Evidence Brief

Effective CNCS-Funded Healthy Futures Programs 

J U N E 2 0 1 9

CNCS Office of Research & Evaluation 
EVIDENCE BRIEF: EFFECTIVE CNCS-FUNDED HEALTHY FUTURES PROGRAMS June 2019 2

Evidence Brief: Effective CNCS-Funded Healthy Futures Programs 

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is the federal agency that leads national service and volunteering in 

the United States, helping millions of Americans improve their own lives and the lives of their fellow citizens through service.

Through AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and other programs1, the agency has made investments in vulnerable and at-risk individuals, 

families, and communities across the country, working with local partners to solve their most pressing challenges and improve the 

health and well-being of those served. The priority objectives of many of the CNCS-funded programs within the Healthy Futures 

focus area center around access to health care, aging in place, obesity and food, child maltreatment prevention, and supportive 

family environments.

This brief features CNCS-funded interventions in the Healthy Futures area with positive results for the beneficiaries at the

community level from high-quality, independent, and rigorous impact studies.2 These programs produced favorable outcomes

such as improved food security, reduced child maltreatment, improved mental health, and more. However, CNCS’s impact footprint 

goes beyond CNCS-funded organizations, their participants, and communities in which they live, and includes benefits for national 

service members during their service experience. 

Who did these programs serve? 

The interventions provided needed services to a wide range of 

target recipients including:

•

•

•

•

Families with pre-school and kindergarten age 

children

Children in elementary, middle, and high school 

including those in poor urban areas who are at risk 

for obesity 

Families at risk for child maltreatment

Adults lacking medical care and/or experiencing 

mental health issues. 

Funded programs served low-income adults and children, with 

diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, in communities across 

the country.

What did they accomplish? 

CNCS-supported Healthy Futures programs produced 

favorable outcomes including:

Obtained access to care Improved food security 

Increased utilization of 

health care 

Obtained health knowledge 

and/or prevention knowledge 

Reduced or improved 

chronic illness/disease Reduced child maltreatment 

Improved mental health Increased parenting skills 

Improved BMI/fitness 

1 For more information, see www.nationalservice.gov

2 Based on an independent meta-synthesis study conducted in 2018 (Richman, S., Maxwell, N., Streke, A., Needels, K., & Eddins, K. (2018). Evidence of Effectiveness in CNCSFunded Interventions: Benchmark Findings. Prepared for the Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Evaluation. Chicago, IL: Mathematica Policy 

Research), these programs had a range of effect sizes from 0.11 to 0.24 and an average effect size of 0.17 across the impact studies. The average effect size was not statistically 

significant partially because of the small number of qualified studies. 

How did these programs do it? 

The evidence-based programs employed a variety of models 

and intervention components. The models included two 

common service delivery modes: formal education and 

training (e.g. recreational and sports instruction for youth), 

and one-on-one support (e.g. individual home visits to deliver 

parenting support). 

Three of the five healthy futures interventions (60 percent) had 

multiple components ranging from public education 

campaigns in a specific geographic area to a multi-session 

parenting skills training course. One intervention was 

comprised of 5 components.

In order for these interventions to be implemented with fidelity and 

produce their intended outcomes, programs had to ensure that 

frontline personnel are prepared and trained, as needed, to deliver 

the interventions. The frequency, format, and timing of the trainings 

varied for each program. One program provided a weeklong preservice delivery training that involved live skills demonstration, role 

play, and observation of field sessions. Other programs relied on 

extensive pre-service delivery where trainees shadowed

experienced team members or provided ongoing trainings that 

included weekly and quarterly sessions. One program delivered

training over several days before fielding the trainee for service 

delivery. 
EVIDENCE BRIEF: EFFECTIVE CNCS-FUNDED HEALTHY FUTURES PROGRAMS June 2019 3

MEMBERS’ ROLE IN IMPLEMENTATION AND SCALING OF EVIDENCE-BASED 

INTERVENTIONS 

National service members’ functions across these Healthy Futures interventions fall into two categories: (1) direct 

service providers, and (2) coordination or support positions within the organization or at implementation sites. 

Trained national service members serve as home visitors and/or family resource aids augmenting and supporting other 

direct service roles such as coaches, social service providers and elementary school staff. For example, the Shasta 

County Child Abuse Prevention Council utilizes both SafeCare and Triple-P intervention models in its programming. To 

help families increase parenting capacity and skills, the organization engaged AmeriCorps members to provide direct 

services such as in-home case management and parenting education. 

In addition to providing direct services, national service members also take on coordination or support positions that 

are important for enabling organizations to successfully scale up. From managing day-to-day program operations to 

organizational capacity building, members serve in positions such as site coordinators, volunteer recruiters and 

managers, and resource developers to support the implementation of these interventions. In the case of Shasta County 

Child Abuse Prevention Council, for example, the organization dedicated an AmeriCorps member to volunteer 

recruitment and management to enable high-quality service delivery. 

TABLE 1. EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS FUNDED BY CNCS AND THEIR KEY FINDINGS 

INTERVENTIONS KEY FINDINGS

The Birth & Beyond (B&B) Home Visitation Program

supports at-risk families to reduce child abuse and neglect. 

The evidence-based curriculum, Nurturing Parenting 

Program, provides resources and referrals to health services, 

support groups, developmental child care, and assistance 

with food access.

Parents receiving at least eight hours of program services show statistically 

significant improvement in their parenting attitudes and behaviors. Parents who 

received 25-34 hours were 173 percent less likely at a given time to have a 

substantiated referral and 57 percent less likely at a given time to have any Child 

Protective Services referral, than those in the comparison group (both at the p < 

0.05 level).

Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters 

(HIPPY) Corps uses a home-based early intervention model 

with a curriculum delivered by AmeriCorps members trained 

as paraprofessional home visitors and large-group facilitators 

and aims to ensure both children’s and parents’ school 

readiness.3

Children in the HIPPY program showed a gain of 11 points on early-language 

assessments, compared to 5 points for those who were not in the program. 

Mothers in the program reported significantly more involvement with their young 

children at home.

Soccer for Success is a sports-based youth development 

program that serves children in grades K to 8 in underserved, 

urban communities. The program uses soccer as a tool to 

combat obesity, promote healthy eating and exercise habits, 

and foster positive youth development.

The study found that Soccer for Success participants showed greater 

improvement towards healthy BMI and waist circumference categories, and

greater improvement in aerobic capacity, compared to participants in similar 

programs. In addition, Soccer for Success had statistically significant and 

consistent results across different locations, genders, and socio-economic 

backgrounds.

SafeCare (SC) Home-based Services is a home-based 

structured behavioral skills training program that focuses on 

concrete caregiving, household management, and parenting 

skills for parents in Child Protective Services for child neglect. 

The model has been used in university-based settings since 

1979 and described in over 60 publications.

Safe Care’s main effects were consistently significant across all analyses, 

generating Hazard Ratio effect sizes between 0.74 and 0.83 p. < .05. Given a 

45% recividism rate, a home-based service system would prevent one case of 

child maltreatment per 9.6 -15.7 treated cases. By adopting Safe Care, for every

1000 cases treated, providers would prevent 64 –104 estimated first-year 

recurrences of child maltreatment over Service As Usual (SAU) interventions.

3 HIPPY Corps is in the education as well as healthy futures focus area based on the types of outcomes pursued and achieved. 
EVIDENCE BRIEF: EFFECTIVE CNCS-FUNDED HEALTHY FUTURES PROGRAMS June 2019 4

INTERVENTIONS KEY FINDINGS

The Triple-P Parenting Program is a parenting and family 

support system designed to prevent – as well as treat –

behavioral and emotional problems in children and teenagers.

Through a comprehensive system that includes five 

intervention levels of increasing intensity and narrowing 

population reach, the system enhances parental competence, 

and prevents or alters dysfunctional parenting practices, 

thereby reducing an important set of family risk factors both 

for child maltreatment and for children’s behavioral and 

emotional problems

The effect sizes on child maltreatment (CM), child out-of-home placements, and 

hospitalizations or emergency-room visits for CM injuries ranged from 1.09 to 

1.22, which are all considered to be in the large to very large range. In a 

community with 100,000 children under 8 years of age, these effects would 

translate into 688 fewer cases of child maltreatment, 240 fewer out-of-home 

placements, and 60 fewer children with injuries requiring hospitalization or 

emergency room treatment.

TABLE 2. PROGRAM BY INTERVENTION CORE COMPONENTS, OUTCOMES, TARGETED 

POPULATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATION SETTINGS 

PROGRAM

(Site Evaluated) CORE COMPONENTS OUTCOMES TARGETED POPULATION4

IMPLEMENTATION 

SETTING

B&B Home 

Visitation Program

(Sacramento)

▪ Parenting instruction home

visits

▪ Reduced child

maltreatment 

▪ Low income

▪ Parents of young children

▪ Parent’s homes

▪ Urban

▪ West

Home Instruction 

for Parents of 

Preschool 

Youngsters

(San Diego)

▪ Instructional home visits

▪ Parent/child literacy activities

▪ Parent monthly group meetings

and instruction

▪ Enhanced

emergent literacy

skills; Increased

parenting skills

▪ Low income

▪ Parents of young children

▪ Hispanic

▪ Age 0-5

▪

▪ Parent’s homes

▪ Urban

▪ West

Soccer for Success

(Seattle, Denver, Los 

Angeles, Detroit, 

Buffalo)

▪ Physical activity (soccer skills

learning and practice)

▪ Nutrition instruction

▪ Youth development activities

▪ Improved

BMI/fitness

▪ Obtained health

knowledge and

prevention

knowledge

▪ Low income

▪ African American

▪ Hispanic

▪ Age 6-17

▪ Schools, public parks,

and community centers

▪ Urban

▪ Northeast, Midwest,

South, and West

SafeCare Homebased Services

(Multiple)

▪ Behavioral skills training in

caregiving, household

management, and parenting

skills

▪ Reduced child

maltreatment

▪ Parents or Caregivers ▪ Parent’s or Caregiver’s

homes

▪ Urban and rural

▪ Region not described

Triple-P Parenting 

Program

(Multiple)

▪ Media and information about

positive parenting

▪ Individual consultation and

seminars

▪ Brief consultations with

information and active skills

training

▪ Individual active skills training

program

▪ Augmented individual active

skills training program

▪ Reduced child

maltreatment

▪ Parents and Families with

at least one child in the

birth to 12-year-old range

▪ Community centers in

direct contact with

parents and families

(schools, health centers,

social services)

▪ Rural

▪ South

4 Target population refers to the primary groups served by the organization, but not to the exclusion of any individual with similar needs. No CNCS-funded program excludes on the 

basis of classes protected under federal law. 
EVIDENCE BRIEF: EFFECTIVE CNCS-FUNDED HEALTHY FUTURES PROGRAMS June 2019 5

TABLE 3. KEY STUDIES THAT FORM THE BASIS FOR EVIDENCE 

INTERVENTION DOCUMENT EVALUATOR

B&B Home Visitation 

Program

Child Abuse Prevention Council (2015). AmeriCorps impact evaluation Sacramento County: Birth 

and beyond home visitation program, 2013–2015. Sacramento, CA. (Link)

LPC Consulting 

Associates, Inc.

Home Instruction for 

Parents of Preschool 

Youngsters

Necoechea, D. M. (2007). Children at-risk for poor school readiness: The effect of an

early intervention home visiting program on children and parents. University of

California, Riverside. (Link)

University of

California, 

Riverside

Soccer for Success Hollar, D., Riggle, Z. (2014). Soccer for Success: Independent Evaluation of Program Impact 

2013-2014. U.S. Soccer Foundation. (Link)

Healthy Networks 

Design & Research

SafeCare Homebased Services

Chaffin, M., Hecht, D., Bard, D., Silovsky, J. F., & Beasley, W. H. (2012). A statewide trial of the 

SafeCare home-based services model with parents in Child Protective Services. Pediatrics, 

129(3), 509-515. (Link)

Department of 

Pediatrics, 

University of 

Oklahoma Health 

Sciences Center

Triple-P Parenting 

Program

Prinz, R. J., Sanders, M. R., Shapiro, C. J., Whitaker, D. J., & Lutzker, J. R. (2009). Populationbased prevention of child maltreatment: The US Triple P system population trial. Prevention 

science, 10(1), 1-12. (Link)

Psychology 

Department, 

University of South 

Carolina