Your browser does not support JavaScript!
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships – Safer Neighborhoods
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Serving Children, Families and Communities
OJJDP Model Programs Guide
top navigation spacer top background spacer top background spacer top background spacer spacer spacer

Parent-Child Development Center

OJJDP
 Back to Prevention Search
Intervention:
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  • Present fewer moody, withdrawn behaviors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 However, the parent training program, discussed further below, is no longer active at these parent–child centers.

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.

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.
Evaluation Methodology:
Study 1
Johnson and Walker (1991) conducted a long-term follow-up study on the parent training program administered at the Parent–Child Development Centers (PCDCs) in Houston, TX. 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 groups and the PCDC groups 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.

Study 2
Johnson (2006) reports follow-up results using data from all three PCDC sites. 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 were 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, AL, and New Orleans, LA, sites, all of the participants were African American. In Houston, TX, 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.
Evaluation Outcome:
Both studies report some positive outcomes and significant findings; however, the preponderance of evidence in these studies indicates that the program had no effects on children’s behavior.

Study 1
Grades
Johnson and Walker (1991) found no statistically significant differences between the control groups and the Parent–Child Development Center (PCDC) groups for individual subject grades or total grade score.

Iowa Basic Skills Tests
There were significant group differences found on three verbal scales and on the Composite score of the Iowa Basic Skills Tests. The PCDC group scored higher than the control group did on the Vocabulary, Reading, and Language scales. However, this effect was not evident in the Spelling or Arithmetic scales. On these measures, both the program and control group were statistically equivalent. Further investigation by gender revealed that girls scored higher than boys, regardless of group assignment, on the Composite score as well as the Language, Spelling, and Arithmetic scales.

Classroom Behavior Inventory
Students in the control groups were rated as being significantly more hostile than those in the program groups. Examination of the groups by gender revealed that program group boys were significantly less dependent than control group boys were. No differences were evident for girls, regardless of group assignment, in dependency. There also was no difference among the genders and program types by Task Orientation.

Retention in Grade and Special Resources
Although on virtually all measures, program children seemed to do better in school, none of the differences were statistically significant in regard to retention in grade and referral to special resources. Despite the higher scores achieved on portions of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, the PCDC children stayed in grade level or received special resources equivalent to control group children. There were no gender differences on these measures, either. Despite some positive outcomes on their achievement tests, PCDC participants did not perform significantly different in school from the control group.

Study 2
Johnson (2006) found that, across all measures, there were no statistically significant differences between the control groups and the PCDC groups. The program appears to have no sustained effect on child behavior.

Child Behavior Checklist
There were no statistically significant differences for internal, external, or total behavioral problems between the PCDC program group and the control group across the three sites.

Child Behavior Inventory
There was no statistically significant differences between the PCDC program groups and the control groups at any of the three sites on the hostility measure of the Classroom Behavior Inventory.

Mother and Teacher Observations
Mothers and teachers completed behavioral observations of the PCDC group and control group children in this study. Program group children were no different from control group children on measures of problem behavior or delinquency across all three sites. There were no statistically significant differences between the PCDC program groups and the control groups for perceived child behavioral problems. These same findings hold true for delinquency.
Other Information:
References:
Andrews, Susan Ring, Janet Berstein Blumenthal, Dale L. Johnson, Alfred J. Kahn, Carol J. Ferguson, Thomas M. Lasater, Paul E. Malone, and Doris B. Wallace. 1982. “The Skills of Mothering: A Study of Parent–Child Development Centers.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 47:1–83.

Besharov, Douglas J., Peter Germanis, Caeli A. Higney, and Douglas M. Call. 2011. Houston Parent–Child Development Center. College Park, Md.: Maryland School of Public Policy and Welfare Reform Academy.

Bridgeman, Brent, Janet B. Blumental, and Susan R. Andrews. 1981. Parent Child Development Center: Final Evaluation Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development Services.

Johnson, Dale L., and James N. Breckenridge. 1982. “The Houston Parent–Child Development Center and the Primary Prevention of Behavior Problems in Young Children.” American Journal of Community Psychology 10:305–16.

Johnson, Dale L., and Todd Walker. 1987. “Primary Prevention of Behavior Problems in Mexican-American Children.” American Journal of Community Psychology 15:375–85.

———. 1991. “A Follow-Up Evaluation of the Houston Parent–Child Development Center: School Performance.” Journal of Early Intervention 15(3):226–36.

Johnson, Dale L. 2006. “Parent–Child Development Center Follow-Up Project: Child Behavior Problem Results.” The Journal of Primary Prevention 27:391–407.
 
Program Specification:
New Rating:
No Effects
Re-reviewed Date: March 2012
Program Type:
Academic Skills Enhancement
Conflict Resolution / Interpersonal Skills
Family Therapy
Parent Training
Ethnicity:
African American
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
Gender:
Both
Age:
0 - 3
Problem Behaviors:
Academic Problems
Family Functioning
Risk & Protective Factors:  
Risk
Community
Economic deprivation / Poverty / Residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood
Family
Family management problems / Poor parental supervision and/or monitoring
Parental use of physical punishment / Harsh and/or erratic discipline practices
Poor family attachment / Bonding
Individual
Cognitive and neurological deficits/Low intelligence quotient/Hyperactivity
Early onset of aggression and/or violence
Mental disorder / Mental health problem / Conduct disorder
School
Low academic achievement
Protective
Family
Effective parenting
Good relationship with parents / Bonding or attachment to family
Having a stable family
High family expectations
Opportunities for prosocial family involvement
Rewards for prosocial family involvement
Individual
Healthy / Conventional beliefs and clear standards
School
Above average academic achievment / Reading and math skills
Strong school motivation / Positive attitude toward school
Additional Information:
    OJJDP: Blueprints
    NIJ: What Works
    HHS: Surgeon General
Status:

Program is NOT in operation at this time.

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

Delinquency Prevention
Academic Skills Enhancement
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
School Programs
Academic Skills Enhancement
Logic Model: PDF
Performance Matrix:PDF
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:

Back to Prevention Search

 

OJJDP Home | About OJJDP | E-News | Topics | Funding | Programs
State Contacts |Publications | Statistics | Events | Search | FAQs | Contact Us