Nurse–Family Partnership (NFP) (OJJDP Model Program Guide)

Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities

PREVENTION

IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS

RESIDENTIAL

REENTRY

MPG HOME SEARCH HOME SEARCH ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE SEARCH USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS PROGRAM TYPES RATING SYSTEM REFERENCES NOMINATE PROGRAMS RELATED LINKS RESOURCES DMC-REDUCTION BEST PRACTICES DATABASE DSO BEST PRACTICES DATABASE

Nurse–Family Partnership (NFP)

Intervention:

Nurse–Family Partnership (NFP) provides low-income, first-time mothers of any age with home-visitation services from public health nurses. The program addresses substance abuse and other behaviors that contribute to family poverty, subsequent pregnancies, poor maternal and infant outcomes, suboptimal childcare, and limited opportunities for the children.

NFP is based on the integration of three theories. First is the theory of human ecology that emphasizes the impact of the social context on human development. This context includes relationships with other family members, friends, neighborhoods, communities and cultures. The second is the self-efficacy theory, which posits that people are more likely to engage in a desirable behavior if they believe the behavior will produce a desired outcome. The program helps parents set realistic goals and bolster parents’ confidence in their ability to reach those goals. The third, attachment theory, holds that children who receive sensitive and responsive parenting are more likely to embody these qualities themselves.

The nurses work intensively with the mothers to improve maternal, prenatal, and early childhood health and well-being, with the expectation that this intervention will help achieve long-term improvements in the lives of at-risk families.

The intervention process concentrates on developing therapeutic relationships with the family and is designed to improve five broad domains of family functioning:

Parental roles
Family and friend support
Physical and mental health
Home and neighborhood environment
Major life events (e.g., pregnancy planning, education, employment)

Home visits by nurses are conducted during the woman’s pregnancy and continue until the child reaches 24 months of age. Maternal and child health nurses meet with each first-time mother in 64 planned home visits over 2½ years. Prenatally, they focus on preventive health and prenatal practices for the mother–helping her find appropriate prenatal care, improve her diet, and reduce her use of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal substances. Additionally, maternal and child health nurses help the mother prepare emotionally for the arrival of the baby. Following birth, they concentrate on health and development education, focusing on child development milestones and behaviors and teaching parents to use praise and other nonviolent techniques. They also focus on coaching the mothers and their families in planning for their future, staying in school, finding employment, and planning future pregnancies.

Although the primary client is the first-time mother, ultimately her baby and all the members of her support system (e.g., friends, parents, and the child’s father) become involved in the program.

Evaluation Methodology:

Study 1
In this study, Olds and colleagues (2004) used a randomized controlled trial design with three groups to study the long-term effects of the Nurse–Family Partnership (NFP). The participants were 735 low-income, pregnant women with no prior live births, who were recruited from 1994 through 1995 from public- and private-care settings in Denver, Colo. Participants were randomized to control (n=245), paraprofessional (n=245), or nurse condition (n=245) groups. Study participants were 85 percent unmarried and 47 percent Mexican American, 35 percent white non–Mexican American, 15 percent black, and 3 percent American Indian/Asian.

The control group participants were provided developmental screening and referral services for their children. Treatment groups received developmental screening and referral services, plus home visits by nurses (nurse condition) or paraprofessionals (paraprofessional condition). Treatment goals for the home-visitation program consisted of improved maternal and fetal health during pregnancy, improved maternal care-giving, and improved health and development of the enhanced parental personal development. Home visits were provided from pregnancy until the child was 2 years old.

Two years after the intervention ended, when the children were approximately 4 years old, data was collected through interviews with the mothers, home observations, and child assessments conducted in the home. The outcomes of interest included maternal reports of subsequent pregnancies, participation in education and work, use of welfare, marriage, cohabitation, experience of domestic violence, mental health, substance use, sense of mastery, and mother–child interaction. For children, the outcomes of interest were children’s language and executive functioning and externalizing behavior problems. Aside from self-reports from the mothers, several different instruments were used to collect information on the outcome measurements. The Shipley Intelligence Scale Adult measured intelligence, the Mental Health Inventory measured adult mental health, the Mastery Scale measured mastery, the Child Behavior Checklist measured externalizing behavior, the Preschool Language Scale measured children’s language skills, and the Conflict Tactics Scale measured domestic violence.

Continuous variables were analyzed with the general linear model, and dichotomous variables were analyzed with the logistic–linear model. For dichotomous correlated outcomes, generalized estimating equations—with a logit link function and assumption of an exchangeable (compound symmetry) correlation structure—were used.

Study 2
This 2010 study by Kitzman and colleagues is a follow-up study of the effects of the NFP on children age 12. The original sample consisted of 1,139 young, low-income, and primarily African American women who were less than 29 weeks pregnant and were recruited from an obstetric clinic in Memphis, Tenn., from 1990 through 1991. Women were randomly assigned to receive nurse home visits (n=228) or comparison (control group) services (n=515).

At the 12-year follow-up assessment, the control group included 422 study participants, and the nurse–home visitation group included 191 participants. The control group was mostly African American (5.7 percent of the control group were another race), and the vast majority were unmarried (1.4 percent were married). The nurse visitation group was almost entirely African American (8.4 percent of the group were another race) and unmarried (1.0 percent were married). The two groups were not significantly different, except that at the original intake the nurse-visited women lived in households with less discretionary income, higher person-per-room density, and higher scores on the household poverty index.

Women in the control group were provided free transportation for scheduled prenatal care plus developmental screening and referral for the child at 6, 12, and 24 months of age. Women in the nurse-visited treatment group were provided the same services, plus prenatal, infancy, and child home visits through the child’s second birthday.

The primary child outcomes were derived from tests of children’s academic achievement, interviews with children and parents, reviews of children’s school records, and teachers’ ratings of children. Standardized tests and end-of-year grade-point average were used for assessing reading and math achievement. The tests included the Peabody Individual Achievement Test and the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program for grades 1 through 6. Information on children's use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana was obtained from the child interview. Information on externalizing and internalizing problems and total behavior problems was obtained from teachers’, parents’, and children’s reports using forms from the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment. Arrests by age 12 came from the parent and child reports.

The study also assessed four secondary outcomes: 1) special education placement, 2) grade retention, and 3) and conduct grades obtained from school records, and 4) sustained attention obtained from the Letter R Sustained Attention Test.

Data was analyzed using an intent-to-treat analysis. Continuous dependent variables were analyzed in the general linear model and dichotomous variables in the logistic linear model. For low-frequency count outcomes, the data was analyzed in generalized linear models with negative binomial error assumptions.

Study 3
There have been several reports that have examined the outcome results of a randomized trial conducted in Elmira, N.Y., looking at the effects of the Nurse–Family Partnership intervention on a study sample of 400 socially disadvantaged pregnant women with no previous births. Eckenrode and colleagues (2000) conducted a long-term follow-up of the women and their children from the original sample who received home visitation between April 1978 and September 1980. The original study sample was randomly assigned to receive one of three intervention conditions: 1) routine perinatal care (the control group), 2) routine care plus nurse home visit during pregnancy only (first intervention), or 3) routine care plus nurse home visits during pregnancy and through the child’s second birthday (second intervention). The original sample included 47 percent of mothers who were under age 19, 62 percent who were unmarried, and 61 percent who came from households classified as low socioeconomic status. There were no significant differences in the age, education, or marital status of the women in the study. The 15-year follow-up included 324 mothers and their children (81 percent of mothers who were originally randomized). The control group included 184 participants, the group that received home visitations during pregnancy only included 100 participants, and the group that received home visitations during pregnancy through the child’s second birthday included 116 participants.

At the 15-year follow-up, mothers were interviewed using a life-history calendar designed to help them recall major life events, such as births of subsequent children, marriages/partnerships, education, employment, moves, and housing arrangements. Mothers also reported their exposure to domestic violence using the violence subscale of the Conflict Tactics Scale. The measure used for analysis consisted of the total number of times the mother reported having experienced any form of partner-perpetrated violence since the birthday of the study child. Variables were also constructed reflecting frequency of major and minor violence. Minor violence included throwing items, pushing, and slapping. Major violence included kicking, biting, hitting with a hand or an object, beating, choking, threatening with a knife or gun, or use of a knife or gun. New York State Child Protective Services (CPS) records were also reviewed. Reports involving either the mother as the perpetrator or the study child as the subject were coded. Substantiated reports were abstracted to ascertain key features of the maltreatment incident.

The primary outcome measure of interest for the analysis was the number of substantiated reports over the 15-year follow-up period involving the study child, regardless of the identity of the perpetrator, or involving the mother as the perpetrator, regardless of the identity of the child. Maltreatment type was distinguished between neglect only and abuse only. The analyses included a 3x2x2 factorial structure: treatment (control group versus the first intervention group versus the second intervention group), maternal marital status (married versus unmarried at study registration) and social class (Hollingshead levels III or IV versus I or II at registration). The abuse and neglect outcome results were reported as incidence and log incidence. The distribution of outcomes used a Poisson log-linear model.

Evaluation Outcome:

Study 1
The Olds and colleagues (2004) study found contradictory results. There were greater effects on paraprofessional-visited mothers than on nurse-visited mothers, but for children the effects were greater in the nurse-visited families than in the paraprofessional-visited families.

Maternal Life Course
For the treatment group that received visits from paraprofessionals, results showed that 2 years after the end of the program women who received visits from paraprofessionals were more likely to work between the child’s second and fourth birthdays. The paraprofessional-visited women also had significantly higher scores that indicated a greater sense of mastery, and better mental health scores compared with control subjects. There were no statistically significant differences in rates or timing of subsequent pregnancies and births. Still, when a subsequent birth did occur, paraprofessional-visited women had significantly fewer subsequent miscarriages and were significantly less likely than control subjects to have a low-birth-weight infant. However, women visited by paraprofessionals were less likely than control subjects to be married and to live with the child’s biological father. There were no statistically significant paraprofessional effects on women’s educational achievement, use of welfare, use of marijuana or alcohol, behavior problems attributable to substance use, or experience of domestic violence.

When compared with control subjects, nurse-visited women had greater lapses between their first and second births, when a second birth occurred. Nurse-visited women also reported significantly less domestic violence from patterns during the 6-month period before the 4-year interview. Nurse-visited mothers also reported enrolling their children significantly less frequently in preschool, Head Start, or licensed day care. However, there were no significant nurse effects on women’s educational achievement, employment, use of welfare, mental health, mastery, use of marijuana or alcohol, behavior problems attributable to substance use, marriage, or living with a partner or father of the child.

Home Environments, Mother–Child Interaction, and Child Development
Paraprofessional-visited mothers displayed significantly more sensitive and responsive interactions with their children during free-play sessions than the control group mothers. Low-resource paraprofessional-visited mothers (those who had low psychological resources at registration of the original study) had home environments that were significantly more supportive of early learning than their control group counterparts. There were no significant paraprofessional effects on children’s language, executive functioning, emotional regulation, behavioral adaptation, or on mothers’ reports of externalizing behavior problems.

Nurse-visited mothers who had low psychological resources at study registration also had home environments significantly more conducive to early learning, better language development, superior executive functioning, and better behavioral adaptation during testing when compared to the control group. There were no statistically significant nurse effects on sensitive–responsive mother–child interaction, children’s emotional regulation, or externalizing behavior problems.

Study 2
Child Substance Use
The study by Kitzman and colleagues (2010) found that in the 30 days preceding the 12-year interview, NFP program children were significantly less likely to have used cigarettes, alcohol, or marijuana; to have used less of these substances; and to have used these substances for fewer days.

Child Mental Health
Nurse-visited children reported fewer internalizing problems than control group children. However, there were no significant differences in children’s sustained attention, externalizing problems, and total behavior problems.

Child Academic Achievement
Nurse-visited children born to low-resource mothers had significantly higher Peabody Individual Achievement Test scores in reading and math at age 12, and significantly higher grade-point averages and group-based reading and math achievement test scores in grades 1 through 6 when compared with their control group counterparts. There was no statistical difference in conduct grades.

Study 3
Child Abuse and Neglect
Eckenrode and colleagues (2000) found at the 15-year follow-up that there were significantly fewer child maltreatment reports involving the mother as the perpetrator or involving the study child for families receiving home visitations during pregnancy and infancy compared with families not receiving home visitations. For families receiving home visitations only during pregnancy, the number of maltreatment reports for the group fell between the other two groups but was not significantly different compared with the control group.

Domestic Violence
Home visitation made no impact on the incidence of domestic violence. Specifically, for mothers who received visits through the child’s second birthday, the treatment effect decreased as the level of domestic violence increased. Almost half (48 percent) of the mothers in the entire study sample report some form of domestic violence since birth of the study child. The average number of incidents over the 15 years was 22.2. For those women reporting any domestic violence, the average number of incidents was 43.1. Overall, the presence of domestic violence may limit the effectiveness of the Nurse–Family Partnership intervention to reduce incidence of child abuse and neglect.

Other Information:

Costs: A study by Olds and colleagues (2010) found that during the 12-year follow-up period, the Government spent less per year on food stamps, Medicaid, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for nurse-visited than control families ($8,772 versus $9,797); this represents $12,300 in discounted savings compared with a program cost of $11,511, both expressed in 2006 US dollars.

Implementation: Information about implementing the Nurse-Family Partnership program can be found on the NFP Web site: http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org

References:

Eckenrode, John, Mary Campa, Dennis W. Luckey, Charles R. Henderson Jr., Robert Cole, Harriet Kitzman, Elizabeth Anson, Kimberly Sidora–Arcoleo, Jane Powers, David L. Olds. 2010. “Long-Term Effects of Prenatal and Infancy Nurse Home Visitation on the Life Course of Youths, 19-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 164(1):9–15.

Kitzman, Harriet J., David L. Olds, Robert E. Cole, Carole A. Hanks, Elizabeth A. Anson, Kimberly J. Arcoleo, Dennis W. Luckey, Michael D. Knudtson, Charles R. Henderson, and John R. Holmberg. 2010. “Enduring Effects of Prenatal and Infancy Home Visiting by Nurses on Children.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 164(5):412–418.

Olds, David L. 2008. “Preventing Child Maltreatment and Crime with Prenatal and Infancy Support of Parents: The Nurse–Family Partnership.” Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 9:2–24.

Olds, David L. "Preventing Crime with Prenatal and Infancy Support of Parents: The Nurse-Family Partnership." Victims & Offenders 2(2): 205-225.

Olds, David L., Charles R. Henderson Jr., Harriet Kitzman, John Eckenrode, Robert Cole, and Robert Tatelbaum. 1998. “The Promise of Home Visitation: Results of Two Randomized Trials.” Journal of Community Psychology 26(1):5–21.

Olds, David L., Harriet Kitzman, Robert Cole, and JoAnn Robinson. 1997. “Theoretical Foundations of a Program of Home Visitation for Pregnant Women and Parents of Young Children.” Journal of Community Psychology 25(1):9–26.

Olds, David L., Harriet Kitzman, Robert Cole, Carole A. Hanks, Kimberly J. Arcoleo, Elizabeth A. Anson, Dennis W. Luckey, Michael D. Knudtson, Charles R. Henderson Jr., Jessica Bondy, and Amanda J. Stevenson. 2010. “Enduring Effects of Prenatal and Infancy Home Visiting by Nurses on Maternal Life Course and Government Spending.” Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 164(5):419–424.

Olds, David L., JoAnn Robinson, Lisa M. Pettitt, Dennis W. Luckey, John Holmberg, Rosanna K. Ng, Kathy Isacks, Karen L. Sheff, and Charles R. Henderson Jr. 2004. “Effects of Home Visits by Paraprofessional and by Nurses: Age 4 Follow-Up Results of a Randomized Trial.” Pediatrics 114(6):1560–68.

Olds, David L., JoAnn Robinson, Ruth O’Brien, Dennis W. Luckey, Lisa M. Pettitt, Charles R. Henderson Jr., Rosanna K. Ng, Karen L. Sheff, Jon Korfmacher, Susan Hiatt, and Ayelet Talmi. 2002. “Home Visiting by Paraprofessionals and by Nurses: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Pediatrics 110(3):486–96.

Sidora–Arcoleo, Kimberly, Elizabeth Anson, Michael Lorber, Robert Cole, David Olds, and Harriet Kitzman. 2010 “Differential Effects of a Nurse Home-Visiting Intervention on Physically Aggressive Behavior in Children.” Journal of Pediatric Nursing 25:35–45.

Program Specification:

New Rating:

Effective

Re-reviewed Date:

June 2011

Program Type:

Conflict Resolution / Interpersonal Skills

Family Therapy

Gender-Specific Programming

Parent Training

Ethnicity:

American Indian or Alaska Native

African American

Hispanic or Latino (of any race)

White

Gender:

Female

Age:

0 - 4

Special Populations:

Females

Target Settings:

Suburban

Urban

Problem Behaviors:

Family Functioning

Sexual Activity/Exploitation

Risk & Protective Factors:

Risk

Community

Community crime / High crime neighborhood

Community instability

Economic deprivation / Poverty / Residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood

Family

Broken home

Child victimization and maltreatment

Family history of problem behavior / Parent criminality

Family management problems / Poor parental supervision and/or monitoring

Having a young mother

Low parent education level / Literacy

Maternal depression

Parental use of physical punishment / Harsh and/or erratic discipline practices

Pattern of high family conflict

Poor family attachment / Bonding

Individual

Victimization and exposure to violence

Protective

Family

Effective parenting

Good relationship with parents / Bonding or attachment to family

Having a stable family

High family expectations

Rewards for prosocial family involvement

Individual

Positive / Resilient temperament

Positive expectations / Optimism for the future

Additional Information:

OJJDP: Blueprints

SAMHSA: NREPP

NIJ: What Works

OJJDP/CSAP: Strengthen Families

HHS: Surgeon General

Status:

Program is in operation at this time.

Performance Measures:

Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):

Delinquency Prevention
Family Therapy
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Mental Health Services
Family Therapy
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Delinquency Prevention
Parent Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
Mental Health Services
Parent Training
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF

Contact Information:

Program Developer:
Nurse–Family Partnership
National Office
1900 Grant Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 1.866.864.5226
Fax: 1.303.327.4260
Email: Click Here
Website: Click Here

Training & TA Provider:
The Nurse–Family Partnership National Office
Nurse–Family Partnership National Office
1900 Grant Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 1.866.864.5226
Fax: 1.303.327.4260
Email: Click Here
Website: Click Here

Program Locations:
Staff
Initial Washington NFP Implementation
615 Sheridan
Port Townsend, WA 98368

Staff
NFP at Children’s Village, Yakima NFP
3801 Kern Road
Yakima, WA 98902

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
Hathaway Building, Room 445
Cheyenne, WY 82002

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
609 South Second Street
Laramie, WY 82070

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
416 West Juniper Lane
Gillette, WY 82717

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
P.O. Box 1013, Carbon Bldg., Room 136
Rawlins, WY 82301

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
442 Center Street
Douglas, WY 82633

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
420½ East Main Street
Sundance, WY 82729

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
322 North Eighth W, Second Floor
Riverton, WY 82501

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
2025 Campbell Drive, Suite 1
Torrington, WY 82240

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
328½ Arapahoe
Thermapolis, WY 82443

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
757 Great Western
Lovell, WY 82431

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
213 North Desmet Avenue
Buffalo, WY 82834–1623

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
100 Central Avenue
Cheyenne, WY 82007

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
297 South Main Street
Sheridan, WY 82801

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
475 South Spruce
Casper, WY 82601

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
1002 Sheridan Avenue
Cody, WY 82414

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
731 “C” Street, Suite 315
Rock Springs, WY 82901

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
460 East Pearl
Jackson, WY 83001

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
350 City View Drive, Suite 101
Evanston, WY 82930

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
1007 Robertson Avenue
Worland, WY 82401

Staff
Wyoming Nurse–Family Partnership
One West Main
Newcastle, WY 82701

Staff
Pontiac Nurse–Family Partnership
1200 North Telegraph Road, Department 432
Pontiac, MI 48341

Staff
St. Louis County Department of Public Health
222 East Superior Street
Duluth, MN 55805

Staff
TrumanCare Hospital Home Health, Missouri NFP
2301 Holmes Street
Kansas City, MO 64108

Staff
Missouri Nurse–Family Partnership
Southeast Missouri Hospital Home Health
Cape Girardeau, MO 63703–7630

Staff
Springfield Nurse–Family Partnership
227 East Chestnut Expressway
Springfield, MO 65802

Staff
Nurse–Family Partnership of Guilford County
1200 Arlington Street
Greensboro, NC 27406–1499

Staff
Fargo Cass Public Health, Fargo/Moorhead NFP
401 Third Avenue N
Fargo, ND 58102

Staff
Fargo/Moorhead Nurse–Family Partnership
715 North 11th Street, Suite 303
Moorhead, MN 56560

Staff
United Way of Central Jersey NFP
32 Ford Avenue
Milltown, NJ 08850

Staff
Trenton, New Jersey, Nurse–Family Partnership
16 East Hanover Street
Trenton, NJ 08608

Staff
Nurse–Family Partnership of New York
Home and Health Care
New York, NY 10038

Staff
St. Christopher–Ottile Family Dynamics/NFP
613–619 Throop Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11216

Staff
NYC/Queens/Brooklyn NFP
166–10 Archer Avenue
Jamaica, NY 11433

Staff
Butler County Nurse–Family Partnership
Butler County Help Me Grow
Hamilton, OH 45011

Staff
Brighter Futures–Help Me Grow
Butler County Help Me Grow
Dayton, OH 45408

Staff
Oklahoma State Department of Health
1000 Northeast 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117–1299

Staff
Early Childhood Services NFP
600 Northeast Eighth Street, Room 220
Gresham, OR 97030

Staff
Early Childhood Services NFP
9000 North Lombard, Second Floor
Portland, OR 97203

Staff
Early Childhood Services NFP
5329 Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Portland, OR 97211

Staff
Nurse–Family Partnership of Allegheny County
907 West Street, Second Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15221

Staff
Alliance Hall, Allentown NFP
245 North Sixth Street
Allentown, PA 18102–4168

Staff
Home Nursing Agency NFP
Blair Huntingdon Centre C
Altoona, PA 16602

Staff
Chester County Nurse–Family Partnership
Chester County Health Department
West Chester, PA 19380

Staff
Columbia Montour Home Health Services/VNA
599 East Seventh Street
Bloomsburg, PA 17815

Staff
Dauphin County Nurse–Family Partnership
Hempfield Behavioral Health
Harrisburg, PA 17110

Staff
Easton Hospital, Northampton County NFP
250 South 21st Street
Easton, PA 18042

Staff
Erie County Department of Health Baby Steps NFP
606 West Second Street
Erie, PA 16507

Staff
Fayette County Nurse–Family Partnership
Fayette County Community Action Agency
Uniontown, PA 15401

Staff
Circle of Care/Nurse–Family Partnership
315 Colfax Avenue, Third Floor
Scranton, PA 18510

Staff
Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster County NFP
555 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17604–3555

Staff
Nurse–Family Partnership of Lawrence County
1001 East Washington Street, #302
New Castle, PA 16101

Staff
NFP of Luzerne and Wyoming Counties
One Courthouse Square
Tunkhannock, PA 18657

Staff
Nesbitt Memorial Medical Center, NFP
562 Wyoming Avenue
Kingston, PA 18704

Staff
Nurse–Family Partnership
c/o Susquehanna Home Care Divine Providence
Williamsport, PA 17701–1995

Staff
Nurse–Family Partnership of Montgomery County
1430 DeKalb Street, Box 0311
Norristown, PA 19404–0311

Staff
Philadelphia Nurse–Family Partnership
The 11th Street Family Health Services of Drexel
Philadelphia, PA 19123

Staff
Department of Public Health, Philadelphia NFP
1101 Market Street, Ninth Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Staff
Philadelphia Nurse–Family Partnership
Lutheran Children and Family Service
Philadelphia, PA 19120

Staff
Fresno Nurse–Family Partnership
1221 Fulton Mall
Fresno, CA 93775

Staff
Kern County Department of Public Health, NFP
1800 Mount Vernon Avenue, Second Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93306–3302

Staff
Nurse Family Partnership, Los Angeles
600 S. Commonwealth, Eighth Floor, Room 8
Los Angeles, CA 90005

Staff
Orange County Nurse–Family Partnership
1725 West 17th Street, Suite 101P
Santa Ana, CA 92706–2316

Staff
Riverside County Community Health Agency Dept.
4065 County Circle
Riverside, CA 92503–3410

Staff
Sacramento Nurse–Family Partnership Program
7171 Bowling Drive, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95823

Staff
San Diego Nurse–Family Partnership
151 Van Houten Avenue
El Cajon, CA 92020–4429

Staff
First-Time Mothers Program NFP
2191 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

Staff
Boulder County Nurse–Family Partnership
3450 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80304

Staff
Denver Best Babies Initiative
1001 Yosemite Street
Denver, CO 80230

Staff
El Paso County Nurse–Family Partnership
301 South Union Blvd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80910–3123

Staff
Family Visitor Program
401 West 23rd Street, Suite 204
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601

Staff
Jefferson County Dept. of Health and Environment
260 South Kipling Street
Lakewood, CO 80226

Staff
Larimer County Dept. of Health and Environment
1525 Blue Spruce Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80524

Staff
Mesa County Nurse–Family Partnership
510 29½ Road
Grand Junction, CO 81504

Staff
Montrose County Nursing Service, Region 10 NFP
1845 South Townsend Avenue
Montrose, CO 81401–5448

Staff
Northeast Colorado Health Department
228 West Railroad Avenue
Fort Morgan, CO 80701

Staff
Northwest Colorado Nurse–Family Partnership
795 Russell Street
Craig, CO 80477

Staff
Montezuma County Health Department
106 West North Street
Cortez, CO 81321–3189

Staff
Healthy Kids Nurse–Family Partnership
281 Sawyer Drive
Durango, CO 81301

Staff
Southeast Colorado Nurse–Family Partnership
1001 South Main Street
Lamar, CO 81073

Staff
Adams/Arapahoe Nurse–Family Partnership
10190 Bannock Street, Suite 100
Northglen, CO 80260

Staff
San Luis Valley Nurse–Family Partnership Program
128 Market Street
Alamosa, CO 81101

Staff
Weld County Nurse–Family Partnership
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631

Staff
Medical Center of Central Georgia
777 Hemlock Street, Hospital Box 91
Macon, GA 31208

Staff
Kane Kares Nurse–Family Partnership
1240 North Highland Avenue, Suite 4
Aurora, IL 60506

Staff
Kane Kares Nurse–Family Partnership
76 South Grove Street
Elgin, IL 60120

Staff
St. Elizabeth Medical Center
2014 Eastern Avenue
Covington, KY 41014

Staff
Huey P. Long Medical Center, Louisiana NFP
2351 Vandenberg Drive
Alexandria, LA 71303

Staff
Louisiana Nurse–Family Partnership
Terebonne Parish Public Health
Houma, LA 70360

Staff
Office of Public Health, Louisiana NFP
707A East Prien Lake Road
Lake Charles, LA 70601

Staff
Louisiana Nurse–Family Partnership
323 East Airport Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70806

Staff
Louisiana Nurse–Family Partnership
St. Tammany Parish Hospital
Covington, LA 70433

Staff
Louisiana Nurse–Family Partnership
825 Kaliste Saloom Road
Lafayette, LA 70508

Staff
NE Regional Office of Public Health, Louisiana NFP
1650 Desiard Street
Monroe, LA 71211–6118

Staff
LSU EA Conway, Louisiana NFP
4864 Jackson Street
Monroe, LA 71202

Staff
LSUHSC—S. Louisiana NFP
4215 Linwood Avenue
Shreveport, LA 71108

Staff
MRG
700 South Chataignier Street
Ville Platte, LA 70586

For the complete list of locations, please visit
http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/Locations