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

Circle of Security—Parenting (COS-P)

Public Health & Prevention: Home- or Family-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2019.  Literature review updated June 2017.
Open PDF
Circle of Security – Parenting (COS-P) aims to help parents and caregivers provide a secure base and safe haven for their young children. COS-P uses stock video of parent-child interactions and manualized curriculum to teach parenting skills in a group setting. This 10-week program is delivered in a community setting by Head Start providers. In the included study, all children in treatment and comparison groups received standard Head Start services.

This program is an abbreviated version of the 20-week Circle of Security curriculum.
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2018). 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 $297 Benefits minus costs $587
Participants $165 Benefit to cost ratio $3.53
Others $279 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $77 benefits greater than the costs 56 %
Total benefits $818
Net program cost ($232)
Benefits minus cost $587
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
Benefits from changes to:1 Benefits to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime $24 $0 $55 $12 $91
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation $57 $133 $73 $73 $336
K-12 grade repetition $2 $0 $0 $1 $3
K-12 special education $77 $0 $0 $38 $115
Health care associated with externalizing behavior symptoms $150 $42 $155 $75 $422
Costs of higher education ($12) ($10) ($3) ($6) ($32)
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($116) ($116)
Totals $297 $165 $279 $77 $818
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $227 2017 Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars) ($232)
Comparison costs $0 2017 Cost range (+ or -) 30 %
We estimate the per-family cost including staff time, training, and ongoing fidelity coaching. Families receive about 15 hours of Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) over 10 weeks, typically in a group format. We assume that there are seven families per group, on average. COS-P is led by Head Start providers who attend a four-day training and serve 14 families per year. Fidelity coaching is provided by COS-P trained coaches. We include the cost of fidelity coach training, and assume that coaches provide five hours of coaching to each provider and serve 20 total providers annually, on average. We estimate the value of staff time using average Washington State compensation costs (including benefits) for teachers as reported by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/PER/1617/tbl09.pdf). Circle of Security International program staff provided estimates of training costs and the number of families served per provider (personal communication from Angie Dierdoff, 10/24/2018).
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.
Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-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 non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. 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.

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.

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
Externalizing behavior symptoms 4 1 75 -0.079 0.294 4 -0.044 0.177 7 -0.079 0.787
Internalizing symptoms 4 1 75 -0.103 0.294 4 -0.103 0.294 6 -0.103 0.727

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Cassidy, J., Brett, B.E., Gross, J.T., Stern, J.A., Martin, D.R., Mohr, J.J., & Woodhouse, S.S. (2017). Circle of Security-Parenting: A randomized controlled trial in Head Start. Development and Psychopathology, 29(2) 651-673.