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

Table 4 Sensitivity results (benefits discounted)

Reduction in prevalence	Number of cases averted^a	Potential cost savings^b	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

^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
^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
^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.
^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).

ISSN: 1471-2458