skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

New Beginnings for children of divorce

Public Health & Prevention: Home- or Family-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated July 2018.
Open PDF
The New Beginnings program aims to prevent adjustment problems for children whose parents have recently divorced. Parents attend group sessions in an outpatient setting to learn about problem-solving, discipline strategies, and other topics. Some programs also provide individual parent sessions, or both individual parent sessions and group therapy sessions for children. Programs served families with children who were nine-years-old, on average. Weekly group sessions were provided for 10 or 11 weeks. On average, families received 17 hours of therapist time.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $3 Benefits minus costs ($1,235)
Participants ($1,187) Benefit to cost ratio ($0.45)
Others $994 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($192) benefits greater than the costs 49%
Total benefits ($382)
Net program cost ($853)
Benefits minus cost ($1,235)

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
 9 1 126 -0.059 0.248 24 -0.059 0.248 34 -0.155 0.531
Alcohol use^
Adult use of alcohol that does not rise to the level of “problem” or “disordered.”
 9 1 134 0.057 0.471 24 n/a n/a n/a 0.150 0.750
Cannabis use^
Adult use of cannabis that does not rise to the level of “disordered.”
9 1 134 -0.073 0.471 24 n/a n/a n/a -0.192 0.683
Substance use^
Nonspecified substance use (i.e., alcohol, cannabis, or illicit drugs) that does not rise to the level of "disordered."
 9 1 134 -0.126 0.471 24 n/a n/a n/a -0.333 0.481
Externalizing behavior symptoms
Symptoms of externalizing behavior (e.g., aggressive, hostile, or disruptive behavior) measured on a validated scale.
 9 3 321 -0.042 0.091 9 -0.023 0.056 12 -0.123 0.234
Internalizing symptoms
Symptoms of internalizing behavior (e.g., sadness, anxiety, or withdrawal) measured on a validated scale.
 9 3 321 -0.025 0.091 9 -0.025 0.091 11 -0.066 0.472
Illicit drug use before end of high school
Any use of illicit drugs by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 to 18. When possible, we exclude cannabis/marijuana use disorder from this outcome.
 9 2 150 -0.041 0.168 15 -0.041 0.168 18 -0.107 0.524
Problem alcohol use
Alcohol use reflecting problem behaviors (e.g., high frequency drinking, binge drinking, or drinking that has a high impact on daily life) for individuals who do not have an alcohol use disorder.
 9 1 134 0.055 0.471 24 0.055 0.471 34 0.144 0.760
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime Criminal justice system $411 $0 $942 $205 $1,558
Externalizing behavior symptoms K-12 special education $45 $0 $0 $23 $68
Health care associated with externalizing behavior symptoms $88 $25 $91 $44 $248
Problem alcohol use Labor market earnings associated with problem alcohol use ($510) ($1,200) $0 $0 ($1,710)
Property loss associated with problem alcohol use $0 ($3) ($5) $0 ($8)
Health care associated with problem alcohol use ($31) ($6) ($34) ($15) ($86)
Mortality associated with problem alcohol ($2) ($4) $0 ($22) ($27)
Internalizing symptoms K-12 grade repetition $1 $0 $0 $0 $1
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($427) ($427)
Totals $3 ($1,187) $994 ($192) ($382)
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $817 2015 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($853)
Comparison costs $101 2015 Cost range (+ or -) 20%
In studies included in this analysis, participants received an average of 17 hours of therapist time. Per-participant cost estimates are based on weighted average therapist time, as reported in the studies. Hourly therapist cost is based on the actuarial estimates of reimbursement by modality (Mercer. (2016). Mental health and substance use disorder services data book for the state of Washington). Comparison group costs are based on weighted average estimates reflecting the cost of materials or therapist time provided to participants, as described in the included studies.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Herman, P.M., Mahrer, N.E., Wolchik, S.A., Porter, M.M., Jones, S., & Sandler, I.N. (2015). Cost-benefit analysis of a preventive intervention for divorced families: Reduction in mental health and justice system service use costs 15 years later. Prevention Science, 16(4), 586-596.

Sandler, I., Gunn, H., Mazza, G., Tein, J.Y., Wolchik, S., Berkel, C., . . . Porter, M. (2018). Effects of a program to promote high quality parenting by divorced and separated fathers. Prevention Science, 19(4), 538-548.

Wolchik, S.A., Sandler, I.N., Millsap, R.E., Plummer, B.A., Greene, S.M., Anderson, E.R., . . . Weiss, L., (2002). Six-year follow-up of preventive interventions for children of divorce: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288 (15), 1874-81.

Wolchik, S.A., Sandler, I.N., Tein, J.-Y., Mahrer, N.E., Millsap, R.E., Winslow, . . . Reed, A. (2013). Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial of a preventive intervention for divorced families: Effects on mental health and substance use outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(4), 660-73.

Wolchik, S.A., West, S.G., Sandler, I.N., Tein, J.Y., Coatsworth, D., Lengua, L., . . . Griffin, W.A. (2000). An experimental evaluation of theory-based mother and mother–child programs for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 843.