Black or African American
20%
Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Gerlach-Downie, S. (1996). Intervention in support of adolescent parents and their children: A final report on the Teen Parents as Teachers Demonstration. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Model(s) Reviewed
Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model.
Funding Sources
Office of Child Abuse Prevention in the California Department of Social Services; Center for the Future of Children of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; and the Stuart Foundation.
Study Design
| Design | Attrition | Baseline equivalence | Confounding factors | Valid, reliable measures? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randomized controlled trial | High | Established on race/ethnicity, and SES. Lack of equivalence on baseline contraceptive use and experience with infants. |
None |
Not assessed in manuscripts reviewed under Handbook of Procedures and Standards, Version 1 |
In 2020, HomVEE updated this review to remove four findings related mother's partnership status/family structure and two about the teen mother being the only adult in the household from the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency domain because ACF determined that these outcomes are ineligible for review by HomVEE.
Although some effect sizes are included in the study tables, HomVEE was unable to determine if they pertain to the one-year or two-year results and excluded the study-reported effect sizes from this table.
Findings that rate moderate or high in this manuscript
Child health
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child had a regular source of medical care | 1 year | Moderate | 0.20 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 232 children | Teen mothers sample | ||
| Child saw a doctor for well-baby care in past 6 months | 1 year | Moderate | 0.30 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 232 children | Teen mothers sample | ||
| Child had a regular source of medical care | 2 year | Moderate | 0.21 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 192 children | Teen mothers sample | ||
| Child saw a doctor for well-baby care in past 6 months | 2 year | Moderate | 0.33 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 194 children | Teen mothers sample |
Child development and school readiness
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPII average months differential: cognitive development | 1 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 236 children | Teen mothers sample | |||
| DPII average months differential: social development | 1 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 236 children | Teen mothers sample | |||
| DPII average months differential: self-help | 1 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 236 children | Teen mothers sample | |||
| DPII average months differential: communication development | 1 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 236 children | Teen mothers sample | |||
| DPII average months differential: physical development | 1 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 236 children | Teen mothers sample | |||
| DPII average months differential: cognitive development | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 196 children | Teen mothers sample | |||
| DPII average months differential: social development | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 196 children | Teen mothers sample | |||
| DPII average months differential: self-help | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 196 children | Teen mothers sample | |||
| DPII average months differential: communication development | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 196 children | Teen mothers sample | |||
| DPII average months differential: physical development | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 196 children | Teen mothers sample |
Positive parenting practices
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOME total scale | 1 year | Moderate | Statistically significant,p < 0.05 | 236 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME parental responsivity subscale | 1 year | Moderate | Statistically significant,p < 0.05 | 236 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale | 1 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 236 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME appropriate play materials subscale | 1 year | Moderate | Statistically significant,p < 0.05 | 236 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME organization of the environment subscale | 1 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 236 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME involvement with child subscale | 1 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 236 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale | 1 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 236 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME total scale | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 195 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME parental responsivity subscale | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 195 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME acceptance of child’s behavior subscale | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 195 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME appropriate play materials subscale | 2 year | Moderate | Statistically significant,p < 0.05 | 195 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME organization of the environment subscale | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 195 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME involvement with child subscale | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 195 mothers | Teen mothers sample | |||
| HOME opportunities for stimulation subscale | 2 year | Moderate | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 195 mothers | Teen mothers sample |
Family economic self-sufficiency
| Outcome measure | Timing of follow-up | Rating | Direction of Effect | Effect size (absolute value) | Stastical significance | Sample size | Sample description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working or in job training | 1 year | Moderate | 0.08 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 234 mothers | Teen mothers sample | ||
| Receiving AFDC at assessment | 1 year | Moderate | 0.19 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 234 mothers | Teen mothers sample | ||
| Working or in job training | 2 year | Moderate | 0.07 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 194 mothers | Teen mothers sample | ||
| Receiving AFDC at assessment | 2 year | Moderate | 0.17 | Not statistically significant, p ≥ 0.05 | 192 mothers | Teen mothers sample |
Study Participants
Four sites in California recruited 717 teens to participate in the study. Teens were eligible if they (1) were less than 19 years of age, and (2) were pregnant or had babies younger than 6 months. Teens were randomly assigned to four conditions: (1) PAT , (2) case management, (3) PAT plus case management, or (4) control group. The HomVEE report focuses on the comparison between PAT and the control group. At enrollment, over half of the mothers were Latina (56%), 20% were African American, 21% were white, and the remainder were classified as “other” race/ethnicity. The average age was 16.7 years, and approximately 30% had dropped out of high school. Follow-ups were conducted around the time of the child’s 1- and 2-year birthdays.
Setting
The study was conducted in four sites: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Santa Barbara. The sponsoring agencies at the sites included three youth-serving organizations and one partnership between a local YWCA and the county health department.
Home Visiting Services
Families enrolled in PAT received monthly home visits and group meetings for as long as they remained in the program, up to the child’s second birthday. During the home visits, parent educators provided lessons using the PAT curriculum. Families received 10 visits on average over the two-year period. The study indicates that the PAT services began to “blend” with the case management services, even though this was designed to be a separate condition in the study. For example, some parent educators addressed family planning and postponing subsequent pregnancies, which was a focus of case management, but not part of the PAT curriculum.
Model(s) Reviewed
Navigate to model page for more information about the home visiting model.
Comparison Conditions
The comparison families received only the services that were normally available in the community and that they sought of their own accord. In addition, they received age-appropriate toys at regular quarterly intervals, which were used as a means of tracking their locations.
This study included participants from the following locations:
- California