Jones Harden, B., Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., & Vogel, C. (2010). Early Head Start home visitation: The role of implementation in bolstering program benefits. Unpublished manuscript.
Model(s) Reviewed: Early Head Start Home-Based Option
|Screening decision||Screening conclusion||HomVEE procedures and standards version|
|Passes screens||Eligible for review||Version 1|
|Rating||Design||Attrition||Baseline equivalence||Compromised randomization||Confounding factors||Valid, reliable measure(s)|
|High||Randomized controlled trial||Low||Established on race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status; outcome not assessable at baseline.||None||None||Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed before 2021|
Here, we report only the FACES aggression outcome; all other outcomes are reported in the Love et al. (2002) report or Chazan-Cohen et al. (2013) article.
|Study participants||This study relies on data from a randomized controlled trial of 17 Early Head Start (EHS) programs that began in 1995. Seven of the programs served clients through a home-based option (though other clients in other EHS options also received home visits) and are the focus of this report (EHS-HBO). The study randomly assigned 1,385 families, who applied to those seven programs, either to receive EHS-HBO or a comparison condition. This study included outcomes reported for the 2-, 3-, and 5-year-old follow-up, but to avoid overlap with other studies included in this report, only the 5-year results are reported here. For this follow-up, 928 parents (479 in EHS-HBO and 449 in the comparison group)1 provided data for parent interviews. Among parent interview participants, 47 percent were white, 24 percent were black, and 27 percent were Hispanic. Fewer than one in four parents had education beyond high school, and one in 10 were in families living above the poverty line; one-third to one-half of families were receiving welfare (AFDC) or Food Stamps.1 Analytic sample sizes and characteristics obtained through correspondence with the authors.|
|Setting||The study was conducted in 17 EHS programs throughout the United States, including seven programs with home-based options, which are the focus of this report. Four programs were located in urban areas, and three programs were located in rural areas. The seven programs represented a mix of implementation timing; one early implementer had all EHS-HBO elements in place by 1997, and three later implementers had all elements in place by 1999; three programs did not have all elements in place by 1999. The early-implementing program had fully implemented both child and family development services early and continued to have those services in place in 1999.|
|Intervention services||EHS-HBO services are intended to be delivered to study families via weekly home visits. Seventy percent of families in these programs received weekly visits during at least one of the first two follow-up periods, and 26 percent received such services throughout both periods. Over the first two years, families in the home-based option received an average of 71 visits. Typical home visits are at least one hour long. Topics for home visits included child growth and development, child play activities, housing issues, and parent-child communication.|
|Comparison conditions||Control group families could not receive EHS-HBO services, but could receive other services available in their community.|
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||Not specified|
|Funding sources||Funder(s) not listed.|
|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.|
|Rating||Outcome measure||Effect||Sample||Timing of follow-up||Sample size||Intervention group||Comparison group||Group difference||Effect size||Statistical significance||Notes|
FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect
|EHS-HBO impact study||Kindergarten entry||928 children||Adjusted mean = 2.60||Adjusted mean = 2.70||Mean difference = -0.10||Study reported = -0.07||Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05|
Outcome measure summary
|Outcome measure||Description of measure||Data collection method||Properties of measure|
|Subscales from FACES assessed child social-emotional functioning, social skills, and positive approaches to learning.||Child assessment||
Cronbach’s α = 0.64