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

Mentoring: Community-based for children with disruptive behavior

Children's Mental Health: Disruptive Behavior
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated May 2018.
Open PDF
In community-based mentoring programs for children with disruptive behavior disorders, paraprofessional mentors are paired with youth with diagnosed disruptive behavior disorders. These youth are referred to mentoring by their mental health care providers. Among studies includes in this analysis, youth were 8 to 12 years old. On average, mentors met with their mentees for three to four hours each week over a period of eight weeks. Mentors engage in developmentally appropriate activities (e.g., playing games, sports) and promote and reinforce positive behaviors and goals (e.g., social skills, communication, affect regulation). Mentors debrief parents at the end of each visit and discuss activities, behavior, and goal progression. Paraprofessional mentors receive training on program guidelines, discipline strategies, structured activities, and mentor-parent interactions and receive regular supervision.
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 $2,091 Benefits minus costs $3,114
Participants $1,328 Benefit to cost ratio $2.61
Others $1,799 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($170) benefits greater than the costs 67%
Total benefits $5,048
Net program cost ($1,935)
Benefits minus cost $3,114

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
10 2 72 -0.275 0.256 10 -0.151 0.167 13 -0.782 0.003
10 2 72 -0.329 0.257 10 -0.329 0.257 12 -0.746 0.004
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
Disruptive behavior disorder symptoms Criminal justice system $71 $0 $179 $35 $285
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation $495 $1,167 $634 $0 $2,297
K-12 grade repetition $16 $0 $0 $8 $25
K-12 special education $596 $0 $0 $298 $894
Health care associated with disruptive behavior disorder $990 $280 $1,022 $495 $2,787
Costs of higher education ($78) ($119) ($36) ($39) ($272)
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($967) ($967)
Totals $2,091 $1,328 $1,799 ($170) $5,048
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $1,640 2016 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($1,935)
Comparison costs $0 2016 Cost range (+ or -) 50%
The per-participant cost estimate is based on a weighted average of the costs of each study and includes the cost of mentor time, training, materials, supervision, and any administrative costs. The studies included in our analysis did not report specific cost estimates, so we constructed the costs associated with mentor time based on the average time spent with each participant in direct interaction, time to train mentors, and the approximate time spent on administrative tasks per child as outlined in both Jent & Niec (2006) and Jent & Niec (2009) We estimate mentor salary using Washington State labor costs as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
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

Jent, J.F, & Niec, L.N. (2006). Mentoring youth with psychiatric disorders: The impact on child and parent functioning. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 28(3), 43-58.

Jent, J.F., & Niec, L.N. (2009). Cognitive behavioral principles within group mentoring: A randomized pilot study. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 31(3), 203-219.