Child & Youth Care Forum

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 171–196 | Cite as

Parent Involvement in Early Childhood Home Visiting

  • Jon KorfmacherEmail author
  • Beth Green
  • Fredi Staerkel
  • Carla Peterson
  • Gina Cook
  • Lori Roggman
  • Richard A. Faldowski
  • Rachel Schiffman
Original Paper


This review provides an overview of an important aspect of early childhood home visiting research: understanding how parents are involved in program services and activities. Involvement is defined as the process of the parent connecting with and using the services of a program to the best of the client’s and the program’s ability. The term includes two broad dimensions: participation, or the quantity of intervention a family receives; and engagement, or the emotional quality of the family’s interaction with the program. Research that includes examination of parent involvement is reviewed, including examples from the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Factors that influence involvement are noted, including parent characteristics, qualities of the home visitor, and program features. The need for further measurement development and implications of these findings for home visiting programs are discussed.


Home Visitor Parent Involvement Healthy Start Parent Engagement Healthy Family 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The findings reported here are based on research conducted as part of the national Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project funded by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under contract 105-95-1936 to Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ, and Columbia University’s Center for Children and Families, Teachers College, in conjunction with the Early Head Start Research Consortium. The Consortium consists of representatives from 17 programs participating in the evaluation, 15 local research teams, the evaluation contractors, and ACF. Research institutions in the Consortium (and principal researchers for conducting this research through 36 months of age) include ACF (Rachel Chazan Cohen, Judith Jerald, Esther Kresh, Helen Raikes, and Louisa Tarullo); Catholic University of America (Michaela Farber, Harriet Liebow, Nancy Taylor, Elizabeth Timberlake, and Shavaun Wall); Columbia University (Lisa Berlin, Christy Brady-Smith, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Allison Sidle Fuligni); Harvard University (Catherian Ayoub, Barbara Alexander Pan, and Catherine Snow); Iowa State University (Dee Draper, Gayle Luze, Susan McBride, Carla Peterson); Mathematica Policy Research (Kimberly Boller, Jill Constantine, Ellen Eliason Kisker, John M. Love, Diane Paulsell, Christine Ross, Peter Schochet, Cheri Vogel, and Welmoet van Kammen); Medical University of South Carolina (Richard Faldowski, Gui-Young Hong, and Susan Pickrel); Michigan State University (Hiram Fitzgerad, Tom Reischl, and Rachel Schiffman); New York University (Mark Spellmann and Catherine Tamis-LeMonda); University of Arkansas (Robert Bradley, Richard Clubb, Andrea Hart, Mark Swanson, and Leanne Witeside-Mansell); University of California, Los Angeles (Carollee Howes and Claire Hamilton); University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (Robert Emde, Jon Korfmacher, JoAnn Robinson, Paul Spicer, and Norman Watt); University of Kansas (Jane Atwater, Judith Carta, and Jean Ann Summers); University of Missouri-Columbia (Mark Fine, Jean Ispa, and Kathy Thornburg); University of Pittsburgh (Beth Green, Carol McAllister, and Robert McCall); University of Washington School of Education (Eduardo Armijo and Joseph Stowitschek); University of Washington School of Nursing (Kathryn Barnard and Susan Spieker), and Utah State University (Lisa Boyce, Gina Cook, Catherine Callow-Heusser, and Lori Roggman).


  1. Administration for Children, Families. (1998). Head Start Program performance measures: Second progress report. Washington, DC: DHHS.Google Scholar
  2. Administration for Children, Families. (2002). Making a difference in the lives of children and families: The impacts of Early Head Start Programs on young children and their families. Summary report. Washington, DC: DHHS.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, A. J. L., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1999). The home instruction program for preschool youngsters (HIPPY). The Future of Children, 9, 116–133. doi: 10.2307/1602724.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnard, K. E., Magyary, D., Sumner, G., Booth, C. L., Mitchell, S. K., & Spieker, S. (1988). Prevention of parenting alterations for women of low social support. Psychiatry, 51, 248–253.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Belsky, J. (1986). A tale of two variances: Between and within. Child Development, 57, 1301–1305. doi: 10.2307/1130453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, C., Nelson, L. G., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70, 167–184.Google Scholar
  7. Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16(3), 252–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brookes, S., Summers, J. A., Thornburg, K. R., Ispa, J. M., & Lane, V. J. (2006). Building successful home visitor-mother relationships and reaching program goals in two Early Head Start Programs: A qualitative look at contributing factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 25–45. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Do you believe in magic? What we can expect from early childhood intervention programs. SRCD Social Policy Report, 17(1).Google Scholar
  10. Castro, D. C., Bryant, D. M., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Skinner, M. L. (2004). Parent involvement in Head Start Programs: the role of parent, teacher and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 413–431. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaffin, M. (2004). Is it time to rethink healthy start/healthy families? Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 589–595. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole, R., Kitzman, H., Olds, D., & Sidora, K. (1998). Family context as a moderator of program effects in prenatal and early childhood home visitation. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 37–48. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199801)26:1<37::AID-JCOP4>3.0.CO;2-Z.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, L. M., & Sayer, A. G. (2001). New methods for the analysis of Change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  14. Connell, J. P., & Kubisch, A. C. (1998). Applying a theories of change approach to the design and evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Daro, D. (2006). Home visitation: Assessing progress, managing expectations. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children. Retrieved November 21, 2006, at
  16. Daro, D. A., & Harding, K. A. (1999). Healthy families America: Using research to enhance practice. The Future of Children, 9, 152–176. doi: 10.2307/1602726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daro, D., McCurdy, K., Falconnier, L., & Stojanovic, D. (2003). Sustaining new parents in home visitation services: key participant and program factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1101–1125. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duggan, A., Caldera, D., Rodriguez, K., Burrell, L., Rohde, C., & Crowne, S. S. (2007). Impact of a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 801–827. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duggan, A., Fuddy, L., Burrell, L., Higman, S. M., McFarlane, E., Windham, A., et al. (2004). Randomized trial of a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse: impact in reducing parental risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 623–643.Google Scholar
  20. Duggan, A. K., McFarlan, E. C., Windham, A. M., Rhode, C. A., Salkever, D. S., Fuddy, L., et al. (1999). Evaluation of Hawaii’s Healthy Start Program. The Future of Children, 9, 66–90. doi: 10.2307/1602722.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunst, C. J., & Paget, K. D. (1991). Parent-professional partnerships and family empowerment. In M. Fine (Ed.), Collaborative involvement with parents of exceptional children (pp. 25–44). BrandonVT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 367–376. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Bucholtz, I. (1995). Effects of adult attachment style on the perception and search for social support. Journal of Psychology, 129, 665–676.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuddy, L. J. (1992). Healthy start data & evaluation: What have we learned along the road to success. Paper presented at the Hawaii Healthy Start Conference, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
  25. Gomby, D. (2005). Home visitation in 2005: Outcomes for children and parents. Invest in Kids Working Paper No. 7. Committee for Economic Development: Invest in Kids Working Group. Accessed 30 Aug 2006
  26. Gomby, D. S. (2007). The promise and limitations of home visiting: Implementing effective programs. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 793–799. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.07.001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gomby, D. S., Culross, P. L., & Behrman, R. E. (1999). Home visiting: Recent program evaluations-analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 9, 4–26. doi: 10.2307/1602719.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gray, S. W., & Wandersman, L. P. (1980). The methodology of home-based intervention studies: Problems and promising solutions. Child Development, 51, 993–1009. doi: 10.2307/1129537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Green, B. L., Johnson, S. A., & Rodgers, A. (1999). Understanding patterns of service delivery and participation in community-based family support programs. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 2, 1–22. doi: 10.1207/s15326918cs0201_1.Google Scholar
  30. Green, B. L., McAllister, C. A., & Tarte, J. (2004). The strengths-based practices inventory: A measure of strengths-based practices for social service programs. Families in Society, 85, 326–335.Google Scholar
  31. Greenspan, S., Wieder, S., Lieberman, A. F., Nover, R., Robinson, M., & Lourie, R. (Eds.). (1987). Infants in multirisk families. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  32. Guralnick, M. J. (1997). Second-generation research in the field of early intervention. In M. J. Guarlnick (Ed.), The Effectiveness of Early Intervention (pp. 3–20). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Guskin, K. A., & O’Brien, R. A. (2006). Using logic models to strengthen implementation and outcome evaluation: Collaborations among early childhood home visitation programs. Poster presented at the Head Start Eighth National Research Conference. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  34. Hans, S., & Korfmacher, J. (2002). The professional development of paraprofessionals. Zero To Three, 23(2), 4–8.Google Scholar
  35. Head Start Bureau (2007). Head Start Program fact sheet: Fiscal Year 2007. Accessed 1 Nov 2007.
  36. Hebbeler, K. M., & Gerlach-Downie, S. G. (2002). Inside the black box of home visiting: A qualitative analysis of why intended outcomes were not achieved. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 28–51. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(02) 00128-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heffron, M. C., Ivins, B., & Weston, D. R. (2005). Finding an authentic voice—use of self: Essential learning processes for relationship-based work. Infants & Young Children, 18, 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heinicke, C. M., Goorsky, M., Moscov, S., Dudley, K., Gordon, J., Schneider, C., et al. (2000). Relationship-based intervention with at-risk mothers: Factors affecting variations in outcome. Infant Mental Health Journal, 21, 133–155. doi:10.1002/1097-0355(200007)21:3<133::AID-IMHJ1>3.0.CO;2-P.Google Scholar
  39. Hiatt, S. W., Sampson, D., & Baird, D. (1997). Paraprofessional home visitation: Conceptual and pragmatic considerations. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 77–93. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199701)25:1<77::AID-JCOP6>3.0.CO;2-#.Google Scholar
  40. Hill, J. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2003). Sustained effects of participation in an early intervention for low-birth-weight premature infants. Developmental Psychology, 39, 730–744. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.730.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Horvath, A. O., & Bedi, R. P. (2002). The alliance. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy Relationships that Work: Therapist Contributions and Responsiveness to Patients (pp. 37–69). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Horvath, A. O. (2000). The therapeutic relationship: From transference to alliance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(2), 163–173. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200002)56:2<163::AID-JCLP3>3.0.CO;2-D.Google Scholar
  43. Kazdin, A. E., & Wassell, G. (1999). Barriers to treatment participation and therapeutic change among children referred for conduct disorder. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 160–172. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2802_4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelly, J. F., Buehlman, K., & Caldwell, K. (2000). Training personnel to promote quality parent–child interaction in families who are homeless. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. King, C. (1995). The people of Kids Place: Creating and maintaining comprehensive services for young children and their families in small rural communities. Zero to Three, 15, 10–13.Google Scholar
  46. Kitzman, H. J., Cole, R., Yoos, H. L., & Olds, D. (1997a). Challenges experienced by home visitors: A qualitative study of program implementation. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 95–109. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199701)25:1<95::AID-JCOP7>3.0.CO;2-1.Google Scholar
  47. Kitzman, H., Yoos, H. L., Cole, R., Korfmacher, J., & Hanks, C. (1997b). Prenatal and early childhood home visitation processes: A case illustration. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 27–46. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199701)25:1<27::AID-JCOP3>3.0.CO;2-#.Google Scholar
  48. Korfmacher, J., Adam, E., Ogawa, J., & Egeland, B. (1997). Adult attachment: Implications for the therapeutic process in a home visitation intervention. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 43–52. doi: 10.1207/s1532480xads0101_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Korfmacher, J., Green, B., Spellman, M., & Thornburg, K. (2007). Parent report of the helping relationship in early childhood home visiting. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28, 459–480. doi: 10.1002/imhj.20148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Korfmacher, J., Kitzman, H. K., & Olds, D. L. (1998). Intervention processes as conditioners of home visitation program effects. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 49–64. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199801)26:1<49::AID-JCOP5>3.0.CO;2-X.Google Scholar
  51. Korfmacher, J., & Marchi, I. (2002). The helping relationship in a paraprofessional teen parenting program. Zero To Three, 23(2), 21–26.Google Scholar
  52. Korfmacher, J., O’Brien, R., Hiatt, S., & Olds, D. (1999). Differences in program implementation between nurses and paraprofessionals in prenatal and infancy home visitation: A randomized trial. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1847–1851.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. LeLaurin, K. (1992). Infant and toddler models of service delivery: Are they detrimental for some children and families? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 82–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lieberman, A. F., Weston, D., & Pawl, J. H. (1991). Preventive intervention and outcome with anxiously attached dyads. Child Development, 62, 199–209. doi: 10.2307/1130715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Littell, J. H., Alexander, L. B., & Reynolds, W. W. (2001). Client participation: Central and underinvestigated elements of intervention. Social Services Review, 75, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Raikes, H., Constantine, J., Boller, K., et al. (2005). The effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-year-old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs. Developmental Psychology, 41, 885–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Luze, G., Peterson, C. A., & Wu, S. (2002). The process of home visits: Different views of what is happening. Paper presented at Head Start’s Sixth National Research Conference. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  58. McAllister, C., & Green, B. L. (2000). Which families are engaged and why? Program and research perspectives on participation in Early Head Start. Poster presented at the Fifth National Head Start Research Conference. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  59. McBride, S. L., & Peterson, C. A. (1997). Home-based early intervention with families of children with disabilities: Who is doing what? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 209–233.Google Scholar
  60. McCurdy, K., & Daro, D. (2001). Parent involvement in family support: An integrated theory. Family Relations, 50, 113–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2001.00113.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McCurdy, K., Gannon, R. A., & Daro, D. (2003). Participation patterns in home-based family support programs: Ethnic variations. Family Relations, 52, 3–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00003.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McDermott, P. A. (1998). MEG: Megacluster analytic strategy for multistage hierarchical grouping with relocations and replications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 677–686. doi: 10.1177/0013164498058004010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McGuigan, W. M., Katzev, A. R., & Pratt, C. C. (2003). Multi-level determinants of retention in a home visiting child abuse prevention program. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27, 363–378. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(03) 00024-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nauta, M. J., & Hewett, K. (1988). Studying complexity: The case of the Child and Family Resource Program. In H. B. Weiss & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating family programs (pp. 389–406). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  65. Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Kitzman, H. J., Eckenrode, J. J., Cole, R. E., & Tatelbaum, R. C. (1999). Prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses: Recent findings. Future of Children, 9(1), 44–65. doi: 10.2307/1602721.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Olds, D. L., & Korfmacher, J. (1998). Maternal psychological characteristics as influences on home visitation contact. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 23–36. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199801)26:1<23::AID-JCOP3>3.0.CO;2-2.Google Scholar
  67. Olds, D., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., & Robinson, J. (1998). Theoretical foundations of a program of home visitation for pregnant women and parents of young children. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 9–25. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199701)25:1<9::AID-JCOP2>3.0.CO;2-V.Google Scholar
  68. Osofsky, J. D., Culp, A. M., & Ware, L. M. (1988). Intervention challenges with adolescent mothers and their infants. Psychiatry, 51, 236–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Parlakian, R. (2001). Look, listen, & learn: Reflective supervision and relationship-based Work. Washington, D.C.: Zero To Three.Google Scholar
  70. Pawl, J. H., & John, M. (1998). How you are is as important as what you do. Washington, DC: Zero To Three.Google Scholar
  71. Peterson, C. A., Luze, G. J., Eshbaugh, E. M., Jeon, H., & Kantz, K. R. (2007). Enhancing parent–child interactions through home visiting: Promising practice or unfulfilled promise? Journal of Early Intervention, 29, 119–140. doi: 10.1177/105381510702900205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pharis, M. E., & Levin, V. S. (1991). “A person to talk to who really cared”: High-risk mothers’ evaluations of services in an intensive intervention research program. Child Welfare, 70, 307–320.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Powell, C., & Grantham-McGregor, S. (1989). Home visiting of varying frequency and child development. Pediatrics, 84, 157–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Powell, D. R. (2005). Searches for what works in parenting interventions. In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An Ecological Perspective (2nd ed., pp. 343–373). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  75. Raikes, H., Green, B., Atwater, J., Kisker, E., Constantine, J., & Chazan-Cohen, R. (2006). Involvement in Early Head Start home visiting services: Demographic predictors and relations to child and parent outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 2–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ramey, C. T., Bryant, D. M., Wasik, B. H., Sparling, J. J., Fendt, K. H., & LaVange, L. M. (1992). Infant Health and Development Program for low birth weight, premature infants: Program elements, family participation, and child intelligence. Pediatrics, 89, 454–465.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Rauh, V. A., Achenbach, T. M., Nurcombe, B., Howell, C. T., & Teti, D. M. (1988). Minimizing adverse effects of low birthweight: Four year results of an early intervention program. Child Development, 59, 544–553. doi: 10.2307/1130556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rector-Staerkel, F. (2002). Early Head Start: Home Visiting and Parenting Group Program uptake—an implementation study. UMI Dissertation Services. Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  79. Roberts, R. N., Akers, A. L., & Behl, D. D. (1996). Family-level service coordination within home visiting programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16(3), 279–301.Google Scholar
  80. Robinson, J. L., Korfmacher, J., Green, S., Song, N., Soden, R., & Emde, R. N. (2002). Predicting program use and acceptance by parents enrolled in Early Head Start. NHSA Dialog, 5(2/3), 311–324. doi: 10.1207/s19309325nhsa0502&3_11.Google Scholar
  81. Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., Cook, G. A., & Cook, J. (2002). Getting dads involved: Predictors of father involvement in Early Head Start and with their children. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23, 62–78. doi: 10.1002/imhj.10004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Roggman, L. A., Boyce, L. K., Cook, G. A., & Jump, V. K. (2001). Inside home visits: A collaborative look at process and quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 53–71. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00085-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Roggman, L. A., Cook, G. A., Peterson, C., & Raikes, H. (in press). Who drops out of Early Head Start home visiting programs? Early Education and Development. Google Scholar
  84. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55. doi: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  86. Slaughter-Defoe, D. T. (1993). Home visiting with families in poverty: Introducing the concept of culture. The Future of Children, 3(3), 172–183. doi: 10.2307/1602549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Spieker, S. J., Solchany, J., McKenna, M., DeKlyen, M., & Barnard, K. B. (2000). The story of mothers who are difficult to engage. In J. D. Osofsky & H. I. Fitzgerald (Eds.), World association of infant mental health handbook of infant mental health, Vol 3: Parenting and child care (pp. 172–209). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  88. St. Pierre, R. G., & Layzer, J. I. (1999). Using home visits for multiple purposes: The Comprehensive Child Development Program. Future of Children, 9(1), 134–151. doi: 10.2307/1602725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sweet, M. A., & Appelbaum, M. I. (2004). Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Development, 75, 1435–1456. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00750.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. United States Department of Education. (2006). FR Document 06–2936: Overview information; parental information and resource centers (PIRC); notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY). Federal Register, 71(58), 15314–15320.Google Scholar
  91. United States Public Health Service. (2000). Report of the surgeon general’s conference on children’s mental health: A national action Agenda. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  92. Wagner, M. M., & Clayton, S. L. (1999). The parents as teachers program: Results from two demonstrations. Future of Children, 9(1), 91–115. doi: 10.2307/1602723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wagner, M., Spiker, D., Gerlach-Downie, S., & Hernandez, F. (2000). Parental engagement in home visiting programs–Findings from the Parents as Teachers multisite evaluation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
  94. Wagner, M., Spiker, D., Hernandez, F., Song, J., & Gerlach-Downie, S. (2001). Multisite parents as teachers evaluation. Experiences and outcomes for children and families. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
  95. Wallace, J., & Vaux, A. (1993). Social support network orientation: The role of adult attachment style. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 354–365.Google Scholar
  96. Wasik, B. H., & Bryant, D. M. (2001). Home visiting: Procedures for helping families (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  97. Weiss, H., Caspe, M., Lopez, E., (2006). Family involvement in early childhood education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Accessed 9 Oct 2006.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Korfmacher
    • 1
    Email author
  • Beth Green
    • 2
  • Fredi Staerkel
    • 3
  • Carla Peterson
    • 4
  • Gina Cook
    • 5
  • Lori Roggman
    • 5
  • Richard A. Faldowski
    • 6
  • Rachel Schiffman
    • 7
  1. 1.Erikson InstituteChicagoUSA
  2. 2.NPC Research, Inc.PortlandUSA
  3. 3.University of Wisconsin OshkoshOshkoshUSA
  4. 4.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  5. 5.Utah State UniversityLoganUSA
  6. 6.Medical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  7. 7.University of Wisconsin MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations