Healthy Families America (HFA)® Meets HHS Criteria

Last updated: 2020

Effects shown in research & outcome measure details

Reductions in child maltreatment

Findings rated high

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
No ER visits due to injuries
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child age 2 Families with complete medical record data, Alaska trial 268 children % = 19.00 % = 22.00 OR = 0.81 HomeVEE calculated = -0.11 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
No hospitalizations due to injuries
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child age 2 Families with complete medical record data, Alaska trial 268 children % = 63.00 % = 58.00 OR = 1.20 HomeVEE calculated = 0.13 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
No injuries requiring medical care
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child age 2 Families with complete medical record data, Alaska trial 268 children % = 71.00 % = 68.00 OR = 1.10 HomeVEE calculated = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

No ER visits due to injuries

Counts of child injuries that required medical care per medical record for families with complete medical record data Review of medical records

Not applicable

No hospitalizations due to injuries

Hospitalizations per medical record for families with complete medical record data Review of medical records

Not applicable

No injuries requiring medical care

Counts of child injuries that required medical care per medical record for families with complete medical record data Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Assault on child’s self-esteem (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 20.00 % = 22.00 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Statistical significance not reported
Assault on child’s self-esteem (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 35.00 % = 35.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Statistical significance not reported
Assault on child’s self-esteem (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 42.00 % = 44.00 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.05 Statistical significance not reported
Assault on child’s self-esteem (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available OR = 0.90 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Common corporal/verbal punishment (past week) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 58.00 % = 57.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.02 Not available
Common corporal/verbal punishment (past week) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 75.00 % = 74.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.03 Statistical significance not reported
Common corporal/verbal punishment (past week) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 77.00 % = 75.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Statistical significance not reported
Common corporal/verbal punishment (past week) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available OR = 1.07 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Common corporal/verbal punishment (past year) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 76.00 % = 83.00 = -7.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.26 Statistical significance not reported
Common corporal/verbal punishment (past year) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 90.00 % = 94.00 = -4.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.34 Statistical significance not reported
Common corporal/verbal punishment (past year) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 92.00 % = 95.00 = -3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.30 Statistical significance not reported
Common corporal/verbal punishment (past year) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available OR = 0.59 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Extreme physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 1.00 % = 1.00 = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Statistical significance not reported
Extreme physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 4.00 % = 4.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Statistical significance not reported
Extreme physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 4.00 % = 2.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.43 Statistical significance not reported
Extreme physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available OR = 1.26 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Hitting with an object (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 9.00 % = 8.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.08 Statistical significance not reported
Hitting with an object (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 22.00 % = 20.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Statistical significance not reported
Hitting with an object (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 28.00 % = 22.00 = -6.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.19 Statistical significance not reported
Hitting with an object (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available OR = 1.22 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Hospitalizations for trauma
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 573 children % = 1.50 % = 1.70 = 0.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Statistical significance not reported
Minor physical assault (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 68.00 % = 70.00 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.06 Statistical significance not reported
Minor physical assault (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 86.00 % = 85.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.05 Statistical significance not reported
Minor physical assault (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 86.00 % = 86.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Statistical significance not reported
Minor physical assault (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available OR = 0.90 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Neglect (Revised CTS measure) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 22.00 % = 30.00 = -8.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.25 Statistical significance not reported
Neglect (Revised CTS measure) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 23.00 % = 28.00 = -5.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.16 Statistical significance not reported
Neglect (Revised CTS measure) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 22.00 % = 27.00 = -5.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.16 Statistical significance not reported
Neglect (Revised CTS measure) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available OR = 0.72 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Neglect (Traditional CTS measure) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 24.00 % = 32.00 = -8.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.24 Statistical significance not reported
Neglect (Traditional CTS measure) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 27.00 % = 26.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.03 Statistical significance not reported
Neglect (Traditional CTS measure) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 26.00 % = 29.00 = -7.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Statistical significance not reported
Neglect (Traditional CTS measure) (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available OR = 0.80 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Nonviolent discipline, ever used in past year (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 98.00 % = 99.00 = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.43 Statistical significance not reported
Nonviolent discipline, ever used in past year (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 100.00 % = 100.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Statistical significance not reported
Nonviolent discipline, ever used in past year (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 100.00 % = 100.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Statistical significance not reported
Nonviolent discipline, times used in past year (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Mean = 33.00 Mean = 30.90 Mean difference = 2.10 Not available Statistical significance not reported
Nonviolent discipline, times used in past year (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers Mean = 45.70 Mean = 42.40 Mean difference = 3.30 Not available Statistical significance not reported
Nonviolent discipline, times used in past year (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers Mean = 47.00 Mean = 46.10 Mean difference = 0.90 Not available Statistical significance not reported
Nonviolent discipline, times used in past year (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available Mean difference = 1.80 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Psychological aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 69.00 % = 74.00 = -5.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.15 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

footnote58

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Sample size is the largest reported across the time period.

Psychological aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 86.00 % = 88.00 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.11 Statistical significance not reported
Psychological aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 88.00 % = 89.00 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.06 Statistical significance not reported
Psychological aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available OR = 0.76 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

footnote58

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Sample size is the largest reported across the time period.

Severe physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 6.00 % = 4.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.26 Statistical significance not reported
Severe physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 14.00 % = 15.00 = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.05 Statistical significance not reported
Severe physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 541 mothers % = 22.00 % = 15.00 = 7.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.28 Statistical significance not reported
Severe physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1-3 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers Not available Not available OR = 1.30 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Shook child (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 558 mothers % = 6.00 % = 6.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Statistical significance not reported
Shook child (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 549 mothers % = 6.00 % = 6.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Statistical significance not reported
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

CTS-PC: Nonviolent discipline

The CTS-PC assesses neglectful, psychologically aggressive, and abusive parenting behaviors and acts. The assessment is divided into six subscales, including a scale of nonviolent discipline

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

CTS-PC: Timeouts

The CTS-PC assesses neglectful, psychologically aggressive, and abusive parenting behaviors and acts. The assessment is divided into six subscales, including a scale of nonviolent discipline. The assessment also asks how often parents used specific parenting behaviors, such as timeouts, in the recent past. The researchers examined both the prevalence and frequency (times used in the past week or past year) of timeouts and nonviolent discipline.

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Conflict Tactics Scale-Parent Child (CTS-PC):

  • Psychological aggression
  • Minor physical assault
  • Severe physical abuse
  • Common corporal/verbal punishment during the past year
  • Assault on child’s self-esteem
  • Hitting with an object
  • Extreme physical abuse
  • Shook child
  • Common corporal/verbal punishment during the past week
  • Traditional neglect
  • Revised neglect
The CTS-PC assesses neglectful, psychologically aggressive, and abusive parenting behaviors and acts. The assessment is divided into six subscales: (1) nonviolent discipline, (2) psychological aggression, (3) minor physical assault, (4) severe physical assault, (5) very severe physical assault, and (6) neglect. The researchers conducted factor analysis to determine whether a different set of subscales may be more applicable to the sample. This process produced five revised subscales: (1) common corporal and verbal punishment, (2) assault on child’s self-esteem, (3) hitting with an object, (4) extreme physical violence, and (5) neglect. They assessed program impact for both the traditional and revised subscales. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Hospitalizations for trauma

Percentage of children who were hospitalized for trauma Review of medical records

Not applicable

Substantiated CPS reports, abuse or neglect

Percentage of families who had a substantiated report for child abuse or neglect Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Substantiated CPS reports, all types

Percentage of families who had a substantiated report across all child abuse or neglect classifications Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Substantiated CPS reports, threatened abuse, neglect or harm

Percentage of families who had a substantiated report for threatened child abuse, neglect, or harm Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Biological mother confirmed subject—neglect, cumulative rate
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Adjusted mean % = 22.96 Adjusted mean % = 20.68 OR = 1.14 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Biological mother confirmed subject—physical abuse, cumulative rate
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Adjusted mean % = 4.47 Adjusted mean % = 4.24 OR = 1.06 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Biological mother confirmed subject—sexual abuse, cumulative rate
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Mean % = 0.00 Mean % = 0.70 OR = 0.00 Not available Statistically significant, p < 0.05
Biological mother confirmed subject, cumulative number
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.42 Adjusted mean = 0.42 Mean difference = 0.00 Study reported = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Biological mother or target child confirmed subject or victim of CPS report, cumulative number
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.54 Adjusted mean = 0.55 Mean difference = -0.01 Study reported = -0.01 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Biological mother or target child confirmed subject or victim of CPS report, cumulative rate
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Adjusted mean % = 29.55 Adjusted mean % = 27.10 OR = 1.13 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Foster care placement—target child, cumulative rate
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Adjusted mean % = 4.83 Adjusted mean % = 4.90 OR = 0.99 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Minor physical aggression frequency(CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 897 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.36 Adjusted mean = 4.51 Mean difference = -0.15 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Minor physical aggression prevalence(CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 897 mothers Adjusted mean % = 64.12 Adjusted mean % = 59.17 OR = 1.25 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Neglect frequency(CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 897 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.53 Adjusted mean = 0.64 Mean difference = -0.11 Study reported = 0.05 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Neglect prevalence(CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 897 mothers Adjusted mean % = 15.77 Adjusted mean % = 16.74 OR = 0.93 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Non-violent discipline frequency(CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 897 mothers Adjusted mean = 49.27 Adjusted mean = 45.27 Mean difference = 4.00 Study reported = 0.14 Statistically significant, p < 0.05
Non-violent discipline prevalence)(CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 897 mothers Unadjusted mean % = 100.00 Unadjusted mean % = 98.60 Mean difference = 1.40 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Psychological aggression frequency(CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 897 mothers Adjusted mean = 15.33 Adjusted mean = 15.21 Mean difference = 0.12 Study reported = 0.01 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Psychological aggression prevalence(CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 897 mothers Adjusted mean % = 87.92 Adjusted mean % = 86.49 OR = 1.18 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Serious physical abuse frequency(CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 897 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.03 Adjusted mean = 0.15 Mean difference = -0.12 Study reported = -0.20 Statistically significant, p < 0.05
Serious physical aggressionprevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 897 mothers Adjusted mean % = 1.76 Adjusted mean % = 3.18 OR = 0.55 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Target child confirmed victim—neglect, cumulative rate
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Adjusted mean % = 24.29 Adjusted mean % = 22.95 OR = 1.08 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Target child confirmed victim—physical abuse, cumulative rate
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Adjusted mean % = 4.09 Adjusted mean % = 3.05 OR = 1.36 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Target child confirmed victim—sexual abuse, cumulative rate
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Mean % = 0.20 Mean % = 0.70 OR = 0.26 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Target child confirmed victim, cumulative number
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
7 year New York sample 1173 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.39 Adjusted mean = 0.41 Mean difference = -0.02 Study reported = -0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Biological mother confirmed subject—neglect, cumulative rate

The cumulative percentage of biological mothers that were a confirmed subject of a child neglect CPS report from random assignment to target child’s seventh birthday  Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Biological mother confirmed subject—physical abuse, cumulative rate

The cumulative percentage of biological mothers that were a confirmed subject of a physical abuse CPS report from random assignment to target child’s seventh birthday  Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Biological mother confirmed subject, cumulative number

The cumulative number of biological mothers that were a confirmed subject of a CPS report from random assignment to target child’s seventh birthday  Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Biological mother or target child confirmed subject or victim of CPS report, cumulative number

The cumulative number of biological mothers or target children that were a confirmed subject of a CPS report from random assignment to target child’s seventh birthday  Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Biological mother or target child confirmed subject or victim of CPS report, cumulative rate

The cumulative percentage of biological mothers or target children that were a confirmed subject of a CPS report from random assignment to target child’s seventh birthday  Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Foster care placement—target child, cumulative rate

The cumulative percentage of children that were placed in foster care from random assignment to target child’s seventh birthday  Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Minor physical aggression frequency(CTS-PC)

CTS -PC is a 27-item instrument designed to assess parenting practices. The authors used subscales that described the prevalence or frequency of parenting behaviors during the previous year, including non-violent discipline, psychological aggression, minor physical aggression, serious physical abuse, and neglect. The CTS -PCV consists of pictures depicting parenting behavior and acts of maltreatment. The pictures were accompanied by an audio description of the depicted act and a question asking the child if his/her mother has ever treated him/her that way. The instrument was restricted to pictures that depict non-violent discipline strategies, psychological aggression, and minor physical aggression. Scores were used to indicate the frequency and/or prevalence of a child’s experience of specific parenting practices. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author 

Minor physical aggression prevalence(CTS-PC)

CTS -PC is a 27-item instrument designed to assess parenting practices. The authors used subscales that described the prevalence or frequency of parenting behaviors during the previous year, including non-violent discipline, psychological aggression, minor physical aggression, serious physical abuse, and neglect. The CTS -PCV consists of pictures depicting parenting behavior and acts of maltreatment. The pictures were accompanied by an audio description of the depicted act and a question asking the child if his/her mother has ever treated him/her that way. The instrument was restricted to pictures that depict non-violent discipline strategies, psychological aggression, and minor physical aggression. Scores were used to indicate the frequency and/or prevalence of a child’s experience of specific parenting practices. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author 

Neglect frequency(CTS-PC)

CTS -PC is a 27-item instrument designed to assess parenting practices. The authors used subscales that described the prevalence or frequency of parenting behaviors during the previous year, including non-violent discipline, psychological aggression, minor physical aggression, serious physical abuse, and neglect. The CTS -PCV consists of pictures depicting parenting behavior and acts of maltreatment. The pictures were accompanied by an audio description of the depicted act and a question asking the child if his/her mother has ever treated him/her that way. The instrument was restricted to pictures that depict non-violent discipline strategies, psychological aggression, and minor physical aggression. Scores were used to indicate the frequency and/or prevalence of a child’s experience of specific parenting practices. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author 

Neglect prevalence(CTS-PC)

CTS -PC is a 27-item instrument designed to assess parenting practices. The authors used subscales that described the prevalence or frequency of parenting behaviors during the previous year, including non-violent discipline, psychological aggression, minor physical aggression, serious physical abuse, and neglect. The CTS -PCV consists of pictures depicting parenting behavior and acts of maltreatment. The pictures were accompanied by an audio description of the depicted act and a question asking the child if his/her mother has ever treated him/her that way. The instrument was restricted to pictures that depict non-violent discipline strategies, psychological aggression, and minor physical aggression. Scores were used to indicate the frequency and/or prevalence of a child’s experience of specific parenting practices. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author 

Non-violent discipline frequency(CTS-PC)

CTS -PC is a 27-item instrument designed to assess parenting practices. The authors used subscales that described the prevalence or frequency of parenting behaviors during the previous year, including non-violent discipline, psychological aggression, minor physical aggression, serious physical abuse, and neglect. The CTS -PCV consists of pictures depicting parenting behavior and acts of maltreatment. The pictures were accompanied by an audio description of the depicted act and a question asking the child if his/her mother has ever treated him/her that way. The instrument was restricted to pictures that depict non-violent discipline strategies, psychological aggression, and minor physical aggression. Scores were used to indicate the frequency and/or prevalence of a child’s experience of specific parenting practices. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author 

Psychological aggression frequency(CTS-PC)

CTS -PC is a 27-item instrument designed to assess parenting practices. The authors used subscales that described the prevalence or frequency of parenting behaviors during the previous year, including non-violent discipline, psychological aggression, minor physical aggression, serious physical abuse, and neglect. The CTS -PCV consists of pictures depicting parenting behavior and acts of maltreatment. The pictures were accompanied by an audio description of the depicted act and a question asking the child if his/her mother has ever treated him/her that way. The instrument was restricted to pictures that depict non-violent discipline strategies, psychological aggression, and minor physical aggression. Scores were used to indicate the frequency and/or prevalence of a child’s experience of specific parenting practices. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author 

Psychological aggression prevalence(CTS-PC)

CTS -PC is a 27-item instrument designed to assess parenting practices. The authors used subscales that described the prevalence or frequency of parenting behaviors during the previous year, including non-violent discipline, psychological aggression, minor physical aggression, serious physical abuse, and neglect. The CTS -PCV consists of pictures depicting parenting behavior and acts of maltreatment. The pictures were accompanied by an audio description of the depicted act and a question asking the child if his/her mother has ever treated him/her that way. The instrument was restricted to pictures that depict non-violent discipline strategies, psychological aggression, and minor physical aggression. Scores were used to indicate the frequency and/or prevalence of a child’s experience of specific parenting practices. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author 

Serious physical abuse frequency(CTS-PC)

CTS -PC is a 27-item instrument designed to assess parenting practices. The authors used subscales that described the prevalence or frequency of parenting behaviors during the previous year, including non-violent discipline, psychological aggression, minor physical aggression, serious physical abuse, and neglect. The CTS -PCV consists of pictures depicting parenting behavior and acts of maltreatment. The pictures were accompanied by an audio description of the depicted act and a question asking the child if his/her mother has ever treated him/her that way. The instrument was restricted to pictures that depict non-violent discipline strategies, psychological aggression, and minor physical aggression. Scores were used to indicate the frequency and/or prevalence of a child’s experience of specific parenting practices. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author 

Serious physical aggressionprevalence (CTS-PC)

CTS -PC is a 27-item instrument designed to assess parenting practices. The authors used subscales that described the prevalence or frequency of parenting behaviors during the previous year, including non-violent discipline, psychological aggression, minor physical aggression, serious physical abuse, and neglect. The CTS -PCV consists of pictures depicting parenting behavior and acts of maltreatment. The pictures were accompanied by an audio description of the depicted act and a question asking the child if his/her mother has ever treated him/her that way. The instrument was restricted to pictures that depict non-violent discipline strategies, psychological aggression, and minor physical aggression. Scores were used to indicate the frequency and/or prevalence of a child’s experience of specific parenting practices. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author 

Target child confirmed victim—neglect, cumulative rate

The cumulative percentage of children that were the confirmed victim in an indicated CPS neglect investigation from random assignment to target child’s seventh birthday Review of CPS records

 Not applicable

Target child confirmed victim—physical abuse, cumulative rate

The cumulative percentage of children that were the confirmed victim in an indicated CPS physical abuse investigation from random assignment to target child’s seventh birthday Review of CPS records

 Not applicable

Target child confirmed victim, cumulative number

The cumulative number of children that were the confirmed victim in an indicated CPS investigation from random assignment to target child’s seventh birthday Review of CPS records

 Not applicable

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Any neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 422 families % = 24.00 % = 22.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Any neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 382 families % = 18.00 % = 21.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.12 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mild physical assault frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 422 families Mean = 2.10 Mean = 2.30 Mean difference = -0.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mild physical assault frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 382 families Mean = 3.40 Mean = 4.60 Mean difference = -1.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.29 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Mild physical assault prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 422 families % = 51.00 % = 54.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mild physical assault prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 382 families % = 70.00 % = 78.00 = -8.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.25 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Physical abuse frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 422 families Mean = 0.17 Mean = 0.26 Mean difference = -0.09 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Physical abuse frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 382 families Mean = 0.13 Mean = 0.46 Mean difference = -0.33 HomeVEE calculated = -0.20 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Physical abuse prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 382 families % = 5.00 % = 10.00 = -5.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.45 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Physical abuse prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 422 families % = 6.00 % = 10.00 = -4.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.34 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Psychological aggression frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 422 families Mean = 2.70 Mean = 3.20 Mean difference = -0.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.14 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Psychological aggression frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 382 families Mean = 4.80 Mean = 6.00 Mean difference = -1.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.27 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Psychological aggression prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, San Diego trial 422 families % = 59.00 % = 63.00 = 4.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.10 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Psychological aggression prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 3 Full sample, San Diego trial 382 families % = 79.00 % = 85.00 = 6.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.25 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Conflict Tactics Scale-Parent Child (CTS-PC):

  • Neglect
  • Psychological aggression
  • Mild physical assault
  • Physical abuse
The CTS-PC assesses neglectful, psychologically aggressive, and abusive parenting behaviors and acts. The researchers examined the frequency and prevalence of psychological aggression, mild physical assault, and physical abuse and the prevalence of neglect. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Substantiated CPS reports
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Georgia trial 249 families % = 6.90 % = 5.00 = 1.90 HomeVEE calculated = 0.20 Statistical significance not reported
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Substantiated CPS reports

Counts of the number of substantiated reports of child abuse or neglect Review of CPS records

Not available

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Ever had injury needing medical care
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, Hawaii trial 564 children % = 9.00 % = 11.00 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.14 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Ever had injury needing medical care
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Years 1 and 2 Full sample, Hawaii trial 534 children % = 22.00 % = 24.00 = -2.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Ever had injury needing medical care

Percentage of children who had ever had an injury that required medical care Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Common corporal punishment (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 19.48 Adjusted mean = 24.17 Mean difference = -4.69 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Common corporal punishment (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 91.00 % = 92.00 OR = 0.80 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Corporal/verbal punishment (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 66.00 % = 68.00 OR = 0.92 HomeVEE calculated = -0.05 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Corporal/verbal punishment Frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.02 Adjusted mean = 4.57 Mean difference = -0.55 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Extreme physical punishment (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 2.00 % = 3.00 OR = 0.75 HomeVEE calculated = -0.25 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Extreme physical punishment Frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.19 Adjusted mean = 0.04 Mean difference = 0.15 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Hit with object (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 10.00 % = 5.00 OR = 2.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.45 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Hit with object Frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.33 Adjusted mean = 0.46 Mean difference = -0.13 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mild physical assault (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 80.00 % = 85.00 OR = 0.70 HomeVEE calculated = -0.21 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Mild physical assault Frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 9.56 Adjusted mean = 11.93 Mean difference = -2.38 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Neglectful behavior (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 19.00 % = 22.00 OR = 0.81 HomeVEE calculated = -0.11 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Neglectful behavior Frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.92 Adjusted mean = 0.75 Mean difference = 0.16 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Neglectful behavior revised (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 18.00 % = 18.00 OR = 0.97 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Neglectful behavior revised Frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.65 Adjusted mean = 0.66 Mean difference = -0.01 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Psychological aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 84.00 % = 83.00 OR = 1.10 HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Psychological aggression Frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 11.17 Adjusted mean = 13.09 Mean difference = -1.92 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Severe assault Frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.41 Adjusted mean = 0.30 Mean difference = 0.10 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Severe assault (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 9.00 % = 7.00 OR = 1.28 HomeVEE calculated = 0.17 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated CPS reports, all types
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child age 1 Full sample, Alaska trial 309 families % = 12.00 % = 10.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.12 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated CPS reports, all types
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child age 2 Full sample, Alaska trial 297 families % = 9.00 % = 9.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated CPS reports, neglect
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child age 1 Full sample, Alaska trial 309 families % = 10.00 % = 6.00 = 4.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.34 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated CPS reports, neglect
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Child age 2 Full sample, Alaska trial 297 families % = 6.00 % = 7.00 = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.10 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Threat to esteem (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers % = 24.00 % = 22.00 OR = 1.17 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Threat to esteem Frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at follow-up, Alaska trial 246 mothers Adjusted mean = 0.95 Adjusted mean = 0.64 Mean difference = 0.31 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Conflict Tactics Scale-Parent Child (CTS-PC):

  • Psychological aggression
  • Mild physical assault
  • Severe assault
  • Traditional neglect
  • Common corporal punishment
  • Threat to esteem
  • Hit with object
  • Extreme physical punishment
  • Revised neglect
  • Corporal/verbal punishment
The CTS-PC assesses neglectful, psychologically aggressive, and abusive parenting behaviors and acts. The assessment is divided into six subscales: (1) nonviolent discipline, (2) psychological aggression, (3) minor physical assault, (4) severe physical assault, (5) very severe physical assault, and (6) neglect. The researchers conducted factor analysis to determine whether a different set of subscales may be more applicable to the sample. This process produced five revised subscales: (1) common corporal and verbal punishment, (2) assault on child’s self-esteem, (3) hitting with an object, (4) extreme physical violence, and (5) neglect. They assessed program impact for both the traditional and revised subscales. The researchers examined both the prevalence and frequency of these behaviors. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Substantiated CPS reports, all types

Percentage of families who had a substantiated report across all child abuse or neglect classifications Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Substantiated CPS reports, neglect

Percentage of families who had a substantiated report for child neglect Review of CPS records

Not applicable

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Frequency of harsh parenting in the past week (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families Adjusted mean = 1.21 Adjusted mean = 1.81 Mean difference = -0.60 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Frequency of harsh parenting in the past week (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families Adjusted mean = 0.27 Adjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = -0.37 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of minor physical aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families Adjusted mean = 2.40 Adjusted mean = 3.46 Mean difference = -1.06 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Frequency of minor physical aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families Adjusted mean = 0.27 Adjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = -0.19 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families Adjusted mean = 0.21 Adjusted mean = 0.21 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families Adjusted mean = 0.27 Adjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = -0.24 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of psychological aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families Adjusted mean = 3.34 Adjusted mean = 4.74 Mean difference = -1.40 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Frequency of psychological aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families Adjusted mean = 0.27 Adjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = -0.47 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of serious abuse and neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families Adjusted mean = 0.27 Adjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = -0.26 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of serious abuse and neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families Adjusted mean = 0.27 Adjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = 0.03 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of serious physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families Adjusted mean = 0.01 Adjusted mean = 0.01 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Frequency of serious physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families Adjusted mean = 0.27 Adjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = -0.03 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Frequency of very serious physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families Adjusted mean = 0.01 Adjusted mean = 0.08 Mean difference = -0.07 Not available Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
Frequency of very serious physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families Adjusted mean = 0.27 Adjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Harsh parenting in the past week (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families % (adjusted) = 32.67 Adjusted mean % = 36.12 = -3.45 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Harsh parenting in the past week (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families % (adjusted) = 53.12 Adjusted mean % = 54.58 = -1.46 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Minor physical aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families % (adjusted) = 64.50 Adjusted mean % = 64.55 = -0.05 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Minor physical aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families % (adjusted) = 39.60 Adjusted mean % = 44.42 = -4.82 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families % (adjusted) = 5.52 Adjusted mean % = 8.27 = -2.75 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families % (adjusted) = 8.09 Adjusted mean % = 7.18 = 0.91 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Number of substantiated abuse or neglect reports
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families Adjusted mean = 0.09 Adjusted mean = 0.07 Mean difference = 0.02 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Number of substantiated abuse or neglect reports
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families Adjusted mean = 0.27 Adjusted mean = 0.53 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Psychological aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families % (adjusted) = 51.18 Adjusted mean % = 56.13 = -4.95 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Psychological aggression (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families % (adjusted) = 76.44 Adjusted mean % = 77.74 = -1.30 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Serious abuse and neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families % (adjusted) = 5.67 Adjusted mean % = 7.28 = -1.61 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Serious abuse and neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families % (adjusted) = 6.78 Adjusted mean % = 7.83 = -1.05 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Serious physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families % (adjusted) = 0.85 % = 0.81 = 0.04 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Serious physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families % (adjusted) = 0.60 Adjusted mean % = 1.21 = -0.61 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated abuse or neglect report
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families % (adjusted) = 7.90 Adjusted mean % = 5.98 = 1.92 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated abuse or neglect report
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families % (adjusted) = 5.08 Adjusted mean % = 4.80 = 0.28 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Very serious physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1060 families % (adjusted) = 0.93 Adjusted mean % = 1.33 = -0.40 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Very serious physical abuse (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Full sample, NY Trial 992 families % (adjusted) = 2.62 Adjusted mean % = 2.85 = -0.23 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Conflict Tactics Scale-Parent Child (CTS-PC):

  • Serious abuse and neglect
  • Very serious physical abuse
  • Serious physical abuse
  • Minor physical aggression
  • Psychological aggression
  • Neglect
  • Harsh parenting in the past week
The CTS-PC assesses neglectful, psychologically aggressive, and abusive parenting behaviors and acts. Mothers were asked how often they engaged in 27 different behaviors in the past year as well as five questions about parenting in the past week. The CTS-PC has a number of subscales: neglect, psychological aggression, nonviolent discipline, minor physical aggression, severe abuse, and very severe abuse in the past year; and harsh parenting in the past week. The researchers excluded the nonviolent discipline subscale and formed a composite scale of the 11 most serious items to represent the acts that likely would have resulted in a substantiated report had CPS been notified. The researchers used the instrument to examine both the prevalence and frequency of the behaviors. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Substantiated abuse or neglect reports

The prevalence and frequency of substantiated reports of child abuse or neglect Review of CPS records

Not reported by author

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Number of days in out-of-home care, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2 years Oregon, 2010-2012 2707 children Unadjusted mean = 15.21 Unadjusted mean = 12.74 Mean difference = 2.47 Not available Not reported
Number of substantiated abuse allegations, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2 years Oregon, 2010-2012 2707 children Unadjusted mean = 0.01 Unadjusted mean = 0.01 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not reported
Number of substantiated maltreatment reports, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2 years Oregon, 2010-2012 2707 children Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not reported
Number of substantiated neglect allegations, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2 years Oregon, 2010-2012 2707 children Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Unadjusted mean = 0.07 Mean difference = 0.00 Not available Not reported
Percentage with at least one out-of-home placement, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2 years Oregon, 2010-2012 2707 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.04 Unadjusted proportion = 0.03 Mean difference = 0.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.10 Statistically significant, p = 0.01

footnote446

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Statistical significance is based on <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations. Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Percentage with at least one substantiated maltreatment report, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2 years Oregon, 2010-2012 2707 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.06 Unadjusted proportion = 0.06 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.03 Not statistically significant, p = 0.41

footnote446

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Statistical significance is based on <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations. Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Percentage with at least one substantiated neglect report, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2 years Oregon, 2010-2012 2707 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.06 Unadjusted proportion = 0.06 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.03 Not statistically significant, p = 0.40

footnote446

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Statistical significance is based on <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations. Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Percentage with at least one substantiated physical or sexual abuse report, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
2 years Oregon, 2010-2012 2707 children Unadjusted proportion = 0.01 Unadjusted proportion = 0.01 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.29 Statistically significant, p = 0.00

footnote446

Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29

Statistical significance is based on <abbr title="Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness">HomVEE</abbr> calculations. Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Number of days in out-of-home care, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted

Average number of days in out-of-home placement (foster care) for the full sample of children in the two-year period after enrollment. Administrative records

Not applicable

Number of substantiated abuse allegations, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted

Average number of substantiated abuse reports (including physical or sexual abuse from administrative records and counts taken from medical records of encounters with health care providers for injuries or ingestions) for up to two years after enrollment. Administrative records

Not applicable

Number of substantiated maltreatment reports, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted

Average number of substantiated maltreatment reports (from administrative records and counts taken from medical records of encounters with health care providers for injuries or ingestions) for up to two years after enrollment. Administrative records

Not applicable

Number of substantiated neglect allegations, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted

Average number of substantiated neglect reports (from administrative records and counts taken from medical records of encounters with health care providers for injuries or ingestions) for up to two years after enrollment. Administrative records

Not applicable

Percentage with at least one out-of-home placement, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted

Percentage of children with at least one out-of-home placement (foster care) in the two-year period after enrollment. Administrative records

Not applicable

Percentage with at least one substantiated maltreatment report, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted

Percentage of children with at least one substantiated maltreatment report (from administrative records and counts taken from medical records of encounters with health care providers for injuries or ingestions) for up to two years after enrollment. Administrative records

Not applicable

Percentage with at least one substantiated neglect report, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted

Percentage of children with at least one substantiated neglect report (from administrative records and counts taken from medical records of encounters with health care providers for injuries or ingestions) for up to two years after enrollment. Administrative records

Not applicable

Percentage with at least one substantiated physical or sexual abuse report, intent-to-treat analysis, unadjusted

Percentage of children with at least one substantiated abuse report (including physical or sexual abuse based on administrative records and counts taken from medical records of encounters with health care providers for injuries or ingestions) for up to two years after enrollment. Administrative records

Not applicable

Findings rated moderate

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Show outcome measure summary
Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Use of mild physical strategies, frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 4.00 Adjusted mean = 4.60 Mean difference = -0.50 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Use of nonviolent disciplinary strategies, frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 2 Biological mothers with custody of index child at interview, Alaska trial 249 mothers Adjusted mean = 50.40 Adjusted mean = 50.50 Mean difference = -0.05 Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

CTS-PC: Use of nonviolent disciplinary strategies CTS-PC: Use of mild physical strategies

The CTS-PC assesses neglectful, psychologically aggressive, and abusive parenting behaviors and acts. The researchers analyzed the frequency with which nonviolent discipline strategies and mild physical strategies were used.

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes

Permanent custody loss

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

8 years

HFM vs. comparison, Massachusetts Healthy Families Evaluation 2 (MHFE -2), Tier 6 full sample

408 mother/child dyads Unadjusted proportion = 0.03 Unadjusted proportion = 0.02 Mean difference = 0.01 HomeVEE calculated = 0.17

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Substantiated child maltreatment reports

FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect

8 years

HFM vs. comparison, Massachusetts Healthy Families Evaluation 2 (MHFE -2), Tier 6 full sample

408 mother/child dyads Unadjusted proportion = 0.36 Unadjusted proportion = 0.39 Mean difference = -0.03 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09

Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Permanent custody loss

Permanent loss of custody (target child)

Agency administrative data

Not reported

Substantiated child maltreatment reports

Substantiated reports of child maltreatment (target child)

Agency administrative data

Not reported

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
Spanked child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample 165 mothers Not reported Not reported Not reported Study reported = 0.23 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Authors report a positive effect as a reduction in violence.

Threatened child
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
12 months HFA vs. comparison group, Arizona, full sample 165 mothers Not reported Not reported Not reported Study reported = 0.21 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Authors report a positive effect as a reduction in violence.

Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links
Spanked child

Frequency of parent spanking child

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author
Threatened child

Frequency of parent threatening child

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author
Total violence

A composite score created from 7 items that reflect the level of violence in the home

Parent/caregiver report

alpha=0.82
Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
ER visits due to injury or ingestion
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Year 1 Full sample, NY Trial 1061 children % = 3.80 % = 6.20 = -2.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.31 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

ER visits due to injury or ingestion

Percentage of children who, had at least one ER visit that involved injury or ingestion Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Substantiated child maltreatment by any perpetrator: any type of maltreatment (DCF reports) - Impact sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
1 year post-enrollment HFM Impact sample Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated child maltreatment by any perpetrator: neglect and physical abuse (DCF reports) - Impact sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
1 year post-enrollment HFM Impact sample Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated child maltreatment by any perpetrator: neglect only (DCF reports) - Impact sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
1 year post-enrollment HFM Impact sample Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated child maltreatment by any perpetrator: physical abuse only (DCF reports) - Impact sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
1 year post-enrollment HFM Impact sample Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated child maltreatment by any perpetrator: total substantiations (DCF reports) - Impact sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
1 year post-enrollment HFM Impact sample Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated child maltreatment, mother perpetrated: any type of maltreatment (DCF reports) - Impact sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
1 year post-enrollment HFM Impact sample Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated child maltreatment, mother perpetrated: neglect and physical abuse (DCF reports) - Impact sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
1 year post-enrollment HFM Impact sample Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated child maltreatment, mother perpetrated: neglect only (DCF reports) - Impact sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
1 year post-enrollment HFM Impact sample Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated child maltreatment, mother perpetrated: physical abuse only (DCF reports) - Impact sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
1 year post-enrollment HFM Impact sample Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Substantiated child maltreatment, mother perpetrated: total substantiations (DCF reports) - Impact sample
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
1 year post-enrollment HFM Impact sample Not reported Not reported Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Substantiated child maltreatment by any perpetrator: any type of maltreatment (DCF reports) - Impact sample

Proportion of children who had at least one substantiated report of physical abuse and/or neglect, committed by any perpetrator Administrative records (DCF reports)

Not applicable

Substantiated child maltreatment by any perpetrator: neglect and physical abuse (DCF reports) - Impact sample

Proportion of children who had at least one substantiated report each of physical abuse and neglect, committed by any perpetrator Administrative records (DCF reports)

Not applicable

Substantiated child maltreatment by any perpetrator: neglect only (DCF reports) - Impact sample

Proportion of children who had at least one substantiated report of neglect, committed by any perpetrator Administrative records (DCF reports)

Not applicable

Substantiated child maltreatment by any perpetrator: physical abuse only (DCF reports) - Impact sample

Proportion of children who had at least one substantiated report of physical abuse, committed by any perpetrator Administrative records (DCF reports)

Not applicable

Substantiated child maltreatment by any perpetrator: total substantiations (DCF reports) - Impact sample

Average number of substantiated reports of physical abuse and neglect, committed by any perpetrator Administrative records (DCF reports)

Not applicable

Substantiated child maltreatment, mother perpetrated: any type of maltreatment (DCF reports) - Impact sample

Proportion of children who had at least one substantiated report of physical abuse and/or neglect, committed by the mother alone or with another caregiver Administrative records (DCF reports)

Not applicable

Substantiated child maltreatment, mother perpetrated: neglect and physical abuse (DCF reports) - Impact sample

Proportion of children who had at least one substantiated report each of physical abuse and neglect, committed by the mother alone or with another caregiver Administrative records (DCF reports)

Not applicable

Substantiated child maltreatment, mother perpetrated: neglect only (DCF reports) - Impact sample

Proportion of children who had at least one substantiated report of neglect, committed by the mother alone or with another caregiver Administrative records (DCF reports)

Not applicable

Substantiated child maltreatment, mother perpetrated: physical abuse only (DCF reports) - Impact sample

Proportion of children who had at least one substantiated report of physical abuse, committed by the mother alone or with another caregiver Administrative records (DCF reports)

Not applicable

Substantiated child maltreatment, mother perpetrated: total substantiations (DCF reports) - Impact sample

Average number of substantiated reports of physical abuse and neglect, committed by the mother alone or with another caregiver Administrative records (DCF reports)

Not applicable

Healthy Families America (HFA)®
Show findings details
Outcome measure Effect Follow-up timing Sample Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance
Substantiated maltreatment (administrative data)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
within 27 months post-enrollment MA sample 690 children Not reported Not reported OR = 0.88 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant, p = 0.59
Show outcome measure summary
Outcome measure Outcome measure description Collection method Properties Operations links

Substantiated maltreatment (administrative data)

Percentage of target children who had a substantiated report of maltreatment Administrative records from child protective services

Not applicable

View Revisions