Effects of Three Levels of Early Intervention Services on Children Prenatally Exposed to Cocaine

Abstract

Cocaine use during pregnancy is a high-risk indicator for adverse developmental outcomes. Three levels of intervention (center, home, and primary care) were compared in a full service, birth to age 3, early intervention program serving children exposed to cocaine prenatally. Data were collected on 130 children from urban, predominantly poor, primarily minority families. At 36 months, statistically significant, moderate to large intervention effects were found for cognition, receptive and expressive language, and gross motor development. Small effects were observed for behavior problems, and no statistically significant effects were found for fine motor or prosocial skills. Center-based care was most effective for improving language. These findings provide support that the center-and home-based early intervention programs examined in this study had positive effects on children at risk due to prenatal cocaine exposure.

An Examination of the Effects of a Summer Book-Reading Program on the Language and Early Literacy Outcomes of Toddlers from High Risk Environments

“…By 36-months, the children were near or in the at-risk range on standardized measures (Bono et al, 2005). Although research has suggested that children prenatally exposed to cocaine benefit from early intervention services (Claussen et al 2004;Bono et al 2005, Dinehart et al 2008, proximal variables outside school also have a dramatic impact on the child's developmental outcome (Dinehart et al, 2006). This study investigated the mediating and moderating effects of the home environment on summer literacy program outcomes with children at-risk for poor developmental outcomes.…”

“…Initial research on the effectiveness of this early intervention project indicated moderate to large effects using Glass delta of the center and home-based interventions on cognition (.73), receptive (.62) and expressive language (.92), and gross motor development at 36 months, as well as small effects on behavior problems (.32; Bono, Dinehart, Claussen, Scott, Mundy, & Katz, 2005;Claussen et al, 2004) when compared to the primary care/comparison group. Children who participated in the center-based intervention experienced the best outcomes.…”

“…The Linda Ray Intervention Program (LRIP) is an early intervention study designed to examine three modalities of intervention and their effect on developmental outcomes of children, birth to three years of age, who were prenatally exposed to cocaine (for a description see Claussen et al, 2004). Research from the LRIP suggests that children who receive center-based early intervention services demonstrate higher cognitive and language scores than a non-intervention control group (Bono et al, 2005).…”

“…Research has shown LRIP children improved developmental outcomes (cognitive, language, and behavior) over a 36 month period (Bono et al, 2005;Claussen et al, 2004;) and children who received center-based early intervention LRIP services had higher cognitive and language scores than a nonintervention control group (Bono et al 2005). Data collected at 12 months, however, indicated that roughly two-thirds of toddlers who participated at LRIP show language delays, and at 36-months, the sample was near or in the at-risk range on standardized measures (Bono et al, 2005).…”

“…The three levels from least to greatest intensity were: (a )Primary care/comparison group, which provided access to comprehensive social work services, primary medical care, and scheduled developmental assessments; (b) Home based, which provided two 1.5 hour child-focused home intervention visits by a teacher per week using an Outcome curriculum, as well as access to social services and primary medical care; and (c) Center based, which also provided access to social services and primary medical care, plus a center-based early intervention program for children for 5 hours per day, 5 days per week also utilizing the Outcome curriculum (Claussen, Scott, Mundy, & Katz, 2004.) For children in both the center and home based interventions, curricular activities in the areas of cognition, fine and gross motor, social/behavioral, self-help and language were geared to their own individual developmental progress and to identify areas of delay.…”