Practice Profile: Early Developmental Prevention Programs for At-Risk Youths

Evidence Rating for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types

Crime & Delinquency | Criminal justice involvement

Date: This profile was posted on March 23, 2022

Practice Goals/Target Population

Research has shown there can be deterioration of both health (e.g., depression, hyperactivity, intellectual disability) and nonhealth (e.g., crime, education) outcomes over time for children in at-risk populations (Stanley, Richardson, and Prior, 2005; Manning, Homel, and Smith, 2010). Early developmental prevention programs are interventions that focus was on enhancing child, parent–child, or family well-being early in an at-risk child’s life (ages 0–5) to prevent negative outcomes in the future. The goal of these programs is to minimize future health, educational, behavioral, and crime-related problems (Manning, Homel, and Smith, 2010). This practice targets at-risk youth specifically, such as children from low-income families or children living in areas of high unemployment.

Practice Components

While all of the interventions within this practice focus on enhancing child, parent–child, or family well-being, the specific programs included within the practice may differ considerably. For example, programs can include structured preschool programs, center-based childcare or developmental daycare, home visitation programs, parental education, and family support services.

Programs within this practice may also be comprised of different components. One example of a program that combined several components is the Syracuse Family Development Research Program. This program implemented home visitation, parent training, and a childcare component to ensure improvement in all aspects of the child’s well-being. Weekly home visits were conducted by child development trainers and assisted parents in creating developmentally appropriate and interactive games for their children, modeled appropriate interactions with children, and acted as a liaison between the families and other support services. During the childcare component, caregivers assigned to the child played cognitive and socially interactive games, encouraged sensorimotor activities, and assisted with language stimulation. These activities and services were available for the families until the child was 5 years old to provide a fair, safe, and consistent environment that offered freedom of choice and awareness of responsibility (Honig, 2007; Lally, Mangione, and Honig, 1988).

Meta-Analysis Snapshot
	Literature Coverage Dates	Number of Studies	Number of Study Participants
Meta Analysis 1	1970-2008	17	3035

Meta Analysis 1

Using meta-analytic techniques, Manning, Homel, and Smith (2010) analyzed the effect of early developmental prevention programs for at-risk children (ages 0–5) on various nonhealth outcomes during adolescence (ages 10–19). To identify eligible studies, a systematic search of 23 key journals (e.g., Journal of Primary Prevention, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, and Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology) was conducted. Ten electronic databases (e.g., SAGE, CSA) covering the years 1970 to 2008 were searched, using keywords such as “prevention,” “early intervention,” “home visitation,” and “preschool education.”

To be considered eligible for inclusion, studies had to meet 10 criteria: 1) the intervention began before the children started school; 2) the intervention focus was on developing or enhancing child, parent–child, or family well-being; 3) intervention programs adopted either universal (all children in an at-risk population) or selected approaches (high-risk children within the group of an at-risk population); 4) intervention programs were not aimed specifically at treating children with mental health or severe developmental problems; 5) the study design was at least Level 4 in design quality according to the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (i.e., a randomized or matched groups quasi-experimental design); 6) the results were published in 2008 or earlier; 7) outcome measures collected and reported related to one or more of the outcome domains (education success, cognitive development, social–emotional development, deviance, social participation, criminal justice involvement, and family well-being); 8) there was at least one post-intervention follow-up during the adolescent years; 9) effect sizes could be identified and calculated; and 10) interventions were directed at disadvantaged and/or low socioeconomic populations (i.e., at-risk youth).

The search resulted in the identification and inclusion of 11 intervention programs that incorporated 17 follow-up studies. Of the 11 programs evaluated, 1 was less than 1 year in duration, 6 were 1 to 3 years in duration, and 4 were 3 years or longer in duration. The intensity of the interventions also varied; three consisted of fewer than 300 sessions, three consisted of 300 to 500 sessions, and five consisted of more than 500 sessions. All the studies included were based in the United States. The CrimeSolutions review of the meta-analysis focused on the five studies that evaluated criminal justice involvement (three of which also evaluated deviance) in the follow-up. The effect sizes for the outcome variables were calculated using Cohen’s d.

Date Created: July 17, 2024

Rating Process

Learn how this and other practices are rated

Practice Snapshot

Age: 0 - 5

Gender: Male, Female

Targeted Population: Families

Setting (Delivery): School, Other Community Setting, Home

Practice Type: Academic Skills Enhancement, Alternative School, Classroom Curricula, Parent Training, School/Classroom Environment

Unit of Analysis: Persons

Practice Profile: Early Developmental Prevention Programs for At-Risk Youths

Practice Summary

Practice Description

Practice Goals/Target Population

Practice Components

Meta-Analysis Outcomes

Meta-Analysis Methodology

Cost

Evidence-Base (Meta-Analyses Reviewed)

Additional References

Related Programs