Program Profile: Parent-Child Development Center

This is a primary prevention parent-training program, which was designed to reduce educational failure and improve child behavior in low-income, minority families with children ages 2 months to 3 years. The program is rated No Effects. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and comparison groups in grades, internalizing or externalizing behavior problems, classroom behavior, retention in grade, or total behavior problems observed by mothers or teachers.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals/Target Population

Parent–Child Development Centers (PCDCs) provided a parent training program designed to foster relationships between parents and children. This primary prevention program concentrated on enhancing the academic aptitude and preventing problem behavior of children from low-income families. The goals of PCDCs were to have children:

• Present fewer acting-out behaviors
• Present fewer moody, withdrawn behaviors
• Be perceived as less hostile
• Be less often involved in delinquent activities

The original PCDCs existed as research and development centers and ran from 1970 to 1978. They were located in Birmingham, AL; Houston, Texas; and New Orleans, LA. Participants at all sites were racial and ethnic minorities living in impoverished urban centers. Each site had seven cohorts/waves of participants go through the 2-year parent training program, which concluded when children were 36 months (3 years) old. All three sites additionally offered parents classes in health, nutrition, and family planning and assisted families in obtaining public welfare and health services in their communities. Today, the three sites continue as parent–child centers assisting the same populations in receiving services. However, the parent training program, discussed further below, is no longer active at these parent–child centers.

Program Theory

The general theory guiding the PCDCs was that poverty persists because those affected by it lack the education and skills to move into well-paying jobs. Thus, if educational failure could be prevented and school achievement improved, then eventually economic status could improve as well. Previous research suggested that interventions targeting children should begin as early in a child’s life as possible and that improvement would continue if parents were integral to the intervention (Johnson 2006). The aim of the intervention was to facilitate basic cognitive, language, and social skills early in life to form a lasting foundation throughout the child’s life.

Program Activities

Though the PCDCs shared common goals, the parent training programs were developed independently at each site in accordance with funding agency instructions. Thus the three sites differed slightly in program activities and operation.

Houston

The first year of the parent training program was delivered in the home. Participants entered the program when their children were 1 year old. Paraprofessional and professional educators made 25 to 30 home visits, instructing mothers on how to understand infant behavior and how to stimulate their children’s cognitive, social, and language development. These in-home sessions lasted around 90 minutes, beginning with a review of the preceding session and discussion of assigned homework. Educators then presented a new lesson/activity for mothers to do with their children. The new lesson and activity was then practiced by the mother while the educator watched. Afterward, the educator and mother discussed what the child was learning and how he or she was learning those skills, then a new homework assignment was given. Mothers were the primary concentration of the PCDCs. Educators encouraged mothers to develop their children’s skills and resources by turning the home into an active learning environment.

In the second year, the in-home sessions ended, and mothers brought their children to project centers. Children attended preschool while mothers received classes in homemaking, child care, cognitive stimulation, and English as a second language. Fathers participated in optional monthly evening meetings. Because of requests by parents, additional classes in sex education, family planning, driver education, and home buying were given as well. All classes used a variety of educational approaches, conceptual presentations, and feedback. Social and medical services were provided by staff nurses and community workers, with emphases placed on the parents becoming knowledgeable about these services and on knowing how to gain access to them.

Birmingham

In the first year of the program mothers came to the PCDCs. Mothers and their children spent 3 half-days per week at the center. Mothers started off as observers, watching the professional educators work with their children. In the second year, this first cohort of mothers was in the center for 4 half-days per week and became understudy/assistant teachers to the second cohort of mothers entering the program. Thus, each mother in the program learned through observation of professional educators and teaching of other mothers. During the second year, mothers also came to the PCDC 1 full-day a week for classes in health, social services, child development, and adult growth. In the last months of the program, mothers attended 5 full-days a week, working with their children, teaching other mothers, and taking classes.

New Orleans

Families entered the program when their babies were 2 months old. Both versions of the parent training program—home visit and center-based—were available at this PCDC. The contents of the versions were similar, but group discussions occurred only in the center-based training program. The home visit parent training program was similar to the model that was employed in Houston, and the center-based program was similar to the model used in Birmingham. However, in New Orleans, the discussion topics and teaching methods concentrated more on the personal development of mothers than did the other two sites, which placed more attention on the children.

Study 1

Johnson and Walker (1991) conducted a long-term study on the parent training program administered at the Parent–Child Development Centers (PCDCs) in Houston, Texas. A classic experimental design was used in which participants were randomly selected to be part of the control or the treatment group. Study participants were selected from neighborhoods that had the lowest family income, lowest adult level of education, and greatest number of Spanish surnames according to the U.S. Census. Families were eligible for the study and to receive the program if they identified as low income, were Mexican American, and had a healthy (no neurological problems) 1-year-old child. The program lasted 2 years, with the first year held in participant’s homes and the second year in the project centers. Control group families received no services other than annual assessments, and the program group families received the parent training program given through the PCDCs. This follow-up study used data collected when the children reached fifth grade and were between 8 and 11 years old.

No initial differences between the control group and the PCDC group were detected. All available efforts were made to track down study participants, but only 56 percent of the total study sample could be located. The original study sample had 90 children in the PCDC group and 201 children in the control group. Because of attrition, follow-up data and final analyses were collected only on 50 PCDC group children and 87 control group children. Even though the control group was almost twice the size of the PCDC group, there was no statistically significant attrition between the groups.

The Classroom Behavior Inventory was used to assess numerous behavioral issues, such as hostility and distractibility, and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills were used to measure academic aptitude. All student grades and records were also collected and examined to provide another measure of academic performance.

Analysis of variance (known as ANOVA) and chi-square tests were used to identify significant statistical differences between the control and treatment groups from baseline to follow-up. The researchers conducted subgroup analyses on gender.

Study 2

Johnson (2006) used an experimental design and examined the impact of PCDC using data from three sites: Birmingham, Ala.; New Orleans, La.; and Houston, Texas. All three sites used similar participant selection criteria. Neighborhoods that had the lowest family income, lowest adult level of education, and the greatest amount of racial and ethnic minorities were selected. Participants were eligible if they identified as low income, were racial or ethnic minorities, and had a healthy (no neurological problems) infant (between 2 months and 1 year of age). At the Birmingham, Ala., and New Orleans, La., sites, all of the participants were African American. In Houston, Texas, all of the participants were Mexican American.

The same methodology was used across all three sites to collect data and conduct follow-up analyses. At each site, participants were randomly selected to be in either the PCDC program group or the control group. Nearly all participants met or were very close to poverty guidelines, as indicated by the U.S. Census. However, there were some initial baseline differences across the sites. Birmingham control mothers had more education. Houston PCDC families had a higher socioeconomic status. And in New Orleans, control group mothers were less likely than home visit mothers to live in public housing. Except for Houston, all of these baseline differences favored the control groups. At the time of the second follow-up, study children ranged in age from 9 to 16 and were in grades 3 through 11.

The same measurements and data were collected at all three sites. The Classroom Behavior Inventory, the Child Behavior Checklist, and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills—along with student test scores and grades—were examined to determine the effect of the PCDCs on children’s behavior and academic performance. Chi-square and analyses of variance were used to test for significant statistical differences between the groups and to further examine any differences by gender. The researcher conducted subgroup analyses on gender.

Subgroup Analysis

Johnson and Walker (1991) examined the effect of gender on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and the Classroom Behavior Inventory. The analysis of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills revealed that girls scored higher than boys, regardless of group assignment, on the Composite score as well as the Language, Spelling, and Arithmetic Scales. These differences were statistically significant. In terms of classroom behavior, examination of the groups by gender revealed that program group boys were less dependent than control group boys. This difference was statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences for girls, regardless of group assignment, in dependency. There also were also no significant differences among the genders and program types in task orientation.

Johnson (2006) examined the effect of gender on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The analyses revealed that regardless of group assignment, boys had higher scores on obsessive compulsive behavior, delinquency, and hyperactivity, compared with girls. There were no statistically significant findings for girls.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile: