Healthy Families America

In-home Parent Skill-Based Well Supported

Healthy Families America (HFA) is a home visiting program for new and expectant families with children who are at-risk for maltreatment or adverse childhood experiences. HFA is a nationally accredited program that was developed by Prevent Child Abuse America. The overall goals of the program are to cultivate and strengthen nurturing parent-child relationships, promote healthy childhood growth and development, and enhance family functioning by reducing risk and building protective factors. HFA includes screening and assessments to identify families most in need of services, offering intensive, long-term and culturally responsive services to both parent(s) and children, and linking families to a medical provider and other community services as needed.

 

Each HFA site is able to determine which family and parent characteristics it targets. Services are offered until the child is three to five years old. During the first six months following a child’s birth or following enrollment (whichever is later) in-home visits are offered weekly. After six months, families receive visits less frequently depending on their needs and progress. All HFA home visiting staff must have a minimum of a high school diploma or equivalent and are required to attend a four-day core training and receive supplemental wrap-around training. Supervisors and Program Managers must also complete additional training to supplement core training. All staff are encouraged to seek Infant Mental Health endorsement.


HFA is rated as a well-supported practice because at least two studies with non-overlapping samples carried out in usual care or practice settings achieved a rating of moderate or high on design and execution and demonstrated favorable effects in a target outcome domain. At least one of the studies demonstrated a sustained favorable effect of at least 12 months beyond the end of treatment on at least one target outcome.


Sources

The program or service description, target population, and program delivery and implementation information was informed using the following sources: The California Evidence-based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness review, the program developer’s website, and the studies reviewed.


This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, visit the Review Process page or download the Handbook.

Target Population

Families are eligible to receive HFA services beginning prenatally or within three months of birth; when referred from child welfare, families may be enrolled with a child up to twenty-four months of age. This program is designed to serve the families of children who have increased risk for maltreatment or other adverse childhood experiences. Each HFA site is able to determine which family and parent characteristics it targets. For example, sites may choose to target low-income families, single parent households, or families who have experienced substance use, mental health issues, or domestic violence.

Dosage

Services begin as early as prenatally and continue until the child is three to five years old. For the first six months after birth or enrollment (whichever is later), families are offered at least one in-home visit per week, approximately an hour in duration. After six months, families may move to less frequent visits (bi-weekly and then monthly). Movement to less frequent visits depends on the needs and progress of the family and in times of crisis, visit frequency can increase.

Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

Services are usually delivered in the family’s home.

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

  • Home

Education, Certifications and Training

HFA home visiting staff must have at least a high school diploma or equivalent, experience providing services to families, and knowledge of child development. Supervisors and Program Managers must have at least a Bachelor’s degree with three years prior experience. All HFA staff are encouraged to seek Infant Mental Health endorsement. The National Office offers several trainings for HFA staff. All staff are required to attend a four-day core training that is specialized based on role (assessors, home visitors, and supervisors). Supervisors attend one additional day for the core training and an optional three days of training that focuses on building reflective supervision skills. Program managers are required to attend core training plus three days of training focused on how to implement the model to fidelity using HFA’s Best Practice Standards. HFA also offers supplemental online training, advanced trainings, and on-site technical assistance.

Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation

Manuals are made available as a part of the training sessions. More information about trainings and access to manuals can be found through the HFA website.

Available languages

Materials for HFA are available in English and Spanish.

Other supporting materials

HFA Training

The HFA Strategy

Contact Information for Developers

Website: https://www.healthyfamiliesamerica.org

Phone: (312) 663-3520

Email: hfamail@preventchildabuse.org

Results of Search and Review Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Healthy Families America
Identified in Search 42
Eligible for Review 22
Rated High 4
Rated Moderate 1
Rated Low 7
Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm 10
Outcome Effect Size
and Implied Percentile Effect
N of Studies (Findings) N of Participants Summary of Findings
Child safety 0.05
1
5 (97) 5522 Favorable: 4
No Effect: 93
Unfavorable: 0
Child permanency -0.04
-1
4 (6) 4752 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 6
Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning 0.10
3
2 (7) 1146 Favorable: 5
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Social functioning 0.04
1
1 (2) 897 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities 0.08
3
3 (9) 1555 Favorable: 2
No Effect: 6
Unfavorable: 1
Child well-being: Physical development and health 0.09
3
2 (6) 816 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 6
Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Delinquent behavior 0.64 *
23
1 (1) 793 Favorable: 1
No Effect: 0
Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Educational Achievement and Attainment 0.20
7
1 (3) 577 Favorable: 1
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices 0.11
4
3 (24) 1338 Favorable: 3
No Effect: 21
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health 0.10
3
3 (16) 1873 Favorable: 3
No Effect: 13
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver substance use 0.06
2
3 (15) 1876 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 15
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning -0.02
0
3 (30) 1952 Favorable: 3
No Effect: 27
Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability -0.08
-3
3 (6) 1876 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 6
Unfavorable: 0

*p <.05

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

Outcome Effect Size
and Implied Percentile Effect
N of Studies (Findings) N of Participants Summary of Findings Months after treatment
when outcome measured
Child safety 0.05
1
5 (97) 5522 Favorable: 4
No Effect: 93
Unfavorable: 0
-
Caldera, 2007
Injuries Needing Medical Care 0.05
2
- 268 - 0
Child Hospitalized For Any Reason 0.11
4
- 268 - 0
DuMont, 2010
Biological Mom or Target Child Confirmed Subject or Victim of CPS Report (Birth to Age 7) -0.07
-2
- 1173 - 24
Biological Mom Confirmed Subject of CPS Report: Neglect (Birth to Age 7) -0.08
-3
- 1173 - 24
Target Child Confirmed Victim in CPS Report: Neglect (Birth to Age 7) -0.04
-1
- 1173 - 24
Biological Mom Confirmed Subject of CPS Report: Physical Abuse (Birth to Age 7) -0.03
-1
- 1173 - 24
Target Child Confirmed Victim in CPS Report: Physical Abuse (Birth to Age 7) -0.21
-8
- 1173 - 24
Target Child Confirmed Victim in CPS Report: Sexual Abuse (Birth to Age 7) 0.76
27
- 1173 - 24
Child Welfare Services Track Ever Initiated (Birth to Age 7) 0.08
3
- 1173 - 24
Total Number of Family CPS Reports: Mother or Target Child (Birth to Age 7) 0.01
0
- 1173 - 24
Total Number of CPS Reports: Biological Mother Confirmed Subject (Birth to Age 7) 0.00
0
- 1173 - 24
Total Number of CPS Reports: Target Child Confirmed Victim (Birth to Age 7) 0.02
0
- 1173 - 24
Any CPS Report for Abuse or Neglect (Mother or Child, Age 5 to 7) 0.47
18
- 1173 - 24
Biological Mom Confirmed Subject of CPS Report: Sexual Abuse (Birth to Age 7) 1.32
40
- 1173 - 24
Duggan, 1999
Child Ever Used Emergency Department in Past Year (Child Age 1) 0.10
3
- 564 - 0
Child Ever Had Injury Needing Medical Care (Child Age 1) 0.13
5
- 564 - 0
Child Ever Used Emergency Department in Past Year (Child Age 2) 0.05
1
- 567 - 0
Child Ever Had Injury Needing Medical Care (Child Age 2) 0.07
2
- 567 - 0
Duggan, 2004
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Psychological Abuse (Child Age 1) 0.00
0
- 564 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Psychological Abuse (Child Age 2) 0.00
0
- 556 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Psychological Abuse (Child Age 3) -0.10
-4
- 548 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Physical Abuse (Child Age 1) 0.13
5
- 564 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Physical Abuse (Child Age 2) 0.18
7
- 556 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Physical Abuse (Child Age 3) 0.03
1
- 548 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Incident Resulting in Injury (Child Age 1) 0.06
2
- 564 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Incident Resulting in Injury (Child Age 2) 0.26
10
- 556 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Incident Resulting in Injury (Child Age 3) 0.04
1
- 548 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Minor Physical Assault Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 1) 0.06
2
- 558 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Minor Physical Assault Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 2) -0.05
-1
- 549 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Minor Physical Assault Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 3) 0.00
0
- 541 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Severe Physical Abuse Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 1) -0.26
-10
- 558 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Severe Physical Abuse Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 2) 0.05
1
- 549 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Severe Physical Abuse Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 3) -0.28
-11
- 541 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Very Severe Physical Abuse Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 1) 0.12
4
- 558 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Very Severe Physical Abuse Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 2) 0.00
0
- 549 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Very Severe Physical Abuse Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 3) 0.10
3
- 541 - 0
Shook Child in Past Year (Child Age 1) 0.00
0
- 558 - 0
Shook Child in Past Year (Child Age 2) 0.00
0
- 549 - 0
Shook Child in Past Year (Child Age 3) 0.10
3
- 541 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Neglectful Parenting Behaviors in Past Year (Child Age 1) 0.24 *
9
- 558 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Neglectful Parenting Behaviors in Past Year (Child Age 2) -0.03
-1
- 549 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Neglectful Parenting Behaviors in Past Year (Child Age 3) 0.09
3
- 541 - 0
Substantiated Child Maltreatment Reports: All Reports (Child Age 1 to 3) Null
not calculated
- 559 - 0
Any Substantiated Maltreatment Reports: Abuse or Neglect (Child Age 1 to 3) Null
not calculated
- 559 - 0
Substantiated Maltreatment Reports: Threatened Abuse, Neglect, or Harm (Child Age 1 to 3) Null
not calculated
- 559 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Psychological Aggression Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 1 to 3) 0.17
6
- 550 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Minor Physical Assault Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 1 to 3) 0.06
2
- 550 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Severe Physical Abuse Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 1 to 3) -0.16
-6
- 550 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Very Severe Physical Abuse Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 1 to 3) 0.04
1
- 550 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Neglectful Parenting Behaviors in Past Year (Child Age 1 to 3) 0.14
5
- 550 - 0
Substantiated Child Maltreatment Reports: All Reports (Child Age 1) 0.19
7
- 643 - 0
Substantiated Child Maltreatment Reports: All Reports (Child Age 2) 0.32
12
- 643 - 0
Substantiated Child Maltreatment Reports: All Reports (Child Age 3) -0.28
-10
- 643 - 0
Any Substantiated Maltreatment Reports: Abuse or Neglect (Child Age 1) 0.86
30
- 643 - 0
Any Substantiated Maltreatment Reports: Abuse or Neglect (Child Age 2) 0.19
7
- 643 - 0
Any Substantiated Maltreatment Reports: Abuse or Neglect (Child Age 3) -0.47
-18
- 643 - 0
Substantiated Maltreatment Reports: Threatened Abuse, Neglect, or Harm (Child Age 1) 0.19
7
- 643 - 0
Substantiated Maltreatment Reports: Threatened Abuse, Neglect, or Harm (Child Age 2) 0.09
3
- 643 - 0
Substantiated Maltreatment Reports: Threatened Abuse, Neglect, or Harm (Child Age 3) -0.28
-10
- 643 - 0
Duggan, 2007
Child Visited the Emergency Room for Any Reason -0.13
-5
- 268 - 0
CPS substantiated reports of all types of child maltreatment - whether child had any or none -0.12
-4
- 309 - 0
CPS substantiated reports of all types of child maltreatment - whether child had any or none 0.00
0
- 297 - 0
CPS substantiated reports of all types of child maltreatment - whether child had any or none 0.04
1
- 297 - 0
CPS substantiated reports of all child neglect - whether child had any or none -0.34
-13
- 309 - 0
CPS substantiated reports of child neglect - whether child had any or none 0.10
3
- 297 - 0
CPS substantiated reports of child neglect - whether child had any or none 0.06
2
- 297 - 0
CPS substantiated AND unsubstantiated reps of child maltreatment - whether child had any or none -0.16
-6
- 309 - 0
CPS substantiated AND unsubstantiated reps of child maltreatment - whether child had any or none 0.19
7
- 297 - 0
CPS substantiated AND unsubstantiated reps of child maltreatment - whether child had any or none 0.08
3
- 297 - 0
CPS substantiated AND unsubstantiated reps of child neglect - whether child had any or none -0.15
-5
- 309 - 0
CPS substantiated AND unsubstantiated reps of child neglect - whether child had any or none 0.09
3
- 297 - 0
CPS substantiated AND unsubstantiated reps of child neglect - whether child had any or none 0.03
1
- 297 - 0
child hospitalized for ambulatory care sensitive conditions -0.05
-2
- 268 - 0
Parent child Conflict Tactics Scale - psychological aggression in the past year 0.14
5
- 249 - 0
Parent child Conflict Tactics Scale - mild physical assault in the past year 0.18
7
- 249 - 0
Child Seen in Emergency Department for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions -0.13
-5
- 268 - 0
Green, 2017
Any Maltreatment Report -0.10
-3
- 2707 - 9
Any Substantiated Child Maltreatment Report -0.03
-1
- 2707 - 9
Any Unsubstantiated Child Maltreatment Report -0.14
-5
- 2707 - 9
Any Substantiated CPS Report: Neglect -0.04
-1
- 2707 - 9
Any Substantiated CPS Report: Physical or Sexual Abuse 0.29
11
- 2707 - 9
Jacobs, 2016
At Least One Substantiated Child Maltreatment Report to DCF (Age 27 Months) 0.08
3
- 690 - 0
McFarlane, 2013
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Psychological Abuse (Child Age 1 to 3 Years) 0.12
4
- 550 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Physical Abuse (Child Age 1 to 3 Years) 0.13
5
- 550 - 0
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Incident Resulting in Injury (Child Age 1 to 3 Years) 0.15
5
- 550 - 0
Mitchell-Herzfeld, 2005
Any Minor Physical Aggression (CTS-PC) 0.12
4
- 1060 - 0
Any Child Neglect (CTS-PC) 0.29
11
- 1060 - 0
Any Substantiated Abuse or Neglect Report (CPS Data) -0.16
-6
- 1060 - 0
Frequency of Minor Physical Aggression (CTS-PC) Favorable *
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
Frequency of Psychological Aggression (CTS-PC) Favorable *
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
Frequency of Child Neglect (CTS-PC) Null
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
Number of Substantiated Abuse or Neglect Reports (CPS Data) Null
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
Any Severe or Very Severe Physical Abuse (CTS-PC) 0.19
7
- 1060 - 0
Frequency of Severe or Very Severe Physical Abuse (CTS-PC) Favorable *
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory: Views of Corporal Punishment Null
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
Number of Emergency Room Visits for Child Null
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
Any ER Visits for Injury or Ingestion -0.31
-12
- 1060 - 0
Child permanency -0.04
-1
4 (6) 4752 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 6
Unfavorable: 0
-
DuMont, 2010
Any Foster Care Placement for Target Child (Birth to Age 7) 0.01
0
- 1173 - 24
Duggan, 2004
Mother Ever Relinquished Role as Primary Caregiver (Age 0 to 3) 0.04
1
- 550 - 0
Mother Ever Relinquished Role as Primary Caregiver for 6 or More Months (Age 0 to 3) -0.04
-1
- 550 - 0
Duggan, 2007
Child didn't live with mother for one or more months -0.10
-4
- 322 - 0
Green, 2017
Any Out of Home Placement -0.32
-12
- 2707 - 9
Days in Out of Home Placement -0.03
-1
- 2707 - 9
Child well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning 0.10
3
2 (7) 1146 Favorable: 5
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
-
Caldera, 2007
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing (Caregiver Report) 0.28 *
11
- 249 - 0
Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Caregiver Report) 0.36 *
14
- 249 - 0
Child Behavior Checklist: Externalizing Score in Normal Range (Caregiver Report) 0.44 *
16
- 249 - 0
Child Behavior Checklist: Internalizing (Caregiver Report) 0.24 *
9
- 249 - 0
DuMont, 2010
Child Behavior Checklist: Anxious-Depressed 0.03
1
- 897 - 24
Child Behavior Checklist: Withdrawn-Depressed 0.04
1
- 897 - 24
Duggan, 2005
Child Behavior Checklist: Total Score 0.33 *
12
- 249 - 0
Child well-being: Social functioning 0.04
1
1 (2) 897 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
-
DuMont, 2010
Child Behavior Checklist: Social Problems 0.04
1
- 897 - 24
Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Questionnaire: Social Isolation 0.03
1
- 793 - 24
Child well-being: Cognitive functions and abilities 0.08
3
3 (9) 1555 Favorable: 2
No Effect: 6
Unfavorable: 1
-
Caldera, 2007
Bayley Scales of Infant Development: Mental Development Index 0.29 *
11
- 249 - 0
Bayley Scales of Infant Development: Mental Development Index Score (% in Normal Range) 0.27 *
10
- 249 - 0
DuMont, 2010
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV: Receptive Vocabulary (Standard Score) -0.16 *
-6
- 793 - 24
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV: Receptive Vocabulary (% Below Average) 0.08
3
- 793 - 24
Self-Regulation Delay of Gratification Task: % Delayed/Waited Full Time -0.02
0
- 793 - 24
Self-Regulation Task: % Resisted Temptation 0.00
0
- 793 - 24
King, 2005
Preschool Language Scale-3: Prevalence of Severe Language Delays 0.14
5
- 513 - 0
Preschool Language Scale-3: Prevalence of Any Language Delays 0.02
0
- 513 - 0
Preschool Language Scale-3: Total Score 0.06
2
- 513 - 0
Child well-being: Physical development and health 0.09
3
2 (6) 816 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 6
Unfavorable: 0
-
Caldera, 2007
Bayley Scales of Infant Development: Psychomotor Development Index 0.19
7
- 249 - 0
Bayley Scales of Infant Development: Psychomotor Development Index (% in Normal Range) 0.19
7
- 249 - 0
Adequate Number of Well Child Visits 0.02
0
- 249 - 0
Immunizations Up-to-Date for Age -0.01
0
- 249 - 0
Duggan, 1999
Child Ever Hospitalized for Any Reason in Past Year (Child Age 1) 0.04
1
- 564 - 0
Child Ever Hospitalized for Any Reason in Past Year (Child Age 2) 0.11
4
- 567 - 0
Child well-being: Delinquent behavior 0.64 *
23
1 (1) 793 Favorable: 1
No Effect: 0
Unfavorable: 0
-
DuMont, 2010
Child Skips School Often 0.64 *
23
- 793 - 24
Child well-being: Educational Achievement and Attainment 0.20
7
1 (3) 577 Favorable: 1
No Effect: 2
Unfavorable: 0
-
Kirkland, 2012
% Retained in 1st Grade (School Records) 0.44 *
17
- 577 - 24
Performed Above Grade Level in Reading and Math (1st Grade School Records) 0.01
0
- 577 - 24
Performed Below Grade Level in Reading or Math (1st Grade School Records) 0.14
5
- 577 - 24
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices 0.11
4
3 (24) 1338 Favorable: 3
No Effect: 21
Unfavorable: 0
-
Caldera, 2007
Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Teaching Scale: Child Behavior -0.02
0
- 249 - 0
HOME: Total Score 0.18
7
- 249 - 0
Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Teaching Scale: Total Mother Behavior Score 0.15
5
- 249 - 0
Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Teaching Scale: Mother Sensitivity to Cues 0.19
7
- 249 - 0
Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Teaching Scale: Mother Response to Distress 0.20
7
- 249 - 0
Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Teaching Scale: Mother Social-emotional Growth Fostering 0.18
7
- 249 - 0
Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Teaching Scale: Mother Cognitive Growth Fostering -0.04
-1
- 249 - 0
DuMont, 2008
Positive Parenting: Puzzle Solving Task (Parent Observation) 0.46 *
17
- 522 - 0
Positive Parenting: Delay of Gratification Task (Parent Observation) 0.34 *
13
- 522 - 0
Positive Parenting: Cleanup Task (Parent Observation) 0.29 *
11
- 522 - 0
Harsh Parenting: Puzzle Solving Task (Parent Observation) Null
not calculated
- 522 - 0
Harsh Parenting: Delay of Gratification Task (Parent Observation) Null
not calculated
- 522 - 0
Harsh Parenting: Cleanup Task (Parent Observation) Null
not calculated
- 522 - 0
Role Reversal: Puzzle Solving Task (Parent Observation) Null
not calculated
- 522 - 0
Role Reversal: Delay of Gratification Task (Parent Observation) Null
not calculated
- 522 - 0
Role Reversal: Cleanup Task (Parent Observation) Null
not calculated
- 522 - 0
Duggan, 1999
NCAST: Mother-Child Interaction Caregiver Total Score (Child Age 1) 0.05
1
- 564 - 0
NCAST: Mother-Child Interaction Child Total Score (Child Age 1) 0.10
3
- 564 - 0
NCAST: Mother-Child Interaction Caregiver Total Score (Child Age 2) 0.09
3
- 567 - 0
NCAST: Mother-Child Interaction Child Total Score (Child Age 2) 0.00
0
- 567 - 0
Duggan, 2004
Conflict Tactics Scale: Psychological Aggression Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 1) 0.15
5
- 558 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Psychological Aggression Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 2) 0.11
4
- 549 - 0
Conflict Tactics Scale: Psychological Aggression Ever Used in Past Year (Child Age 3) 0.06
2
- 541 - 0
HOME: Acceptance of Child's Behavior 0.12
4
- 550 - 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health 0.10
3
3 (16) 1873 Favorable: 3
No Effect: 13
Unfavorable: 0
-
Duggan, 2004
CES-D: Depressive Symptoms (Child Age 1) 0.00
0
- 564 - 0
CES-D: Depressive Symptoms (Child Age 2) 0.09
3
- 556 - 0
CES-D: Depressive Symptoms (Child Age 3) 0.00
0
- 548 - 0
PSI-SF: Severe Parenting Stress (Child Age 1) -0.06
-2
- 564 - 0
PSI-SF: Severe Parenting Stress (Child Age 2) 0.08
3
- 556 - 0
PSI-SF: Severe Parenting Stress (Child Age 3) 0.00
0
- 548 - 0
Mental Health Index-5: Poor General Mental Health (Child Age 1) 0.25 *
9
- 564 - 0
Mental Health Index-5: Poor General Mental Health (Child Age 2) 0.08
3
- 556 - 0
Mental Health Index-5: Poor General Mental Health (Child Age 3) 0.09
3
- 548 - 0
Duggan, 2007
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale 0.14
5
- 249 - 0
Parenting Stress Inventory: Parent Domain 0.28 *
11
- 249 - 0
McFarlane, 2013
CES-D: Depressive Symptoms (Child Age 1 to 3 Years) 0.04
1
- 550 - 0
PSI-SF: Severe Parenting Stress (Child Age 1 to 3 Years) -0.01
0
- 550 - 0
Mental Health Index-5: Poor General Mental Health (Child Age 1 to 3 Years) 0.17 *
6
- 550 - 0
Mitchell-Herzfeld, 2005
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale: Depressive Symptoms Null
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale: Scored Above Depression Cutoff 0.06
2
- 1060 - 0
Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver substance use 0.06
2
3 (15) 1876 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 15
Unfavorable: 0
-
Duggan, 1999
Addiction Severity Index: Alcohol or Illicit Drug Use (Child Age 1) 0.09
3
- 564 - 0
Addiction Severity Index: Alcohol or Illicit Drug Use (Child Age 2) 0.08
3
- 567 - 0
Duggan, 2004
Addiction Severity Index: Illicit Drug Use (Child Age 1) 0.00
0
- 564 - 0
Addiction Severity Index: Illicit Drug Use (Child Age 2) 0.06
2
- 556 - 0
Addiction Severity Index: Illicit Drug Use (Child Age 3) -0.13
-5
- 548 - 0
CAGE: Problem Alcohol Use (Child Age 1) 0.15
5
- 564 - 0
CAGE: Problem Alcohol Use (Child Age 2) 0.08
3
- 556 - 0
CAGE: Problem Alcohol Use (Child Age 3) 0.24
9
- 548 - 0
Duggan, 2007
Any Parental Self-report of Illicit Drug Use in Previous Two Years -0.13
-5
- 249 - 0
McFarlane, 2013
Addiction Severity Index: Illicit Drug Use (Child Age 1 to 3 Years) -0.02
0
- 550 - 0
CAGE: Problem Alcohol Use (Child Age 1 to 3 Years) 0.16
6
- 550 - 0
Mitchell-Herzfeld, 2005
Current Smoker 0.06
2
- 1060 - 0
Cigarettes Smoked Per Day Null
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
AUDIT Alcohol Abuse Score Null
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
Scored Above AUDIT Alcohol Abuse Cutoff 0.40
15
- 1060 - 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning -0.02
0
3 (30) 1952 Favorable: 3
No Effect: 27
Unfavorable: 0
-
Bair-Merritt, 2010
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Rate: Overall Rate (CTS2, Child Age 1 to 3) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 0
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Rate: Overall Rate (CTS2, Child Age 1 to 3) Favorable *
not calculated
- 643 - 0
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Rate: Overall Rate (CTS2, Child Age 7 to 9) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 60
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Rate: Overall Rate (CTS2, Child Age 7 to 9) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 60
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Rate: Physical Assault (CTS2, Child Age 1 to 3) Favorable *
not calculated
- 643 - 0
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Rate: Verbal Abuse (CTS2, Child Age 1 to 3) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 0
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Rate: Sexual Violence (CTS2, Child Age 1 to 3) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 0
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Rate: Injury (CTS2, Child Age 1 to 3) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 0
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Rate: Physical Assault (CTS2, Child Age 1 to 3) Favorable *
not calculated
- 643 - 0
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Rate: Verbal Abuse (CTS2, Child Age 1 to 3) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 0
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Rate: Sexual Violence (CTS2, Child Age 1 to 3) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 0
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Rate: Injury (CTS2, Child Age 1 to 3) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 0
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Rate: Physical Assault (CTS2, Child Age 7 to 9) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 60
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Rate: Verbal Abuse (CTS2, Child Age 7 to 9) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 60
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Rate: Sexual Violence (CTS2, Child Age 7 to 9) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 60
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Rate: Injury (CTS2, Child Age 7 to 9) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 60
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Rate: Physical Assault (CTS2, Child Age 7 to 9) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 60
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Rate: Verbal Abuse (CTS2, Child Age 7 to 9) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 60
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Rate: Sexual Violence (CTS2, Child Age 7 to 9) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 60
Maternal Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Rate: Injury (CTS2, Child Age 7 to 9) Null
not calculated
- 643 - 60
Caldera, 2007
Has Health Care Coverage -0.44
-16
- 249 - 0
Duggan, 1999
Child Immunizations Up to Date (Child Age 1) Null
not calculated
- 564 - 0
Child Immunizations Up to Date (Child Age 2) Null
not calculated
- 567 - 0
Community Life Skills Scale: Total Score (Child Age 1) -0.03
-1
- 564 - 0
Community Life Skills Scale: Total Score (Child Age 2) 0.00
0
- 567 - 0
Parenting Stress Index: Total Score (Child Age 1) 0.02
0
- 564 - 0
Parenting Stress Index: Total Score (Child Age 2) 0.15
5
- 567 - 0
Mitchell-Herzfeld, 2005
Child Has Primary Care Provider -0.08
-3
- 1060 - 0
Child Ever Without Needed Medical Care -0.28
-10
- 1060 - 0
Number of Well-Baby Visits Null
not calculated
- 1060 - 0
Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability -0.08
-3
3 (6) 1876 Favorable: 0
No Effect: 6
Unfavorable: 0
-
Duggan, 1999
Someone in Household Worked (Child Age 1) -0.06
-2
- 564 - 0
Someone in Household Worked (Child Age 2) 0.07
2
- 567 - 0
Duggan, 2005
Household Income Above Federal Poverty Level -0.02
0
- 249 - 0
Any Household Member Employed Outside Home -0.07
-2
- 249 - 0
Mitchell-Herzfeld, 2005
Mother was Employed -0.17
-6
- 1060 - 0
Mother Received Greater Than 50% of Income From Work -0.13
-5
- 1060 - 0

*p <.05

Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.

Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.

Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.

Sometimes study results are reported in more than one document, or a single document reports results from multiple studies. Studies are identified below by their Prevention Services Clearinghouse study identification numbers.

Studies Rated High

Study 10244

Green, B. L., Tarte, J. M., Harrison, P. M., Nygren, M., & Sanders, M. B. (2014). Results from a randomized trial of the Healthy Families Oregon accredited statewide program: Early program impacts on parenting. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 288-298. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.006

Green, B. L., Sanders, M. B., & Tarte, J. (2017). Using administrative data to evaluate the effectiveness of the Healthy Families Oregon home visiting program: 2-year impacts on child maltreatment & service utilization. Children and Youth Services Review, 75, 77-86. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.02.019

Green, B., Sanders, M. B., & Tarte, J. M. (2018). Effects of home visiting program implementation on preventive health care access and utilization: Results from a randomized trial of Healthy Families Oregon. Prevention Science. (Online Advance) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0964-8

Study 10137

Earle, R.B. (1995).Helping to prevent child abuse and future criminal consequences: Hawai'i Healthy Start. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394651).

Duggan, A. K., McFarlane, E. C., Windham, A. M., Rohde, C. A., Salkever, D. S., Fuddy, L., . . . Sia, C. C. J. (1999). Evaluation of Hawaii's Healthy Start program. Future of Children, 9(1), 66-90.

Duggan, A., Fuddy, L., Burrell, L., Higman, S. M., McFarlane, E., Windham, A., & Sia, C. (2004). Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse: Impact in reducing parental risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(6), 623-643. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.08.008

Duggan, A., McFarlane, E., Fuddy, L., Burrell, L., Higman, S. M., Windham, A., & Sia, C. (2004). Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse: Impact in preventing child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(6), 597-622. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.08.007

El-Kamary, S. S., Higman, S. M., Fuddy, L., McFarlane, E., Sia, C., & Duggan, A. K. (2004). Hawaii's Healthy Start home visiting program: Determinants and impact of rapid repeat birth. Pediatrics, 114(3), e317-326.

King, T. M., Rosenberg, L. A., Fuddy, L., McFarlane, E., Sia, C., & Duggan, A. K. (2005). Prevalence and early identification of language delays among at-risk three year olds. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26(4), 293-303. doi:10.1097/00004703-200508000-00006

Bair-Merritt, M. H., Jennings, J. M., Chen, R., Burrell, L., McFarlane, E., Fuddy, L., & Duggan, A. K. (2010). Reducing maternal intimate partner violence after the birth of a child: A randomized controlled trial of the Hawaii Healthy Start home visitation program. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(1), 16-23. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.237

McFarlane, E., Burrell, L., Crowne, S., Cluxton-Keller, F., Fuddy, L., Leaf, P., & Duggan, A. (2013). Maternal relationship security as a moderator of home visiting impacts on maternal psychosocial functioning.Prevention Science, 14(1), 25-39.

Study 10138

Greene, R., Heck, J., Lee, E., Griffith, J., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., & Senkulics, D. (2001).Evaluation findings of the Healthy Families New York home visiting program.Rensselaer, NY: State of New York, Office of Children and Family Services.

Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Izzo, C., Greene, R., Lee, E., & Lowenfels, A. (2005). Evaluation of Healthy Families New York (HFNY): First year program impacts. Albany, NY: University at Albany, Center for Human Services Research.

DuMont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Greene, R., Lee, E., Lowenfels, A., & Rodriguez, M. (2006). Healthy Families New York (HFNY) randomized trial: Impacts on parenting after the first two years.Working Paper Series: Evaluating Healthy Families, OCFS Working Paper #1.

DuMont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Greene, R., Lee, E., Lowenfels, A., Rodriguez, M., & Dorabawila, V. (2008). Healthy Families New York (HFNY) randomized trial: Effects on early child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(3), 295-315. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.07.007

DuMont, K. A., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S. D., Kirkland, K., Rodriguez, M., Walden, N., Greene, R., et al. (2008).Effects of Healthy Families New York on maternal behaviors: Observational assessments of positive and negative parenting. Rensselaer, New York: New York State Office of Children and Family Services.

Lee, E., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S. D., Lowenfels, A. A., Greene, R., Dorabawila, V., & DuMont, K. A. (2009). Reducing low birth weight through home visitation: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(2), 154-160. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.029

DuMont, K., Kirkland, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., Ehrhard-Dietzel, S., Rodriguez, M. L., Lee, E., ... & Greene, R. (2010).A randomized trial of Healthy Families New York (HFNY): Does home visiting prevent child maltreatment?Rensselaer, NY: New York State Office of Children & Family Services and Albany, NY: University of Albany, State University of New York.

Rodriguez, M. L., Dumont, K., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S. D., Walden, N. J., & Greene, R. (2010). Effects of Healthy Families New York on the promotion of maternal parenting competencies and the prevention of harsh parenting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(10), 711-723. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.03.004

Kirkland, K., & Mitchell-Herzfeld, S. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of home visiting services in promoting children's adjustment in school. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Lee, E., Kirkland, K., Miranda-Julian, C., & Greene, R. (2018). Reducing maltreatment recurrence through home visitation: A promising intervention for child welfare involved families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 86, 55-66. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.09.004

Study 10141

Duggan, A., Caldera, D. Rodriguez, K., Burrell, L., Shea, S., & Rohde, C. (2005). Evaluation of the Healthy Families Alaska program: Final report. Juneau, AK: Alaska State Department of Health and Social Services.

Caldera, D., Burrell, L., Rodriguez, K., Crowne, S. S., Rohde, C., & Duggan, A. (2007). Impact of a statewide home visiting program on parenting and on child health and development. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(8), 829-852. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.02.008

Duggan, A., Caldera, D., Rodriguez, K., Burrell, L., Rohde, C., & Crowne, S. S. (2007). Impact of a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(8), 801-827. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.011

Duggan, A. K., Berlin, L. J., Cassidy, J., Burrell, L., & Tandon, S. D. (2009). Examining maternal depression and attachment insecurity as moderators of the impacts of home visiting for at-risk mothers and infants. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 788-799. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015709

Cluxton-Keller, F., Burrell, L., Crowne, S. S., McFarlane, E., Tandon, S. D., Leaf, P. J., & Duggan, A. K. (2014). Maternal relationship insecurity and depressive symptoms as moderators of home visiting impacts on child outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(8), 1430-1443. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9799-x


Studies Rated Moderate

Study 10139

Easterbrooks, M. A., Bartlett, J. D., Raskin, M., Goldberg, J., Contreras, M. M., Kotake, C., . . . Jacobs, F. H. (2013). Limiting home visiting effects: Maternal depression as a moderator of child maltreatment. Pediatrics, S126-133. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-1021K

Jacobs, F., Easterbrooks, A., Mistry, J., Bumgarner, E., Fauth, R., Goldberg, J., ... & Scott, J. (2015). The Massachusetts Healthy Families Evaluation-2 (MHFE-2): A randomized controlled trial of a statewide home visiting program for young parents. Medford, MA: Tufts University.

Jacobs, F., Easterbrooks, M. A., Goldberg, J., Mistry, J., Bumgarner, E., Raskin, M., . . . Fauth, R. (2016). Improving adolescent parenting: Results from a randomized controlled trial of a home visiting program for young families. American Journal of Public Health, 106(2), 342-349. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302919

Tufts Interdisciplinary Evaluation Research (TIER) (2017). The Massachusetts Healthy Families Evaluation-2 Early Childhood (MHFE-2EC): Follow-up study of a randomized, controlled trial of a statewide home visiting program for young parents. Final report to Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Children’s Trust of Massachusetts. Medford, MA: Tufts University.

Raskin, M., Easterbrooks, M. A., Fauth, R. C., Jacobs, F., Fosse, N. E., Goldberg, J. L., & Mistry, J. (2017). Patterns of goal attainment among young mothers in a home visiting program.Applied Developmental Science. (Online Advance). DOI: 10.1080/10888691.2017.1357475

Stargel, L. E., Fauth, R. C., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (2018). Home visiting program impacts on reducing homelessness among young mothers.Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 27(1), 8992.

Easterbrooks, M. A., Jacobs, F. H., Bartlett, J. D., Goldberg, J., Contreras, M. M., Kotake, C., ... & Chaudhuri, J. H. (2012). Initial findings from a randomized, controlled trial of Healthy Families Massachusetts: Early program impacts on young mothers parenting. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.

Easterbrooks, M. A., Kotake, C., Raskin, M., & Bumgarner, E. (2016). Patterns of depression among adolescent mothers: Resilience related to father support and home visiting program.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86(1), 61-68.

Easterbrooks, M. A., Kotake, C., & Fauth, R. (2019). Recurrence of maltreatment after newborn home visiting: A randomized control trial. American Journal of Public Health. (Online Advance). doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.304957


Studies Rated Low

Study 10251

LeCroy, C. W., & Davis, M. F. (2017). Randomized trial of Healthy Families Arizona: Quantitative and qualitative outcomes. Research on Social Work Practice, 27(7), 747-757. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049731516632594

LeCroy, C. W., & Lopez, D. (2018). A randomized controlled trial of Healthy Families: 6-month and 1-year follow-up. Prevention Science. (Online Advance) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0931-4

This study received a low rating because the standards for addressing missing data were not met.
Study 10247

LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. (2002). Healthy Families Arizona Evaluation Report 2002. Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc.

This study received a low rating because none of the target outcomes met measurement standards.
Study 10245

Norton, D. R. (1998). Healthy Families Pilot Program. Report #98-1. Phoenix, AZ: State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General.

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 10249

Krysik, J., & LeCroy, C. W. (2007). The evaluation of healthy families arizona: A multisite home visitation program. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 34(1-2), 109-127. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J005v34n01_06

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 10148

Rausch, J. C., McCord, M., Batista, M., & Anisfeld, E. (2012).Latino immigrant children's health: Effects of sociodemographic variables and of a preventive intervention program.International Journal of Population Research, 2012,Article ID 250276, 8 pages. doi:10.1155/2012/250276

Anisfeld, E., Sandy, J., & Guterman, N. B. (2004). Best Beginnings: A randomized controlled trial of a paraprofessional home visiting program: Technical report. Report to the Smith Richardson Foundation and New York State Office of Children and Family Services. New York: Columbia University School of Social Work.

Sandy, J., Anisfeld, E., & Ramirez, E. (2009). Effects of a prenatal intervention on breastfeeding initiation rates in a Latina immigrant sample.Journal of Human Lactation, 25(4), 404411.

This study received a low rating because it did not meet the statistical model standards.
Study 10248

LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. (2004). Healthy Families Arizona Evaluation Report 2004. Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc.

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 10246

Davenport, D. K. (2000). Healthy Families Program. Report No. 00-1. Phoenix, AZ: State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General.

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.

Studies Reviewed for Risk of Harm

Study 10239

Daro, D., McCurdy, K., & Harding, K. (1998). The role of home visiting in preventing child abuse: An evaluation of the Hawaii Healthy Start Program. Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research, National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse.

McCurdy, K. (2001). Can home visitation enhance maternal social support? American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(1), 97-112. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005201530070

McCurdy, K. (2005). The influence of support and stress on maternal attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(3), 251-268. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.12.007

Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research (1996). Intensive home visitation: A randomized trial, follow-up and risk assessment study of Hawaiis Healthy Start Program: Final report. Washington, DC: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.

Study 10242

Gessner, B. D. (2008). The effect of Alaska's home visitation program for high-risk families on trends in abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(3), 317-333. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.08.004

Study 10142

Green, B. L., Lambarth, C. H., Tarte, J. M., & Snoddy, A. M. (2008). Healthy Start of Oregon annual report on maltreatment prevention, 2006-07. Salem, OR: Oregon Commission on Children and Families.

Green, B. L., Lambarth, C. H., Tarte, J. M., & Snoddy, A. M. (2009). Oregon's Health Start maltreatment prevention report, 2007-08. Salem, OR: Oregon Commission on Children and Families.

Study 10211

Berlin, L. J., Martoccio, T. L., Appleyard Carmody, K., Goodman, W. B., ODonnell, K., Williams, J., . . . Dodge, K. A. (2017). Can typical US home visits affect infant attachment? Preliminary findings from a randomized trial of Healthy Families Durham. Attachment & Human Development, 19(6), 559-579.

Study 10240

Dew, B., & Breakey, G. (2014). An evaluation of Hawaii's Healthy Start program using child abuse hospitalization data. Journal of Family Violence, 29(8), 893-900. doi:10.1007/s10896-014-9642-1

Study 10250

LeCroy, C. W., & Krysik, J. (2011). Randomized trial of the Healthy Families Arizona home visiting program. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(10), 1761-1766. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.036

Study 10243

Green, B. L., & Tarte, J. M. (2013). Healthy Families Oregon maltreatment prevention report program year 2010-11. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education.

Study 10155

Greene, R., Heck, J., Lee, E., Griffith, J., Mitchell-Herzfeld, S., & Senkulics, D. (2001). Evaluation findings of the Healthy Families New York home visiting program. Rensselaer, NY: State of New York, Office of Children and Family Services.

Study 10140

Falconer, M. K., Clark, M. H., & Parris, D. (2011). Validity in an evaluation of Healthy Families Florida program to prevent child abuse and neglect. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 66-77. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.014

Williams, Stern and Associates. (2005). Healthy Families Florida evaluation report: January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003. Miami, FL: Williams, Stern and Associates.

Study 10219

Illinois Department of Human Services. (2006). Healthy Families Illinois: Evaluation Findings Executive Summary.


Studies Not Eligible for Review

Study 10136

August, E. M., Salihu, H. M., de la Cruz, C. Z., Mbah, A. K., Alio, A. P., & Lo Berry, E. (2015). A quasi-experimental design to assess the effectiveness of the federal Healthy Start in reducing preterm birth among obese mothers. The Journal Of Primary Prevention, 36(3), 205-212. doi:10.1007/s10935-015-0389-0

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10143

Donovan, E. F., Ammerman, R. T., Besl, J., Atherton, H., Khoury, J. C., Altaye, M., ... & Van Ginkel, J. B. (2007). Intensive home visiting is associated with decreased risk of infant death. Pediatrics, 119(6), 1145–1151.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10144

Davenport, D. K. (2001). Healthy Families Program. Report No. 01-02.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 10145

Leung, C., Tsang, S., & Heung, K. (2013). Pilot evaluation of a home visit parent training program in disadvantaged families. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(4), 397-406. doi:10.1177/1049731511404904

Leung, C., Tsang, S., & Heung, K. (2015). The effectiveness of Healthy Start home visit program: Cluster randomized controlled trial. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(3), 322-333.

Cramer, M. E., Chen, L.-W., Roberts, S., & Clute, D. (2007). Evaluating the social and economic impact of community-based prenatal care. Public Health Nursing, 24(4), 329-336. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.10.023

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10147

Cullen, J. P., Ownbey, J. B., & Ownbey, M. A. (2010). The effects of the healthy families america home visitation program on parenting attitudes and practices and child social and emotional competence. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 27(5), 335-354. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10560-010-0206-9

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 10149

Salihu, H. M., August, E. M., Jeffers, D. F., Mbah, A. K., Alio, A. P., & Berry, E. (2011). Effectiveness of a federal Healthy Start program in reducing primary and repeat teen pregnancies: Our experience over the decade. Journal Of Pediatric And Adolescent Gynecology, 24(3), 153-160. doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2011.01.001

Salihu, H. M., August, E. M., Mbah, A. K., Alio, A. P., Berry, E. L., & Aliyu, M. H. (2014). Impact of a federal Healthy Start program on feto-infant morbidity associated with absent fathers: A quasi-experimental study. Maternal and child health journal, 18(9), 2054-2060. doi:10.1007/s10995-014-1451-x

Salihu, H. M., Mbah, A. K., Jeffers, D., Alio, A. P., & Berry, L. (2009). Healthy Start program and feto-infant morbidity outcomes: Evaluation of program effectiveness. Maternal & Child Health Journal, 13(1), 56-65. doi:10.1007/s10995-008-0400-y

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10150

Shenk, C., Ammerman, R., Teeters, A., Bensman, H., Allen, E., Putnam, F., . . . Van Ginkel, J. B. (2017). History of maltreatment in childhood and subsequent parenting stress in at-risk, first-time mothers: Identifying points of intervention during home visiting. Prevention Science, 18(3), 361-370. doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0758-4

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10151

Smith, M. V., Shao, L., Howell, H., Lin, H., & Yonkers, K. A. (2011). Perinatal depression and birth outcomes in a healthy start project. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(3), 401-409. doi:10.1007/s10995-010-0595-6

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10152

Whipple, E. E., & Nathans, L. L. (2005). Evaluation of a rural Healthy Families America (HFA) program: The importance of context. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86(1), 71-82. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.1879

Whipple, E. E., & Whyte, J. D. (2010). Evaluation of a Healthy Families America (HFA) programme: A deeper understanding. British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 407-425. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn177

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 10153

Yonkers, K. A., Smith, M. V., Lin, H., Howell, H. B., Shao, L., Rosenheck, R. A., . . . Rosenheck, R. A. (2009). Depression screening of perinatal women: An evaluation of the Healthy Start depression initiative. Psychiatric Services, 60(3), 322-328. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.60.3.322

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10154

Kessler, S. R., Nixon, A., & Nelson, C. (2008). Don't throw out the baby with the bath water - a novel way of evaluating outcomes in the Healthy Families America programs. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(3), 288-300. doi:10.1177/1098214008319698

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 10159

Barnet, B., Liu, J. X., DeVoe, M., Alperovitz-Bichell, K., & Duggan, A. K. (2007). Home visiting for adolescent mothers: Effects on parenting, maternal life course, and primary care linkage. Annals of Family Medicine, 5(3), 224-232. doi:10.1370/afm.629

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10212

Bill, D. E., Hock-Long, L., Mesure, M., Bryer, P., & Zambrano, N. (2009). Healthy Start Programa Madrina: A promotora home visiting outreach and education program to improve perinatal health among Latina pregnant women. Health Educator, 41(2), 68-76.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10213

Meghea, C. I., Raffo, J. E., VanderMeulen, P., & Roman, L. A. (2014). Moving toward evidence-based federal Healthy Start program evaluations: Accounting for bias in birth outcomes studies. American Journal of Public Health, 104(S1), S25-27. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301276

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10214

Ownbey, M., Ownbey, J., & Cullen, J. (2011). The effects of a Healthy Families home visitation program on rapid and teen repeat births. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28(6), 439-458. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10560-011-0235-z

This study is ineligible for review because it does not report program or service impacts on an eligible target outcome (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.5).

Study 10215

Drayton, V. L. C., Walker, D. K., Ball, S. W., Donahue, S. M. A., & Fink, R. V. (2015). Selected findings from the cross-site evaluation of the federal Healthy Start program. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19(6), 1292-1305. doi:10.1007/s10995-014-1635-4

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10216

Drummond, J., Schnirer, L., So, S., Mayan, M., Williamson, D. L., Bisanz, J., . . . Wiebe, N. (2014). The protocol for the Families First Edmonton trial (FFE): A randomized community-based trial to compare four service integration approaches for families with low-income. BMC Health Services Research, 14, 223. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-223

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 10217

Goyal, N. K., Folger, A. T., Hall, E. S., Greenberg, J. M., Van Ginkel, J. B., & Ammerman, R. T. (2017). Home visiting for first–time mothers and subsequent pregnancy spacing. Journal of Perinatology, 37(2), 144-149.

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).

Study 10218

Barlow, A., Varipatis-Baker, E., Speakman, K., Ginsburg, G., Friberg, I., Goklish, N., . . . Pan, W. (2006). Home-visiting intervention to improve child care among American Indian adolescent mothers: A randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(11), 1101-1107.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).

Study 10241

Banks, J. E., Dwyer, M., Hirai, A., Ghandour, R. M., & Atrash, H. K. (2017). Design and operation of the transformed national Healthy Start evaluation. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21(Suppl 1), 40-48. doi:10.1007/s10995-017-2381-1

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).