Skip Navigation

Healthy Families America (HFA)®

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


Duggan, A. K., McFarlane, E. C., Windham, A. M., Rohde, C. A., Salkever, D. S., Fuddy, L., et al. (1999). Evaluation of Hawaii’s Healthy Start program. Future of Children, 9(1), 66–90; discussion 177–178.
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
Mother earned HS degree or in school No Effect Full sample, Hawaii trial Year 1 564 mothers 81% 80% 1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.04 Secondary
Mother earned HS degree or in school No Effect Full sample, Hawaii trial Year 2 567 mothers 82% 81% 1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.04 Secondary
Someone in household worked No Effect Full sample, Hawaii trial Year 2 567 mothers 77% 75% 2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.07 Secondary
Someone in household worked No Effect Full sample, Hawaii trial Year 1 564 mothers 68% 70% -2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.06 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Mother earned high school degree or in school Percentage of mothers who had earned a high school degree or who were currently enrolled in school Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Someone in household worked Percentage of families in which a household member was employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Landsverk, J., Carrilio, T., Connelly, C. D., Ganger, W., Slymen, D., Newton, R., et al. (2002). Healthy Families San Diego clinical trial: Technical report. San Diego, CA: The Stuart Foundation, California Wellness Foundation, State of California Department of Social Services: Office of Child Abuse Prevention.
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
Adult education No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 22% 21% 1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.04 Secondary
Adult education No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 23% 21% 2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.07 Secondary
Child support enforcement No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 14% 12% 2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.11 Secondary
Child support enforcement Unfavorable Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 10% 16% -6 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
HomVEE = -0.33 Secondary
Emergency food No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 13% 9% 4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
1
HomVEE = 0.25 Secondary
Emergency food No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 11% 8% 3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.21 Secondary
Food stamps No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 43% 44% -1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.02 Secondary
Food stamps No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 59% 58% 1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.02 Secondary
Homeless shelter No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 2% 1% 1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.43 Secondary
Homeless shelter No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 1% 1% 0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.00 Secondary
Legal aid No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 7% 4% 3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.36 Secondary
Legal aid No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 7% 6% 1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.10 Secondary
Mother earned HS degree or currently enrolled No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 58% 59% -1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.02 Secondary
Mother earned HS degree or currently enrolled No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 64% 61% 3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.08 Secondary
Mother attended school Favorable Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 37% 28% 9 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
HomVEE = 0.25 Secondary
Mother attended school No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 43% 40% 3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.07 Secondary
Mother worked No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 69% 70% -1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.03 Secondary
Mother worked No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 49% 49% 0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.00 Secondary
Section 8 housing No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 10% 7% 3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.24 Secondary
Section 8 housing No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 8% 11% -3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
1
HomVEE = -0.21 Secondary
Someone in household worked No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 84% 83% 1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.04 Secondary
Someone in household worked No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 74% 71% 3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.09 Secondary
Use of respite care No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 3% 1% 2 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.68 Secondary
Use of respite care No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 2% 1% 1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.43 Secondary
Welfare receipt No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 43% 46% -3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.07 Secondary
Welfare receipt No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 62% 63% -1 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.03 Secondary
WIC receipt No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families 91% 91% 0 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.00 Secondary
WIC receipt No Effect Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families 68% 71% -3 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.09 Secondary

1 In contrast to the study-reported results, HomVEE calculations showed this difference to be statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05). The HomVEE tests of statistical significance are based on the HomVEE calculated effect sizes, whereas authors may have used other techniques to determine statistical significance, such as regression models or analyses of variance (ANOVA).

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Adult education Percentage of parents who received adult education or job training Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Child support enforcement Percentage of families who received child support enforcement assistance Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Emergency food Percentage of families who received emergency food assistance Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Food stamps Percentage of families who received food stamps Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Homeless shelter Percentage of families who received homeless shelter services Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Legal aid Percentage of families who received legal aid Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Mother earned high school degree or currently enrolled Percentage of mothers who had earned a high school degree or who were currently enrolled in school Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Mother attended school Percentage of mothers who were attending school Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Mother worked Percentage of mothers who were employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Section 8 housing Percentage of families who received Section 8 housing assistance Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Someone in household worked Percentage of families in which a household member was employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Use of respite care Percentage of families who used respite care Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Welfare receipt Percentage of families who received AFDC Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
WIC receipt Percentage of families who received WIC Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

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.
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
School or training for mother Favorable Arizona sample 12 months 171 mothers Mean = 35.2% Mean = 6.8% MD = 0.28 Statistically significant, p = 0.01 HomVEE = 1.19 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
School or training for mother A measure of whether the participant had enrolled and was attending training or school for advancement Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Top

Impact Studies Rated Moderate


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.
Additional Sources:

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

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

Rausch, J.C., M. McCord, M. Batista, and E. Anisfeld. (2012) “Latino Immigrant Children’s Health: Effects of Sociodemographic Variables and of a Preventative Intervention Program.” International Journal of Population Research, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1155/2012/250276.

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
Increased education by year or more since baseline Favorable Program group families not affected by substance abuse,
NY Best Beginnings trial
24 months 512 families 18.4% 7.4% OR = 2.5 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
HomVEE = 0.63 Secondary
Receipt of public assistance No Effect Program group families not affected by substance abuse,
NY Best Beginnings trial
24 months 512 families Not available Not available Beta = 0.021 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
Not available Secondary

1 Study reports results using a standardized partial regression coefficient.

Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Receipt of public assistance Percentage of households receiving public assistance Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

Johns Hopkins University. (2005). Evaluation of the Healthy Families Alaska program. Report to Alaska State Department of Health and Social Services, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. Baltimore, MD: Author.
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
Household income above poverty level No Effect Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial Year 2 249 mothers 55% 56% OR = 0.97 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.02 Secondary
Household member employed No Effect Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial Year 2 249 mothers 86% 87% OR = 0.90 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.05 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Household income above poverty level Percentage of households with incomes below the poverty level Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Household member employed Percentage of households where at least one household member was employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary

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.
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
Education appropriate for age No Effect Full sample, NY trial Year 1 1,061 families 57.5% 60.3% -2.8 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.07 Secondary
Family received 50% income from work No Effect Full sample, NY trial Year 1 1,061 families 51.2% 56.6% -5.4 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = -0.13 Secondary
Family received TANF No Effect Full sample, NY trial Year 1 1,061 families 35% 30.4% 4.6 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.13 Secondary
Family received WIC No Effect Full sample, NY trial Year 1 1,061 families 74.8% 72.2% 2.6 Not statistically significant,
p > 0.05
HomVEE = 0.08 Secondary
Mother employed Unfavorable Full sample, NY trial Year 1 1,061 families 40.8% 47.6% 6.8 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
HomVEE = -0.17 Secondary
Show Study Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Description of Measure Data Collection Method Properties of the Outcome Measure Outcome Type
Family received 50% income from work Percentage of households in which 50% of the household’s income came from work Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Family received TANF Percentage of households that received TANF Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Family received WIC Percentage of families who received WIC Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Mother employed Percentage of mothers who were employed Parent/caregiver report Not applicable Secondary
Top