Cited by 272Child Welfare and AdoptionHealth Policy Implementation ScienceChild Abuse and Trauma

A Statewide Trial of the SafeCare Home-based Services Model With Parents in Child Protective Services

Open access
Chaffin, Mark, Hecht, Debra, Bard, David, Silovsky, Jane F., Beasley, William Howard·2012·Pediatrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In this trial, we compared Child Protective Services (CPS) recidivism outcomes between the home-based SafeCare (SC) model for child neglect and comparable home-based services, but without SC modules, for parents in the CPS system across 2 quality control strategies: coached (C) and uncoached implementation. SC is a home-based behavioral skills training model designed for neglecting or maltreating parents. The study was conducted in a scaled-up, statewide implementation setting. METHODS: Two thousand one hundred seventy-five maltreating parents, treated by 219 home visitors, were enrolled and treated in a 2 × 2 (SC versus services as usual × C versus uncoached implementation strategy) randomized cluster experiment. Cases were followed for an average of 6 years for CPS recidivism events. Subpopulation analyses were conducted for parents meeting customary SC inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Consistently significant main effects in favor of SC were found across simple and more complex modeling approaches (hazard ratios = 0.74–0.83). Larger effects were found among the subpopulation meeting customary SC inclusion criteria. C implementation yielded smaller and occasionally significant effects in analyses that included more diverse cases falling outside customary SC inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the adoption and use of SC within CPS home-based services systems. C implementation may be especially valuable for cases where the client-model fit is less strong.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2011-1840

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SafeCare is a manualized curriculum-based EBI that aims to reduce child maltreatment through home-based skills training and education for caregivers of children aged zero to five who are at risk for or reported for child neglect.

    “SafeCare is a manualized curriculum-based EBI to reduce child maltreatment through home-based skills training and education for caregivers of children, ages zero to five, who are at-risk for, or reported for, child neglect (Chaffin et al., 2012; Lutzker & Edwards, 2009).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [3]US Department of Health and Human Services. In: US Department of Health and Human Services, Youth and Families, eds. Child Maltreatment 2003 Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2005 [Google Scholar]
  2. [4]Bell JA. A review of family preservation and family reunification programs. In: US Department of Health and Human Services, ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; 1995 [Google Scholar]
  3. [34]Muthen BO, Muthen LK. MPlus User's Guide. 6th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen; 2010 [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chaffin, M., Hecht, D., Bard, D., Silovsky, J. F., & Beasley, W. H.
Affiliations
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2012-03-01
Volume
129
Issue
3
Pages
509-515
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2017274897
Cited by
272
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
FWCI
52.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R01MH072961)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH065667, R01MH072961)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
Keywords
SafeCare, child protection services, child neglect, child abuse, home-based services, home visitors, behavioral skills training, parent intervention, statewide implementation
MeSH terms
Child, Child Abuse, Child Care, Child Rearing, Child Welfare, Child, Preschool, Female, Home Care Services, House Calls, Humans, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Parents, United States, Urban Population, Incidence, Confidence Intervals, Proportional Hazards Models, Risk Assessment, Needs Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review