Home visiting: Recent program evaluations - Analysis and recommendations

Future of Children

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 4-26

  Gomby, Deanna S ^a   Culross, Patti L ^a   Behrman, Richard E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD BEHAVIOR; CHILD HEALTH CARE; CHILD PARENT RELATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; NEGLECT; NURSING HOME; REVIEW;

EID: 0032748418     PISSN: 10548289     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1602719     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Nightingale, F. Rural hygiene. London: Spottiswoode and Co., 1894, p. 26.
2. Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. Starting points: Meeting the needs of our youngest children. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, April 1994.
3. Weiss, H.B. Home visits: Necessary but not sufficient. The Future of Children (Winter 1993) 3,3:113-28.
4. Olds, D.L., and Kitzman, H. Review of research on home visiting for pregnant women and parents of young children. The Future of Children (Winter 1993) 3,3:53-92.
5. This journal issue does not examine home visiting provided involuntarily to families through the child welfare system or programs that offer home-based support and intervention for families of children with special needs.
6. Wasik, B.H. Staffing issues for home visiting programs. The Future of Children (Winter 1993) 3,3:140-57.
7. Charity Organization Society of the City of New York. Hand-book for friendly visitors among the poor. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1883.
8. Larner, M., Halpern, R., and Harkavy, O., eds. Fair Start for children: Lessons learned from seven demonstration projects. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.
9. Heinecke, C.M., and Ponce, V.A. Relation-based early family intervention. In Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology. Vol. IX: Developmental approaches to prevention and intervention. D. Cichetti and S.L. Toth, eds. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, in press.
10. Barnard, K.E. Developing, implementing, and documenting interventions with parents and young children. Zero to Three (February/March 1998) 18:23-29.
11. As reported in the article by Olds and colleagues in this journal issue, an ongoing randomized trial in Denver, Colorado, will compare the effectiveness of nurses and paraprofessionals in delivering the same model program. Results will be available in late 1999.
12. Shiono, P.H., and Behrman, R.E., eds. Low birth weight. The Future of Children (Spring 1995) 5,1:4-231.
13. In the social sciences, researchers calculate an effect size to translate results of different studies into a common metric (the standard deviation). Generally, in the social sciences, an effect size of 0.2 standard deviations is defined as small, 0.5 as moderate, and 0.8 or greater as large. See Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983; as cited in Yoshikawa, H. Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:51-75. In the Northern California (Salinas Valley) PAT program, effect sizes ranged from about 0.25 to 0.36 standard deviations.
14. In the social sciences, researchers calculate an effect size to translate results of different studies into a common metric (the standard deviation). Generally, in the social sciences, an effect size of 0.2 standard deviations is defined as small, 0.5 as moderate, and 0.8 or greater as large. See Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983; as cited in Yoshikawa, H. Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:51-75. In the Northern California (Salinas Valley) PAT program, effect sizes ranged from about 0.25 to 0.36 standard deviations.
15. Chalk, R., and King, P.A., eds. Violence in families: Assessing prevention and treatment programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998.
16. Straus, M.A., and Gelles, R.J. Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1990. As cited in note no. 14, Chalk and King.
17. Fully 57% of the cost savings were due to decreases in welfare costs, 23% to taxes paid on increased maternal income, and 20% to decreases in criminal-justice costs. See Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham, S.S., et al. Investing in our children: What we know and don't know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1998.
18. Studies did not always report separately the number of visits received by those who completed the program and those who left it early. The latter group, of course, would have had fewer visits, and would have lowered the group average.
19. In NHVP, families that received the most home visits - and benefitted the most on particular caregiving outcomes - were those with the lowest levels of psychological resources. In the Teen PAT study, teens in the combined case management and home visiting services group had the most contacts with program services and benefitted more than the groups that received either PAT home visiting services or case management services alone.
20. Halpern, R. Parent support and education programs. Children and Youth Services Review (1990) 23:285-308.
21. Gray, S.W., and Wandersman, L.P. The methodology of home-based intervention studies: Problems and promising strategies. Child Development (1980) 51:993-1009.
22. Berlin, L.J., O'Neal, C.R., and Brooks-Gunn, J. What makes early intervention programs work? The program, its participants, and their interaction. Zero to Three (February/March 1998) 18:4-15.
23. Cowan, P.A., Powell, D., and Cowan, C.P. Parenting interventions: A family systems perspective. In Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 4: Child psychology in practice. Fifth ed. I.E. Sigel and K.A. Renninger, eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996, pp. 3-72.
24. See, for example, Wagner, M., Clayton, S., Gerlach-Downie, S., and McElroy, M. An evaluation of the Northern California Parents as Teachers demonstration. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 1997.
25. Helburn, S.W., and Howes, C. Child care cost and quality. The Future of Children (Summer/Fall 1996) 6,2:62-82; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., and Phillips, D. Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1990; Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., and Howes, C. National Child Care Staffing Study revisited: Four years in the life of center-based child care. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1993.
26. Helburn, S.W., and Howes, C. Child care cost and quality. The Future of Children (Summer/Fall 1996) 6,2:62-82; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., and Phillips, D. Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1990; Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., and Howes, C. National Child Care Staffing Study revisited: Four years in the life of center-based child care. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1993.
27. Helburn, S.W., and Howes, C. Child care cost and quality. The Future of Children (Summer/Fall 1996) 6,2:62-82; Whitebook, M., Howes, C., and Phillips, D. Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1990; Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., and Howes, C. National Child Care Staffing Study revisited: Four years in the life of center-based child care. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, 1993.
28. Compare, for example, the results of studies of Healthy Families America as reviewed in the Daro and Harding article in this journal issue, or results concerning the PAT and HIPPY programs as reported in the articles by Wagner and Clayton and by Baker, Piotrkowski, and Brooks-Gunn, and in Appendices B and D, respectively.
29. See note no. 16, Karoly, Greenwood, Everingham, et al.
30. Racine, D.P. Replicating programs in social markets. Philadelphia: Replication and Program Strategies, 1998.
31. For example, Parents as Teachers is offered universally in many geographic areas. Olds and Kitzman (see note no. 4) reviewed randomized trials of home visiting programs that served families with preterm and low birth weight infants and, interestingly, found somewhat more positive results than in these studies.
32. To test whether a program model benefits a particular group of families more than another group, multiple studies should be conducted to make sure that the same group benefits across multiple settings. An example of this approach is seen in NHVP, in which researchers have shown benefits across two settings for low-income unmarried mothers, and for some outcomes, enhanced benefits for mothers with low psychological resources. Other program models have not yet taken that approach.
33. Wasik, B.H., Ramey, C.T., Bryant, D.M., and Sparling, J.J. A longitudinal study of two early intervention strategies: Project CARE. Child Development (1990) 61:1682-96.
34. Barnett, W.S. Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:25-50.
35. See note no. 13, Yoshikawa.
36. St.Pierre, R.G., Layzer, J.I., and Barnes, H.V. Two-generation programs: Design, cost, and short-term effectiveness. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:76-93.
37. Frede, E.C. The role of program quality in producing early childhood program benefits. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:115-32.
38. Gomby, D., and Larner, M., eds. Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:4-221.
39. See, for example, the following reviews of programs for adolescent parents: Kisker, E.E., Maynard, R.A., Rangarajan, A., and Boller, K. Moving teenage parents into self sufficiency. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 1998; and Granger, R.C., and Cytron, R. Teenage parent programs: A synthesis of the long-term effects of the New Chance Demonstration; Ohio's Learning, Earning, and Parenting (LEAP) program; and the Teenage Parent Demonstration (TPD). New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, June 1998. On the limitations of parent education, see Clarke-Stewart, K.A. Exploring the assumptions of parent education. In Parent education and public policy. R. Haskins and D. Adams, eds. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1983, pp. 257-76.
40. See, for example, the following reviews of programs for adolescent parents: Kisker, E.E., Maynard, R.A., Rangarajan, A., and Boller, K. Moving teenage parents into self sufficiency. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 1998; and Granger, R.C., and Cytron, R. Teenage parent programs: A synthesis of the long-term effects of the New Chance Demonstration; Ohio's Learning, Earning, and Parenting (LEAP) program; and the Teenage Parent Demonstration (TPD). New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, June 1998. On the limitations of parent education, see Clarke-Stewart, K.A. Exploring the assumptions of parent education. In Parent education and public policy. R. Haskins and D. Adams, eds. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1983, pp. 257-76.
41. See, for example, the following reviews of programs for adolescent parents: Kisker, E.E., Maynard, R.A., Rangarajan, A., and Boller, K. Moving teenage parents into self sufficiency. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 1998; and Granger, R.C., and Cytron, R. Teenage parent programs: A synthesis of the long-term effects of the New Chance Demonstration; Ohio's Learning, Earning, and Parenting (LEAP) program; and the Teenage Parent Demonstration (TPD). New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, June 1998. On the limitations of parent education, see Clarke-Stewart, K.A. Exploring the assumptions of parent education. In Parent education and public policy. R. Haskins and D. Adams, eds. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1983, pp. 257-76.
42. For example, studies are ongoing of the PAT, HIPPY, NHVP, HFA, and Hawaii Healthy Start home visiting program models, and of Early Head Start, in which many sites employ home visiting.
43. The PAT program has instituted a new curriculum for teens since the Teen PAT evaluation reported in the Wagner and Clayton article in this journal issue was launched. The HIPPY program now serves three-to five-year-olds, rather than four-to five-year-olds, as it did when the evaluations reported in this journal issue were launched. It is unclear how many program sites employ the new rather than the old curriculum.