Child Parent Enrichment Project (CPEP)

Last updated: October 2012

Effects Shown in Research & Outcome Measure Details

Summary of Findings

Please read Describing Effects for more information on these categories. Only results from studies that meet the standards for the high or moderate ratings are included above.

View Revisions

Child Health

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Child Parent Enrichment Project (CPEP)
Show Findings Details
Outcome Measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Intervention Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect Size Statistical Significance Outcome Type Notes
Baby care (child welfare)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 7.43 Unadjusted mean = 7.09 Mean difference = 0.34 HomeVEE calculated = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Birthweight (grams)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean 3,396 = 3396.00 Unadjusted mean = 3255.00 Mean difference = 141.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.21 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary
Emergency (child welfare)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.44 Unadjusted mean = 1.44 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Health (child welfare)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 5.62 Unadjusted mean = 5.43 Mean difference = 0.19 HomeVEE calculated = 0.06 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Show Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection Method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Baby care (child welfare)

The number of doctors visits for well baby care and vaccinations. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Birthweight (grams)

The infant’s reported birth weight in grams. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Emergency (child welfare)

The number of times an infant was taken to the emergency department. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Need care (child welfare)

The number of mothers whose child was removed from her care by a police office or social worker or was cared for by a neighbor as a result of the mother's neglect. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
View Revisions

Reductions in Child Maltreatment

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Child Parent Enrichment Project (CPEP)
Show Findings Details
Outcome Measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Intervention Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect Size Statistical Significance Outcome Type Notes
Need care (child welfare)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 2.08 Unadjusted mean = 2.06 Mean difference = 0.02 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Show Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection Method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Health (child welfare)

The rating from minor to serious of eight common medical conditions (e.g., virus, rash, diarrhea) that the infant experienced. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
View Revisions

Maternal Health

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Child Parent Enrichment Project (CPEP)
Show Findings Details
Outcome Measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Intervention Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect Size Statistical Significance Outcome Type Notes
Discomfort (birth outcome)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.31 Unadjusted mean = 1.36 Mean difference = -0.05 HomeVEE calculated = -0.14 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Eat bad
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 8.12 Unadjusted mean = 8.28 Mean difference = -0.16 HomeVEE calculated = -0.06 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Eat right
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 6.21 Unadjusted mean = 6.10 Mean difference = 0.11 HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Hospital stay
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 8.41 Unadjusted mean = 9.80 Mean difference = -1.39 HomeVEE calculated = -0.33 Statistically significant, p = 0.02 Secondary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Pregnancy problems
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 1.49 Unadjusted mean = 1.36 Mean difference = 0.13 HomeVEE calculated = 0.12 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Prenatal care
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 9.90 Unadjusted mean = 9.73 Mean difference = 0.17 HomeVEE calculated = 0.05 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Worries (birth outcome)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 25.04 Unadjusted mean = 24.19 Mean difference = 0.85 HomeVEE calculated = 0.12 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Secondary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Show Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection Method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Discomfort (birth outcome)

The difference between mother's expected discomfort during pregnancy and labor and what she actually experienced. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Eat bad

The frequency with which mothers ingested unhealthy items such as tobacco, alcoholic or caffeinated drinks, chips, and nonprescription drugs during pregnancy. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Eat right

The frequency with which mothers followed a healthy diet during pregnancy. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Hospital stay

The number of days the mother and her newborn were in the hospital around the time of delivery. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Pregnancy problems

The number of events that occurred during delivery such as drug treatment, use of forceps, episiotomy, cesarean section, induced labor, and breech delivery. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Prenatal care

The number of prenatal visits mothers had during their second and third trimesters. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary

Worries (birth outcome)

The worries scale assesses a mother's level of concern regarding being able to care for her newborns. The scale addresses issues such as feeding and caring for a sick child, and paying bills. Items were coded on a 4-point scale. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Secondary
View Revisions

Child Development and School Readiness

Outcomes Rated Moderate

Child Parent Enrichment Project (CPEP)
Show Findings Details
Outcome Measure Effect Follow-up Timing Sample Sample Size Intervention Group Comparison Group Group Difference Effect Size Statistical Significance Outcome Type Notes
Activity (ITQ subscale)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 48.05 Unadjusted mean = 50.19 Mean difference = -2.13 HomeVEE calculated = -0.23 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Distractibility (ITQ subscale)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 24.11 Unadjusted mean = 24.59 Mean difference = -0.48 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p > 0.05 Primary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Mood (ITQ subscale)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
6 months Reassigned sample 191 mothers Unadjusted mean = 22.05 Unadjusted mean = 23.91 Mean difference = -1.86 HomeVEE calculated = -0.39 Statistically significant, p = 0.01 Primary

footnote150

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

High score equals unfavorable.

Show Outcome Measure Summary
Outcome Measure Outcome Measure Description Collection Method Properties Outcome Type Operations links

Infant Temperament Questionnaire (ITQ)

The Infant Temperament Questionnaire assesses a child's temperament. The researchers examined the following three subscales: level of activity, mood, and distractibility.

Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Primary
View Revisions

Model Overview

Theoretical Model

CPEP was based on the theory that enhancing mother-child relationships, social and material support, goal setting, and problem solving can reduce the risk of child abuse. Positive mother-child relationships were seen as a byproduct of a healthy pregnancy and labor, an overall feeling of wanting the child, and knowing that caring for the child will be manageable. Having the emotional, informational, and material resources that often accompany a social support network were thought to lessen the risk of child maltreatment. The ability to set goals and solve problems could help parents manage the difficulties of infant caregiving. Implementation of CPEP was based on a task-centered approach in which parents identified and completed tasks to achieve their goals.

View Revisions

Model Components

CPEP services consisted of home visits with paraprofessional parenting consultants. During home visits, consultants and parents discussed tasks associated with the parent’s goals for caring for herself and the child and recorded tasks that had been performed. Tasks could be completed during or between home visits, and in the parent’s home or within the community. There were three types of tasks: parent-focused, consultant-focused, and shared. Parent-focused tasks were completed by the parents alone and could include preparing one clean room for the baby to come home to; visiting a thrift shop to obtain a crib; visiting the labor room; and using a respite care program one-half day per week after the child is born. Tasks led by parenting consultants, either during or between visits, included modeling positive parenting and home care skills; advocating on a client’s behalf; and discussing the care of a colicky baby. Typical joint tasks were driving together to a church to pick up food and repairing an appliance together.

View Revisions

Target Population

CPEP targeted pregnant women at risk for child abuse. Mothers were eligible for referral to the program if they exhibited two or more risk factors on a nine-item checklist, although community professionals had considerable discretion when making referrals. The checklist included underuse of needed community services; a criminal or mental illness record; mother previously suspected of abuse; low self-esteem; chaotic lifestyle; lack of social support from father or family; low intelligence or poor health of mother; unplanned or unwanted pregnancy; and previous or ongoing abuse of mother.

View Revisions

Where to Find Out More

Richard P. Barth, Ph.D., M.S.W.
University of Maryland, School of Social Work
Phone: (410) 706-7794
Email: rbarth@ssw.umaryland.edu

View Revisions

In Brief

Evidence of Model Effectiveness

This model does not meet the criteria established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for an “evidence-based early childhood home visiting service delivery model” for the general population or for tribal populations because the findings from high- or moderate-rated effectiveness studies of the model do not meet all required criteria.

View Revisions

Model Description

The Child Parent Enrichment Project (CPEP) targeted pregnant mothers at risk for child abuse and aimed to reduce child abuse by alleviating the stressors that can contribute to child abuse and promote good parenting. Services consisted of home visits with paraprofessional parenting consultants twice per month for six months. During home visits, consultants and parents discussed tasks associated with the mother’s goals for caring for herself and her child. Tasks could be completed during or between home visits, and in the parent’s home or within the community. Tasks were completed by parents alone, led by consultants, or completed jointly by parents and consultants. Typical tasks included preparing one clean room for the baby (parent alone), modeling positive parenting skills (consultant-led), and repairing an appliance together (joint). For more information, please read the Model Overview.

View Revisions

Extent of Evidence

Results of Research and Review
Number of studies
Eligible for review
2
Rated high
0
Rated moderate
1
Rated low
0
Additional source1
1

For more information, see the study database. For more information on the criteria used to determine the study ratings, please read Producing Study Ratings.

View Revisions

Summary of Findings

Please read Describing Effects for more information on these categories. Only results from studies that meet the standards for the high or moderate ratings are included above.

View Revisions

Criteria Established by the Department of Health and Human Services

Information Based on Comprehensive Review of All High- and Moderate-Impact Studies for this Model
High- or moderate-quality impact study?
Yes
Across high- or moderate-quality studies, favorable impacts in at least two outcome domains within one sample OR the same domain for at least two non-overlapping samples?
Yes
Favorable impacts on full sample?
Yes
Any favorable impacts on outcome measures sustained at least 12 months after model enrollment?1
No
One or more favorable, statistically significant impact reported in a peer-reviewed journal?1
Yes

Please read the HHS Criteria for Evidence-Based models for more information.

View Revisions