Model Explanation       

 The model to be simulate the possible
crime patterns among the youth population of Bourke, where levels of
alienation, policing and community engagement expenditure can be manipulated. Here
the youth in Bourke have a minimum percentage of the interested participated
on t

Model Explanation


The model to be simulate the possible crime patterns among the youth population of Bourke, where levels of alienation, policing and community engagement expenditure can be manipulated. Here the youth in Bourke have a minimum percentage of the interested participated on the community activities which government aims to improve their lifestyle and therefore they can specified on the reduce the rate of criminal activity. 

Assumption:

The assumption of the 2530 youth of the Bourke n the population susceptible to committing crime and simulations of criminal tendencies are only based on the factor presented, no external influences

Variable:

Alienation includes any factors that can increase the like hood of youth to commit crime such as exposure to domestic violence, household income, education level, and family background community engagement expenditure is the total monies budgeted into community activities to develop youths in and out of growth detention policing is the amount of police placed onto patrol in the town of Bourke to reinforce safety and that the law is abided.

Stocks: 

conviction rate is set to 60% A growth detention sentence for convicted criminals is set to 3 months the top 30% of the most server offenders are sent to rehabilitation for 3 months, to which they return to Bourke assuming in a better state and less likely to repeat a petty crime community activities are set to last 3 months to be calculating the align with the seasons: sporting club of the growth of community participants have 20% change of being disengaged as it may not align with their interests investments into policing are felt immediately & community engagement expenditure has a delay of 3 months. 

Finding the interest:

1. Alienation of the set maximum value is 0.2, policing and community engagement set to minimum shows a simulation where by all criminals are in town rather than being expedited and placed into growth detention even after a base value on the 500 youth placed into growth detention- this shouts that budget is required to control the overwhelming number of criminal youth as they overrun brouke.

2.  Set of community activity they can identified the 0.01 policing to max & alienation to max. The lack of social crime has caused much trouble among young people. The Police Immigration Police has not been deployed to the city of town, which has such a crime rate. Growth prevention can only last a long time, and all young people cannot be rehabilitated, so if they continue to commit crimes.

3. It plays an important role in considering the crime of young people. In order to keep the criminal activity minimal, the bulk of the budgets in police and social involvement among young people must be put at risk. Realistically, budget in a small town is an important factor, it may be engagement. 

4. To be set the police value 0.2, and engaged alienation expenditure value 0.04 of the community activities that can use of improve the youth in town of Bourke





 

This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W

This simulation makes the negative effects of starting work too soon visible. You can play around with the parameters.    Find the full story behind this simulation  here .      If you have questions or feedback get in touch via  @swilluda
This simulation makes the negative effects of starting work too soon visible. You can play around with the parameters.

Find the full story behind this simulation here

If you have questions or feedback get in touch via @swilluda
Multilevel context mechanisms and outcomes for hospital infection control
Multilevel context mechanisms and outcomes for hospital infection control
           This version of the   CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATION   model has been further calibrated (additional calibration phases will occur as better standardized data becomes available).  Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format.  Re
This version of the CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATION model has been further calibrated (additional calibration phases will occur as better standardized data becomes available).  Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format.  Relative magnitudes and durations of impact remain in need of further data & adjustment (calibration). In the interests of maintaining steady progress and respecting budget & time constraints, significant simplifying assumptions have been made: assumptions that mitigate both completeness & accuracy of the outputs.  This model meets the criteria for a Capability demonstration model, but should not be taken as complete or realistic in terms of specific magnitudes of effect or sufficient build out of causal dynamics.  Rather, the model demonstrates the interplay of a minimum set of causal forces on a net student progress construct -- as informed and extrapolated from the non-causal research literature.
Provided further interest and funding, this  basic capability model may further de-abstracted and built out to: higher provenance levels -- coupled with increased factorization, rigorous causal inclusion and improved parameterization.
  About
the Model  

 This
model is designed to simulate the youth population in Bourke, specifically
focusing on the number of criminals and incarcerated dependent on a few key
variables. 

 Within the model, a young person living in Bourke can be classified as being in any of five states:  Young C

About the Model

This model is designed to simulate the youth population in Bourke, specifically focusing on the number of criminals and incarcerated dependent on a few key variables.

Within the model, a young person living in Bourke can be classified as being in any of five states:

Young Community Member: The portion of the youth population that is not committing crime and will not commit crime in the future. Essentially the well behaved youths. A percentage of these youths will become alienated and at risk.

Alienated and At Risk Youths: The youths of Bourke that are on the path of becoming criminals, this could be caused by disruptive home lives, alcohol and drug problems, and peer pressure, among other things.

Criminal: The youths of Bourke who are committing crimes. Of these criminals a percentage will be caught and convicted and become imprisoned, while the remainder will either go back to being at risk and commit more crimes, or change their behaviour and go back to being a behaving community member.

Imprisoned: The youths of Bourke who are currently serving time in a juvenile detention centre. Half of the imprisoned are released every period at a delay of 6 months.

Released: Those youths that have been released from a detention centre. All released youths either rehabilitate and go back to being a community member or are likely to re-offend and become an alienated and at risk youth.

The variables used in the model are:

Police- This determines the police expenditure in Bourke, which relates to the number of police officers, the investment in surveillance methods and investment in criminal investigations. The level of expenditure effects how many youths are becoming criminals and how many are being caught. An increase in police expenditure causes an increase in imprisoned youths and a decrease in criminals.

Community Engagement Programs- The level of investment in community engagement programs that are targeted to keep youths in Bourke from becoming criminals. The programs include sporting facilities and clubs, educational seminars, mentoring programs and driving lessons. Increasing the expenditure in community engagement programs causes more young community members and less criminals and at risk youths.

Community Service Programs- The level of investment in community service programs that are provided for youths released from juvenile detention to help them rehabilitate and reintegrate back into the community. An increase in community service expenditure leads to more released prisoners going back into the community, rather than continuing to be at risk. Since community service programs are giving back to the community, the model also shows that an increase in expenditure causes a decrease in the amount of at risk youths.

All three of these variables are adjustable. The number of variables has been kept at three in order to ensure the simulation runs smoothly at all times without complicated outputs, limitations have also been set on how the variables can be adjusted as the simulation does not act the same out of these boundaries.

Key Assumptions:

The model does not account for the youths’ memory or learning.

There is no differentiation in the type of criminals and the sentences they serve. Realistically, not all crimes would justify juvenile detention and some crimes would actually have a longer than six-month sentence.

The constants within in the calculations of the model have been chosen arbitrarily and should be adjusted based on actual Bourke population data if this model were to be a realistic representation of Bourke’s population.

The model assumes that there are no other factors affecting youth crime and imprisonment in Bourke.

There are 1500 youths in Bourke. At the beginning of the simulation:

Young Community Member = 700

Alienated and At Risk Youth = 300

Criminal = 300

Imprisoned = 200

Noteworthy observations:

Raising Police expenditure has a very minimal effect on the number of at risk youths. This can be clearly seen by raising Police expenditure to the maximum of twenty and leaving the other two variables at a minimum. The number of Alienated and at Risk Youths is significantly higher than the other states.

Leaving Police expenditure at the minimum of one and increasing community development programs and community service programs to their maximum values shows that, in this model, crime can be decreased to nearly zero through community initiatives alone.

Leaving all the variables at the minimum position results in a relatively large amount of crime, a very low amount of imprisoned youth, and a very large proportion of the population alienated and at risk.

An ideal and more realistic simulation can be found by using the settings: Police = 12, Community Engagement Programs = 14, Community Service Programs = 10. This results in a large proportion of the population being young community members and relatively low amounts of criminals and imprisoned.



Clusters of interacting methods for improving health services network design and delivery. Simplified version of  IM-14982  combined with  IM-17598  and  IM-9773
Clusters of interacting methods for improving health services network design and delivery. Simplified version of IM-14982 combined with IM-17598 and IM-9773
 To provide a brief overview of the description of this model, here is a table of contents of sorts:  - The Program - Overview  - The Model Itself - Macro Scale  - Principal Inputs  - Principal Outputs  - Inputs & Outputs - Brief Explanation  - The Details - How This All Works  - Viewing Data Ou
To provide a brief overview of the description of this model, here is a table of contents of sorts:
- The Program - Overview
- The Model Itself - Macro Scale
- Principal Inputs
- Principal Outputs
- Inputs & Outputs - Brief Explanation
- The Details - How This All Works
- Viewing Data Outputs


The Program - Overview:

The model as seen revolves around the main variable components featuring "program" in their name and identified by their green color. The individual household starts at the "Building Envelope" program, which involves changes and modifications made to the actual building envelope of the house to make it more energy efficient, such as modifications to the insulation, windows, doors, etc. Then, the individual household will begin to progress through the behavioral component of the energy reduction program, starting with Climate Control. This portion concerns thermostat set points, the use of windows and fans to modulate temperature, and a behavioral adjustment in how to tolerate different levels of hot/cold temperature in the household. From here, the household moves through each room in the house, implementing energy reduction practices as appropriate. Because this program is designed to be modular and applicable to wide varieties of homes across the country, these rooms have been broken up into some standard categories that should apply to most households. These categories include the kitchen, the washroom, the main room/living room/"den", any bathrooms, and any bedrooms. Each category has its own set of energy reduction practices that can all be applied from a behavioral standpoint; clicking on each individual "program" will show a brief description of what these practices are in the notes section. Once the individual household has progressed through all of these areas, making the appropriate adjustments in each, they have more or less effectively "completed" the program. In reality, areas may continue to pop up where adjustments can be made to reduce energy consumption, so even though the program has been "completed" the members of the household will be continually working to maintain the new efficiency standard they have achieved with the end goal of cultivating a permanent, sustainable lifestyle. 


The Model Itself - Macro Scale:

The above is all essentially a description of how the household energy reduction program operates; the model is obviously tied to this, however it also includes an energy component that takes into account energy savings not only from a single house but all houses in a single community. How this all works will be discussed more in detail below, but first some basics will be gone over.

Principal inputs:

- energy capable of being saved in each portion of the program through behavioral changes (e.g. total possible energy reductions compared with initial baseline use prior to starting the program are X kWh/year and Y CCF/year)
- % of progress that needs to be made on meeting the reduction goal prior to moving onto the next program (e.g. for a total possible energy reduction of X compared to the initial energy use prior to starting the program, the participant must have reduced 90% of that total energy prior to moving on to the next program)
- time each program is projected to take (e.g. 4 weeks, 5 weeks, etc.)
- households in the community
- time (i.e. how long to run the model for, e.g. 52 weeks, 104 weeks, etc.)

Principal Outputs:

- amount of kWh of electricity saved by a household over the given period of time since starting the program (based on a kWh/yr basis)
- amount of CCF of gas saved by a household over the given period of time since starting the program (based on a CCF/yr basis)
- amount of gas and amount of electricity saved by the community the given period of time since starting the program (based on a per year basis)
- a plot of the progress made on each program for a specific period of time (e.g. which program is the household in, and what is their progress on the rest of the program they have already completed)

Inputs & Outputs - Brief Explanation:

For this model, the only inputs that could vary significantly from community to community are the specific number of households as well as the time the program has been in operation. Obviously the power that each household is capable of reducing can vary from household to household, however we are mainly concerned with the average energy reduction when looking at the community scale as there will always be outliers, which is why average numbers are used. Of the outputs produced, the kWh and CCF savings can be translated to lbs of CO2 saved, as well as other useful energy savings metrics that can better explain the impact of CE4A to the normal person than trying to explain the details behind what 1 kilo-watt hour is. Additionally, for a specific area's utility rate, the number of kWh/CCF saved overtime can yield data about how much money the specific household has saved since starting the program. This last statistic would be more helpful if the program were operating by strictly giving all the savings from energy reduction back to the homeowner; as this isn't exactly how CE4A handles this component, the model would have to be modified to more accurately depict the total savings going back to the homeowner/company revenue based on energy savings over time.


The Details - How This All Works:

Program Progression per Program:
The progress of the individual household through the home energy reduction program is essentially dictated by the progress through each individual program within. Progress through these individual programs is dictated by an inverse tangent curve that models behavioral change. The curve essentially outputs the % of progress the individual household has made, going from a value of 0 to 100. 
- Why an inverse tangent curve? - the shape of the curve includes an initial portion in which changes made are significantly large, followed by a portion in which the rate of change decreases as the easily made changes are completed over time. Compared with curves of similar shape, the important part about the inverse tangent curve is that it has a horizontal asymptote that the curve will only get close to, but never actually reach over time. This is representative of the concept that individuals will always have to work to maintain energy reduction practices until they become habit, as well as the reality that new challenges in the field of energy reduction can and will arise over time as people and technology changes.
***
Important to note: the inverse tangent function has been written to operate on a basis of weeks and % (in terms of a whole number XX.YY, not 0.XXYY). If the time scale is to be adjusted, say from weeks to months, then the entire tangent function must be rewritten to reflect this. Additionally, the function outputs values going from 0 to 100. This is a key reason why the function would need to be rewritten, as this would be drastically changed if different time units were used.
***
Inputs for each program include the progress % that the household needs to reach to advance on to the next program, as well as the time (in weeks) it should take them to reach this % threshold. Given the above explanation for how the inverse tangent curve works, the % progress and time threshold values should be chosen based on how much change is realistically possible within that time range (e.g. if it is realistic for an individual to complete 95% of possible changes within a 3 week period and form the habits to maintain those changes, then those values are well-suited for that program. However, if some programs have components that will take a long time to adapt to, then a longer period of time should be picked or a lower progress threshold, ideally the former.

Program Progression from Program to Program:
Each program following the first includes if-then statements related to the progress threshold of the previous program; once that program reaches that threshold, then the code the programs were written on will start the next program and reset its specific time scale to start at time=0 instead of time=current time in order to allow for flexibility in changing time thresholds without rewriting the entire inverse tangent function every time. In this way, changing progress thresholds not only affects the rate of progress of the current program but the start time of all others after it as well. 

Energy Reduction & Values:
The energy reduction numbers used in this model are all based on roughly what types of energy would be used in each room and how much is possible to be reduced. These numbers will all total up to the total projected energy reduction per household in terms of CCF/kWh, but the individual breakdown per room type as found in this model is entirely arbitrary and was chosen according to what made the most sense based on knowledge of what energy is used in which room and roughly how much with regards to the savings measures for the room type. These values are also on a per-week basis, so the small size is understandable in that context (originally on a yearly basis, then divided by 52 to get weeks to make this work with the model)

Original Use & Baseline Use:
Although this model does not utilize this and instead operates on a total savings possible basis, the initial energy usage of a particular household can be put into the "___.CCFOriginalUse" and "___.CCFBaseline" variables (note that CCF is interchangeable with KWH here) to get the total amount of possible savings based on real data. Currently, baseline use is set to 0 for each program with original use equivalent to the total amount of energy capable of being reduced per week for that room type. These numbers were derived from an estimate on the total energy reduction possible in terms of kWh and CCF, which was then broken down into each room and the type of energy capable of being reduced in each (see above section for more on this).

Note that "TotalKWH/CCFSavings" is for each individual household, whereas "NeighborhoodKWH/CCFSavings" is for the entire neighborhood composed of the amount of houses stored in the variable "#Households."


Viewing Data Outputs:

- Viewing current program progress at time X:
- use the plot option to while selecting "BuildingEnvelope.Program", "ClimateControl.Program", "Kitchen.Program," etc., to see the progress curves for each program over time.
- Viewing savings data:
- use the data table option to view the kWh/CCF savings over time for the household, the community, or both, changing the time column to display most recent time first; this will give the total savings in each of those areas for that entire time period.
​ The Model      The model displayed depicts the interaction that the youth of Bourke has with the justice system and focuses on how factors like policing and community development affect the crime rate within this area. Bourke is a rural town that has a significant crime rate among youth. Local com
The Model

The model displayed depicts the interaction that the youth of Bourke has with the justice system and focuses on how factors like policing and community development affect the crime rate within this area. Bourke is a rural town that has a significant crime rate among youth. Local community members call for action to be taken in regards to this, meaning that steps must be taken to reduce the crime rate. This simple model explores how the amount of police and the investment of community development can have an effect on the town in regards to its issue of crime among youth.


Assumptions
  • Bourke's youth population is 1200, with 700 in town, 200 committing crimes and 300 already in jail
  • The amount of police, the expenditure on community development, and the domestic violence rate are the factors which have the potential to influence youth to commit crimes. The domestic violence rate is also influenced by the expenditure on community development.
  • Sporting clubs, interpersonal relationships between youth and police, and teaching trade skills all make up community expenditure
  • Activities relating to expenditure on community development run throughout the year, indicating that there is no delay where youth are not involved in these activities.
  • Every 6 months, only 60% of jailed youth are released. This may be for various factors such as committing crime in jail or being issued with lengthier sentences due to the severity of the crime(s) committed
  • 10% of youth who agree that domestic violence is an issue at home will commit crime
  • There is a delay of 1 month before youth go to jail for crime(s) committed. This model assumes that youth who have committed crime either return home (by decision or by not being caught) or go to jail. It also assumes that other punishments such as community service refer to returning back home.
  • The simulation takes place over a duration of 5 years (60 months)
  • Adults have little effect on the youth. Only where domestic violence is concerned do they play a factor within this model

How the Model Works

The model begins with the assumptions previously stated. Youth have the potential to commit a crime. 3 main variables influence this decision, including the amount of police, expenditure on community development, and domestic violence rate (which is influenced by the previous variable). These 3 variables are able to be adjusted using the relevant sliders with 0.5 indicating a low investment and 0.9 indicating a high investment. Police also have an influence on this decision. This variable is also able to be adjusted by a slider. Last of all, the domestic violence rate also contributes to this decision and this variable is negatively influenced by community development.

Once a youth has committed a crime they are either convicted and sent to jail or return back to town. The conviction rate is also influenced by the amount of police in town, as youth are more likely to get caught and thus jailed. Once again, the Police variable is able to be adjusted via the slider. This process takes a month.

From here, youth typically spend 6 months in jail. After this time period 60% are released while the remaining 40% remain in jail either due to lengthier sentences for more severe crimes or due to incidents within jail. The process then repeats.


Parameter Settings and Results
  • Initially there is a state of fluctuation within this model. It may be a good idea to ignore it and pay attention to how variables change over time from their initial state
  • Increasing the amount of police will raise the amount of people jailed and decrease crime
  • Increasing the community development variables from a minimal investment (i.e. set at 0.5) to a high investment (i.e. set at 0.9) will reduce both the crime rate and the conviction rate. It is worth noting that the community development variable also influences the domestic violence rate variable which also has an effect on the results
  • If only 2 of the 3 community development variables have a high investment then there is not much effect on the crime rate or jail rate. All 3 variables should be given the same level of investment to give us a desired outcome
  • The model does allow for a maximum of 40 police (as we do not want to spend more money on police than we already have in the past), as well as the maximum investment for community development. When choosing settings it may be necessary to ponder if it is financially realistic to maintain both a large number of police as well as investing heavily into community development
 Assignment 3: Bourke Crime and Community Development​     This complex systems model depicts the impact of factors such as violence and community programs on the youth of Bourke. The time scale is in months and shows the next 6 years. The model aims to show how by altering expenditure in different
Assignment 3: Bourke Crime and Community Development​

This complex systems model depicts the impact of factors such as violence and community programs on the youth of Bourke. The time scale is in months and shows the next 6 years. The model aims to show how by altering expenditure in different areas, the town of Bourke can decrease crime and increase their population involvement in community programs. This model is intended to be dynamic to allow the user to change certain variables to see changes in impact

The town of Bourke has a population of 3634 people, 903 of which are classified as youth (being 0-24 inclusive) (ABS, 2016 census).
This population starts with all youths in three differing stocks:
- 703 in Youth
- 100 in Juvenile Detention
- 100 in Rehabilitation


Assumptions:
This model makes many assumptions that would not necessarily uphold in reality.

- Only the youth of the town are committing crimes.
- All convicted youths spend 6 months in juvenile detention.
- All convicted youths must go to rehabilitation after juvenile detention and spend 2 months there.
- The risk rate impacts upon every youth committing a crime and is a  broad term covering effects such as abuse.
- No gaol effect, youths do not return to town with a tendency to re- commit a crime.
- No further external factors than those given.
- There cannot be zero expenditure in any of the fields.


The stocks:
Each stock depicts a different action or place that an individual youth may find themselves in. 
These stocks include:
- Youth (the youths living in Bourke, where youths are if they are not committing crimes or in community programs)
- Petty Crime (crimes committed by the youths of Bourke such as stealing)
- Juvenile Detention (where convicted youths go)
- Rehabilitation
- Community Programs


The variables:
- Community Expenditure (parameter 0.1-0.4)
- Law Enforcement Expenditure (parameter 0.1-0.6)
- Rehabilitation Expenditure (parameter 0.1-0.4)
- Risk Rate (not adjustable but alters with Law Enforcement Expenditure)

Sliders on each of the expenditure variables have been provided. These variables indicate the percentage of the criminal minimising budget for Bourke.
Note that to be realistic, one should make the three differing sliders be equal to 1, in order to show 100% of expenditure

Base Parameter Settings:
- Law Enforcement Expenditure = 0.5
- Community Expenditure = 0.25
- Rehabilitation Expenditure = 0.25

Interesting Parameter Settings:
- When Law Enforcement is at 0.45 and Community and Rehabilitation at 0.3 and 0.25 (in either order) then convicted and not-convicted values are the same. If Law Enforcement expenditure goes any lower then the number of convicted youths is less than those not-convicted and vice versa if the expenditure is increased.
- When Law Enforcement is at 0.2 and Community and Rehabilitation at 0.4 each then the increase in community programs and decrease in crime and thus detention occurs in a shorter and more rapid time frame. This shows that crime can be minimised in this model almost entirely through community initiatives.
- Alternatively, when Law Enforcement is at 0.6 and Community and Rehabilitation at 0.2 each then the increase in community programs and decrease in crime occurs over a longer time period with more incremental change.



Population Source:

  Details:   <!--[if !supportLists]-->-         
<!--[endif]-->This
model shows the effect of ‘reinvestment program ‘or the expenditure on policing
and community development affects the cycles of petty-crime and youth
detention, and domestic violence and jail.  More details:   <!--[if

Details:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->This model shows the effect of ‘reinvestment program ‘or the expenditure on policing and community development affects the cycles of petty-crime and youth detention, and domestic violence and jail.

More details:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]--> Bourke is a town of 3000 people in the North West of New South Wales, about 750Km from Sydney. See the map: https://goo.gl/maps/VgNqgMNzJ7H2. It’s nowhere and there’s not much to do there if you’re young. So, a lot of kids get into mischief, and a lot of adult’s drink. Sometimes they’re violent.

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->http://www.justreinvest.org.au/justice-reinvestment-in-bourke/

Assumption:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Bourke Funding consist of Law enforcement funding and Community Development funding only

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Bourke budget only has $400,000

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Juvenile detention stay last for 6 months

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->There is only 2 options as a Youth, commit petty crime or engage in Youth development programs

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->1 unit of Police, Juvenile and Educational program HR and Equipment is = 0.25

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->1 unit increase results in an 0.25 effectiveness increase

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Sport clubs, educational programs and social programs are comprised into Youth Development Program as 1 stock.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Juvenile support relies on encouraging youth who are in detention centers to join youth development programs, if not they will reoffend.

Stocks:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Home

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Youth Development program

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Discharged

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Juvenile detention center

<!--[if !supportLists]-->o   <!--[endif]-->Petty Crime

Variable:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Reinvestment Allocation – ranges from 0 – 1 , law enforcement investment allocation is 1 – reinvestment allocation. Slide the slider through 0 to 1 to change the reinvestment allocation by 10% l

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Bourke funding budget is fixed to make it seem more realistic (imagine employing a whole army of teachers or police, it wouldn’t make sense)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Youth Population varies , from 1000 to 10,000 for realism along with its time period (4 years). Slider the the slider to increase or decrease the population by 1,000s

Juvenile support effectiveness rate, Youth development program effectiveness rate, conviction rate, Police HR/ equipment, Juvenile Support HR/ equipment, Youth Development program HR/ equipment

Interrelationship and reinforcing loops

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->The youth population starts as as Neutral (Home) then leans towards alienation and connectedness

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Alienation Reinforcing Loop -  Alienation has Conviction rate as a factor as conviction rate increase Alienation increase. This is because as youths get arrested, meaning they’ll have to stay in Detention centers, their friends are more likely to follow on due to them getting ‘bored’.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Connectedness Reinforcing Loop - The opposite exist with Connectedness, as educational program effectiveness increase so as Connectedness. This follows onto the same assumption that youth will always follow peer pressure. The more friends they have in the program, the more likely they will join aswell.

 

Analysis:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.       <!--[endif]-->Which loop is the youth in?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Once the allocation slider is used with its minimum or maximum value, the loop at which majority of the youth population is ‘stuck in’ becomes obvious. E.g. Once allocation = 1, the entire youth is stuck between educational program and their home, showing the effectiveness of community development funding. On the other hand, once allocation = 0, the entire youth loops around from doing Petty Crimes, spending their time in Juvenile detention centers, then getting discharged to only commit petty crimes again.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.       <!--[endif]-->Alienation vs. Connectedness

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Set the allocation slider on 0.8, The massive difference between the youth of population feeling connected with their community and youth being alienated can be seen. The increase in Reinvestment, the increase in connectedness. Try the extremes as well, 100% reinvestment funding results in 0 Alienation rate.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.       <!--[endif]--> What is the Youth Engaged in ? Educational Programs or Petty Crime ?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·       <!--[endif]-->Leaving the slider on 0.8, it can be seen that the there are more youth engaged into educational programs than petty crime. This shows that reinvestment and petty crime has a negative relationship .

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.       <!--[endif]-->More police = safer ?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Set the slider on 0.1 , it can be seen that Conviction which has police as a factor is positively correlated to Crime. This means that an increase in conviction rate is equivalent to more youth being alienated and committing crime. Therefore, more police less safer.

 Have fun! 

 

Simple box model for atmospheric and ocean carbon cycle, with surface and deep water, including DIC system, carbonate alkalinity, weathering, O2, and PO4 feedbacks.
Simple box model for atmospheric and ocean carbon cycle, with surface and deep water, including DIC system, carbonate alkalinity, weathering, O2, and PO4 feedbacks.
3 6 months ago
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W

This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W

This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W

This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W

This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.  We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale websi
This model illustrates predator prey interactions using real-life data of wolf and moose populations on the Isle Royale.

We incorporate logistic growth into the moose dynamics, and we replace the death flow of the moose with a kill rate modeled from the kill rate data found on the Isle Royale website.

I start with these parameters:
Wolf Death Rate = 0.15
Wolf Birth Rate = 0.0187963
Moose Birth Rate = 0.4
Carrying Capacity = 2000
Initial Moose: 563
Initial Wolves: 20

I used RK-4 with step-size 0.1, from 1959 for 60 years.

The moose birth flow is logistic, MBR*M*(1-M/K)
Moose death flow is Kill Rate (in Moose/Year)
Wolf birth flow is WBR*Kill Rate (in Wolves/Year)
Wolf death flow is WDR*W