Impacts of Home Visits on Students in District of Columbia Public Schools. REL 2022-128
McKie, Allison; Terziev, Jeffrey; Gill, Brian (2021). Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED615918
-
examining1,700Students, grades1-5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Family Engagement Partnership Program)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS) English Language Arts (ELA) Achievement |
Family Engagement Partnership Program vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 4 and 5;
|
-0.15 |
-0.18 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS) Math Achievement |
Family Engagement Partnership Program vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 4 and 5;
|
0.03 |
-0.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Family Engagement Partnership Program vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
95.28 |
94.93 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Any disciplinary incidents |
Family Engagement Partnership Program vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
9.27 |
12.22 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Any serious disciplinary incident |
Family Engagement Partnership Program vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
8.01 |
9.00 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
22% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
District of Columbia
-
Race Black 56% Other or unknown 34% White 10% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 31% Not Hispanic or Latino 69% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 85% No FRPL 15%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in public elementary schools within the District of Columbia Public Schools.
Study sample
The study followed students in grades 1 through 5. Its largest reported sample, in the 2015–16 school year, included 843 students in the home-visit intervention group and 857 students in the comparison group. Because students were tracked for up to three years, some appear in the data more than once, with one record for each year of participation. The math and English language arts analyses included only students in grades 4 and 5. All analyses excluded students who had been retained in a grade.
Intervention Group
The Family Engagement Partnership Program is a school-wide program in elementary and middle schools that helps teachers build stronger relationships with families through home visits. Trained teachers conducted structured home visits in pairs in the summer before the school year or during the school year. The visits focused on parents’ hopes for their child’s education and future, ways to continue building the relationship with the teacher, and parents' communication preferences. Teachers chose which families to visit and participation was voluntary for students and their families. The study encouraged teachers to thoughtfully select a diverse range of students for the visits, but did not set specific rules, although teachers were expected to visit each participating student’s home once per year. Each visit typically lasted about 30 minutes. In addition to home visits, teachers received training and coaching on family engagement practices, including leading parent-teacher conferences focused on helping children academically. School leaders were also offered coaching and quarterly professional learning community meetings.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business as usual. Students in the comparison group in each year did not receive a home visit from the Family Engagement Partnership Program during that school year or the summer prior.
Support for implementation
The summer before the school year, the Flamboyan Foundation—the organization that created the program—provided a 2- to 3-hour training for participating teachers. The training included how to reach out to families, plan the visit, and lead the conversation. Teachers also learned how to build trust, stay in touch after the visit, and handle common challenges. During the school year, the Foundation continued to support teachers. This support included observations and feedback on their family engagement practices. Teachers also received monthly coaching and took part in quarterly professional learning communities. Teachers were paid about $34 for each home visit they completed.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).