Skip to main content

Table 4 Sensitivity results (benefits discounted)

From: Are youth mentoring programs good value-for-money? An evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Melbourne Program

Reduction
in prevalence
Number
of cases
averteda
Potential
cost
savingsb
Net benefits
(costs AUD)c
Incremental
cost-effectiveness
ratio
(ICER, AUD)d
Sensitivity 1: reduce value of saving high-risk youth to $1.673 M (base case $1.934 M)
2% 22 $42,548,000 $3,048,000 -$138,545
1% 11 $21,274,000 -$18,226,000 $1,656,909
Sensitivity 2: increase value of saving high-risk youth to $2.264 M (base case $1.934 M)
2% 22 $49,808,000 $10,308,000 -$468,545
1% 11 $24,904,000 -$14,596,000 -$1,326,909
Sensitivity 3: increase proportion of participants likely to embark on a high-risk pathway to 3% (base case 0.5%)
2% 132 $255,288,000 -$215,788,000 -$1,634,758
1% 66 $127,644,000 -$88,144,000 -$1,335,515
  1. a Refers to the number of cases averted as a result of the program. The total number of children in the program considered to be 'high-risk' cases is 1,104
  2. b Refers to the lifetime costs of high-risk youth averted by reducing the prevalence. Savings equate to the number of cases averted × AUD 1.934 M per case
  3. c Net benefit is derived by subtracting the costs of the BBBS-M program (AUD 39.5 M) for the cohort from the potential cost savings. A positive number means that the program saves more resources than what it costs, and conversely, a negative number means that the program costs more than what it saves.
  4. d The ICER is determined by dividing the net benefits of the program by the numbers of cases of high-risk youth averted. A negative ratio denotes that the program is a dominant intervention in that it saves money and has extra benefits (defined as cases averted).