SafeCare®

Model effectiveness research report last updated: 2018

Effects shown in research

Reductions in juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime

Findings rated high

Silovsky, J. F., Bard, D., Chaffin, M., Hecht, D., Burris, L., Owora, A., Beasley, L., Doughty, D., & Lutzker, J. (2011). Prevention of child maltreatment in high-risk rural families: A randomized clinical trial with child welfare outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1435-1444.

SafeCare Augmented

Show findings details

Outcome measure	Effect	Follow-up timing	Sample	Sample size	Intervention group	Comparison group	Group difference	Effect size	Statistical significance	Notes
CTS2 victimization, negotiation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	10 months	Rural Southwest	105 families	Mean = 53.60	Mean = 50.00	Mean difference = 3.60	HomVEE calculated = 0.08	Statistically significant, p < 0.001
CTS2 victimization, negotiation	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	17 months	Rural Southwest	105 families	Mean = 51.10	Mean = 54.30	Mean difference = -3.20	HomVEE calculated = -0.08	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
CTS2 victimization, partnered	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	10 months	Rural Southwest	105 families	Mean = 0.48	Mean = 0.76	Mean difference = -0.28	HomVEE calculated = -0.75	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
CTS2 victimization, partnered	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	17 months	Rural Southwest	105 families	Mean = 0.62	Mean = 0.72	Mean difference = -0.10	HomVEE calculated = -0.28	Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05
Referral to child welfare for domestic violence	FavorableUnfavorable or ambiguousNo Effect	716 days	Rural Southwest	105 families	Unadjusted proportion = 0.00	Unadjusted proportion = 0.12	Mean difference = -0.12	Not available	Statistically significant, p < 0.05	Negative effect is favorable Submitted by user on Fri, 03/15/2019 - 14:29 Negative effect is favorable to the intervention.

View Revisions