Bourke | Insight Maker

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

This model illustrates the simulation of a range of variables which have an effect within the country town of Bourke. Bourke is known for its high crime right from youths to adults. Through adjustments made by the user, this model will show the result of such variations.

Bourke has a youth population under the age of 24 to be roughly 1000 people. For the sake of this experiment numbers have been slightly skewed to better reinforce various simulations. However, the information has been been skewed to the fact that there are going to be unrealistic results.

The variable which have sliders allowed are, Police Intervention, Drugs and Alcohol, Community Works, Activity Investment. While developing this model, through examination, it was found that these are the numbers that fluctuate the most in most scenarios, so why not keep it consists. Police presence is something that will always either increase or decrease depending on certain events which are scheduled to be on. The fluctuation of drugs and alcohol speaks for itself, as there is no way of knowing how much of either substance is readily available.

Community Workers, is set at 70, with the option of sliding it in which ever direction the user desires. Similarly, to police intervention, depending on events the level can significantly fluctuate. Activity Investment has a relationship with Community workers and Police Intervention. Increased volume in people results in increased investment.

Interesting Slides

After playing around here are some interesting variations you can make.

--> Police Intervention: Max, Drugs and Alcohol: min, Community workers: Max, Activity Investment: Max. The worm here shows a perfect situation of almost complete harmony within the community. I believe an increase in Police presence, Community works and activity investment will ultimately deter crime and antisocial behaviour in Bourke.

--> Do the opposite maxs and mins from the above test. With the increase in Drugs and Alcohol and minimisation of the other variables, we can see how volatile it makes the community. The worms for all stocks are aggressively up and down.

--> i have gone to the liberty of creating a display for you(the Viewer) at crimes committed while drug use has been present, however the person has gone straight to rehab and not to Jail.

Assumptions

1.The population of Bourke is 5000

2.The process of crime to Detention/Rehab, is the same for Youths and Adults.

3. In the Youth and Adult Detention Stock, the youths are separated from adults

4. Adults and youths can go straight to Rehab and not go to Jail.

Slide away and enjoy.

-Ned Robinson

MGMT220Ass3 44926855

Edward Robinson

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

BACKGROUND

The remote north-western town of Bourke currently faces high incidences of petty crime among the town’s youth.

Part of the problem stems from the alienation and lack of recreational activities the youth face from being a small isolated town, which has meant that the threat of being sent to Juvenile Detention isn't acting as much of a deterrent.

This complex systems model aims to show how investing in different variables can change this cycle.

While there are numerous underlying factors that perpetrate the cycle of Bourke youth being locked up, this model has a main focus on Youth Alienation

MODEL EXPLAINED

Simulation of this model shows results over 3 years with Time Units in steps of 1 Month.

Total Youth Population of Bourke stays static at 1200 over the 3 years.

This model only looks as Individuals committing petty crimes as opposed to groups of Youth getting together to commit petty crime (we are not considering peer pressure as a factor of petty crime rates).

At Time Point 0, all 1200 of Bourke Youth are in the Stock Home, and all other stocks are empty. Youth flow out from Home to other stocks from Time Point 1.

STOCKS

- Home = Number of Bourke youth at 'Home'.

i.e. not committing crimes but not taking part in Community Engagement Programs

- Community Engagement Programs = Number of Bourke Youth taking part in Bourke's Community Engagement Programs.

Community Engagement Programs consist of multiple things such as Sporting Clubs and Indigenous Community Events

- Petty Crime = Number of Bourke Youth committing Petty Crimes.

- Juvenile Detention = Number of Bourke Youth in Juvenile Detention.

- Discharged = Number of Bourke Youth in state of being Discharged from Juvenile Detention.

- Upstanding Citizen = Number of Bourke Youth that are Upstanding members of the Bourke Community.

ADJUSTABLE VARIABLES

- Community Development Resource $ = Amount of Money being Invested into Community Development

i.e. 15000 = $15000 into Community Development Fund

- Police Officers = Number of Police Officer in Bourke

i.e. 15 = 15 Active Police Officers

- Police Initiative Rate = % Amount of Investment Police put into active Policing. (AKA Police efficiency)

i.e. 0.1 = 10% effectiveness (police appear to be corrupt)

UN-ADJUSTABLE VARIABLES

- Positive Influences at Home = % of Bourke Youth that have strong enough Positive Social Influences at Home to not want to commit crimes.

Positive Influences at Home is a constant 0.5% percent.

Assumptions:

0.5% of the juvenile population of Bourke already have strong positive social influences at home that have them highly unlikely to want to commit petty crimes.

Positive Influences at Home is a fixed variable as the factors affecting this % are too complex for any reliable intervention.

- Boredom & Recklessness = % of Bourke Youth that are Bored and Reckless enough to want to commit crimes.

Boredom and Recklessness is a constant 5%.

Assumptions:

5% of the juvenile population of Bourke is always going to be bored/reckless enough to want to commit petty crimes.

DYNAMIC VARIABLES

- Youth Alienation = % of Bourke Youth that feel Alienated/have no sense of community.

Youth Alienation is a dynamic percentage.

Assumptions:

Community Development Program and Upstanding Citizen decreases Alienation. Everyone who partakes in the community engagement programs is unalienated. All Upstanding Citizens are unalienated.

Before taking into account those people that are in the Community Development Program and Upstanding Citizen stocks we assume that 90% of the Bourke youth population to be Alienated.

i.e. when Upstanding Citizen and Community Engagement Programs are both empty, Youth Alienation = 90%

FLOWS

- Community Involvement (Dynamic Rate)

For every $1000 invested into Community Development Resource $, the rate of flow from Home to Community Engagement Programs increases by 2%.

The rate of flow from Home to Community Engagement Programs also is dependent on the attendance of youth to Community Program itself (word of mouth advertising). For every 50 children coming to Community Engagement Programs we have a percentage increase in Community Involvement rate.

- Lack of Interest (Constant Rate)

Flow rate from Community Engagement Programs to Petty Crime is simply the % rate of the Boredom & Recklessness variable.

- Temptation (Dynamic Rate)

Flow rate from Home to Petty Crime is dependent on the 4 Variables of Youth Alienation, Boredom & Recklessness, Police Officers and Police Initiative Rate.

Youth Alienation and Boredom & Recklessness increase Temptation Flow.

Police Officers and Police Initiative Rate decrease Temptation Flow.

Temptation flow is also reduced by the 0.5% Positive Influences at Home

- Conviction (Dynamic Rate)

Flow rate from Petty Crime to Juvenile Detention is dependent on the 2 variables Police Officers and Police Initiative Rate.

Police Officers and Police Initiative Rate increase Conviction Flow.

- Not Caught (Dynamic Rate)

Flow rate from Petty Crime back to Home is dependent on the Conviction Flow Rate.

Increased Conviction Flow is directly proportional to a Decrease in the Not Caught Flow.

- Served Sentence (Constant Rate)

Flow rate from Juvenile Detention to Discharged is just a delay of Juvenile Detention population by 4 months.

Assumption: The average Petty Crime Conviction results in a 4 month Juvenile Detention Centre Sentence.

- Further Negative Influence (Constant Rate)

Flow rate from Discharged to Petty Crime is a constant 25%.

Assumption: There is a constant 25% of Youth that having been convicted once are actually more likely to commit petty crimes (for various reasons) and are no longer wary of Police.

- Active Rehabilitation (Dynamic Rate)

Flow rate from Discharged to Community Engagement Programs is dependent on the Community Development Resource $ variable.

Community Development Resource $ encourage Discharged Youth to want to change their ways.

For every $2000 invested into Community Development Resource $'s Active Rehabilitation Rate increase a percent.

- Unchanged (Dynamic Rate)

Flow rate from Discharge to Home is dependent on Active Rehabilitation Rate and Further Negative Influence Rate.

Increased Active Rehabilitation Flow is directly proportional to decrease in the Unchanged Flow.

Unchanged Flow is also reduced by the Further Negative Influences Flow of 25%.

- Inspired (Constant Rate)

Flow rate from Home to Upstanding Citizen is simply the percentage rate of the Positive Influences at Home variable.

- Self Improvement (Constant Rate)

Flow rate from Community Engagement Programs to Upstanding Citizen is a constant 5%.

Assumption: There is a constant 5% of Youth that have been partaking in the Community Engagement Programs who have been so well received that they are conscientious Upstanding Members of Bourke society.

- Hits Hard Times (Constant Rate)

Flow Rate from Upstanding Citizen to Home is a constant 1%

Assumption: Upstanding Citizens are not infallible and there are some circumstances which lead to Upstanding Citizens suddenly being susceptible to the alienation, boredom and recklessness.

EFFECT OF CHANGING VARIABLES

Base Settings:

Police Officers = 10

Community Development Resource $ = 5,000

Police Initiative Rate = 1

⮝ Increasing Community Development Resource $

- Increases Community Involvement Flow, therefore increasing Community Engagement Programs, which in turn decreases Youth Alienation. Decrease in Youth Alienation, decreases Temptation Flow.

- Increases Active Rehabilitation Flow, therefore increasing Community Engagement Programs.

- Increases Upstanding Citizen due to the increase in Community Engagement Programs.

⮟ Decreasing Community Development Resource $

- Decreases Community Involvement Flow, therefore decreasing Community Engagement Programs, which in turn increases Youth Alienation. Increase in Youth Alienation, increases Temptation Flow.

- Decreases Active Rehabilitation Flow, therefore decreasing Community Engagement Programs .

- Decreases Upstanding Citizen due to the decrease in Community Engagement Programs.

⮝ Increasing Police Officers

- Decreases Temptation Flow therefore decreasing Petty Crime.

- Increases Conviction Flow therefore increasing Juvenile Detention.

⮟ Decreasing Police Officers

- Increases Temptation Flow therefore increasing Petty Crime.

- Decreases Conviction Flow therefore decreasing Juvenile Detention.

⮝ Increasing Police Initiative

- Decreases Temptation Flow therefore decreasing Petty Crime.

- Increases Conviction Flow therefore increasing Juvenile Detention.

⮟ Decreasing Police Initiative

- Increases Temptation Flow therefore increasing Petty Crime.

- Decreases Conviction Flow therefore decreasing Juvenile Detention.

INTERESTING POINTS

Try setting Community Development Resource $ to 0 , Police Officers to 30 and Police Initiative Rate to 1.

Notice how Youth just constantly circulate between Home, Petty Crime, Juvenile Detention and Discharged with the amount of children in Community Engagement and Upstanding Citizens stocks seem Negligible

Try setting Community Development Resource $ to 30,000 , Police Officers to 1 and Police Initiative Rate to 1.

Notice that while we have a lot of Petty Crime going unpunished we have a significant proportion of the Bourke Youth in Community Engagement Programs and becoming Upstanding Citizens

Try setting Community Development Resource $ to 0 , Police Officers to 30 and Police Initiative Rate to 0.1.

Notice that the situation in Bourke looks very bleak, we have the majority of the youth population committing crimes and even though there's never really any improvement in the situation.

43324525 - Justice Reinvestment in Bourke - Youth Crime Cycle

Desnica 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

Harikrishna Elaprolu

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 insight illustrates the relationship between the funding of policing and community development initiatives, to reduce crime rates in Bourke, NSW.

The insight categorises community members into four groups:

'At risk community members' are individuals who have been identified as likely to commit crime.

'Charged' community members are individuals who have committed a crime, have been caught and charged.

'Community development program members' are individuals who have been identified as at risk, but have also been selected to take part in a community development progam.

'Community members' are individuals who are not classified as at risk.

This insight shows the process of how individuals transfer between categories, with finance as the independent variable. Finance can be altered from a minimum of $250,000 to a maximum of $1,000,000. The finance variable can be altered using the total finance slider located on the right hand side.

Assumptions

Here is a list of assumptions made about this scenario. Assumptions are also found in the story of this insight.

*Bourke comprises of 3000 individuals. 2750 are classified as at risk and 250 as community members at time 0

*The average jail sentence is two years

*The government pays $1,000 per year for each individual who is charged and jailed

*The average cost of a community development program is $4,000 per year, per individual

*The average individual will relapse and commit a crime or be rehabilitated within three years

Affect of Funding on Policing and Community Development Initiative in Bourke, NSW

Natalie Doig

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

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

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

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

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

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

Youth Crime in Bourke

Bourke in NSW has an overall population of approximately 3000 people, and has an issue with crime - possibly due to the lack of activities available for young people to partake in.

This model shows how difference variables affect crime among youths in the town over a period of 48 months.

Assumptions

For the sake of this model, the number of youths is half of the total population (1500).

There is a maximum of 50 police available at anyone one time.

All youths in detention will eventually all be released back into the community.

Variables

The variables used to observe a difference in crime include the amount of Police working at any given time (can be adjusted between 10 and 50 police).

Community Funding is the other main variable in this model, as this is what the town would do to increase the amount of activities/resources available for youths to spend their time. This can be adjusted between 1 and 100 percent.

Crime Rate is a variable that is used in conjunction with the Police variable in order to help determine crimes committed by youths.

Rate Of Conviction is also used in conjunction with Police in order to help determine how many youths who have committed a crime will be convicted.

Observations

This model shows that over time, crime can be greatly reduced with more Police and more Community Funding. With the more of each being utilised have a proportional impact on the time it takes to do so. It seems eventually, those youths who have committed crimes will all end up being rehabilitated and eventually partaking in non-criminal activities.

- Bryce

Clone of Youth Crime In Bourke NSW

Bryce Hercok

Bourke Models