Manuscript Detail

View Revisions

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.

Manuscript screening details
Screening decision Screening conclusion HomVEE procedures and standards version
Passes screens Eligible for review Version 1
Study design details
Rating Design Attrition Baseline equivalence Compromised randomization Confounding factors Valid, reliable measure(s)
High Randomized controlled trial Low Established on race/ethnicity and SES. None None Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021
Notes:

In 2020, HomVEE updated this review to move "Child has insurance coverage" from the Child Health domain to the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency domain because ACF determined that health insurance coverage belongs in that domain. 

footnote84

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

High rating applies to year 1 and year 3 findings. Insurance findings receive a moderate rating because of baseline differences on health insurance at birth.

Study characteristics
Study participants Using computerized hospital records, the records of all births were screened for eligibility criteria including (1) residence in the target area, (2) being a non-military family, and (3) speaking English or Spanish. Families meeting these criteria were screened for risk factors for child abuse and neglect. Mothers who screened positive for risk or for whom there was not sufficient information to screen them out, were screened further using the Kempe Family Stress Checklist (FSC). Families in which either parent received a score of 25 or greater on the FSC were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group using a deck of cards. 515 families agreed to participate in the study and were randomly assigned (255 to the control group and 260 to the treatment group). Participant enrollment took place between February 1, 1996, and March 31, 1997. 247 program group families and 241 comparison group families completed a baseline interview. At baseline, 32.8% of all mothers were under age 20. 26.8% of participating mothers were Hispanic (English-speaking), 19.3% were Hispanic (Spanish-speaking), 24.2% were Caucasian, 19.5% were African American, and 10.2% were Asian or of another race/ethnicity. 53.4% of participants did not have a high school diploma, 52.3% were receiving food stamps, 55.7% were receiving TANF, and 52.3% were unemployed. This study reports results from three years of follow-up of the Healthy Families San Diego clinical trial. The analytic samples for the control group were 214, 207, and 207 for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. For the program group, the corresponding analytic samples were 221, 196, and 205 for years 1, 2, and 3 .
Setting San Diego County, a primarily urban county that includes suburban and rural regions.
Intervention services Home visitors were randomly assigned to families and attempted to visit them at the hospital following the birth of the child. Initial assessments were conducted in a home visit to gauge family needs and develop an Individualized Family Service Plan. In addition to home visits, families were encouraged to attend group meetings for parents and/or children. Visits continued until children reached age 3.
Comparison conditions Families in the comparison group were given a list of community resources at the time of the baseline interview.
Subgroups examined This field lists subgroups examined in the manuscript (even if they were not replicated in other samples and not reported on the summary page for this model’s report).
Subgroups are not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021.
Staff characteristics and training Healthy Families San Diego home visitor staff were required to have some relevant college coursework (Bachelor’s degree preferred) or a minimum of four years of experience related to working with at-risk families. Home visitors were also expected to be knowledgeable about child abuse, have an ability to engage the program clientele, and demonstrate other desirable personal characteristics, such as maturity and cultural competence. Staff received a 40-hour training in their first week of work. New home visitors also shadowed existing staff. All staff attended monthly in-service trainings on a variety of topics.
Funding sources The Stuart Foundation; California Wellness Foundation; State of California Department of Social Services: Office of Child Abuse Prevention
Author affiliation None of the study authors are developers of this model.
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed status is not listed for manuscripts reviewed before 2021.

Findings details

Child development and school readiness
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High BSID, Mental Development Index (MDI)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 children Mean = 105.00 Mean = 102.50 Mean difference = 2.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.23 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
High BSID, Motor MDI
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 children Mean = 113.50 Mean = 113.00 Mean difference = 0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High CBCL Aggressive T score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 children Mean = 53.50 Mean = 53.60 Mean difference = -0.10 HomeVEE calculated = -0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High CBCL Anxious/Depressed T score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 children Mean = 53.50 Mean = 54.30 Mean difference = -0.80 HomeVEE calculated = -0.14 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High CBCL Behavior Problems
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 children Mean = 49.70 Mean = 51.10 Mean difference = -1.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.15 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High CBCL Destructive T score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 children Mean = 53.60 Mean = 53.35 Mean difference = 0.30 HomeVEE calculated = 0.05 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High CBCL Externalizing problems T score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 children Mean = 49.40 Mean = 49.90 Mean difference = -0.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.06 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High CBCL Internalizing problems T score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 children Mean = 50.90 Mean = 52.60 Mean difference = -1.70 HomeVEE calculated = -0.17 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High CBCL Sleep problems T score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 children Mean = 52.30 Mean = 52.70 Mean difference = -0.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High CBCL Somatic problems T score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 children Mean = 53.80 Mean = 55.20 Mean difference = -1.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.24 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
High CBCL Withdrawn T score
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 children Mean = 55.10 Mean = 56.10 Mean difference = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.13 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Stanford Binet Abstract/Visual Reasoning SAS
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children Mean = 90.60 Mean = 90.50 Mean difference = 0.10 HomeVEE calculated = 0.01 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Stanford Binet Communication Survey
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children Mean = 101.80 Mean = 101.90 Mean difference = -0.10 HomeVEE calculated = -0.01 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Stanford Binet Partial Composite
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children Mean = 91.30 Mean = 91.30 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Stanford Binet Short Term Memory SAS
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children Mean = 98.60 Mean = 97.80 Mean difference = 0.80 HomeVEE calculated = 0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Stanford Binet Sum of Area SAS
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children Mean = 326.90 Mean = 331.60 Mean difference = -4.70 HomeVEE calculated = -0.06 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Stanford Binet Verbal Reasoning Memory SAS
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children Mean = 86.50 Mean = 87.30 Mean difference = -0.80 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Child health
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High Child has regular health care site
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children % = 98.00 % = 98.50 = -0.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.18 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Child has regular health care site
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 children % = 98.10 % = 97.70 = 0.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.12 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Child has specific health care provider
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children % = 63.60 % = 72.20 = -8.60 HomeVEE calculated = -0.24 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Child has specific health care provider
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 children % = 74.00 % = 81.60 = -7.60 HomeVEE calculated = -0.27 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Compliance with recommended number of well-child visits
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children % = 85.80 % = 83.80 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Compliance with recommended number of well-child visits
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 children % = 58.60 % = 59.60 = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Immunizations up-to-date
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children % = 96.90 % = 95.90 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.18 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Number of sick visits
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children Median = 1.00 Median = 1.00 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Number of sick visits
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 children Median = 3.00 Median = 3.00 Not reported Not available Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Number of well-child visits
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children Mean = 2.40 Mean = 1.90 Mean difference = 0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.22 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
High Number of well-child visits
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 children Mean = 7.00 Mean = 6.80 Mean difference = 0.20 HomeVEE calculated = 0.05 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Family economic self-sufficiency
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High WIC receipt
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 68.00 % = 71.00 = -3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High WIC receipt
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 91.00 % = 91.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Adult education
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 22.00 % = 21.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Adult education
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 23.00 % = 21.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Child has insurance coverage
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 children % = 84.20 % = 87.20 = -3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.15 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

footnote55

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

This study was assigned a moderate rating for this outcome due to statistically significant differences between the program and comparison groups at baseline.

High Child has insurance coverage
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 children % = 82.40 % = 84.00 = -1.60 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Child support enforcement
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 10.00 % = 16.00 = -6.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.33 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
High Child support enforcement
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 14.00 % = 12.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.11 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Emergency food
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 11.00 % = 8.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.21 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Emergency food
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 13.00 % = 9.00 = 4.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.25 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

footnote61

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

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).

High Food stamps
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 43.00 % = 44.00 = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Food stamps
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 59.00 % = 58.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Homeless shelter
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 1.00 % = 1.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Homeless shelter
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 2.00 % = 1.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.43 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Legal aid
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 7.00 % = 4.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.36 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Legal aid
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 7.00 % = 6.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.10 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mother earned HS degree or currently enrolled
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 58.00 % = 59.00 = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mother earned HS degree or currently enrolled
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 64.00 % = 61.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mother attended school
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 43.00 % = 40.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mother attended school
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 37.00 % = 28.00 = 9.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.25 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
High Mother worked
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 69.00 % = 70.00 = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mother worked
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 49.00 % = 49.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Section 8 housing
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 8.00 % = 11.00 = -3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.21 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

footnote61

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

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).

High Section 8 housing
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 10.00 % = 7.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.24 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Someone in household worked
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 84.00 % = 83.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Someone in household worked
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 74.00 % = 71.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Use of respite care
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 3.00 % = 1.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.68 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Use of respite care
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 2.00 % = 1.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.43 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Welfare receipt
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 families % = 43.00 % = 46.00 = -3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Welfare receipt
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 families % = 62.00 % = 63.00 = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.03 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Maternal health
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High Above threshold for depression (CES-D = 16)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 follow-up 412 mothers % = 33.00 % = 29.00 = 4.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.11 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Above threshold for depression (CES-D = 16)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 follow-up 435 mothers % = 39.00 % = 42.00 = -3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Confidence in adult relationships
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 follow-up 412 mothers Mean = 33.70 Mean = 33.80 Mean difference = -0.10 HomeVEE calculated = -0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Confidence in adult relationships
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 follow-up 435 mothers Mean = 33.40 Mean = 33.80 Mean difference = -0.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Depressive symptoms (CES-D)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 follow-up 412 mothers Mean = 12.50 Mean = 12.90 Mean difference = -0.40 HomeVEE calculated = -0.04 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Depressive symptoms (CES-D)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 follow-up 435 mothers Mean = 14.50 Mean = 15.50 Mean difference = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.10 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Drinks per day
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 follow-up 412 mothers Mean = 2.10 Mean = 2.40 Mean difference = -0.30 HomeVEE calculated = -0.15 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Drinks per day
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 follow-up 435 mothers Mean = 2.50 Mean = 2.30 Mean difference = 0.20 HomeVEE calculated = 0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Maternal social support (MHI)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 follow-up 435 mothers Mean = 18.60 Mean = 19.10 Mean difference = -0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mental Health (MHI)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 follow-up 412 mothers Mean = 24.00 Mean = 24.10 Mean difference = -0.10 HomeVEE calculated = -0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mental Health (MHI)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 follow-up 435 mothers Mean = 22.90 Mean = 22.20 Mean difference = 0.70 HomeVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Parenting Stress (PSI)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 mothers Mean = 71.20 Mean = 72.82 Mean difference = -1.60 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Parenting Stress (PSI)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 mothers Mean = 72.40 Mean = 71.22 Mean difference = 1.20 HomeVEE calculated = 0.06 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Problem substance use (CAGE Alcohol Screening">CAGE Alcohol Screening">CAGE Alcohol Screening">CAGE Alcohol Screening">CAGE Alcohol Screening">CAGE)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 follow-up 435 mothers % = 21.00 % = 18.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.54 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Problem substance use (CAGE Alcohol Screening">CAGE Alcohol Screening">CAGE Alcohol Screening">CAGE Alcohol Screening">CAGE Alcohol Screening">CAGE)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 follow-up 412 mothers % = 9.00 % = 10.00 = -1.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Repeat birth within 36 months of index birth
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 follow-up 412 mothers % = 27.00 % = 22.00 = 5.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Repeat pregnancy within 36 months of index birth
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 follow-up 412 mothers % = 43.00 % = 50.00 = -7.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Positive parenting practices
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High Mother-child interaction, Caregiver total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 mothers Mean = 37.10 Mean = 35.90 Mean difference = 1.20 HomeVEE calculated = 0.16 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mother-child interaction, Caregiver total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 mothers Mean = 40.30 Mean = 39.80 Mean difference = 0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.09 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mother-child interaction, Child total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 mothers Mean = 16.60 Mean = 16.40 Mean difference = 0.20 HomeVEE calculated = 0.05 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mother-child interaction, Child total score (NCAST)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 mothers Mean = 17.30 Mean = 16.80 Mean difference = 0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.15 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Nonviolent discipline (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 mothers % = 95.50 % = 95.50 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Nonviolent discipline (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 mothers % = 100.00 % = 99.50 = 0.50 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Quality of home environment (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 412 mothers Mean = 40.10 Mean = 40.10 Mean difference = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Quality of home environment (HOME)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 435 mothers Mean = 35.60 Mean = 35.20 Mean difference = 0.40 HomeVEE calculated = 0.06 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Reductions in child maltreatment
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High Any neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families % = 24.00 % = 22.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Any neglect (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families % = 18.00 % = 21.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.12 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mild physical assault frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families Mean = 2.10 Mean = 2.30 Mean difference = -0.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mild physical assault frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families Mean = 3.40 Mean = 4.60 Mean difference = -1.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.29 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
High Mild physical assault prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families % = 51.00 % = 54.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.07 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Mild physical assault prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families % = 70.00 % = 78.00 = -8.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.25 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Physical abuse frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families Mean = 0.17 Mean = 0.26 Mean difference = -0.09 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Physical abuse frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families Mean = 0.13 Mean = 0.46 Mean difference = -0.33 HomeVEE calculated = -0.20 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Physical abuse prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families % = 5.00 % = 10.00 = -5.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.45 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Physical abuse prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families % = 6.00 % = 10.00 = -4.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.34 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Psychological aggression frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families Mean = 2.70 Mean = 3.20 Mean difference = -0.50 HomeVEE calculated = -0.14 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Psychological aggression frequency (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families Mean = 4.80 Mean = 6.00 Mean difference = -1.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.27 Statistically significant,
p < 0.05
High Psychological aggression prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families % = 59.00 % = 63.00 = 4.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.10 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Psychological aggression prevalence (CTS-PC)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families % = 79.00 % = 85.00 = 6.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.25 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Reductions in juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime
Rating Outcome measure Effect Sample Timing of follow-up Sample size Intervention group Comparison group Group difference Effect size Statistical significance Notes
High Family court
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families % = 10.00 % = 7.00 = 3.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.24 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Family court
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families % = 11.00 % = 10.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.06 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Incident of physical assault, frequency (CTS)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families Mean = 24.70 Mean = 2.20 Mean difference = -0.20 HomeVEE calculated = -0.04 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Incident of physical assault, frequency (CTS)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families Mean = 0.93 Mean = 0.87 Mean difference = 0.06 HomeVEE calculated = 0.02 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Incident of physical assault, prevalence (CTS)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families % = 36.00 % = 39.00 = -3.00 HomeVEE calculated = -0.08 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Incident of physical assault, prevalence (CTS)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families % = 18.00 % = 17.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.04 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Partner violence resulting in injury (CTS)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families % = 15.00 % = 15.00 = 1.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Partner violence resulting in injury (CTS)
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families % = 8.00 % = 6.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.19 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Restraining order
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 3 382 families % = 6.00 % = 4.00 = 2.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.26 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
High Restraining order
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
Full sample, San Diego trial Year 1 422 families % = 7.00 % = 7.00 = 0.00 HomeVEE calculated = 0.00 Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05

Outcome measure summary

Child development and school readiness
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

BSID: MDI and PDI

The BSID tests the mental, motor, and behavioral development and abilities of young children. The researchers examined both the mental development and psychomotor development scales. Child assessment

Not reported by author

CBCL:

  • Anxious/Depressed
  • Withdrawn
  • Sleep problems
  • Somatic problems
  • Aggressive
  • Destructive
  • Behavior problems
  • Internalizing problems
  • Externalizing problems
The CBCL is a questionnaire that assesses behavioral problems in young children. The researchers analyzed subscales related to withdrawal, sleep, somatic, aggressiveness, destructiveness, internalizing, and externalizing problems and behaviors. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Stanford Binet:

  • Short Term Memory SAS
  • Abstract/Visual Reasoning SAS
  • Verbal Reasoning Memory SAS
  • Sum of Area SAS
  • Partial Composite
  • Communication Survey
The Stanford-Binet assesses intelligence in young children. The researchers examined abstract/visual reasoning, verbal reasoning memory, communication, and summary and composite measures of intelligence. Child assessment

Not reported by author

Child health
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

Child has regular health care site

Percentage of children who had a location they typically went to for health care Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Child has specific health care provider

Percentage of children who had a specific health care provider Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Compliance with recommended number of well-child visits

Percentage of children who had received the recommended number of well-child visits for their age, defined as six or more visits in the first year of life, three or more visits in the second year of life, and one or more visits in third year of life Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Immunizations up-to-date

Percentage of children who were up-to-date on the appropriate immunizations for the child’s age Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Number of sick visits

Number of sick visits the child had received Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Number of well-child visits

Number of well-child visits the child had received Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Family economic self-sufficiency
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

WIC receipt

Percentage of families who received WIC Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Adult education

Percentage of parents who received adult education or job training Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Child has insurance coverage

Percentage of children who had health insurance coverage

Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Child support enforcement

Percentage of families who received child support enforcement assistance Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Emergency food

Percentage of families who received emergency food assistance Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Food stamps

Percentage of families who received food stamps Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Homeless shelter

Percentage of families who received homeless shelter services Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Legal aid

Percentage of families who received legal aid Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

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

Mother attended school

Percentage of mothers who were attending school Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Mother worked

Percentage of mothers who were employed Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Section 8 housing

Percentage of families who received Section 8 housing assistance Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Someone in household worked

Percentage of families in which a household member was employed Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Use of respite care

Percentage of families who used respite care Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Welfare receipt

Percentage of families who received AFDC Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Maternal health
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

CES-D: Above threshold for depression

The CES-D is a 20-item assessment of depressive symptoms. The researchers examined the total score and a binary measure indicating whether the total depression score was at or above a cutoff of 16. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

CES-D: Depressive symptoms

The CES-D is a 20-item assessment of depressive symptoms. The researchers examined the total score and a binary measure indicating whether the total depression score was at or above a cutoff of 16. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

MHI

The MHI assesses levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms. Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Confidence in adult relationships

No description provided by author Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Drinks per day

Number of drinks the parent consumed per day on average Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Parenting Stress (PSI)

The PSI assesses stress in the parent-child relationship arising from child temperament, parental depression, and negatively reinforcing parent-child interactions. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Problem substance use (CAGE)

Percentage of parents with problem alcohol use, defined as a report of alcohol use in the year prior to pregnancy and a CAGE score greater than or equal to 2 Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Repeat pregnancy within 36 months of index birth

Percentage of mothers who had a repeat birth within 36 months after the index birth Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Positive parenting practices
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

NCAST: Caregiver total score  NCAST: Child total score

The NCAST assesses the quality of teaching interaction between caregivers and young children. The researchers examined separate composite scores for both children and parents. Observation

Not reported by author

CTS-PC: Nonviolent discipline

The CTS-PC assesses neglectful, psychologically aggressive, and abusive parenting behaviors and acts. The assessment includes several subscales, including nonviolent discipline, which the researchers used to examine the prevalence of nonviolent discipline in the sample. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

HOME: Total score

The HOME assesses parenting practices and aspects of the home environment. Parent/caregiver interview and observational assessment

Not reported by author

Reductions in child maltreatment
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

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

Reductions in juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime
Outcome measure Description of measure Data collection method Properties of measure

CTS:

  • Partner violence resulting in injury
  • Incident of physical assault, prevalence
The CTS assesses victimization and perpetration related to intimate partner violence and maltreatment. The researchers examined the prevalence and the frequency of physical assault and partner violence that resulted in injury. Parent/caregiver report

Not reported by author

Family court

Percentage of program participants who had been connected to resources that helped them enter family court Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable

Restraining order

Percentage of program participants who had been connected to resources that helped them obtain a restraining order Parent/caregiver report

Not applicable