Bourke | Insight Maker

Background Information

Bourke is a town of 3000 people in the North West of New South Wales, about 750Km from Sydney.

The state government is implementing a new measure to prevent further crime committed by installing community programs such as sporting clubs, and classes to develop relationships among police and the community.

Many youth were going from home to juvenile detention and back, and many adults were on a similar roundabout between the community and jail.

Community development programs hopefully will reduce the levels of domestic violence among adults, and petty crime among the town’s youth.

Model Explanation

Firstly, you notice Adult and Youth population is separated and assumed that 50% of adults will commit crime whereas 20% in youth. A certain percentage is given for the number that is guilty and not guilty. Guilty, will receive certain punishment according to their age category and after their sentence is served, they go back to town.

Policing Expenditures shows how many officers are needed to reduce the amount of crime. Officers are called when a crime/mischief is committed, whether they're caught or not and found guilty or not.

Stocks

Adult Population: Adults in Bourke

Youth Population: Teenagers in Bourke

Crime: Domestic Violence/Homicide

Mischief: Petty Crimes

Jail: If Guilty, adults are sent to jail

Juvenile Detention: If guilty, youth are sent to detention

Community Programs: Sporting clubs, developing interpersonal relationships among police and “at risk” households, and teaching trade-skills

Assumptions

Adult Population: 2100

Youth Population: 900

Adult Crimes: 50%

Youth Mischief: 20%

Goal

The aim of this model is to illustrate the affects of implementing change i.e. policing/government aid within a community

Trends

The increase of Government Aid and Policing Expenditures decreases the crime performed in the community.

We can see a positive outcome from this and can take into account the affects of proper execution by the state government

44763514 Assignment 3 - Justice Reinvestment in Bourke

Kevin Chu

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Sravya Sri Egalapati

Purpose of the model

To show the impact of increasing number of active police and increase development programs in order to lessen crime in the city of Bourke.

Assumptions

3000 residents in Bourke

4.37% of the population is consider to be At Risk

Funding and # of Police units will be consistent in a 12 month period.

STOCKS

AT RISK INDIVIDUALS

Individuals who committed a crime

CRIME

Includes Domestic violence and Petty Crimes.

JAIL

Once an At Risk Individual is convicted of their crime they get sent to this.

COMMUNITY PROGRAM

Where at risk individuals can register and commit to a community program.

NOT AT RISK INDIVIDUALS

Once an at risk individual completes the community Program

VARIABLES

LGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDING

Amount of funding that can be used to increase Police Units, or improve the community Program

POLICE UNITS

Amount of Police that are active in Bourke at a given time

ARRESTS

Arrests rate depends on number of active police units

PROGRAM COMPLETION RATE

Program completion depends on the amount of Funding it gets

SET NUMBERS

Total population of Bourke is 3000 as seen here.

Total Number of At Risk Individuals is collected at a research conducted by BOCSAR.

At risk individuals include crimes such as Domestic Violence, Robbery, Break and enter dwelling, Break and enter non-dwelling

Suggested Settings.

Maxing one slider while the other is at its minimum value, to show which gives a bigger impact

Maxing Both sliders to show how it affects the crime rate.

Both sliders at its minimum value to show how crime rates would react.

44638965 - Marian Joseph Sabana

MJ Sabana

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

sub cribed

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Sravya Sri Egalapati

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Srinivas Nalla

Bourke Youth Crime Model

This simple model is designed to simulate crime amongst youth in the country town of Bourke, Australia.

Bourke has a youth population (under 24 years of age) of 998 (ABS, 2015). These 998 persons begin arbitrarily split between the general population [Bourke Youth], youth in the football club [Football Club], youth engaged in criminal activity [Criminals] and incarcerated youth [Prisoners]

The rates of transfer between these blocks are determined by several logical mechanisms which are explained below. All calculations are rounded for the obvious reason that populations are necessarily integer values. To facilitate investigation into the interaction between variables, only Police and Funding are adjustable. Any other inputs would unnecessarily complicate the model, and degrade its usability and usefulness.

Observations:

Police and Funding have an interaction that determines the outcome for criminals in the simulation. At a funding multiplier of 1 (standard) and with minimum police, Criminals outnumber youths by the end of the simulation. As the funding is decreased, this threshold increases until a funding multiplier of 0.2, where even the maximum number of police cannot control the criminal population.

Perhaps most interestingly, the equilibrium prisoner population depends on the sports club funding multiplier, not the number of police.

An interesting comparison can be found between setting the funding multiplier to 1.5 and police to 100, and setting funding to 0.3 with police at 225. This comparison is an ideal use for this model, as it reflects the benefits from community engagement seen in the case study.

Rates:

Commit Crime: The crime rate in Bourke is modelled to be dependent on several factors, principally the number of police in Bourke (a greater police presence will reduce crime). It is also assumed that a greater general youth population will increase the rate of crime, and that participation in the football club (or interaction with other engaged community members) will discourage crime. For these reasons, the rate of criminalisation is modelled with the equation:

Round([Bourke Youth]^2/([Football Club]*[Police]+1))

Arrested: The arrest rate is determined by a factor of the number of police available to charge and arrest suspects, as well as the number of criminals eligible for arrest. A natural logarithm is taken for police, as police departments should see diminishing returns in adding more officers. A logarithm is also taken of criminals to allow it to factor into the rate without swamping the effect of police. Thus, the rate is calculated with:

Round(ln([Police]+1)*5*log([Criminals]+1))

Released: The release rate is a straightforward calculation; it is set to increase with the square of the number of prisoners to keep the maximum number of inmates low. This is because Bourke is a small town with a small gaol and it would have to prematurely release inmates as the inmate population overflowed. Thus it is calculated with:

Round(0.001*[Prisoners]^2)

Recruited: The Football recruitment rate is assumed to be dependent on the population available for recruitment, and the funding received for the football club. A better funded club would recruit youths in greater numbers. Consequently, the recruitment rate is calculated with:

Round(ln([Bourke Youth]+1)*[Funding Modifier]+1)

Dropout Rate: The dropout rate from the football club is assumed to be dependent on the number of players (a proportion should quit every season) and the funding of the club (a well funded club should retain more players. Thus it is calculated with:

Round(1+ln([Football Club]*10/([Funding Modifier]+5)))

Self Adjust: A small leak flow to represent those criminals that cease their criminal activity and return to the general population.

Enjoy!

- Sam

Clone of 44910304 - Crime in Bourke

Andy West

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Carlo Ralph De Musis

This model describe the relationships between alienation in young people, police intervention and community support in Bourke area.

Youth alienation from society or family values is main cause of juvenile crime.

Bourke have the highest rate of juvenile detection in NSW. Juvenile justice system exposes involved youth to negative influences, arresting their development, interrupting connections to school, family, and work , and increases the likelihood of further involvement. It also affects their development and opportunities in a variety of ways, such as impaired occupational functioning and higher unemployment.

Reinvesting the costs of court charges and juvenile detention in education programs, community initiative and police reforms, will increase the proportion of youth positively involved in society reducing the costs of justice system.

Population characteristic:

Bourke population is 2634 (Census 2016) with a youth population aged 10-24 of ~460 (17.5%).

Assumptions:

For this model we assume the following:

25% of youth population is engaged and 75% of youth population is disengaged

Of the disengaged youth population, 50% is involved in a minor crime/low offence and then 75% charged with detention.

After juvenile detention, only a 30% is re-engaged in a positive life-style

Variables:

Change in education system to increase the proportion of youth engaged in a positive life-style:

- Increase availability of short courses to achieve a qualification

- Information about consequences of small crime

- Inclusion in dedicated internship programs

Community based initiatives to support youth at risk and to reconnect them with local society:

- Engaging youth in social activity to build a community connection

- Improve services available

Police protocols reformed to reduce proportion of youth charged with a small offence to present in Court:

- small charges escalate to higher level of crime for breaking the conditions

- Adapting police protocols to reduce bail enfrangment or apply alternative methods

Conclusions:

This model is showing a decrease of youth disengaged improving education and community activities.

The reduction of youth in court and then detention will reduce the costs of the justice system making funds available to invest in policy change in the police department/justice to adapt to specific cohort of youth in Bourke.

When all the variable are not implemented the model is showing the situation at 2016. Changing the proportion of investments in the three variables will improve the results if youth involved in society and not charged with crime.

References:

The Guardian news article October, 2018

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/09/unique-community-policing-sees-rates-plunge-in-bourke

Urban Instutite: Strategies for Reducing Criminal and Juvenile Justice Involvement, Jesse Jannetta and Cameron Okeke, November 2017

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/94516/strategies-for-reducing-criminal-and-juvenile-justice-involvement.pdf.pdf

KPMG Impact Assessment Report, November 2018,

http://www.justreinvest.org.au/impact-of-maranguka-justice-reinvestment/

ABS LGA Census results 2016

https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA11150?opendocument

Urban Instutite: Strategies for Reducing Criminal and Juvenile Justice Involvement, Jesse Jannetta and Cameron Okeke, November 2017

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/94516/strategies-for-reducing-criminal-and-juvenile-justice-involvement.pdf.pdf

The Guardian news article October, 2018

Assignment 4 - Relationship between youth, community activities, education programs and police policies in Bourke

Paola De Angelis

Description of the Model:

This model represents the youth community of the town of Bourke, where boredom and lack of motivation is a key issue in the community that has lead to an increase in crime.

The state government has decided to spend money in the town, and the model represents the effects of the level of funding as well as the effects of how the funding is used.

The model can be useful for the state government to decide how much they should spend, and whether it should be spent on policing or sporting clubs and trade schools, while also accounting for the effectiveness of the program and deciding how strict the juvenile detention center should be.

The Model in Detail:

Good Children:

The model assumes that all the children (Based on an estimated 1000 children) are good at the beginning. They very gradually become bored regardless of the level of social sports clubs, as not all children may be interesting in sports.

The funding towards sports clubs and the effectiveness of the programs determine the rate of boredom among the good children.

Bored Mischievous Children:

As children get bored, they will cause mischief and varying degrees of crime.

The level of funding for sports and the effectiveness of the program will affect the level of social engagement that will pull children away from causing mischief, and become good children again.

At the same time the level of funding for policing will affect how many of the trouble making youths get caught and placed in juvenile detention.

Juvenile Detention:

Once the children are in Juvenile detention, they must serve their time to be released.

The release rate reflects how well behaving inmates are released, and the strictness of the sentences applied to youths.

Once they are released, they are still considered bored and causing mischief until they reengaged with the community through social activities funded by the state government such as playing sports.

Adjustments to the Model:

Government Funding:

The state government has decided to spend in Bourke to reduce the level of crime thought to be caused by boredom in teens.

The slider can be adjusted from 0.1 to 100 to reflect the level of funding that the town should receive, where 100 is the maximum and 0.1 is very little funding.

Funding Ratio:

The funding Ratio can slide from 0.1 to 0.9 (left to right). When the slider is at 0.9, 90% the funding goes to policing which is at the right of the diagram and 10% goes to sports clubs.

At 0.1, 90% of the funding goes to Sports clubs which is at the left of the diagram, and only 10% will go to more policing.

Release Rate:

As part of solving the criminal mindset of youths in Bourke, the state government may decide to also be more lenient towards good behaving youths in detention centers by letting them out earlier to reduce the negative influence of other detainees, or simply shortening the time spent in general.

A higher release rate allows more youths to be released meaning a more lenient approach can be modelled.

Effectiveness of Program:

The state government may choose to run various programs with various levels of effectiveness before resorting to diverting spending on policing.

The state government can model the consequences of ineffective programs as well as the benefits of a well run program.

An effectiveness of 1 is maximum effectiveness, while an effectiveness of 0 will result in no effect as result of spending.

Initial Values:

Good Children: 1000

Bored Mischievous Children: 0

Juvenile Detention: 0

Government funding: 100

Funding Ratio: 0.75

Release Rate: 0.1

Effectiveness of Program: 1

42103053 - Riki Gleeson

Riki Gleeson

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Sravya Sri Egalapati

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Shyam Sunder Raju Anantha Kumar

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Sravya Sri Egalapati

Assessment 4, MKT563 201930

Danielle Skerrett
Student ID: 11664109
Charles Sturt University

About this Model:
This balancing structure loop model visualises the various factors that can affect the youth of Bourke, NSW. High crime rates have severely affected this LGA in previous years, however the introduction of a new program is proving to be an effective limiter for young offenders. This new Community Reinvestment program is proving to not only have positive impacts on the youth of Bourke, but is also saving the region a lot of money. This in turn allows for investment back into local community programs, that would have otherwise gone towards judicial processes.

Assumptions:
Based on 2016 Census data:

Bourke Population: 3000
Indigenous persons: 1000
Youth*: 669 or 21%

*For the purposes of this model, “youth” is classified as members of the population under 25 years of age.

Results of reinvestment program:

38% reduction in charges across the top five juvenile offence categories

31% increase in year 12 student retention rates

27% reduction in bail breaches by juveniles

Variables:
Youth Crime rates in Australia as of 2016: 3.33%

References:

Allam, L., (2018). The Guardian. Unique community policing sees crime rates plunge in Bourke. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/09/unique-community-policing-sees-rates-plunge-in-bourke

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Census Data for Bourke LGA. Retrieved from

https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC10522

KPMG Impact Assessment (2018). Maranguka Justice Reinvestment Project. Retrieved from
http://www.justreinvest.org.au/impact-of-maranguka-justice-reinvestment/

Milliken, R., (2018). Inside Story. Breakthrough at Bourke. Retrieved from
https://insidestory.org.au/breakthrough-at-bourke/

Thompson, G., McGregor, L., Davies, A., (2016). ABC Four Corners. Backing Bourke: How a radical new approach is saving young people from a life of crime. Retrieved from
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-19/four-corners-bourkes-experiment-in-justice-reinvestment/7855114

Assessment 4 - Effect of Community Reinvestment on Bourke's Youth Population

Danielle Skerrett

Crime Patterns among the youth population of Bourke-model

This model simulates 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 interest to participate in community activities in which the government aims to improve their lifestyle and therefore reduce the rate of criminal activity. Alienation and expenditure are the independent variables.

Inter-relation between youth crime, policing and community role

Uzair Karim

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Daniel Chalk

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Shyam Sunder Raju Anantha Kumar

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Sravya Sri Egalapati

Bourke Youth Crime Model

This simple model is designed to simulate crime amongst youth in the country town of Bourke, Australia.

Bourke has a youth population (under 24 years of age) of 998 (ABS, 2015). These 998 persons begin arbitrarily split between the general population [Bourke Youth], youth in the football club [Football Club], youth engaged in criminal activity [Criminals] and incarcerated youth [Prisoners]

The rates of transfer between these blocks are determined by several logical mechanisms which are explained below. All calculations are rounded for the obvious reason that populations are necessarily integer values. To facilitate investigation into the interaction between variables, only Police and Funding are adjustable. Any other inputs would unnecessarily complicate the model, and degrade its usability and usefulness.

Observations:

Police and Funding have an interaction that determines the outcome for criminals in the simulation. At a funding multiplier of 1 (standard) and with minimum police, Criminals outnumber youths by the end of the simulation. As the funding is decreased, this threshold increases until a funding multiplier of 0.2, where even the maximum number of police cannot control the criminal population.

Perhaps most interestingly, the equilibrium prisoner population depends on the sports club funding multiplier, not the number of police.

An interesting comparison can be found between setting the funding multiplier to 1.5 and police to 100, and setting funding to 0.3 with police at 225. This comparison is an ideal use for this model, as it reflects the benefits from community engagement seen in the case study.

Rates:

Commit Crime: The crime rate in Bourke is modelled to be dependent on several factors, principally the number of police in Bourke (a greater police presence will reduce crime). It is also assumed that a greater general youth population will increase the rate of crime, and that participation in the football club (or interaction with other engaged community members) will discourage crime. For these reasons, the rate of criminalisation is modelled with the equation:

Round([Bourke Youth]^2/([Football Club]*[Police]+1))

Arrested: The arrest rate is determined by a factor of the number of police available to charge and arrest suspects, as well as the number of criminals eligible for arrest. A natural logarithm is taken for police, as police departments should see diminishing returns in adding more officers. A logarithm is also taken of criminals to allow it to factor into the rate without swamping the effect of police. Thus, the rate is calculated with:

Round(ln([Police]+1)*5*log([Criminals]+1))

Released: The release rate is a straightforward calculation; it is set to increase with the square of the number of prisoners to keep the maximum number of inmates low. This is because Bourke is a small town with a small gaol and it would have to prematurely release inmates as the inmate population overflowed. Thus it is calculated with:

Round(0.001*[Prisoners]^2)

Recruited: The Football recruitment rate is assumed to be dependent on the population available for recruitment, and the funding received for the football club. A better funded club would recruit youths in greater numbers. Consequently, the recruitment rate is calculated with:

Round(ln([Bourke Youth]+1)*[Funding Modifier]+1)

Dropout Rate: The dropout rate from the football club is assumed to be dependent on the number of players (a proportion should quit every season) and the funding of the club (a well funded club should retain more players. Thus it is calculated with:

Round(1+ln([Football Club]*10/([Funding Modifier]+5)))

Self Adjust: A small leak flow to represent those criminals that cease their criminal activity and return to the general population.

Enjoy!

- Sam

Clone of 44910304 - Crime in Bourke

JAMES SAVAGE

MKT563 - Assessment 4

Brittany Lawrence, 11660796

Model Explanation:

This model demonstrates the relationship and factors experienced by the youth of Bourke, in particular how youth alienation, police, and community development and other variables interact with each other. The model simulates the positives and negatives involved with being either socially engaged or socially disengaged. For example, community involvement and rehabilitation for positive factors to drug and alcohol abuse and unemployment for negative factors.

Variances:

There are 3 key variables identified and outlined in the model. They are also the 3 sliders at the bottom.

· Community Engagement Expenditure – this shows the impact of having community investment and programs in order to generate positive behavioural changes.

· Police Expenditure – this shows the impact of police arresting the disengaged youth and getting involved to prevent further crime. This potentially results in rehabilitation.

· Unemployment, Drugs & Alcohol Abuse – this is the strongest negative variance and shows the impact of how a high rate of unemployment, domestic violence and drugs and alcohol abuse can have on youth alienation.

By reducing the negative variables like unemployment and abuse, it decreases the crimes committed and hopefully police expenditure and increases the percentage of socially engaged youth. Additionally, by increasing the community expenditure, it may reduce the percentage of alienated disengaged youths, increasing the positive behavioural changes.

Assumptions:

From the information and sites provided, Bourke’s population is 3,000 and about 1,000 (1/3) identify as Aboriginal. According to ABC’s report “just about all [youth] are aboriginal”. Thus, this model has set the youth population as 1,000 people. Youth has been defined as 10-24 years.

The model resembles the game snakes and ladders, one slip up and Bourke’s disengaged youth can find themselves back at the beginning where they are either at risk or back to committing crime. For instance, if there is no behavioural change once they make it to rehabilitation, whether convicted of their crime or not, they will

As can be seen from the model, it is a slippery slope once Bourke’s youth are disengaged and start to feel alienated, however it is possible to get back on track, whether though police expenditure and involvement, community investment and programs to assist with rehabilitation. Additionally, there is a risk that if an arrested youth is not convicted of the crime, there can be an increase of recidivism, however with the variables in place.

From the KMPG campaign results so far, the variables in place seem to be working and reducing the number of youth in juvenile detention, increase of drivers licences, increase of employment and re-entering into the community.

Bourke Youth Population

Brittany Lawrence

3

This model is intended to make the relation between people in Bourke, crime and the rate of prison committed, these factors are continually influenced by the police, community and education. I simulated the number of criminals, the prison and the addiction.

Bourke's model

Tsolmon Baatartsogt

This model displays the effects of youth crime and the influence of community expenditure, social support, and policing in the town of Bourke, NSW.

The traditional lifestyle for youth in this town involves either a chosen path of committing crimes, or, that of community activity and various forms of education.

The model has been designed to mimic a system where community expenditure and support services are adopted in order to inject a positive lifestyle for the youth population. The phenomena studied in this simulation is the balance between policing, community support and social influence versus not using them.

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

-Youth are either influenced by criminal activity or by productive educational activities.

- Adoption rate of community activities is influenced by personality, relating to current personal skill level of youth and willingness.

-If youth you do not become involved in community activity or some form of Education, then they turn to the path of crime.

-Punishment facility time is up to 12 months with a 2 year probation period

-Community expenditure and support only begins in the probation period, unless “Juvenile Support” slider is used.

-For the purpose of this study on youth crime and support before a crime is committed, we do not include a possibility of relapse in the rehabilitation phase.

STOCKS

Youth
Crime – all offences committed by those under 18
Punishment Facility – juvenile detention
Probation – release from punishment
Education system – various programs

VARIABLES

Policing Units – Policing Bourke's criminal activity, and convicting after a crime has been committed.

Juvenile Support Units – The variable change in crime IF the community funds Support Units for youth before a crime is committed.

Social Support Units – The number of social support units available for released offenders during rehabilitation phase.

Community expenditure – the amount of time and money being spent on social services and policing.

Birth rate, crime rate, dicharge rate, recidivism & conviction rate

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

This model shows that adoption rate of a positive lifestyle is directly influenced by social influences.

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

Juxtaposition of Juvenile Support impact on Behavior Graph shows that Crime and Reoffend rates drop significantly. More people turn to law-abiding positive activity.

This will again all change with the manipulation of the Social Support unit slider…..

2/ Social Support Unit impact

Social Support Units only influence those released from the Punishment facility. The more social services on hand to support rehabilitation phase the less chance of committing crime for the second time, with Reoffend rates dropping significantly when the Social Support Units Slider is adjusted to the extreme.

Rehabilitation rates only increase marginally, in spite of more social support feeding into that phase.

The greatest impact is shown on Law-Abiding and Crime. How could this be? A logical conclusion is that there is a finite number of youth in the community and those who have received positive social support during a learning phase of rehabilitation, then go on to influence their friends, their family, and have a positive influence on those around them.

3/ Police Unit Impact

Slide Policing Units to the extremes. Simulate. Policing Units Graph shows there is a significant decrease in Reoffend rates, and a higher rate of Conviction.

Curiously, rehabilitation rates drop and crime rates go up. How could this happen? A logical conclusion is that conviction and punishment is not a crime deterrent. It needs the added influence of social support services for there to be a positive impact on decreasing criminal instincts and activity on the whole.

Conclusions

Social support and home visits need to happen in the flow between Youth Population and Crime - “Juvenile Support Units”.

Investment in youth via these juvenile social support officers before they commit an offence, limits the amount of criminal activity over time. So, crime effectively decreases with the direct influence of social services at a young age.

Equally, with more police presence in the community, for those tempted to re-offend, they have a deterrent.

The most efficient management of the community issues faced in Bourke however lies with a combination of both Policing and Social Support services at all levels within the community.

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Harikrishna Elaprolu

Model Explanation

This simple model highlights key investment areas within the Bourke community that can influence the overall levels of crime.

The total population of Bourke is split into a percentage of adults and youth who have differing participation rates in community groups. Those who are engaged as a member of a community group most to a positive lifestyle state.

Those who do not wish to join or are not engaged in a community group are offered tertiary education. Similarly, those engaged in tertiary education move to a positive lifestyle state. Those who do not seek or engage in tertiary education are alienated from the community. They are at an 80% chance of committing crime. The other 20% voluntarily reengage with society. Once a crime is committed, the individual is either arrested or eludes arrest. The likelihood of arrest varies depending on policing expenditure. An individual who is arrested will be placed on trial and if found guilty will be placed in a correctional facility (either a juvenile detention centre of jail).

Assumptions

Community engagement participation rates vary depending on the individuals age, with youth more inclined to join a community group. Variance in expenditure is reflected in participation rates in a linear fashion.

Members of Bourke who are not engaged in community groups are targeted and presented with the opportunity to participate in tertiary education such as the teaching of trade-skills. Those targeted have the same likeliness to participate in tertiary education regardless of age.

Those who do not seek any for of community involvement are considered alienated and at a high risk of committing crime.

Sliders have been included to vary the total population size of Bourke, with ratios of Adult to Youth remaining the same. Expenditure can be varied depending on government distribution with the input in dollars.

It is assumed that all relationships are linear within this model. Individuals who are either in a positive lifestyle or correctional facility are in that state for six months before returning to be part of the population of Bourke.

Interesting Results

Even with no Policing Expenditure, there are times when there are no individuals in a correctional facility if Community Engagement Expenditure and Tertiary Skills Development Expenditure is maximised.

44854730 - Justice Reinvestment Framework for Bourke

Josh Stevens

Justice Reinvestment Program in Bourke NSW & Implications on Local Youth

Background

A small country town in NSW Australia, Bourke records very high youth crime rates and jail population, when compared to the remainder of the country. To tackle the specific causes for such high rates, a Justice Reinvestment Program has been designed, involving all actors of the local community (Police, Education, Local Elders, Community Members) and focusing on prevention rather than repression.

Model Explanation

This simple model aims at depicting patterns in crime and redemption behaviour; and how local actions, investments and resources can impact Bourke youth, positively or negatively. Multiple variables can be manipulated to assess results and outcomes.

Stocks

Youth Population – total youth population in the town of Bourke
Disengaged Youth – youth showing a Negative Behaviour. They have either left school, are affected by drug and/or alcohol consumption, and/or domestic violence. They need to be taken care of, otherwise they might engage in offences
Problem Youth – youth having committed an offence
Court Appearance – Problem Youth having been arrested, thanks to local police. Stock is affected by Police Budget variable
Jailed – youth having been convicted and sent to prison
Youth in Community Programs – youth population either out of prison and repenting; or Problem Youth enrolling in Community Activity
Engaged Youth – youth showing a Positive Behaviour. The final objective of this Justice Reinvestment program

Variables

School Attendance – a critical factor to re-engage Disengaged Youth
Crime Rate – percentage of Disengaged Youth committing offences
Police Budget – affects number of Problem Youth being brought to justice. Can be manipulated between 0 (absolutely no police in Bourke) to 100 (local police reinforcement and 24/7 surveillance), both being theoretical options
Reoffending Rate – percentage of Youth committing offences again, after their release from Jail
Community Programs Funding – amount spent on various community programs, such as training and apprenticeship; counselling; preventive police home visits; learner driver classes; sports; and cultural connections program. Funding impacts 3 types of Youth:

Disengaged Youth joining back community
Problem Youth entering Community Programs
Youth repenting after being released from Jail, and entering Community Programs

Assumptions

Bourke Youth Population = 1.000

Below coefficients and initial values were arbitrarily chosen but can be modified using sliders, to estimate influence and impact:

Crime rate in Disengaged Youth = 70%
Reoffending Rate = 30%
Police Budget = 40
Community Programs Funding = 60

Conclusions

There is no silver bullet solution to the youth crime problem in Bourke NSW. However, with the suggested combination of Police Budget and Community Program Funding, positive results appear from Year 3 onwards: even with the occasional spike of reoffenders and subsequent Problem Youth, overall Engaged Youth population increases, reaching 70% of total Youth Population on Year 4 and increasing.

Community Programs Funding has the biggest impact towards the program objective, as it helps creating positive reinforcement and life opportunities for Bourke youth at different disengagement stages.

Justice Reinvestment Program in Bourke NSW & Implications on Local Youth

Bernard Somja

Bourke Models