Send an Annotation from the Connection Collection by E-mail

This page opened in a new window. Use the form below to send this citation by e-mail or close this window if you wish to return to the Connections Collection.

Send Citation and Annotation by E-mail Enter the e-mail address to which you would like to send this citation/annotation, and click the "send e-mail" button.

Citation:

St. Pierre, R., & Layzer, J. (1999). Using home visits for multiple purposes: The comprehensive child development program. The Future of Children, 9(1), 116-133.

Annotation:
This article reports on an evaluation of the Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP), a large-scale, five-year demonstration program funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The CCDP was a two-generation program targeted to low-income children ages 0 to 5 and their families. The program provided a range of educational, health, and social services, using home visits as the primary means of delivering both case management and early childhood education services. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) design was used to evaluate 21 project sites and 4,410 families. Families recruited for participation in the program were randomly assigned to program or control groups. Data were collected on a variety of family background, family outcome, and child outcome measures. The study found no significant differences in outcomes between control and intervention groups for either parents or children. Positive changes were noted for both children and families, including increases in childrenÕs vocabulary and achievement scores, the percentage of mothers in the labor force, and the average income of CCDP mothers and decreases in the percentage of families relying on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps and the percentage of mothers who were depressed. However, these same changes occurred in control group families as well. Only in one of the 21 sites were there statistically significant and moderately large positive effects on several outcomes, including childrenÕs cognitive development; familiesÕ employment, income, and use of federal benefits; and parenting attitudes. Although no single factor could be identified to explain the differences for this site, the authors note that the siteÕs program was managed by a school district and thus Òhad a clear focus on children and their education,Ó that the site Òhad a particularly strong project director and senior staffÓ with low turnover, and that the site served a population Òsomewhat less at risk than the populations served in many (but not all) other sitesÓ (p. 144).