathers.” For agency father-friendly behaviors (factor loadings of 0.46–0.80, α = 0.84), a sample item was, “My agency provides staff with books and resources for and about fathers.” All items were measured on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Father engagement support from supervisor. To construct the father-related support from supervisor scale, we first factor analyzed all 17 supervisor support items (Guterman et al., 2018). They loaded on two factors as hypothesized (general support from supervisor and father engagement support from supervisor); thus, we moved forward with only the items related to supporting work with fathers (9 items, α = 0.94). A sample item was, “My supervisor encourages me to meet the unique needs of fathers when working with families.” Items were measured on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Caseload. Home visitor caseload was measured with the item, “How many families are currently on your home visiting caseload?” Participants reported a current home visiting caseload between 0 and 25 families (M = 10.21; SD = 6.07).

Father engagement strategies. Father engagement strategies were identified using home visitors’ responses to the following open-ended question: “What, if any, strategies do you use to try to engage fathers in home visits?”

2.3. Analysis

To address the first research question, we conducted one-way ANOVAs to investigate whether the four HV attitudes (attitude toward father importance, attitude toward father sensitivity, father engagement efficacy, and father engagement enjoyment) varied as a function of education level. We conducted independent samples t-tests to investigate whether the four HV fathering attitudes varied by field of training. Next, we investigated pairwise correlations to test for relationships between the four HV fathering attitudes with HV time in the field, HV caseload, and the three agency context scales (agency father-friendly attitudes, agency father-friendly behaviors, and father engagement support from supervisor).

To address the second research question, the second author and two research assistants on the research team coded the responses to the qualitative prompt. The group imposed a heuristic structure that would allow for the presentation of themes in a fashion most useful to practitioners in the field, thus creating the a priori time-structured categories of prior to visit, during visit, and after visit. After applying the initial structure to the qualitative data, a deductive thematic analysis was used, employing six phases of thematic analysis to the research question and data (see Braun and Clarke, 2006; Turk et al., 2020). In phase one, the group familiarized themselves with the data by reading over the qualitative short-answer responses. For phase two, the group compiled a chart of initial codes of strategies using action words drawn from the participants’ responses. This chart of initial codes was sorted into the heuristic structure previously described. For phase three, the authors reviewed a combined chart of strategy codes and agreed on an initial list of themes that emerged from this review. Each theme was then defined under its appropriate cluster and category. Responses were coded for each theme independently by the authors and two research assistants. Phases four and five of Braun and Clark’s framework were addressed simultaneously as the group reviewed their coding agreement once the first wave of coding was complete. The themes were discussed and refined to ensure clarity of naming and scope. Next, the group re-coded the data according to the refined themes and discussed and resolved any coding differences. At this point, counts were determined, reflecting the number of participants whose responses were coded within each theme. This second wave of coding was deemed satisfactory to move to phase six of the thematic analysis framework—presentation of results.

3. Results

Descriptive statistics for all constructed scales are presented in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for constructed scales.

Scales	M	SD	Range	α
Attitude toward father importance	4.57	0.47	2.83−5.00	0.82
Attitude toward father sensitivity	2.98	0.87	1.00−5.00	0.71
Father engagement efficacy	3.86	0.72	1.75−5.00	0.76
Agency father-friendly attitudes	4.29	0.71	2.00−5.00	0.93
Agency father-friendly behaviors	3.35	0.75	1.43−5.00	0.84
Supervisor support for father engagement	4.07	0.73	2.11−5.00	0.94

. The results of the one-way ANOVAs indicated the four HV attitudes did not vary by HV education level. Relative to HVs trained in other fields (M = 3.72, SD = 0.80), those trained in social work/social welfare reported higher levels of father engagement efficacy (M = 4.07, SD = 0.62, t(87) = 2.24; p = 0.02). HVs trained in social work/social welfare also had higher beliefs about father sensitivity (M = 3.29, SD = 0.95) than those without such training (M = 2.86, SD = 0.78; t(87) = 2.31, p = 0.02). We conducted pairwise correlations to test for relations between the four HV fathering attitudes with HV time in the field, HV caseload, and the three agency context scales. None of the HV attitudes varied as a function of HV time in the field or caseload. However, father engagement efficacy varied as a function of agency father-friendly attitudes (r(93) = 0.45; p < 0.001), agency father-friendly behaviors (r(93) = 0.54; p < 0.001), and father engagement support from supervisor (r(93) = 0.37; p < 0.001). Additionally, beliefs about father importance also varied as a function of agency father-friendly attitudes (r(93) = 0.35; p < 0.001). Lastly, father engagement enjoyment varied as a function of father engagement support from supervisor (r(93) = 0.23; p = 0.02). With regard to the second research question,

Table 2. Strategies for engaging fathers in home visiting.

Clusters and Themes	Sample Quote	n
Prior: Scheduling visits to fit dads’ schedules	“I try to schedule visits when fathers can be there if at all possible”	4
Prior: Specifically inviting dads	“You really need to ask him to be at the visits”	9
Prior: Emphasizing program is for dads and moms	“I always make sure when we are promoting the program to let people know we really want dads included”	6
During: Hands-on activities	“I bring activities that require dad’s interaction”	34
During: Ask dads questions	“Engaging in conversation with the father and asking his opinion on various topics”	26
During: Goal planning	“I try to involve fathers in goal plans to create their own or for parents to work together on a goal plan”	5
During: Praise	“Praising fathers’ involvement and pointing out times the child enjoys or benefits from time with dad”	16
During: Dad-centric information	“Provide father-specific curriculum as often as possible”	10
After: Leave information or activity	“Ask mother to give father the handout”	2
After: Refer to support services	“Refer fathers to formal counseling sessions to address concerns as to their hesitation with engaging with children and/or family”	14

provides a summary of the strategies home visitors indicated they were currently using to engage fathers, organized by the a priori clusters (prior to visit, during visit, after visit).

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate potential theoretically-informed predictors of home visitors’ beliefs about fathers and attitudes toward father engagement. Employing Bandura’s (1978) theory of triadic reciprocal causation, we expected that personal factors and environmental factors (agency context variables) may predict HV attitudes toward father engagement, which are important because they may in turn predict HVs’ willingness to engage in behaviors that lead to father inclusion and engagement in the home visiting setting. We also desired to understand, organize, and share practitioners’ father engagement strategies.

With regard to home visitor characteristics, fathering attitudes did not vary as a function of home visitor education level or years in the home visiting field. It is somewhat surprising that home visitors with more years of formal education or those with more time in the field did not have higher reported efficacy in working with fathers relative to other home visitors. Perhaps confidence in working with fathers develops from actually spending time with fathers rather than from extensive experience with mothers (which is essentially what is captured by time in the field for the HVs who rarely work with fathers) or classroom types of training. We might have also expected time in the field to predict home visitors’ attitudes toward father importance and father sensitivity, but this was not the case. Home visitors with decades of experience were no more likely to see fathers as important to their children than new home visitors. It could be that HVs with more time in the field are from a generation less likely to embrace the “new masculinity ideology” (Offer & Kaplan, 2021, p. 986).

The most noteworthy home visitor characteristic that predicted fathering attitudes was formal education in social work/social welfare. Home visitors who reported having a degree, major, minor, or concentration in this area reported higher levels of father engagement efficacy and higher (stronger) beliefs about fathers’ natural sensitivity. Although the overall amount of education did not predict fathering attitudes, being trained in this particular field did. Given that the NASW’s (2022) Code of Ethics includes the ethical values of “equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people,” perhaps this emphasis on the social justice principles of inclusivity and participation encourages graduates of this discipline to see fathers as having a foundational right to be included in all family matters.

With the exception of the influence of training in social work, it appears that in our study, fathering attitudes have more to do with the context and climate at the family service agency than with the individual qualities and characteristics of home visitors. Home visitors who reported that their agencies endorsed more father-friendly attitudes reported higher levels of father engagement efficacy and beliefs about the importance of fathers. This is in keeping with McAllister et al.’s (2004) report that institutional structures and philosophies that inadequately represent fathers and perpetuate negative stereotypes about fathers’ capabilities created barriers to home visitor engagement with fathers. Additionally, agencies that engage in more father-friendly behaviors, such as providing staff with fathering materials, actively recruiting male staff members, and trying to identify a father figure for each family, had home visitors who reported higher efficacy in working with fathers (Lemmons et al., 2022; for resources to measure your agency’s father-friendliness, see Vann & Perry, 2022).

Further, home visitors who reported that their supervisor supported their efforts to engage fathers reported higher levels of father engagement efficacy and enjoyment. Prioritizing father engagement in the home context requires time, effort, and materials. It is unlikely many home visitors would have an ongoing father engagement strategy (e.g., identifying the father, obtaining contact information, inviting the father, scheduling home visits at times the father is available, sending reminders to the father, preparing and bringing father-centric information) if they did not receive feedback that these efforts are valued. Anecdotally, our time working with these HVs over the course of the project suggested that their formal training to deliver the Healthy Families America curriculum included little socialization or instruction related to how to engage with a man in a professional capacity. Their professional world is almost exclusively female, and they often expressed worry and concern about calling, texting, or being alone in a room with a man. Supervisors who encourage HVs to engage fathers in programming likely also provide scaffolding for navigating these concerns. Once supported to work with dads, perhaps efficacy and enjoyment develop from practice (Burcher et al., 2021).

With regard to the strategies in use (see Table 2), home visitors suggested a wide range of “during home visit” father engagement strategies. Strategies in use “before home visits” and “after home visits” were mentioned less frequently. This may in part reflect the funding structure of home visiting. Typically, the home visit client is the mother, and funding for each visit is tied to the mother’s presence. Thus, there is no mechanism for compensation for a visit only to a father or for an additional visit to both parents beyond the established home visit schedule. Every strategy mentioned in our study takes place during one of two events—the call to schedule the visit or the visit itself. Taken all together, the strategies in use reflect various efforts to (a) communicate to fathers that they matter for their children and families, and (b) carve out a few moments of one-on-one time with fathers. The strategies mentioned are aligned with Lechowicz et al.’s (2019) recommendations that in order to effectively reach fathers, parent education programs engage the parenting team, avoid a father deficit model, increase father awareness of the available parenting intervention, and ensure father-inclusive program content.

This study makes several distinct contributions to the literature on home visiting and father engagement. First, by demonstrating that attitudes toward father involvement were not significantly associated with general education level or years of experience in the field, our findings challenge the common assumption that professional tenure naturally leads to more inclusive practice. Instead, the study identifies a more specific and actionable predictor: formal training in social work/social welfare. This adds nuance to prior work by suggesting that the content and values embedded in one’s professional training—particularly those grounded in social justice and systemic inclusion—may better prepare home visitors to recognize and support father engagement. Second, this study extends prior research by empirically linking agency-level factors—such as father-friendly attitudes, institutional behaviors, and supervisor support—to home visitors’ efficacy and enjoyment in engaging fathers. While previous literature has noted that agency climate plays a role in family engagement broadly (e.g., McAllister et al., 2004), our study quantifies those relationships and offers specificity in how organizational culture may directly shape frontline practices. Finally, our systematic collection and categorization of father engagement strategies across different phases of the home visit (before, during, after) offers a practical framework for programs seeking to audit or enhance their father-inclusive practices. This granularity provides a roadmap for implementation science efforts, helping agencies move from abstract intentions to concrete actions that promote father involvement.

This study has limitations, chiefly that all measures were based on cross-sectional reports from home visitors, which creates the potential for issues with both same-source bias as well as direction of effect misinterpretation. For example, it could be that home visitors who were more comfortable working with fathers viewed their agencies as more father-friendly and/or generated a more father-friendly agency climate. Additionally, all participants in the present study were from Tennessee; it could be that family professionals’ attitudes about fathers are influenced by regional cultural elements, and patterns may look different elsewhere.

Implications for Practice

Overall, this study yields important considerations for family service agency administrators, particularly related to pre-service and in-service professional development of home visitors as well as the importance of generating a father-friendly agency climate. Family service providers, including agencies with home visiting contracts, may benefit from measuring and targeting for improvement their agency’s father-friendly attitudes and behaviors (see Vann & Perry, 2022, for resources). Changes such as having more images of men with babies on their walls and having male employees or volunteers may boost the overall father-friendliness of the agency, thereby potentially improving home visitors’ attitudes toward engaging fathers. Additionally, agencies may want to consider the type of perspectives about and attitudes toward families that are fostered in social work and social welfare programs to provide structured training to promote these perspectives within their agencies. Interventions remain concentrated on mothers with practitioners often operating under the mother as the primary contact person assumption (Perez-Vaisvidovsky et al., 2023), thus perpetuating the treatment of fathers as the secondary parent and the gendered thinking that characterizes fathers as risks rather than resources (Lemmons et al., 2024). Agency administrators are in key positions to make decisions that can improve agency father-friendliness, HV attitudes toward fathers, and subsequent outcomes for fathers, mothers, and children.

While the findings of this study offer useful insights into home visitor and agency characteristics that may inform attitudes toward fathers, these implications should be interpreted in light of the study’s limited context. The research was conducted solely in the state of Tennessee and included only seven participating home visiting agencies, all of which self-selected into the study. These factors constrain the generalizability of the results. Despite these limitations, the findings may still offer practical guidance for similar agencies or stakeholders operating in comparable contexts. Practitioners should view these implications as preliminary and adaptable, rather than prescriptive, and consider how local contexts and resources may influence applicability. Future research involving more diverse settings and larger samples will be essential to validate and expand upon these recommendations.