The Role of Dosage and Family Profiles in a Child Welfare Home Visiting Program

Vol.:(0123456789) h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10566-024-09826-4 ORIGINAL PAPER The Role o Dosage andFamily P o iles inaChild Wel a e Home Visi ing P og am Vic o ia Hidalgo Ga cía1 · Ja ie Pé ez‑Padilla2,3 · Ca los Camacho Ma ínez‑Va a de Rey4 · Lucía Jiménez Ga cía1 Accep ed: 6 Sep embe 2024 © The Au ho (s) 2024 Abs ac Backg ound Among he di e en modali ies o amily suppo , home isi ing p og ams ha e p o ed o be one o he mos e ec i e seconda y p e en ion models o amilies in ol ed in child wel a e se ices. Despi e he p omising ou comes and he ex ensi e a ail- able li e a u e, u he esea ch is needed o in es iga e a ge popula ion cha ac e is ics and implemen a ion ac o s ha may explain he he e ogenei y in he ou comes o hese p og ams o amilies ecei ing child wel a e se ices. Objec i e This longi udinal s udy explo ed he ole o dosage and amily cha ac e is ics ela ed o he e ec i eness o he Family In e en ion P og am (FIP), which is a home- based Spanish child wel a e se ice o suppo ing amilies a psychosocial isk. Me hod To his end, a quasi-expe imen al design was ollowed, including a ime-se ies e alua ion o he 289 amilies ecei ing he FIP. In o de o examine he impac o he FIP, he e olu ion o child well-being (CWB) was e alua ed wi h Child Well-Being Scales e e y 6 mon hs. Resul s The esul s showed ha he highes a e age CWB sco e was obse ed a e 39mon hs o in e en ion, obse ing no imp o emen s in CWB om ha poin . Simila ly, he esul s showed ha he FIP was mo e e ec i e o single pa en amilies a highe soci- oeconomic le els. Conclusions This a icle p o ides new knowledge o he unde s anding o home isi ing p og ams success, concluding ha he p og ams a e no equally e ec i e o all amily p o- iles, and ha i is necessa y o adjus each p og am o he speci ic cha ac e is ics o he a ge popula ion. Keywo ds Home isi ing p og am· P og am e alua ion· Dosage· Child wel a e· Child wellbeing In oduc ion The e is a widesp ead consensus among esea che s and policymake s on he need o e ec i e in e en ions o p omo ing child well-being in amilies a psychosocial isk, since hese amilies a e unable o adequa ely mee he needs o hei child en (Jiménez e al., Ex ended au ho in o ma ion a ailable on he las page o he a icle / Published online: 19 Sep embe 2024 Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 2019). To unde s and he unc ioning o amilies a psychological isk, he mos sui able heo e ical amewo k is he ecological- ansac ional pe spec i e (B on enb enne , 1979; B on enb enne & Ceci, 1994; Cicche i & Lynch, 1993). F om his app oach, i has been highligh ed ha pa en ing depends on ac o s ela ed o he cha ac e is ics o he pa en s (e.g., de elopmen al ajec o y, pe sonali y, pa en ing skills, e ce e a), he cha ac e is ics o he child en (e.g., age, empe amen , de elopmen al needs, e ce e a) and he psycho- social en i onmen ha su ounds he amily (e.g., social suppo , communi y esou ces, e ce e a) (Belsky, 1984). In acco dance wi h his explana o y model o pa en ing, i is possible o iden i y bo h isk and p o ec i e ac o s a each o he di e en domains and ecological le els. The balance be ween he isk and p o ec i e ac o s p esen in he ecol- ogy o each amily would explain whe he pa en s a e capable o adequa ely mee ing he needs o child en (Cicche i & Valen ino, 2006). To se e amilies ha do no adequa ely co e child en’s needs, amily p ese a ion se ices a e cu en ly a social and poli ical p i- o i y o mos coun ies suppo ed by in e na ional ag eemen s (Council o Eu ope, 2011 and 2016; Uni ed Na ions, 1989). Acco ding o hese egula ions, ca e o a - isk amilies has e ol ed om a adi ional de ici -based model o a posi i e amily suppo app oach wi h he p omo ion o pa en ing skills and communi y s eng hening as he main pu poses o in e en ions (e.g., Daly e al., 2015; Da ies e al., 2019; Gen les-Gibbs, 2016). In he esea ch a ena, his app oach has led o he iden i ica ion o co e componen s and main quali y s anda ds o e idence-based p ac ices and p og ams (Ax o d, 2012; Ba low & Co en, 2018; Ba e , 2010). In he scope o p ac ices, his app oach has in ol ed he di e - si ica ion o in e en ion modali ies o add ess di e se amily needs (Walsh e al., 2015). Among he di e en modali ies o amily suppo , home isi ing p og ams ha e p o ed o be one o he mos e ec i e seconda y p e en ion models o amilies in ol ed in child wel a e se ices (e.g., Acquah & Thé enon, 2020; Lee e al., 2018; Paulsell e al., 2011). Since he la e wen ie h cen u y, home-based pa en ing suppo has gained inc easing ec- ogni ion as a use ul s a egy o p e en child abuse and neglec , o imp o e pa en ing skills and o p omo e child de elopmen (Council o Communi y Pedia ics, 2009). In ac , home isi ing is cu en ly he mos widely used child mal ea men p e en ion s a egy in he Uni ed S a es (Casillas e al., 2016; Supple e al., 2012), and i is a ype o in e en ion used as a amily suppo ool in mos Eu opean coun ies (e.g., Jungmann e al., 2015; Vee man & De Meye , 2015). Home isi ing p og ams a e de ined as amily p e en i e and p ese a ion in e en ions ha use home isi ing as he p ima y se ice deli e y s a - egy. These se ices in ol e assessing amily needs, p o iding educa ion and suppo s o pa en s and connec ing amilies o communi y suppo esou ces. Home isi ing p og ams a y widely in hei app oach, mainly, in e ms o a ge popula ion ( isk p o ile, cul u al g oup, iming o pa en hood), home isi o quali ica ions (p o essional o ained pa ap o- essional), dosage and in ensi y o he in e en ions ( om a ew mon hs o se e al yea s), and he cu iculum and isi con en (Casillas e al., 2016; Segal e al., 2012). Posi i e e ec s o home isi ing p og ams on pa en ing belie s and p ac ices, child heal h and de elopmen in a - isk amilies, as well as hei e ec i eness in p e en ing child mal ea men , ha e been demons a ed in bo h empi ical s udies and me a-analyses (A el- la & Supplee, 2013; Duggan e al., 2018; Paulsell e al., 2010, 2014; Sama-Mille e al., 2017, 2019; Van Assen e al., 2020). The e is also some e idence o he long- e m e ec s o home isi ing p og ams (Michalopoulos e al., 2017). Despi e hese p omising ou comes and he ex ensi e a ailable li e a u e, he e idence suppo ing he e ec i eness o home isi ing p og ams is s ill inconclusi e, wi h e iews epo ing mixed esul s, pa icula ly o amilies in ol ed in he child wel a e sys em (Cha in e al., 2012; Chaiyacha i e al., 2018; Lee e al., 2018). Among he easons o e ed o explain he a iabili y in he ob ained Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 436 esul s, he conside able di e si y in he p og am componen s and implemen a ion ac o s has been he mos equen explana ion (Kaye e al., 2018; Segal e al., 2012). In ela ion o p og am componen s associa ed wi h home isi ing e ec i eness, he e iew conduc ed by Gubbel e al. (2021) e ealed ha p og ams ha ocused on imp o - ing he pa en al expec a ions and esponsi eness o a child’s needs yielded ela i ely la ge e ec s. In he e iew by Kaye e al. (2018), p oblem-sol ing s a egies we e a key ing e- dien o e idence-based p og ams. P og ams wi h high le els o pa icipan in ol emen , a s eng hs-based app oach, and a componen o social suppo ha e also been linked o e ec i eness (MacLeod & Nelson, 2000). The consis ency be ween he heo y o change, he needs o he a ge popula ion and he p og am objec i es and ac i i ies has also been demons a ed (Boo h & Lea i , 2011; Segal e al., 2012). Se e al ecen e iews ha e analyzed he impac o implemen a ion ac o s on he de e - mina ion o home isi ing p og ams’ success (Casillas e al., 2016; Paulsell e al., 2014; Segal e al., 2012). Implemen a ion ideli y appea s o be a c ucial e ec i eness mode a- o o home isi ing p og ams, as no ed by implemen a ion scien is s (Du lak & DuP e, 2008; Fixsen e al., 2005). The me a-analy ic e iew o Casillas e al. (2016) e ealed ha se e al implemen a ion ac o s, such as aining, supe ision, and ideli y moni o ing, had a signi ican e ec on p og am ou comes. Despi e hese ad ances, he e a e no conclusi e da a on o he aspec s o p og am deli e y ha may be impo an o p og am success, such as dosage and du a ion o in e en ions. In ela ion o dosage, some s udies ha e ound no e ec o se ice du a ion o in ensi y (Li ell & Schue man, 2002). Howe e , he e idence also shows ha in e en ions o longe du a ion and g ea e in ensi y a e mo e e ec i e (Bilukha e al., 2005; Howa d & B ooks-Gunn, 2009; Lage be g, 2000). In mos cases, dosage is epo ed as aw da a, wi hou analyzing he dosing h esholds equi ed o achie e he expec ed esul s acco ding o he p og am model (Paulsell e al., 2014). To imp o e he unde s anding o dosage, s udies wi h p e es –pos es designs may no be su icien , since i is necessa y o ha e successi e measu emen s h oughou he in e en ion p ocess o know when he ou comes a e achie ed (Singe & Wille , 2003). In addi ion o he obse ed di e ence in he e ec i eness o home isi ing p og ams in e ms o he implemen a ion condi ions, ano he elemen ha adds a iabili y is he one ela ed o he amily p o ile, since he exis ing da a show ha hose in e en ions a e no equally e ec i e o all amilies. In ela ion o a ge popula ion p o ile, al hough mos s ud- ies ha e used e hnically and socioeconomically di e se samples, he esul s a e epo ed o he o al s udy sample, wi hou p o iding da a di e en ia ed by subg oups based on pa - icula cha ac e is ics (Sama-Mille e al., 2019). The sca ce da a a ailable on his aspec a e no consis en . Some s udies indica e g ea e e ec i eness wi h low-income, single and i s - ime mo he s wi hou men al heal h, iolence o addic ion p oblems (Gu e man e al., 2014; Segal e al., 2012). O he s udies ha e epo ed ha pa en s o a lowe socioeco- nomic s a us ha e poo e ou comes (MacLeod & Nelson, 2000). In mos cases, da a come mainly om p og ams de eloped in he Uni ed S a es. Analyzing he di e ences be ween he amilies ha ob ain be e esul s and hose who ob ain lowe bene i s om he in e - en ion, as well as gene a ing in o ma ion om he esul s o hese in e en ions in o he cul u al con ex s, is essen ial o be e unde s anding he e ec i eness o home isi ing p og ams (Swee & Appelbaum, 2004). In he case o Spain, he social and cul u al con ex ela ed o amily and child wel- a e p esen s impo an di e ences wi h espec o ha o he Uni ed S a es. A uni e sal- is model o social se ices is well es ablished since he las decade o he las cen u y, while inc easingly ambi ious policies ega ding child en’s igh s and amily suppo ha e been p og essi ely in oduced. Cu en ly, he e a e mode n policies and laws ega ding Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 437 childhood and amily ( igh s o same-sex ma iage, adop ion e o ms and p o ec ion o child en om si ua ions o iolence) ha ha e placed Spain among he bes - anked Eu o- pean coun ies in e ms o ecogni ion o amily di e si y (Pé ez-Ca amés, 2014) and p o- mo ion o posi i e pa en ing (Jiménez e al., 2019). Howe e , amilism, which is deeply oo ed in Spain, has mean ha public spending alloca ed o amily policies, as well as inancial suppo o amilies, emains pa ially below he Eu opean Union a e ages in e ms o bene i s in cash, se ices and ax b eaks (Chu chill e al., 2020). Among o he in e en ion ac ions wi h amilies a isk, home isi p og ams ha e also begun o sp ead in Spain in ecen yea s (Hidalgo e al., 2018), making i necessa y o ob ain e idence o hei e ec i eness in his social con ex . As has been widely highligh ed, e ec i eness e alua ions equi e no only knowing he gene al impac o he in e en ions bu also analyzing he a ge use s and he condi ions unde which he bes esul s a e ob ained (Flay e al., 2005; Go edson e al., 2015). Thus, addi ional empi ical s udies a e necessa y o iden i y bo h dosage h esholds o p oduce ou comes and amily cha ac e is ics associa ed wi h g ea e e ec i eness. To analyze he mode a ing in luence o hese aspec s in he e ec i eness o home isi ing p og ams, i is also impo an o ha e e alua ion designs and measu emen ools ha allow e i ying how changes ake place p og essi ely in he a ge dimensions o he in e en ion. Since he ul ima e aim o hese in e en ions is o p omo e child de elopmen while p e en ing child abuse and neglec , he e alua ion canno be limi ed o checking he dec ease o he ou -o -home placemen a es; i is also necessa y o assess he imp o emen s in he de el- opmen o child en who s ay in hei homes (Be y & McLean, 2014). In his sense, he imp o emen in child well-being can be aken as an app op ia e measu e o he e ec i e- ness o home isi ing p og ams. Among he mos commonly used ools o measu ing child well-being in a - isk amilies is The Child Well-Being Scales (CWBS) (Magu a & Moses, 1986). The CWBS is a use ul ool o measu ing he child well-being and has been used in di e en Eu opean coun ies wi h sa is ac o y indica o s o alidi y and eliabili y (e.g., G imaldi-Puyana e al., 2019; Nunes e al., 2022; Se ba i e al., 2015a and b). Speci ically, many s udies ha e shown he capaci y o hese scales o e alua e p og ams’ e ec i eness and he ollow-up o amilies in ol ed in child wel a e se ices (e.g., Cash & Be y, 2003; Se ba i e al., 2015a and b). Aims o  heP esen S udy Recen e idence shows home isi ing p og ams as a use ul s a egy o imp o ing pa en - ing skills, amily unc ioning and child well-being. Howe e , e ec i eness e alua ions equi e no only knowing he gene al impac o he in e en ions, bu also analyzing he a ge use s and he condi ions unde which he bes esul s a e ob ained. Thus, u he esea ch is needed o in es iga e a ge popula ion cha ac e is ics and implemen a ion ac- o s ha may explain he he e ogenei y in he ou comes o hese p og ams o amilies in ol ed in child wel a e se ices. Likewise, mos o he a ailable da a co espond o he e alua ion o p og ams de eloped in he Uni ed S a es; he e o e, i is necessa y o p oduce u he e idence in o he cul u al con ex s. In his amewo k, his s udy aims o con ibu e wi h new knowledge o he unde s and- ing o home isi ing p og ams’ success, explo ing dosage and amily cha ac e is ics ela ed o he e ec i eness o he Family In e en ion P og am (FIP), a home isi ing p og am de eloped in Spain o amilies a psychosocial isk. Speci ically, he aims o his s udy Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 438 we e: (1) o analyze he imp o emen in child well-being h oughou he in e en ion p o- cess, and (2) o explo e he a iabili y in he e ec i eness o he in e en ion as a unc ion o ce ain indi idual and amily cha ac e is ics. In ela ion o he i s objec i e and acco d- ing o he exis ing e idence in he li e a u e, we expec ha he longe he in e en ion, he g ea e he e ec i eness. In ela ion o he second objec i e, we expec di e ences acco d- ing o socio-economic le el, amily s uc u e and child en’s age. Speci ically, and acco d- ing o he a ailable e idence, ou hypo hesis is ha g ea e e ec i eness will be obse ed in single and low-income amilies wi h younge child en. Me hod In e en ion The Family In e en ion P og am (FIP) is an e idence-based home isi ing p og am ha is pa o he local esou ces o amily a en ion ca ied ou in a own in No he n Spain (Pamplona Ci yhall, 2008), wi hin he se ices p o ided by he Child P o ec ion Sys em (CPS) in Spain (OSB, 2015; Spanish Minis y o Heal h, Social Se ices and Equali y, 2013). The FIP is designed o a - isk amilies a ended by amily p ese a ion se ices. The FIP is suppo ed by di e en heo e ical models, mainly he sys emic model, he cog- ni i e-beha io al model, and he humanis ic heo ies. The con en s ackled in he FIP a e aimed a he p omo ion o pa en al compe encies (con lic sol ing, communica ion, a en- ion o child en’s needs, household managemen ) and o he pe sonal skills (p o essional in eg a ion, heal h and quali y o li e), which a e wo ked on bo h in he en i e amily as a whole and in he di e en membe s o he amily o p omo e he de elopmen and well- being o he child en. The implemen a ion o he FIP includes 2–5 weekly isi s o 2h o 2yea s, al hough he du a ion can be ex ended i he amily di icul ies pe sis . The p o es- sionals who ca y ou he in e en ion a e psychologis s, social educa o s and social wo k- e s wi h specialized aining in he p og am and p e ious expe ience in amily in e en ion. In e en ion me hods include cogni i e-beha io echniques (e.g., modeling), psycho-edu- ca ional guidelines and o ien a ion, emo ional suppo and playing-based ac i i ies. Case moni o ing wi h child wel a e se ice p ac i ione s was ca ied ou on a mon hly basis. Pa icipan s All he amilies who we e unde he in e en ion o he FIP pa icipa ed in he s udy. Thus, 289 amilies ook pa in his FIP ial, which las ed 27mon hs on a e age, wi h an in en- si y o h ee weekly sessions (M = 2.95, SD = 0.78, Min. = 2, Max. = 5), which las ed 2 h pe session. The p o essionals in cha ge o he implemen a ion classi ied he amilies as being a medium–high psychosocial isk in a 11-poin scale a ing om 0 ( e y low isk) o 10 (ex emely high isk). Acco ding o his assessmen , 93.03% o he sample ob ained a sco e o 5 o mo e wi h a mean o 7.15 poin s (SD = 1.69, Min. = 1, Max. = 10). The mos equen amily s uc u e was he single pa en amily (61.24%), al hough mos o hem we e de ined by he s abili y o hei composi ion (86.85%). The amilies we e cons i- u ed by app oxima ely 4 membe s (M = 3.70, SD = 1.36) wi h a ound 2 child en (M = 1.96, SD = 0.95). The esul s ega ding he economic le el indica e ha 10.03% we e ex emely poo , 24.22% we e p eca ious and 36.33% p esen ed low income. Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 439 Among he pa en s o he pa icipa ing amilies, 43.59% p esen ed a basic educa ion le el and 31.49% had no educa ion. Only 6.57% o he pa en s had uni e si y s udies and 18.35% comple ed high school. Mo eo e , he e was a high pe cen age o mig an pa - en s (39.58%), who had li ed in Spain o an a e age o 9.71yea s (SD = 4.64, Min = 1, Max = 30). The child en o hese amilies we e equi ably dis ibu ed in e ms o sex, since 59.17% we e boys and 40.83% we e gi ls. The mean age o he child en was 10.76yea s (SD = 4.40, Min = 0, Max = 18). Measu es Socio‑Demog aphic P o ile We used an ad hoc ques ionnai e o collec sociodemog aphic in o ma ion a bo h he am- ily and indi idual le els, epo ing amily composi ion (numbe o amily membe s and child en a home), amily s uc u e (single-pa en / wo-pa en s uc u e), amily s abili y (in e ms o composi ion), and amily socio-economic le el (ex eme: he amily does no ha e an income o he han ha coming om inancial suppo om public o p i a e o ganiza- ions; p eca ious: uns able and sca ce amily income, whe e some o he adul s wo k, e en spo adically, and some imes depend on inancial suppo o co e basic needs; low: s able and su icien amily income, whe e a leas one o he pa en s has a s able job wi h li le o no quali ica ion and he amily has no impo an inancial needs; medium: amily income is s able and comes om medium-skill jobs; high: household income is s able and comes om highly quali ied jobs). In o ma ion abou ca egi e s was p o ided in e ms o na ion- ali y (non-mig an /mig an , yea s o esidence) and educa ion le el (no educa ion -p ima y school no comple ed-, basic educa ion le el -p ima y school comple ed-, and high school o uni e si y s udies). The sex and age o he child en a home we e also epo ed. Psychosocial Risk Assessmen The p ac i ione s epo ed a p e es abou he psychosocial isk le el o each amily in e ms o sa is ac ion o he child en’s needs in a Like scale om 0 ( e y low isk) o 10 (ex emely high isk). Child Well‑Being The sa is ac ion o he basic child needs was assessed using he Spanish e sion o he Child Well-Being Scales (CWBS, Magu a & Moses, 1986), which was alida ed in he Spanish con ex by De Paul & A uaba ena (1999). The CWBS consis s o 43 i ems and p o ides a amily sco e (28 i ems, e.g., “Consis ency o discipline”), a child sco e (14 i ems, e.g., “Academic pe o mance”) and a global sco e (43 i ems, e.g., “Pa en al ela- ions”); he amily sco e was used in his s udy. The i ems a e a ed by p ac i ione s as in o man s on 4- o 6-poin scales, anging om adequacy o inc easing deg ees o inad- equacy, which a e hen con e ed o scales o 1–100 poin s, wi h 100 indica ing ha he e alua ed dimension is sa is ied. CWBS e alua es he deg ee o exis ing p oblems and no he deg ee o compe ence, hus any sco e below 100 indica es ha child well-being is comp omised. Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 440 P ocedu e The esul s p esen ed in his pape e e o he longi udinal assessmen o child well-being (CWB) and ela ed a iables om all amilies ha bene i ed om FIP h oughou he s udy in he no he egion o Spain. A ime-se ies e alua ion design (T1–T12) o he popula ion o amilies ecei ing he FIP in e en ion h oughou he s udy was ollowed, allowing us o examine he CWB slopes as a unc ion o he FIP in e en ion leng h in ela ion o child and amily a iables (Yano i zky & VanLea , 2008). CPS p ac i ione s e e o he FIP o hose amilies ha , a e an in-dep h, igo ous assessmen , exhibi inadequa e pa en ing compe ences and ela ed child o adolescen isk o nega i e de elopmen al ou comes. Child wel a e se ice p ac i ione s con ac ed he amilies o en oll in he FIP in e en ion i hey me he ollowing c i e ia: (1) being en olled in child wel a e se ices; (2) ha ing a child unde 18 conside ed o be a isk o nega i e de elopmen al ou comes; (3) inadequa e pa en ing compe encies wi h oom o imp o emen as de e mined by child wel a e se ices; and (4) bo h pa en s and child en consen ing he ea men . Fo hose amilies en olled in he FIP in e en ion, ec ui men o pa icipa e in he s udy was ca ied ou by he FIP p ac i ione s du ing he i s mon h since s a ing he ea - men . In he ec ui men session, he pa icipan s we e in o med abou he main cha ac- e is ics o he ea men , as well as he objec i es o he ial. The amilies we e in o med abou he aims o he p ojec and he con iden ial and anonymous na u e o he da a. E e y amily pa icipa ed in his s udy olun a ily, a e signing an in o med consen o m in acco dance wi h he Decla a ion o Helsinki. This s udy is adhe ed o he legal equi e- men s o da a p o ec ion in Spain, and e hical app o al was ob ained om he se ice ha implemen s he FIP. No mone a y incen i es we e o e ed. The FIP p ac i ione s illed in he measu es desc ibed abo e. The socio-demog aphic p o ile and he isk assessmen we e in o med a p e es . Child well-being scales we e illed in T1 ( h ee mon hs om p e es ) and e e y six mon hs up o he end o he in e en ion, collec ing da a up o T12 (up o mon h 69). Thus, a T1, 289 subjec s comple ed he e alu- a ion, whe eas, a T2, he sample dec eased o 237 pa icipan s (comple ed he ea men : n = 26, o he easons: n = 26), and 162 pa icipan s emained a T3 (comple ed he ea - men : n = 40, o he easons: n = 35). A T4, he e we e 111 pa icipan s (comple ed he ea men : n = 39, o he easons: n = 12), d opping o 70 a T5 (comple ed he ea men : n = 34, o he easons: n = 17), and, inally, 19 pa icipan s comple ed he e alua ion in T6 (comple ed he ea men : n = 33, o he easons n = 18). Then, om T6 o T12, hese sub- jec s emained in he s udy un il he end o he ea men . The main eason o lea ing he ial was ending he ea men . O he equen easons included: abandoning he ea men ; child en’s in eg i y in jeopa dy, equi ing an ou -o -home measu e; and mo ing o ano he ci y. Less equen easons e e ed o he absence o posi i e esul s om he ea men o child en eaching legal adul hood. Da a Analyses The e ec s o he in e en ion we e examined a he amily le el. P elimina y and desc ip- i e analyses we e pe o med using SPSS so wa e .18 (SPSS Inc., 2009). E olu ion o CWB om T1 o T12 was analyzed o de e mine he impac o he FIP leng h and, hus, he op imum leng h o he in e en ion. To his end, mul i-le el eg ession Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 441 equa ions we e pe o med using SPSS so wa e .18 (SPSS Inc., 2009). PseudoR2 was examined as he e ec size indica o . This alue was ob ained by squa ing he co ela ion be ween he alue p edic ed in he dependen a iable by he model and he eal alue o ha dependen a iable (Singe & Wille , 2003). The indi idual ajec o ies on child well-being h ough he in e en ion and he mode - a ing ole o indi idual and amily a iables in such change om T1 o T7 we e examined h ough linea hie a chical model analyses using HLM -7 s a is ical so wa e (Rauden- bush e al., 2011). Six models we e es ed: he null model examined be ween-pe son a i- abili y in CWB o e ime; model 1 o andom in e cep s and slopes es ed be ween-pe - son a iabili y on in e cep s and on slopes (le el-1 model); and models 2–6 analyzed he e ec o mode a ing a iables bo h on in e cep s and on slopes (M2: socio-economic le el, 1 = ex eme, 2 = p eca ious, 3 = low, 4 = medium, 5 = high; M3: amily s uc u e, 0 = wo- pa en , 1 = single-pa en ; M4: na ionali y, 0 = non-mig an , 1 = mig an ; M5: child sex, 0 = boy, 1 = gi l; M6: child age, yea s). Two ypes o indexes we e examined as goodness- o - i indica o s. Fi s ly, he de iance index o each model was p o ided ( he lowe he be - e , Raudenbush & B yk, 2002), as well as he compa a i e de iance be ween consecu i e models (wi h a signi icance es on he di e ence be ween chi squa e s a is ics). Secondly, pseudoR2, le el-1 pseudoR2 ( educ ion in esidual a iance om le el 1 compa ed o he null model), in e cep pseudoR2 ( educ ion in in e cep esidual a iance om le el 2 in consecu i e models) and slope pseudoR2 ( educ ion in slope esidual a iance om le el 2 in consecu i e models) we e compu ed (Singe & Wille , 2003). PseudoR2 sco es we e in e p e ed as negligible i < 0.02, small i > 0.02 and < 0.15, medium i > 0.15 and < 0.35, and la ge i > 0.35. Resul s In o de o examine he e olu ion o CWB, he desc ip i e s a is ics om T1 o T12 a e p o ided in Table1. CWB was 86.72 in T1 and inc eased o 90.58 in T7, whe e he highes mean CWB sco e was obse ed. The e o e, a mul i-le el eg ession equa ion was compu ed conside - ing T1- o-T7 sco es. The eg ession slope was 0.10, wi h a signi icance le el o p = 0.001 Table 1 CWB means and s anda d de ia ions om T1–T12 Min. – Max M SD T1–3mon hs 54.24-100 86.72 6.92 T2–9mon hs 66.24-100 87.52 7.18 T3–15mon hs 57.78-100 88.61 7.83 T4–21mon hs 60.08-100 88.99 7.54 T5–27mon hs 56.12-100 88.42 8.76 T6–33mon hs 55.90-97.93 89.20 9.99 T7–39mon hs 79.37-98.83 90.58 5.79 T8–45mon hs 80.79-100 90.32 6.09 T9–51mon hs 76.16-93.45 85.43 6.80 T10–57mon hs 87.33-94.03 89.51 2.41 T11–63mon hs 84.49-95.62 88.94 4.83 T12–69mon hs 84.08-93.21 88.64 6.46 Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 442 and an associa ed PseudoR2 o 0.013, indica ing a signi ican inc ease o CWB om T1 o T7, wi h 1.3% o a iance being explained by ime. A second eg ession equa ion was compu ed om T7 o T12, in o de o es he s abiliza ion o CWB du ing ha pe iod. The eg ession slope was 0.001 wi h a signi icance le el o p = 0.993 and an associa ed Pseu- doR2 o 0.003, indica ing no signi ican inc ease o CWB om T7 o T12. Once CWB s abiliza ion was es ablished in T7, linea hie a chical models on CWB indi idual ajec o ies and he mode a ing ole o indi idual and amily a iables we e examined om T1 o T7. Table2 shows he be a alues, - alues and signi icance le el o each a iable in each model. Goodness-o - i indexes in e ms o (compa a i e) de iance and pseudoR2s a e p o ided. Va iance componen s o es ed models a e also epo ed. The null model showed signi ican be ween-pe son di e ences o e ime in CWB, such as 𝜎2 0 = 41.497 , χ2 (276) = 2330.45, p < 0.001. This alue, along wi h he esidual a iance ( 𝜎2 e = 16.963 ) allowed calcula ing he in aclass co ela ion, as ollows: The in aclass co ela ion o he null model exp essed ha 70.98% o a iabili y in CWB was due o be ween-pe son di e ences. The null model de iance was 5615.60. M1 o andom in e cep s and slopes showed be ween-pe son a iabili y on he in e - cep s ( 𝜎2 0 = 40.741, p < 0.001) and on he slopes ( 𝜎2 1 = 0.103, p < 0.001), exp essing di e - ences be ween amilies in baseline and di e en ajec o ies h ough he in e en ion, as well as an imp o emen o 47.8% in wi hin- a iance by inco po a ing ime in o he equa ion. The compa ison wi h he null model showed a signi ican dec ease in he de iance ( Δ de iance = 191.63, p < 0.001). PseudoR2 o M1 was 0.013, se ing as a s a ing poin o compa ing wi h le el-2 models. The inclusion o he amily socio-economic le el in M2 showed a signi ican dec ease in he de iance ( Δ de iance = 14.39, p < 0.001) and a ele an inc ease o PseudoR2 o 0.072. Thus, he amily socio-economic le el inc eased he p edic i e capaci y o he model o 7.2%. The β slope was 0.07, wi h a signi ican alue ( 275 = 2.26, p < 0.05), indica ing highe imp o emen on CWB o hose amilies wi h be e socio-economic s a us. M3 showed a signi ican dec ease in he de iance ( Δ de iance = 17.31, p < 0.001) and a ele an inc ease o PseudoR2 o 0.138. Thus, he amily s uc u e inc eased he p edic i e capaci y o he model o 13.80%. The slope showed ha single-pa en amilies inc eased CWB o a g ea e ex en wi h espec o wo-pa en amilies (β = 0.08, 274 = 2.27, p < 0.05). M4 did no show a signi ican dec ease in he de iance ( Δ de iance = 3.33, non-sig- ni ican ), bu an inc ease o PseudoR2 o 0.162. Thus, na ionali y inc eased he p edic i e capaci y o he model o 16.20%. The slope showed ha mig an and non-mig an amilies d aw pa allel ajec o ies h oughou he in e en ion (β = 0.07, 273 = 1.12, non-signi ican ). Simila ly, M5 did no p o ide a signi ican dec ease in he de iance ( Δ de iance = 0.36, non-signi ican ), bu a sligh inc ease o PseudoR2 o 0.166. Thus, he child en’s sex inc eased he p edic i e capaci y o he model o 16.60%. The slope indica es simila ajec o ies h oughou he in e en ion ega dless o he sex o he child en (β = -0.02, 272 = -0.34, non-signi ican ). 𝜌 = 𝜎 2 0 𝜎2 0 +𝜎2 e = 41.497 41.497 +16.963 = 0.7098 R 2 e = 16.963 −8.850 16.963 = 0.478 Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 443 Council o Eu ope. (2011). Recommenda ion Rec (2011)12 o he Commi ee o Minis e s o membe s a es on child en’s igh s and social se ices iendly o child en and amilies. h ps:// m. coe. in / 16804 6ccea Council o Eu ope. (2016). Council o Eu ope S a egy o he Righ s o he Child (2016–2021). Council o Communi y Pedia ics. (2009). The ole o p eschool home– isi ing p og ams in imp o - ing child en´s de elopmen al and heal h ou comes. Pedia ics, 123(2), 598–603. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1542/ peds. 2008- 3607 Daly, M., B ay, R., B uckau , Z., By ne, J., Ma ga ia, A., Pécnik, N., & Samms–Vaughan, M. (2015). Family and pa en ing suppo : Policy and p o ision in a global con ex . Innocen i Insigh , UNICEF O ice o Resea ch. Da ies, L. M., Jan a, B., & Ga dne , F. (2019). Posi i e pa en ing in e en ions. Empowe ing pa en s wi h posi i e pa en ing echniques o li elong heal h and well–being. Publica ions O ice o he Eu opean Union. Duggan, A., Po illa, X. A., Filene, J. H., C owne, S. S., Hill, C. J. Hill, Lee, H., & Knox, V. (2018). Implemen a ion o E idence–Based Ea ly Childhood Home Visi ing: Resul s om he Mo he and In an Home Visi ing P og am E alua ion. O ice o Planning, Resea ch, and E alua ion, Adminis- a ion o Child en and Families, US Depa men o Heal h and Human Se ices. Du lak, J. A., & DuP e, E. P. (2008). Implemen a ion ma e s: A e iew o esea ch on he in luence o implemen a ion on p og am ou comes and he ac o s a ec ing implemen a ion. Ame ican Jou nal o Communi y Psychology, 41(2), 327–350. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s10464- 008- 9165-0 Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., F iedman, F. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implemen a ion esea ch. A syn hesis o li e a u e. Uni e si y o Sou h Flo ida. Flay, B., Biglan, A., Bo uch, R. F., González, F., Go edson, D., Kellam, S., Moscicki, E., Schinke, S., Valen ine, J. C., & Ji, P. (2005). S anda ds o e idence: C i e ia o e icacy, e ec i eness and dis- semina ion. P e en ion Science, 6(3), 151–175. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s11121- 005- 5553-y F os , N., Abbo , S., & Race, T. (2015). Family suppo : P e en ion, ea ly in e en ion and ea ly help. Poli y P ess. Gen les-Gibbs, N. (2016). Child p o ec ion and amily empowe men : Compe ing igh s o acco dan goals? Child Ca e in P ac ice, 22(4), 386–400. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 13575 279. 2016. 11887 60 Go edson, D. C., Cook, T. D., Ga dne , F. E., Go man-Smi h, D., Howe, G. W., Sandle , I. N., & Za , K. M. (2015). S anda ds o e idence o e icacy, e ec i eness, and scale–up esea ch in p e en ion sci- ence: Nex gene a ion. P e en ion Science, 16(7), 893–926. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s11121- 015- 0555-x G imaldi, V., Pé ez-Padilla, J., Ga ido, M. Á., & Lo ence, B. (2019). Assessmen and decision-making in child p o ec i e se ices: isk si ua ions kep -a -home e sus ou -o -home ca e. Child Indica o s Resea ch, 12, 1611–1628. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s12187- 018- 9600-1 Gubbel, J., Van de Pu , C. E., S ams, G. J. M., P inzie, P. J., P, J., & Assink, M. (2021). Componen s associa ed wi h he e ec o home isi ing p og ams on child mal ea men : A me a-analy ic e iew. Child Abuse & Neglec , 114, 104981. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2021. 104981 Gu e man, N. B., Be g, K. L., & Taylo , C. A. (2014). P e en ion o child abuse and neglec . In G. P. Mallon & P. M. Hess (Eds.), Child Wel a e o he Twen y- i s Cen u y: A Handbook o P ac ices, Policies, and P og ams (pp. 207–235). Columbia Uni e si y P ess. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 7312/ mall1 5180- 011 Heaney, C. A., & Is ael, B. A. (2008). Social ne wo ks and social suppo . In K. Glanz, B. K. Rime & K. Viswana h (Eds.), Heal h Beha io and Heal h Educa ion. Theo y, Resea ch, and P ac ice (pp. 189–210). Wiley & Sons. Hidalgo, V., Jiménez, L., & Pé ez–Padilla, J. (2021). Implemen a ion o he Family In e en ion P o- g amme (FIP) in Pamplona. E alua ion epo [Aplicación del P og ama de In e ención Familia (PIF) en Pamplona. In o me de e aluación]. ESAFAM. Hidalgo, V., Pé ez-Padilla, J., Sánchez, J., Ayala-Nunes, L., G imaldi, V., & Menéndez, S. (2018). An analysis o di e en esou ces and p og ammes suppo ing a - isk amilies in Spain. Ea ly Child De elopmen and Ca e, 188(11), 1527–1538. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 03004 430. 2018. 14915 60 Howa d, K. S., & B ooks-Gunn, J. (2009). The ole o home– isi ing p og ams in p e en ing child abuse and neglec . Fu u e o Child en, 19(2), 119–146. Jiménez, L., An olín-Suá ez, L., Lo ence, B., & Hidalgo, V. (2019). Family educa ion and suppo o amilies a psychosocial isk in Eu ope: E idence om a su ey o in e na ional expe s. Heal h & Social Ca e in he Communi y, 27(2), 449–458. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ hsc. 12665 Jungmann, T., B and, T., Dähne, V., He mann, P., Günay, H., Sandne , M., & Sie au, S. (2015). Com- p ehensi e e alua ion o he p o kind home isi ing p og am: A summa y o esul s. Men al Heal h & P e en ion, 3, 89–97. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. mhp. 2015. 06. 001 Kaye, M. P., Fabe , A., Da enpo , K. E., & Pe kins, D. F. (2018). Common componen s o e idence– in o med home isi a ion p og ams o he p e en ion o mal ea men . Child en and You h Se - ices Re iew, 90, 94–105. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. child you h. 2018. 05. 009 Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 450 Kea ing-Le le , R., Hudson, D. B., Campbell-G ossman, C., Fleck, M. O., & Wes all, J. (2004). Needs, conce ns, and social suppo o single, low–income mo he s. Issues in Men al Heal h Nu sing, 25(4), 381–401. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 01612 84049 04329 16 Lage be g, D. (2000). Seconda y p e en ion in child heal h: E ec s o psychological in e en ion, pa - icula ly home isi a ion, on child en’s de elopmen and o he ou come a iables. Ac a Paedia ica Supplemen , 89, 43–52. Lee, E., Ki kland, K., Mi anda-Julian, C., & G eene, R. (2018). Reducing mal ea men ecu ence h ough home isi a ion: A p omising in e en ion o child wel a e in ol ed amilies. Child Abuse & Neglec , 86, 55–66. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2018. 09. 004 Li ell, J., & Schue man, J. (2002). Wha wo ks bes o whom? A close look a in ensi e amily p es- e a ion se ices. Child en and You h Se ices Re iew, 24, 673–699. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/ S0190- 7409(02) 00224-4 MacLeod, J., & Nelson, G. (2000). P og ams o he p omo ion o amily wellness and he p e en ion o child mal ea men : A me a–analy ic e iew. Child & Abuse Neglec , 24(9), 1127–1149. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/ S0145- 2134(00) 00178-2 Magu a, S., & Moses, B. (1986). Ou come measu es o Child Wel a e Se ices. Child Wel a e League o Ame ica. Michalopoulos, C., Fauce a, K., Wa en, A. & Mi chell, R. (2017). E idence on he Long–Te m E ec s o Home Visi ing P og ams: Laying he G oundwo k o Long–Te m Follow–Up in he Mo he and In an Home Visi ing P og am E alua ion (MIHOPE). OPRE Repo 2017–73. O ice o Planning, Resea ch and E alua ion. Adminis a ion o Child en and Families, U.S. Depa men o Heal h and Human Se ices. Minis y o Heal h, Social Se ices and Equali y (2013). II Na ional S a egic Plan o Child en and Ado- lescen s [Plan Es a égico Nacional de In ancia y Adolescencia 2013–2016]. Spanish Go e nmen . Nunes, C., Ayala-Nunes, L., Fe ei a, L. I., & Ma ins, C. (2022). Child well-being scales (CWBS): Psycho- me ic p ope ies o he Po uguese e sion. Psicologia Teo ia e Pesquisa, 38, e38. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1590/ 0102. 3772e 38515. en O icial S a e Bulle in (OSB). (2015). Law 26/2015, o July 28, 2015, on he modi ica ion o he sys em o he p o ec ion o child en and adolescen s. Pamplona Ci y Council (2008). Pamplona Ci y Council S a egic Plan o Social Se ices 2008–2012 [Plan Es a égico de Se icios Sociales del Ayun amien o de Pamplona 2008–2012]. Pamplona Ci y Council. Paulsell, D., A ella , S., Sama Ma in, E., & Del G osso, P. (2010). Home isi ing e idence o e ec i eness e iew: Execu i e summa y. O ice o Planning, Resea ch and E alua ion, Adminis a ion o Child en and Families, US Depa men o Heal h and Human Se ices. Paulsell, D., & A ella , S. (2011). Home isi ing e idence o e ec i eness: Execu i e summa y. Ma hema - ica Policy Resea ch. Paulsell, D., Del G osso, P., & Supplee, L. (2014). Suppo ing eplica ion and scale–up o e idence–based home isi ing p og ams: Assessing he implemen a ion knowledge base. Ame ican Jou nal o Public Heal h, 104(9), 1624–1632. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 2105/ AJPH. 2014. 301962 Pé ez-Ca amés, A. (2014). Family policy in Spain. In M. Robila (Ed.), The Handbook o Family Policies ac oss he Globe (pp. 175–194). Sp inge . Raudenbush, S. W., B yk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2011). HLM 7 o windows. Scien i ic So wa e In e na ional Inc. Raudenbush, S. W., & B yk, A. S. (2002). Hie a chical linea models. Sage. Sama–Mille , E., Ake s, L., M az–Esposi o, A., Zukiewicz, M., A ella , S., Paulsell, D., & Del G osso, P. (2017). Home isi ing e idence o e ec i eness e iew. O ice o Planning, Resea ch and E alua ion, Adminis a ion o Child en and Families, U.S. Depa men o Heal h and Human Se ices. Sama–Mille , E. Ake s, L., M az–Esposi o, A., Coughlin, R., & Zukiewicz, M. (2019). Home isi ing e idence o e ec i eness e iew: Execu i e summa y. O ice o Planning, Resea ch and E alua ion, Resea ch, and E alua ion, Adminis a ion o Child en and Families, U.S. Depa men o Heal h and Human Se ices. Sch ag, A., & Schmid -Tieszen, A. (2014). Social suppo ne wo ks o single young mo he s. Child & Ado- lescen Social Wo k Jou nal, 31(4), 315–327. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s10560- 013- 0324-2 Segal, L., Opie, R. S., & Dalziel, K. (2012). Theo y! The missing link in unde s anding he pe o mance o neona e/in an home– isi ing p og ams o p e en child mal ea men : A sys ema ic e iew. The Mil- bank Qua e ly, 90(1), 47–106. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1468- 0009. 2011. 00655.x Se ba i, S., Pi e i, M., & Gioga, G. (2015a). Child Well-Being Scales (CWBS) in he assessmen o ami- lies and child en in home-ca e in e en ion: An empi ical s udy. Child & Family Social Wo k, 20(4), 446–458. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ c s. 12094 Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 451 Se ba i, S., Pi e i, M., & Gioga, G. (2015b). Child Well-Being Scales (CWBS) in heassessmen o ami- lies and child en in home-ca e in e en ion: An empi ical s udy. Child & Family Social Wo k, 20(4), 446–458. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ c s. 12094 Singe , J. D., & Wille , J. B. (2003). Applied longi udinal da a analysis: Modeling change and e en occu - ence. Ox o d Uni e si y P essNew Yo k. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1093/ acp o : oso/ 97801 95152 968. 001. 0001 SPSS Inc. (2009). PASW S a is ics o Windows, Ve sion 18.0. SPSS Inc. Supplee, L., Paulsell, D., & A ella , S. (2012). “Wha wo ks in home isi ing p og ams?” In P. Cu is & G. Alexande (Eds). Wha wo ks in child wel a e (pp. 39–61). Child Wel a e League o Ame ican P ess. Swee , M., & Appelbaum, M. (2004). Is home isi ing an e ec i e s a egy? A me a–analy ic e iew o home isi ing p og ams o amilies wi h young child en. Child De elopmen , 75(5), 1435–1456. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 8624. 2004. 00750.x Uni ed Na ions (1989). Con en ion on he Righ s o he Child. h ps:// www. ohch . o g/ en/ p o e ssion alin e es / pages/ c c. aspx Van Assen, A. G., Kno -Dickschei a, J., Pos a, W. J., & G ie ensb, H. (2020). Home– isi ing in e en ions o amilies wi h complex and mul iple p oblems: A sys ema ic e iew and me a–analysis o ou –o – home placemen and child ou comes. Child en and You h Se ices Re iew. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. child you h. 2020. 104994 Vee man, J. W., & De Meye , R. E. (2015). Consis ency o ou comes o home–based amily ea men in The Ne he lands as an indica o o e ec i eness. Child en and You h Se ices Re iew, 59, 113–119. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. child you h. 2015. 11. 001 Walsh, C., Rolls–Reu z, J., & Williams, R. (2015). Selec ing and implemen ing e idence–based p ac ices: A guide o child and amily se ing sys ems (2nd ed.). Cali o nia E idence–Based Clea inghouse o Child Wel a e. Yano i zky, I., & VanLea , A. (2008). Time se ies analysis: T adi ional and con empo a y app oaches. In A. Hayes, M. Sla e , & L. Snyde (Eds.), The SAGE Sou cebook o Ad anced Da a Analysis Me hods o Communica ion Resea ch (pp. 89–124). Cali o nia: Sage Publica ions, Inc. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 4135/ 97814 52272 054. n4 Publishe ’s No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps and ins i u ional a ilia ions. Au ho s and A ilia ions Vic o ia Hidalgo Ga cía1 · Ja ie Pé ez‑Padilla2,3 · Ca los Camacho Ma ínez‑Va a de Rey4 · Lucía Jiménez Ga cía1 * Ja ie Pé ez-Padilla [email p o ec ed] Vic o ia Hidalgo Ga cía [email p o ec ed] Ca los Camacho Ma ínez-Va a de Rey a [email p o ec ed] Lucía Jiménez Ga cía [email p o ec ed] 1 De elopmen al andEduca ional Psychology Depa men , Facul y o Psychology, Uni e si y o Se ille, Se ille, Spain 2 Psychology Depa men , Facul y o Humani ies andEduca ional Sciences, Uni e si y o Jaen, Campus de Las Lagunillas, 23071Jaén, Spain 3 Resea ch G oup HUM604: Li es yle De elopmen in heLi e Cycle andHeal h P omo ion o Uni e si y o Huel a, Huel a, Spain 4 Expe imen al Psychology Depa men , Facul y o Psychology, Uni e si y o Se ille, Se ille, Spain Child & You h Ca e Fo um (2025) 54:435–452 452