Community contextual effects on at‐risk mothers' engagement in Georgia's Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting programme

Abstract

The current study examined family and community factors related to home visiting programme engagement in a sample of 1,024 mothers (primary caregivers, mean age 22.89 years) who participated in family support programmes funded through Georgia's Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting programme. Using 2‐level hierarchical linear modelling, we examined the relationships between mothers' home visiting programme engagement and mothers' sociodemographic and community‐level risk factors. Higher sociodemographic risks, characterized by unstable romantic relationships, employment, low educational, and economic resources, were associated with less active home visiting engagement. Mothers who lived in communities with more challenging socio‐economic contexts, such as communities that had a higher proportion of divorced/separated households, poor quality housing conditions, and residential mobility, demonstrated lower programme engagement. Meanwhile, mothers who lived in communities that had a higher proportion of residents that did not finish high school demonstrated relatively higher programme engagement. The observed influence of community‐level factors remained significant after we controlled for mothers' sociodemographic characteristics. Although community‐level risks may appear outside the locus of control of home visiting, flexible programming and strategic partnerships with other community‐based resources, ones that explicitly take into account community‐level risks, may support improved home visiting engagement outcomes.

Engagement Measures in Maltreatment Prevention Studies: A Scoping Review

“…. (2021),Baggett et al (2017),Berkel et al (2018),Bigelow et al (2008),Brotman et al (2003),Byrnes et al (2010),Cho et al (2018),Coard et al (2007),Coatsworth et al (2018),Cohen and Tisch (2021),Constantino et al (2001),Corso et al (2010),Damashek et al (2011),Dodge et al (2019),Doty et al (2016),Duggan et al (2004),Ellis et al (2013),Epstein et al (2019), Folger et al (2016,Garbacz et al (2019), Garcia-Huidobro et al (2019), Gewirtz et al (2011); Hernandez et al (2009), Hernandez Rodriguez et al (2020), Latimore et al (2017), Mason et al (2012), Mauricio et al (2018), McKelvey and Fitzgerald (2020), Miller et al (2013), Murray et al (2015), Niec et al (2016), Oats et al (2014), Paradis et al (2013), Rushton et al (2015), Stargel et al (2020), Vanderzee et al (2017), Zhang et al (2018) Active participation X Abraczinskas et al (2021), Ammerman et al (2006), Bamberger et al (2014), Coard et al (2007), Hernandez Rodriguez et al (2020), López et al (2018), Smith et al (2013) Program utilization X X Aalborg et al (2012), Ammerman et al (2006), Constantino et al (2001), Dias et al (2005), Eismann et al (2019), Ellis et al (2013), Heidari et al (2018), Lefever et al (2013), Morrill et al (2015), Oats et al (2014), Schoenfelder et al (2013), Silovsky et al (2011), Stormshak et al (2019), Weaver et al (2019), Zhang et al (2018) Follow-through/ Homework compliance X Abraczinskas et al (2021), Berkel et al (2019), Bigelow et al (2008), Niec et al (2016), Schoenfelder et al (2013) Services completion X Girvin et al (2007), Silovsky et al (2011), Mason et al (2012), Murray et al (2015) Recall X Dias et al (2005), Weaver et al (2019)…”

Who enrolls in home visiting prenatally and how does this impact child and family outcomes in the first year of life?

“…These findings are in line with previous work on cumulative risk and home visiting program engagement. Cho et al (2018) found that higher levels of sociodemographic risk (e.g. unstable romantic relationships, employment, low education, and fewer economic resources) were less engaged in home visiting.…”