Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Database of Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages. The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - December 22, 2017 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 7971
Date: 2008-12-19

Author:Tom Hanna

Subject:Evidence-based and "Mix and Match" Programs

On another list, there is active discussion underway on starting an

"ancillary" parenting education program to an existing "core" home

visitation program. The conversation quickly turned to the topic of

"evidence-based", and then to funders and their requirements.



The picture quickly got cloudy for me:



1. Some folks who already have an ancillary parenting education

program reported that "blending" aspects of two evidence-based

programs allowed them to tailor the trainings to the specific needs

of their "home visited" parents. Others quickly pointed out that

this is "wrong" and should not be done -- neither evidence based

program is being followed precisely, and therefore both are

"contaminated." Funders frown.



2. No one has said what additive effect, if any, is expected from

providing a parenting program on top of a home visitation program.

The underlying assumption is that families will be better off with

two distinct interventions instead of one. (In fact, many centers in

this home visiting network have many ancillary programs that serve

some if not many of their home visited families.)



3. I know that lots of funders are demanding that agencies use

"evidence-based" programs. But I now learn that funders are pushing

implementation of a "matrix" of "evidence-based" programs. The

underlying assumption is that "if one evidence-based program is good

for families, then many are better."



My question: Is there any research that helps multi-service agencies

make their way through this minefield when working with a cohort of

families?

-- Any study of the "deterioration of effects" of the blending of two

evidence based models for the same intervention?

-- Any classical studies of "additive effects" of multiple targeted

interventions?

-- Any evidence that a "matrix" of evidence based programs has a

stronger effect than a "pure" one-program approach?

-- Any analysis that shows that evidence based programs in different

interventions (home visitation vs parenting ed vs therapy groups) are

(or are not) internally consistent? (ie, my doctor gave me one

instruction about diet, my nutritionist gave me a contradictory

instruction, and my home visitor's instruction differed from the

other two.)



TIA

Tom









--

--

Tom Hanna, Director

Child Abuse Prevention Network

www.child-abuse.com

tom@child-abuse.com

tph3@cornell.edu

off 607.275.9360

cel 607.227.4524

fax: 415.962.0510

--





On another list, there is active discussion underway on starting an

"ancillary" parenting education program to an existing "core" home

visitation program. The conversation quickly turned to the topic of

"evidence-based", and then to funders and their requirements.



The picture quickly got cloudy for me:



1. Some folks who already have an ancillary parenting education

program reported that "blending" aspects of two evidence-based

programs allowed them to tailor the trainings to the specific needs

of their "home visited" parents. Others quickly pointed out that

this is "wrong" and should not be done -- neither evidence based

program is being followed precisely, and therefore both are

"contaminated." Funders frown.



2. No one has said what additive effect, if any, is expected from

providing a parenting program on top of a home visitation program.

The underlying assumption is that families will be better off with

two distinct interventions instead of one. (In fact, many centers in

this home visiting network have many ancillary programs that serve

some if not many of their home visited families.)



3. I know that lots of funders are demanding that agencies use

"evidence-based" programs. But I now learn that funders are pushing

implementation of a "matrix" of "evidence-based" programs. The

underlying assumption is that "if one evidence-based program is good

for families, then many are better."



My question: Is there any research that helps multi-service agencies

make their way through this minefield when working with a cohort of

families?

-- Any study of the "deterioration of effects" of the blending of two

evidence based models for the same intervention?

-- Any classical studies of "additive effects" of multiple targeted

interventions?

-- Any evidence that a "matrix" of evidence based programs has a

stronger effect than a "pure" one-program approach?

-- Any analysis that shows that evidence based programs in different

interventions (home visitation vs parenting ed vs therapy groups) are

(or are not) internally consistent? (ie, my doctor gave me one

instruction about diet, my nutritionist gave me a contradictory

instruction, and my home visitor's instruction differed from the

other two.)



TIA

Tom









--

--

Tom Hanna, Director

Child Abuse Prevention Network

www.child-abuse.com

tomchild-abuse.com

tph3cornell.edu

off 607.275.9360

cel 607.227.4524

fax: 415.962.0510

--