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

Peer support: Substitution of a peer specialist for a non-peer on the treatment team

Adult Mental Health: Serious Mental Illness
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated May 2014.
This program was archived December 2024.
The programs examined in this analysis compared treatment teams with a peer specialist to treatment teams with a non-peer in a similar role. The treatment teams in this analysis provided services to individuals with severe mental illness, major depression or individuals receiving Veterans' Administration services for a psychiatric diagnosis.
 
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 2023 Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers ($1,351) Benefits minus costs ($4,473)
Participants ($2,182) Benefit to cost ratio n/a
Others ($730) Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($210) benefits greater than the costs 29%
Total benefits ($4,473)
Net program cost $0
Benefits minus cost ($4,473)

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on 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 on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change 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. More details about these adjustments can be found in our 2023 Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N 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
Crime
Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.
 44 2 81 0.256 0.221 44 0.000 0.000 45 0.256 0.246
Alcohol use disorder
Clinical diagnosis of alcohol use disorder or symptoms measured on a validated scale.  
 44 1 113 0.169 0.141 44 0.000 0.000 45 0.169 0.228
Employment
Any employment, including part-time work.
44 1 113 -0.080 0.141 44 0.000 0.000 45 -0.080 0.569
Hospitalization (psychiatric)
Admission to a psychiatric ward or hospital.
 44 4 208 0.022 0.174 44 0.000 0.000 45 0.022 0.901
Homelessness^
A lack of stable housing, often measured through self-report of conditions like living on streets or in shelters in a given time period.
 44 2 149 0.045 0.122 44 n/a n/a n/a 0.045 0.711
Emergency department visits
Whether someone visited the emergency department, or the number of times they visited the emergency department.
44 1 57 -0.471 0.244 44 0.000 0.000 45 -0.471 0.053
Psychiatric symptoms^
Mental health symptoms (such as symptoms of psychosis) in individuals with serious mental illness, measured on a validated scale.
 44 6 338 0.050 0.131 44 n/a n/a n/a 0.050 0.701
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
Crime Criminal justice system ($480) $0 ($907) ($240) ($1,628)
Alcohol use disorder Health care associated with alcohol abuse or dependence ($3) ($1) ($4) ($2) ($9)
Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $0 $0 ($1) $0 ($1)
Mortality associated with alcohol $0 $0 $0 ($5) ($6)
Employment Labor market earnings ($941) ($2,216) $0 $0 ($3,157)
Hospitalization (psychiatric) Health care associated with psychiatric hospitalization ($58) ($1) ($13) ($29) ($101)
Emergency department visits Health care associated with emergency department visits $132 $36 $195 $66 $429
Totals ($1,351) ($2,182) ($730) ($210) ($4,473)
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $0 2012 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) $0
Comparison costs $0 2012 Cost range (+ or -) 10%
In all studies the peer specialists and non-peer staff had similar roles. Therefore, we did not impute a greater or lesser cost to peer support versus other providers—the net per-participant cost is zero.
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 2023 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

Bright, J.I., Baker, K.D., & Neimeyer, R.A. ( 1999). Professional and paraprofessional group treatments for depression: a comparison of cognitive-behavioral and mutual support interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(4), 491-501.

Chinman, M.J., Rosenheck, R., Lam, J.A., & Davidson, L. (2000). Comparing consumer and nonconsumer provided case management services for homeless persons with serious mental illness. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 188(7), 446-453.

Clarke, G.N., Herinckx, H.A., Kinney, R.F., Paulson, R.I., Cutler, D.L., Lewis, K., & Oxman, E. (2000). Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized trial of two ACT programs vs. usual care.Mental Health Services Research, 2(3),155-164.

Eisen, S.V., Schultz, M.R., Mueller, L.N., Degenhart, C., Clark, J.A., Resnick, S.G., Christiansen, C.L., …, & Sadow, D. (2012). Outcome of a randomized study of a mental health peer education and support group in the VA. Psychiatric Services, 63(12), 1243-1246.

Felton, C.J., Stastny, P., Shern, D.L., Blanch, A., Donahue, S.A., Knight, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Consumers as peer specialists on intensive case management teams: Impact on client outcomes. Psychiatric Services, 46(10), 1037-1044.

Rivera, J.J., Sullivan, A.M., & Valenti, S.S. (2007). Adding consumer-providers to intensive case management: Does it improve outcome?. Psychiatric Services 58(6), 802-809.

Solomon, P. & Draine, J. (1995). The efficacy of a consumer case management team: 2-year outcomes of a randomized trial. Journal of Mental Health Administration, 22(2), 135-146.