Skip Navigation

Early Head Start-Home Visiting (EHS-HV)§

Meets DHHS criteria for an evidenced based model

Last Updated: July 2016

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details for Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Outcomes

Impact Studies Rated High


Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H. H., & Vogel, C. (2013). V. Program subgroups: Patterns of impacts for home-based, center-based, and mixed-approach programs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(1), 93-109.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Parent employed No Effect Home-based program approach Age 5 927 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Study reported = 0.00 Secondary
Parent income (dollars) Favorable Home-based program approach Age 5 927 Not reported Not reported Not reported Statistically significant, p < 0.05 Study reported = 0.16 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Parent employed Parents responded to the question "How much time in the past 6 months have you held a job or jobs in which you worked at least 20 hr per week?" (Answers were on a 5-point scale from 1-never to 5= all of the time.) Parent survey Not reported by author Secondary
Parent income (dollars) Parents provided monthly income. Parent survey Not reported by author Secondary

Love, J., Kisker, E., Ross, C. M., Schochet, P. Z., Brooks-Gunn, J., Paulsell, D., et al. (2002). Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start. Volumes I-III: Final technical report [and] appendixes [and] local contributions to understanding the programs and their impacts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Bureau.
Additional Sources:

Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Raikes, H., Constantine, J., Boller, K., et al. (2005). The effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-year-old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 885–901. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.885

Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., Cook, G. A., & Hart, A. D. (2002). Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start. Vol. 3, Local contributions to understanding the programs and their impacts. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation.

Raikes, H. H., Chazan-Cohen, R., Love, J. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Early Head Start impacts at age 3 and a description of the age 5 follow-up study. In Childhood Programs and Practices in the First Decade of Life: A Human Capital Integration. Reynolds, A.A., Rolnick, A.J., Englund, M.M, and Temple, J.A., eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 99-118.

Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Average hours per week employed No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers Adjusted mean = 14.8 Adjusted mean = 15.1 MD = -0.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.02 Secondary
Average hours per week in any employment, education, or training activity No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers Adjusted mean = 19.9 Adjusted mean = 18.5 MD = 1.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.09 Secondary
Average hours per week in education or training Favorable EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.5 Adjusted mean = 3.0 MD = 1.5 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study- reported = .24 Secondary
Employed: 1st quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 33.8% 36.1% -2.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.05 Secondary
Employed: 2nd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 38.2% 42.9% -4.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.10 Secondary
Employed: 3rd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 46.9% 50.1% -3.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.07 Secondary
Employed: 4th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 51.9% 51.7% 0.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.00 Secondary
Employed: 5th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 57.7% 58.9% -1.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.02 Secondary
Employed: 6th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 61.7% 58.2% 3.5 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.07 Secondary
Employed: 7th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 57.5% 55% 2.5 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.05 Secondary
Employed: 8th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 55.9% 59.9% -4.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.08 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 1st quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 47.3% 48.4% -1.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.02 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 2nd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 53.4% 55.5% -2.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.04 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 3rd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 62.3% 62.9% -0.6 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.01 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 4th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 65.2% 61.6% 3.6 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.08 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 5th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 69.6% 67.9% 1.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.04 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 6th quarter Favorable EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 72.9% 66.4% 6.5 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = 0.14 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 7th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 66.4% 62.7% 3.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.08 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 8th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 65.2% 66.6% -14 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.03 Secondary
Ever employed No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 83.1% 81.8% 1.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.04 Secondary
Ever employed or in education/training No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 90.5% 88.9% 1.6 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.05 Secondary
Ever in education or training Favorable EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 53.1% 45.5% 7.6 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = 0.15 Secondary
Ever received AFDC or TANF No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 55.2% 52.5% 2.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.06 Secondary
Ever received food stamps No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 66.7 65.4 1.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.03 Secondary
Ever received welfare No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 72.9 70.5 2.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.05 Secondary
Have GED No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 8.5% 11.5% 3.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.09 Secondary
Have high school diploma No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 49.1% 45.7% 3.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.07 Secondary
In education or training: 1st quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 21.2% 21.6% -0.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.01 Secondary
In education or training: 2nd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 25.1% 22.9% 2.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.05 Secondary
In education or training: 3rd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 28.2% 26.5% 1.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.04 Secondary
In education or training: 4th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 27.1% 22.5% 4.6 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.11 Secondary
In education or training: 5th quarter Favorable EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 28.6% 22.9% 5.7 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = 0.13 Secondary
In education or training: 6th quarter Favorable EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 28.7% 21.3% 7.4 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study- reported = 0.18 Secondary
In education or training: 7th quarter Favorable EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 23.1% 17.6% 5.5 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = 0.14 Secondary
In education or training: 8th quarter Favorable EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 24.3% 15.6% 8.7 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study- reported = 0.22 Secondary
Income above poverty line, (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers Adjusted mean = 41.1% Adjusted mean = 40.8% MD = 0.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.05 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 1st quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 42.2% 29.4% 12.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.06 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 2nd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 41.9% 42.4% -0.5 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.01 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 3rd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 46.2% 43.9% 2.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.05 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 4th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 37.2% 38.1% -0.9 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.02 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 5th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 36% 37.8% -1.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.04 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 6th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 36.4% 38.5% -2.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.05 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 7th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 27.4% 32.1% -4.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.11 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 8th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 27.8% 27.8% 0.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.00 Secondary
Total AFDC or TANF benefits ($) No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 2675.5 2833.8 -158.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.04 Secondary
Total food stamps benefits ($) No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers Adjusted mean = 2,297.8 Adjusted mean = 2,152.5 MD = 145.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.05 Secondary
Total welfare benefits ($) No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers Adjusted mean = 5,928.6 Adjusted mean = 6,088.8 MD = -160.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.02 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Average hours per week employed The average hours per week that program participants spent in paid work Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Average hours per week in any employment, education, or training activity The average hours per week that program participants spent in school, job/vocational training, or employment activities Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Average hours per week in education or training The average hours per week that program participants spend in school or job/vocational training Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Employed Percentage of parents who were employed at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th quarters after enrolling in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Employment, education, or training Percentage of parents who participated in school, job/vocational training, or employment activities at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th quarters after enrolling in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever employed Percentage of parents who had ever been employed during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever employed or in education/training Percentage of parents who had ever participated in an education or job training program or been employed during their time in the program Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever in education or training Percentage of parents who had ever participated in an education or job training program during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever received AFDC or TANF Percentage of households that had ever received AFDC or TANF during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever received food stamps Percentage of households that had ever received food stamps during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever received welfare Percentage of households that had ever received welfare benefits during their time in the program, including (1) AFDC or TANF, (2) SSI, (3) food stamps, and (4) GA Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Has GED Percentage of parents who had earned a GED Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Has high school diploma Percentage of parents who had earned a high school diploma Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
In education or training Percentage of parents who were participating in an education or job training program at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th quarters after enrolling in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Income above poverty line Percentage of households that had a household income above the poverty line Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF Percentage of households that had ever received AFDC or TANF at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quarters after enrolling in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Total AFDC or TANF benefits A sum of reported household AFDC or TANF benefits Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Total food stamp benefits A sum of reported household food stamp benefits Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Total welfare benefits A sum of all reported household welfare benefits, including (1) AFDC or TANF, (2) SSI, (3) food stamps, and (4) GA Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Top

Impact Studies Rated Moderate


Love, J., Kisker, E., Ross, C. M., Schochet, P. Z., Brooks-Gunn, J., Paulsell, D., et al. (2002). Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start. Volumes I-III: Final technical report [and] appendixes [and] local contributions to understanding the programs and their impacts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Bureau.
Additional Sources:

Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Raikes, H., Constantine, J., Boller, K., et al. (2005). The effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-year-old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 885–901. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.885

Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., Cook, G. A., & Hart, A. D. (2002). Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start. Vol. 3, Local contributions to understanding the programs and their impacts. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation.

Raikes, H. H., Chazan-Cohen, R., Love, J. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Early Head Start impacts at age 3 and a description of the age 5 follow-up study. In Childhood Programs and Practices in the First Decade of Life: A Human Capital Integration. Reynolds, A.A., Rolnick, A.J., Englund, M.M, and Temple, J.A., eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 99-118.

Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Continuous biological father presence child age 14–36 months No Effect EHS-HV impact study 36 months postpartum 950 mothers 67.6 72 -4.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.10 Secondary
Continuous male presence child age 14–36 Unfavorable EHS-HV impact study 36 months postpartum 950 mothers 78.9 85.9 -7.0 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = -0.19 Secondary
Ever in ESL class No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 3.4% 2.4% 1.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.07 Secondary
Ever in high school Favorable EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 12.6% 6.8% 5.8 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study- reported = 0.20 Secondary
Ever in vocational program No Effect EHS-HV impact study 28 months after assignment 941 mothers 18.2% 15.7% 2.5 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.07 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Continuous biological father presence child age 14–36 months Percentage of children who had continuous contact with their biological father during the period age 14 to 36 months Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Continuous biological father presence child age 14–36 months No description provided Parent report Not applicable Secondary
Continuous male presence child age 14–36 Percentage of children who had a continuous male presence during the period age 14 to 36 months Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Continuous male presence child age 14–36 No description provided Parent report Not applicable Secondary
Ever in ESL class Percentage of parents who had ever enrolled in ESL classes during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever in high school Percentage of parents who had ever enrolled in high school during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever in vocational program Percentage of parents who had ever enrolled in a vocational training program during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Love, J., Kisker, E., Ross, C., Schochet, P., Brooks-Gunn, J., Boller, K., et al. (2001). Building their futures: How Early Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income families. Summary report. Report to Commissioner’s Office of Research and Evaluation, Head Start Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, and Department of Health and Human Services. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Show Study Effects Details
Outcome Effect Sample Timing of Follow-Up Sample Size Program Group Comparison Group Mean Difference or Odds Ratio
Statistical Significance
Effect Size
Outcome Type
Average hours per week employed No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers Adjusted mean = 12.7 Adjusted mean = 13.8 MD = -1.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.07 Secondary
Average hours per week in any employment, education, or training activity No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers Adjusted mean = 17.8 Adjusted mean = 17.7 MD = 0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.01 Secondary
Average hours per week in education or training Favorable EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.9 Adjusted mean = 3.7 MD = 1.2 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study- reported = 0.16 Secondary
Employed: 1st quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 36% 39.2% -3.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.06 Secondary
Employed: 2nd quarter Unfavorable EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 39.8% 46.4% -6.6 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = -0.13 Secondary
Employed: 3rd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 46.8% 51% -4.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.08 Secondary
Employed: 4th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 52.2% 53% -0.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.02 Secondary
Employed: 5th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 57.1% 60.8% -3.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.08 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 1st quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 53% 52.9% 0.1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.00 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 2nd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 57.9% 59.9% -2.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.04 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 3rd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 62.5% 59.9% -1.5 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.03 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 4th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 65.3% 64% 1.9 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.04 Secondary
Employment, education, or training: 5th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 69.3% 63.4% -1.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.03 Secondary
Ever employed No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 66.9% 69.6% -2.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.06 Secondary
Ever employed or in education/training No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 79.2% 80.2% -1.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.03 Secondary
Ever in education or training (percentage) Favorable EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 45.5% 39.6% 6.3 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = 0.12 Secondary
Ever in ESL class (percentage) Favorable EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 2.3% 0.7% 1.6 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = 0.15 Secondary
Ever in high school (percentage) Favorable EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 11.5% 6.2% 5.3 Statistically significant,
p < 0.01
Study- reported = 0.18 Secondary
Ever in vocational program (percentage) Favorable EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 12.7% 8.5% -6.8 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = 0.15 Secondary
Ever received AFDC or TANF No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 54.1% 52.6% - 1.5 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.03 Secondary
Ever received food stamps No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 66% 64.2% 1.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.04 Secondary
Ever received welfare No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 75.3% 69.6% 2.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.06 Secondary
Have GED No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 8.2% 9% -0.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.03 Secondary
Have high school diploma No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 46.5% 45.9% 0.6 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.01 Secondary
In education or training: 1st quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 24.5% 23.3% 1.2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.03 Secondary
In education or training: 2nd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 28.9% 24.6% 4.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.10 Secondary
In education or training: 3rd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 29.5% 26.7% 2.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.06 Secondary
In education or training: 4th quarter Favorable EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 28.2% 22.6% 5.6 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = 0.13 Secondary
In education or training: 5th quarter Favorable EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 30.5% 23.6% 6.9 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Study- reported = 0.16 Secondary
Income above poverty line, (percentage) No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers Adjusted mean = 30.5% Adjusted mean = 29.7% MD = 30.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.02 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 1st quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 43.2% 40.4% 2.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.06 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 2nd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 42.6% 43% -0.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.01 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 3rd quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 47% 44.5% 2.5 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.05 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 4th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 39.2% 39.5% -0.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.01 Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF: 5th quarter No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers 37.8% 38.8% -1.0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = -0.02 Secondary
Total AFDC or TANF benefits ($) No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers Adjusted mean = 1,967.8 Adjusted mean = 1,927.5 MD = 49.3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.02 Secondary
Total food stamps benefits ($) No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers Adjusted mean = 1,435.8 Adjusted mean = 1,400.9 MD = 34.9 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.02 Secondary
Total welfare benefits ($) No Effect EHS-HV impact study 7 to 16 months after assignment 1,059 mothers Adjusted mean = 4,141.4 Adjusted mean = 3,911.7 MD = 229.7 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Study- reported = 0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Average hours per week employed Parents were asked about jobs that they had held during the follow-up period, including the start and end dates for those jobs and the typical hours per week they worked in those jobs. From that information, the authors constructed a weekly timeline of employment activities and indicators of whether parents were employed during the first five quarters following random assignment. They also calculated the average hours per week parents spent in employment during the 15-month follow-up period. Averages include zero hours. Parent report Not applicable Secondary
Average hours per week in any employment, education, or training activity The weekly histories of education/training activities and jobs were combined to create a timeline of participation in any of these self-sufficiency activities and indicators of whether parents participated in any self-sufficiency activities during each of the first five quarters following random assignment. The authors also added the average number of hours spent in education/training and jobs to get the average number of hours parents spent in any self-sufficiency activities during the first 15 months after random assignment. Averages include zero hours. Parent report Not applicable Secondary
Average hours per week in education or training The average hours per week that program participants spent in school or job/vocational training Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Employed Percentage of parents who were employed at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quarters after enrolling in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Employment, education, or training Percentage of parents who participated in school, job/vocational training, or employment activities at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quarters after enrolling in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever employed Percentage of parents who had ever been employed during their time in the program Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever employed or in education/training Percentage of parents who had ever participated in an education or job training program or been employed during their time in the program Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever in education or training Percentage of parents who had ever participated in an education or job training program during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever in ESL class Percentage of parents who had ever enrolled in ESL classes during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever in high school Percentage of parents who had ever enrolled in high school during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever in vocational program Percentage of parents who had ever enrolled in a vocational training program during their time in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever received AFDC or TANF Parents were asked about their receipt of benefits, including the amount they received and the months during which they received it. From this information the authors created a monthly timeline of benefit receipt, as well as indicators of benefit receipt during each of the first five quarters after random assignment. They also added the benefit amounts to obtain the total amount received during the 15-month follow-up period. Parent report Not applicable Secondary
Ever received food stamps Parents were asked about their receipt of benefits, including the amount they received and the months during which they received it. From this information the authors created a monthly timeline of benefit receipt, as well as indicators of benefit receipt during each of the first five quarters after random assignment. They also added the benefit amounts to obtain the total amount received during the 15-month follow-up period. Parent report Not applicable Secondary
Ever received other welfare Percentage of households that had ever received welfare benefits during their time in the program, including (1) AFDC or TANF, (2) SSI, (3) food stamps, and (4) GA Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Ever received welfare Parents were asked about their receipt of benefits, including the amount they received and the months during which they received it. From this information the authors created a monthly timeline of benefit receipt, as well as indicators of benefit receipt during each of the first five quarters after random assignment. They also added the benefit amounts to obtain the total amount received during the 15-month follow-up period. Parent report Not applicable Secondary
Has GED Percentage of parents who had earned a GED Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Has high school diploma Percentage of parents who had earned a high school diploma Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
In education or training Percentage of parents who were participating in an education or job training program at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quarters after enrolling in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Income above poverty line, (percentage) Parents were asked about their family income during the last year. The authors compared information on their annual income and the number of children in their family with federal poverty levels to create an indicator of whether or not the family’s income during the year prior to the second follow-up was above the poverty level. Parent report Not applicable Secondary
Received AFDC or TANF Percentage of households that had ever received AFDC or TANF at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quarters after enrolling in EHS Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Total AFDC or TANF benefits A sum of reported household AFDC or TANF benefits Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Total food stamp benefits A sum of reported household food stamp benefits Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Total welfare benefits ($) A sum of all reported household welfare benefits, including (1) AFDC or TANF, (2) SSI, (3) food stamps, and (4) GA Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Top