The Durham Family Initiative (DFI) is one of two community-based child abuse prevention efforts that comprise The Duke Endowment's Child Abuse Prevention Initiative. Beginning in 2002, the Endowment provided support to the Durham Family Initiative (DFI) in North Carolina and Strong Communities in South Carolina to develop a comprehensive approach to address four core outcomes: (1) a reduction in child abuse rates; (2) an improvement in parenting practices and behavior; (3) strengthening community service systems; and (4) an improvement in a community's capacity to protect children and support parents. Although sharing a set of common objectives with Strong Communities, DFI theorizes that child abuse can be prevented by addressing the risk factors and barriers that affect the healthy development of parent-child relationships. Adopting an ecological perspective, DFI staff formulated a work plan to strengthen and expand the pool of available evidence-based direct services, to identify and secure meaningful public policy reforms, and to build local community capacity. This paper presents the Durham Family Initiative implementation report. The three goals for this report are: (1) to critically assess the implementation levels achieved within DFI, including how data were used to make program decisions; (2) to examine the current status of Durham Connects--a strategy designed to achieve universal reach to new parents and to efficiently connect those requiring assistance with needed resources--and note implementation challenges that require careful monitoring; and (3) to identify any ways in which the DFI experience at its midpoint can inform the future efforts of funders and program planners. The report begins by presenting the DFI theory of change. It then discusses the activities that have been central to DFI efforts over the life of the grant, including those activities DFI decided to suspend. The report ends with a summary of key implementation accomplishments and challenges. Two appendices are included: (1) Resources Used for this Report; and (2) Risk Assessment Protocol. (Contains 1 figure and 41 footnotes.) [Funding for this report was provided by The Duke Endowment.]