Mentoring for youth post-release (including volunteer costs)
Juvenile Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023. Literature review updated June 2019.
Mentoring programs pair youth in the juvenile justice system with an adult volunteer to build a relationship with the ultimate goal of encouraging youth to desist from delinquent behavior. Mentor/mentee relationships aim to grow social capital by engaging youth in pro-social relationships. Youth are assigned to a mentor, typically a non-professional volunteer, who meets with the youth approximately once a week. Mentors assist youth in gaining access to community resources necessary for reentry (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous), attend social functions together (e.g., movies or sporting events), and help youth engage in positive decision-making and problem-solving. Mentors typically maintain a minimum one-year commitment to the youth/program.
This analysis is on youth released from confinement and assigned a mentor. In the included studies, youth were in the mentoring programs for an average of 10.4 months. In the studies in our analysis that reported demographic information, 80% of participants were youth of color and 46% were female.
We exclude studies examining the effectiveness of mentoring for youth who were not in the juvenile justice system from this review. Evaluations of mentoring on a population of youth on probation (i.e., never confined) are excluded from this analysis and analyzed separately.
Key Terms
Court-involved youth: Youth who are processed through the juvenile justice system but who are not ordered to a period of confinement in a residential or correctional facility. This includes populations of arrested youth, diverted youth, charged youth, adjudicated youth, and youth on probation or formal supervision.
Youth in state institutions: Youth who are confined in a residential or correctional facility when they participate in the program.
Youth post-release: Youth who are returning to the community following a period of confinement in a residential or correctional facility and who participate in the program after release to the community.
ALL |
BENEFIT-COST | META-ANALYSIS |
CITATIONS |
|
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 |
|
|
Taxpayers |
$8,461 |
|
Benefits minus costs |
$33,274 |
|
|
Participants |
$1,084 |
|
Benefit to cost ratio |
$9.37 |
|
|
Others |
$25,727 |
|
Chance the program will produce |
|
|
|
Indirect |
$1,975 |
|
benefits greater than the costs |
94% |
|
|
Total benefits |
$37,247 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net program cost |
($3,973) |
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits minus cost |
$33,274 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Taxpayers |
Participants |
Others2 |
Indirect3 |
Total
|
|
Crime |
Criminal justice system |
$8,043 |
$0 |
$25,083 |
$4,022 |
$37,148 |
Labor market earnings associated with high school graduation |
$537 |
$1,264 |
$698 |
$0 |
$2,499 |
Costs of higher education |
($119) |
($181) |
($54) |
($60) |
($413) |
|
Program cost |
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
($1,987) |
($1,987) |
|
|
|
Totals |
|
$8,461 |
$1,084 |
$25,727 |
$1,975 |
$37,247 |
|
Click here to see populations selected
Click here to hide populations selected
Populations - Primary |
Crime |
Youth released from state institutions Youth released from a juvenile rehabilitation faciliity |
Education |
Youth involved in the juvenile justice system Youth who are currently or were previously involved in the juvenile justice system |
Earnings |
General population All people |
For more information on populations see the
Technical Documentation
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant |
Program costs |
$3,368 |
2016 |
Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) |
($3,973) |
Comparison costs |
$0 |
2016 |
Cost range (+ or -) |
20% |
We estimate the per-participant cost using the cost of volunteer time on the Office of Financial Management State Data Book average adult salary for 2016, multiplied by 1.44 to account for benefits. Cost estimates exclude donated space. In the evaluated programs, mentors met with mentees for 81 hours over 10.4 months, on average.
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. |
Benefits by Perspective Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars) |
The graph above illustrates the breakdown of the estimated cumulative benefits (not including program costs) per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. These cash flows provide a breakdown of the classification of dollars over time into four perspectives: taxpayer, participant, others, and indirect. “Taxpayers” includes expected savings to government and expected increases in tax revenue. “Participants” includes expected increases in earnings and expenditures for items such as health care and college tuition. “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. “Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the changes in the value of a statistical life and changes in the deadweight costs of taxation. If a section of the bar is below the $0 line, the program is creating a negative benefit, meaning a loss of value from that perspective. |
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars) |
Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis
Bouffard, J., & Bergseth, K. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders' recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6 (3), 295-318.
Drake, E., & Barnoski, R. (2006). Recidivism findings for the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration's mentoring program: Final report (Document No: 06-07-1202). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Jarjoura, G.P. (2009). Mentoring as a critical tool for effective juvenile reentry: Written testimony submitted to the Congressional briefing on supporting youth reentry from out-of-home placement to the community.