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.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·        <!--[endif]-->Community Engagement Expenditure – this shows the impact of having community investment and programs in order to generate positive behavioural changes.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·        <!--[endif]-->Police Expenditure – this shows the impact of police arresting the disengaged youth and getting involved to prevent further crime. This potentially results in rehabilitation.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·        <!--[endif]-->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.

ContextBourke is a remote town located 800km northwest of Sydney, situated on the Darling River. The Maranguka Justice Reinvestment project emerged as Bourke was concerned about the number of Aboriginal families experiencing high levels of social disadvantage and rising crime. Bourke has worked for many years to develop a model for improving outcomes and creating better coordinated support for vulnerable families and children through the true empowerment of the local Aboriginal community. Maranguka, meaning ‘caring for others’ in Ngemba language, is a model of Indigenous self-governance which empowers the community to coordinate the right mix and timing of services through an Aboriginal community owned and led, multi-disciplinary team working in partnership with relevant government and non-government agencies (Impact of Maranguka Justice Reinvestm...)
The Model
This model simulates the effects of community support funding and crime on at risk youth in the town of Bourke. It also shows how key indicators affect the engagement of youth in society. Breaking the cycle of self destruction by providing support at all stages. 

Variables
Bourke Youth- This variable can be adjusted to show the impact of population numbers on the effectiveness of community projects and funding levels.Community Funding- This variable can be adjusted to show the impact of community support programs to create positive behaviour change.Crime Rate – This variable can be adjusted to show the impact on at risk youth.

Conclusion
The model clearly shows that an increase in support services via increased funding will help break the cycle of youth alienation and build better futures.