Search for Programs to Help YouthSearch for Programs to Help Youth

Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP)

Ages 5-13

Rating: Level 2

Intervention

The Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP) is a supportive, small-group preventive intervention designed to reduce the stress of family transitions and foster children’s resilience and healthy adjustment to changes in family structure. The program is based on two central components: group support and training in social competence. CODIP helps children identify and express feelings, share experiences, form bonds with peers, enhance positive perceptions of self and family, and increase their capacity to cope with challenging changes associated with divorce. The program’s five main goals are to

  • Foster a safe, supportive group environment
  • Facilitate the identification and expression of divorce-related feelings
  • Promote understanding of divorce-related concepts and clarify misconceptions
  • Teach effective coping and interpersonal skills
  • Enhance positive perceptions of self and family

The structured, sequential, 12- to 15-session intervention is co-led by mental health professionals. Four different CODIP curricula are tailored to the developmental needs and emotional reactions of children from kindergarten through eighth grade. Each curriculum has been field-tested and carefully evaluated with children of different ages and sociodemographic backgrounds. The program’s effectiveness has been demonstrated in six different controlled studies with children in urban, suburban, and rural settings.

Evaluation

The original study involved a quasi-experimental design that included 102 kindergarten and first grade children from five schools in the Rochester, N.Y., area. Evaluators compared preprogram and postprogram changes in children’s adjustment among three groups: program participants (Es), divorce control subjects (DCs), and nondivorced comparison subjects (NDCs).

Two years after the intervention ended, custodial parents of all original study participants were sent a letter describing the purpose and procedures for the follow-up study. Of the 88 parents who received the letter 77, or 90 percent agreed to participate. Thus, the follow-up sample consisted of 34 Es, 15 DCs, and 28 NDCs. Most of the Es (81 percent) and DCs (91 percent) lived with their mothers, while other subjects lived with their fathers (8 percent and 4 percent, respectively) or spent equal time with each parent (11 percent and 5 percent, respectively). Children were 7 and 8 years old and in grades 2 and 3 at the time of follow-up. Time since parental separation was significantly greater for divorce controls (average of 3.43 years) than program children (average of 1.94 years). The sample was 94 percent white, 3 percent African-American, and 3 percent Asian-American. Median family income for Es and DCs ranged between $25,000 and $40,000 and between $40,000 and $50,000 for NDCs. Children’s adjustment at follow-up was assessed from the perspectives of teachers blind to the condition (Teacher–Child Rating Scale), parents (Parent Evaluation Form and Parent Interview), school health and attendance records, and the children themselves (Children’s Family Adjustment Scale and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children).

Outcome

Overall, the evaluation produced evidence to suggest that the shared group support in conjunction with training in essential coping skills can have a significant and lasting impact on children’s adjustment after divorce. The follow-up study found that children who had demonstrated significantly greater gains in adjustment at posttesting maintained those improvements during the follow-up period. Teacher ratings (blind to the condition), parent interviews, child self-reports, and school health data showed that program children had less anxiety and fewer classroom adjustment problems and visits to the school health office than divorce controls. Moreover, divorce controls demonstrated continued signs of risk such as adjustment problems at home and at school.

The follow-up study did have several limitations. First, the two groups were not randomly assigned to a condition, thus self-selection may account for the significant difference for Es and DCs on time since separation. However, program effects remained significant when time since separation was controlled in subsequent analyses. Next, the study maintained a small, homogeneous sample consisting of primarily white, middle class subjects. Moreover, parents of program children knew of their children’s participation and may have had more investment in portraying a positive picture.

Risk Factors

Individual

  • Life stressors

Family

  • Family transitions
  • Pattern of high family conflict

Protective Factors

Individual

  • Perception of social support from adults and peers
  • Positive / Resilient temperament
  • Social competencies and problem-solving skills

Family

  • Good relationships with parents / Bonding or attachment to family
  • Having a stable family

Endorsements

  • SAMHSA: Model Programs

References

Alpert–Gillis, Linda, JoAnne Pedro–Carroll, and Emory Cowen. 1989. “The Children of Divorce Intervention Program: Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Program for Young Urban Children.”Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57(5):583–89.

Pedro–Carroll, JoAnne. 1997. “The Children of Divorce Intervention Program: Fostering Resilient Outcomes for School-Aged Children.” In G.W. Albee and T.P. Gullotta (eds.). Primary Prevention Works. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

———. 2001. “The Promotion of Wellness in Children and Families: Challenges and Opportunities.” American Psychologist 56:993–1,004.

Pedro–Carroll, JoAnne, and Linda Alpert–Gillis. 1997. “Preventive Interventions for Children of Divorce: A Developmental Model for 5- and 6-Year-Old Children.” The Journal of Primary Prevention 18(1):5–23.

Pedro–Carroll, JoAnne, Linda Alpert–Gillis, and Emory Cowen. 1992. “An Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Preventive Intervention for Fourth to Sixth Grade Urban Children of Divorce.” The Journal of Primary Prevention 13(2):115–30.

Pedro–Carroll, JoAnne, and Emory Cowen. 1985. “The Children of Divorce Intervention Program: An Investigation of the Efficacy of a School-Based Prevention Program.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53(5):603–11.

Pedro–Carroll, JoAnne, Emory Cowen, A. Dirk Hightower, and John Guare. 1986. “Preventive Intervention with Latency-Aged Children of Divorce: A Replication Study.” American Journal of Community Psychology 14(3):277–90.

Pedro–Carroll, JoAnne, Sara Sutton, and Peter Wyman. 1999. “A 2-Year Follow-Up Evaluation of a Preventive Intervention for Young Children of Divorce.” School Psychology Review 28(3):467–76.

Contact

JoAnne Pedro–Carroll, Ph.D.
The Children’s Institute
274 North Goodman, Suite D103
Rochester, NY 14607
Phone: (585) 295-1000
Fax: (585) 295-1090
E-mail: jpcarroll@childrensinstitute.net
Web site: http://www.childrensinstitute.net/programs/CODIP

Technical Assistance Provider

JoAnne Pedro–Carroll, Ph.D.
The Children’s Institute
274 North Goodman, Suite D103
Rochester, NY 14607
Phone: (585) 295-1000
Fax: (585) 295-1090
E-mail: jpcarroll@childrensinstitute.net
Web site: http://www.childrensinstitute.net/programs/CODIP