Family together at home

State & Indigenous Profiles


Models implemented in Utah included Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up, Early Head Start Home-Based Option, Family Check-Up, Family Spirit, Nurse-Family Partnership, and Parents as Teachers. Statewide, 29 local agencies operated at least one of these models.

home visits provided
including 5,446 virtual visits
families served
children served


50% Hispanic or Latino

Caregiver Education

26% No high school diploma

Child Age

23% <1 year

45% 1-2 years

32% 3-5 years

Child Insurance Status

80% Public

14% Private

6% None

Primary Language

62% English

36% Spanish

2% Another language

Potential Beneficiaries

In Utah, there were 210,800 pregnant women and families with children under 6 years old not yet in kindergarten who could benefit from home visiting. These families included 288,100 children.

288,100 children could benefit from home visiting

Of the 288,100 children who could benefit —

210,800 families could benefit from home visiting

Many home visiting services are geared toward particular subpopulations. The NHVRC estimated the percentage of families who could benefit in Utah who met the following priority criteria:

  • Child <1 21%
  • Single mother 10%
  • Parent with no high school diploma 3%
  • Pregnant woman or mother <21 2%
  • Low income 13%

Of the 210,800 families who could benefit —

38% of families met one or more priority criteria

9% of families met two or more priority criteria

NHVRC State Profiles present data provided by evidence-based models, which include both MIECHV and non-MIECHV data. This State Profile includes participant data from the following evidence-based models: ABC, EHS, NFP, and PAT. • Missing and unknown data were not included in calculations. • Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. • Public insurance includes Medicaid, CHIP, and TRICARE. • Low income is defined as family income below the federal poverty threshold. • Single mothers include single, never married mothers or pregnant women. • ABC reported children served, families served, total home visits, and virtual home visits only. • EHS data may be underreported. Data include EHS programs that provided home-based services only. EHS did not report home visits. Data for child insurance status were not included. • PAT data for child insurance status and primary language were not included.