Location and Setting

Programs were located in Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, a coastal Mid-Atlantic state, and along the East Coast, in the South, and in the West. There were also several California locations, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and San Bernardino counties, as well as the Salinas Valley. Programs were located in urban, suburban, and rural locations.

Implementing agencies included school districts, social and health service agencies, and county level offices.

The following locations implemented NFP:

  • New York State (an unnamed medium-sized urban community; and Elmira, a semirural community)
  • Tennessee (Memphis, an urban community)
  • Colorado (16 sites across the state; and Denver, an urban community)
  • Louisiana
  • Pennsylvania (urban, suburban, semirural, and rural communities across the state)
  • California (urban communities across Orange County)
  • Washington State (urban, rural, and tribal communities across the state)

In the Elmira, Memphis, Denver, and one other sample, health departments implemented NFP. Other implementing agencies included community-based organizations, hospitals, and public agencies.

MIHP was implemented in both rural and large metropolitan areas of Michigan. Implementing agencies were not reported in the studies reviewed.

Programs were located in several states, including the following:

  • California
  • Georgia
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Oklahoma
  • Washington

One program was located in Kansas City, but the state was not specified.

Implementing agencies included a local nonprofit social service organization and state agencies with active contracts to provide family preservation services in one or more counties.

The study did not describe the location of this program.

This program was implemented by Yale University with the assistance of the Fair Haven Community Health Center. The community health center helped recruit families for participation in the program and the health providers at the center communicated with home visitors about mutual clients.

Study locations included Arkansas, California, Michigan, New York State, and Tennessee. In four studies, the programs were located in urban settings.

Only three studies described the implementing agency. In two of these studies, HIPPY was implemented by school districts. In the third HIPPY was implemented in a local advocacy organization.

Programs were located in 16 states covering every census region of the United States. Two studies examined many program sites from around the nation, including one that examined more than 100 HFA programs and one that examined 278 programs. Programs were implemented in urban, rural/small-town, and suburban settings.

A variety of agencies implemented HFA, including:

  • Community agencies focused on families, child welfare, or human services;
  • Hospitals; and
  • State, county, and local health, child welfare, and human service departments.

The intervention was implemented in four rural, southwestern tribal communities: the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico (one study) the White Mountain Apache Reservation in Arizona (both studies), the San Carlos Apache Reservation in Arizona, and the Tuba City and Fort Defiance communities on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona (one study).

Neither study included information on the type of implementing agencies.

Participants were from three locations: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Eugene, Oregon; and Charlottesville, Virginia.

FCU served rural, suburban, and urban populations.

A local community agency implemented the program in the case study. In the ESMS study, a university implemented the program.