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

sub cribed

Assignment

This assignment illustrates the effects of police fundings and community expenditure on the society.

And how we can improve the Town (Bourke).

Stocks

Population- Population of Bourke (3000)

Adults- 60% of the population in Bourke are Adults

Youth- 40% of the population in Bourke are young

Crime- Crimes committed by the young and adults under any bad influence or mischief.

Caught- Caught by police after or during the crime is committed

Community Group- Groups formed by the people to provide better lifestyles and a better environment.

Positive Lifestyles- People who adopt the better lifestyle and be a better person.

Variables

Community Expenses- The amount spent on the community to attract more people and make better lives.

Police Fundings- The amount spent on/for the police to make the streets more safer.

Assumptions

1. 3000 is the considered population for the model.

2. The values which are affecting the model are Community expenses and Police fundings.

3. 60% of the population is Adults

4. 40% of the population is Youth

5. 500 people are already doing crime

6. 365 people are already in jail.

7. 200 people are already involved in community groups and have positive lifestyle

8. There will be some people who will join community groups but will quit and get attracted towards bad influence.

9. There will some people who will have attracted towards bad influence and mischief but will not do any kind of crime and go home.

10. There will some people who will be caught but not be charged or they are not eligible for going to jail.

How Model Works

--Population is divided in two Young and adults; Young/Adults are either attracted towards Bad influence or mischief or engaged with the community group.

--If they are engaged in any community group they will either have a good lifestyle and better behaviour, and then go back to population or they will disengaged, and quits, and get attracted towards Bad influence or mischief.

--When the people are attracted towards bad influence or mischief they will either commit a crime or go back to population, when they commit any crime they will be caught by the police.

--Then they are either charge and sent to jail, or they are sent back to population.

--When criminals are sent to jail they have to stay there for about 10 months and then released and sent to the population.

All in all, if we have to improve Bourke we have to use the best combination of the variables (How much to invest and where to invest) so that we can have the best results and better people in the town.

Assignment_3_MGMT220_[44178751]

Laksh Taneja

Purpose of the model

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

Assumptions

3000 residents in Bourke

4.37% of the population is consider to be At Risk

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

STOCKS

AT RISK INDIVIDUALS

Individuals who committed a crime

CRIME

Includes Domestic violence and Petty Crimes.

JAIL

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

COMMUNITY PROGRAM

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

NOT AT RISK INDIVIDUALS

Once an at risk individual completes the community Program

VARIABLES

LGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDING

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

POLICE UNITS

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

ARRESTS

Arrests rate depends on number of active police units

PROGRAM COMPLETION RATE

Program completion depends on the amount of Funding it gets

SET NUMBERS

Total population of Bourke is 3000 as seen here.

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

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

Suggested Settings.

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

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

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

44638965 - Marian Joseph Sabana

MJ Sabana

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

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

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

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

STOCKS

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

VARIABLES

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

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

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

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

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

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

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

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

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

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

2/ Social Support Unit impact

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

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

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

3/ Police Unit Impact

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

Srinivas Nalla

Bourke Youth Crime Model

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

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

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

Observations:

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

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

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

Rates:

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

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

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

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

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

Round(0.001*[Prisoners]^2)

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy!

- Sam

Clone of 44910304 - Crime in Bourke

Andy West

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

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

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

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

STOCKS

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

VARIABLES

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

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

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

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

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

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

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

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

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

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

2/ Social Support Unit impact

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

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

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

3/ Police Unit Impact

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Carlo Ralph De Musis

Criminal Rate

Yan Zhang

Exemplo.

Modelo criminal de exemplo 01

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

Sravya Sri Egalapati

About the Model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The variables used in the model are:

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

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

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

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

Key Assumptions:

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

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

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

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

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

Young Community Member = 700

Alienated and At Risk Youth = 300

Criminal = 300

Imprisoned = 200

Noteworthy observations:

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

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

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

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

Bourke Justice Reinvestment - Nicholas Hayward 44553625

Nicholas Hayward

4

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

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

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

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

STOCKS

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

VARIABLES

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

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

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

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

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

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

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

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

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

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

2/ Social Support Unit impact

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

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

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

3/ Police Unit Impact

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Sravya Sri Egalapati

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

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

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

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

STOCKS

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

VARIABLES

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

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

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

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

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

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

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

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

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

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

2/ Social Support Unit impact

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

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

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

3/ Police Unit Impact

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Shyam Sunder Raju Anantha Kumar

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

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

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

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

STOCKS

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

VARIABLES

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

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

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

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

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

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

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

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

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

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

2/ Social Support Unit impact

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

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

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

3/ Police Unit Impact

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

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

Daniel Chalk

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

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

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

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

STOCKS

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

VARIABLES

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

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

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

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

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

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

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

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

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

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

2/ Social Support Unit impact

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

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

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

3/ Police Unit Impact

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Sravya Sri Egalapati

Bourke Youth Crime Model

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

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

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

Observations:

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

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

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

Rates:

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

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

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

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

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

Round(0.001*[Prisoners]^2)

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy!

- Sam

Clone of 44910304 - Crime in Bourke

JAMES SAVAGE

This is a simple model that depicts the interactions between certain parameters in a hypothetical situation. It is designed to model the effects of investments in Policing and Community amongst Youth inside the town of Bourke.

Bourke is a rural town located 800km North-West of Sydney with alarmingly high rates of crime, especially amongst the Youth in the town, due to a lack of interesting activities to occupy their spare time. The government has taken note of this and is planning a program which sees to invest funds into certain areas, in hopes of reducing the crime rate and amount of convictions primarily within the Youth Community.

Initial Values:
Youth: 750
Juveniles in Detention: 50
Petty Criminals: 200
Sports and Trade Skills/Education: 0

Assumptions:

With the total amount of Youth entering Community Invested activities such as Sports and Trade Skills/Education, 70% of the entire of population of the youth entered is assumed to have selected the Sports team, compared to 30% that has selected Trade Skills/Education.
There is a negative correlation between the number of Police Enforcement and the temptation to commit crime.
There is a positive correlation between the number of Police Enforcement and the amount of Convictions, but over time, the number of convicted youth will reduce and temptation decreases.
The time taken to contribute back to the Youth Community from Sports Team will only take 3 months, compared to the 6 months taken to contribute back from Trade Skills, as it is generally easier to adapt to a Sports Team than learn a Skill from Education.
There is a 50% release rate for Juveniles inside the Detention Centre.
There are no other external influences other than Police and Investment in Community.
The benefit Youth can gain from the Sports Team or Trade Skills Classes is dependent on the amount of Community Investment; as Investment rises, the temptation of them to commit a petty crime decreases.
Youth that commit a crime can either be caught by Police and be convicted to Detention, or be undetected and return back to the Youth Community.

Key Notes:

During initial implementation of an Police increase, it should be noted that the number of convictions rise drastically in the first few months.
If no other implementations or adjustments are made to the level of Investment or Policing, all parameters will eventually smooth out or level out over time.
It is more effective to increase Investments into Community in terms of reducing temptation, rather than increasing the number of Police.
If Investment was put to its' extreme and Police Enforcement was put to the minimum of 1, Juvenile Detention will be at its' lowest, since Youth are not being caught.
Conversely, if Investment was at 0 and Policing was at its' extreme, the number of Juveniles will not drop below 500.

Jack Sun 44614586

Patterns of Crime and Community Development in Bourke

Jack Sun

Justice Reinvestment in Bourke

The Model:

I have used a Systems Dynamic model which is made up of stocks, flows, and primitives.
A linear function (Straight Line Method) has been created to determine the impact of adjusted expenditure levels in policing and community development. The town of Bourke experiences extremely high youth detention levels. The cause of this detention level is said to have many contributing factors. These include, the at home environment of the youth, with many households experiencing domestic violence incidents. While other contributing factors are the lifestyle of the youths external environment, with many youth not attending school, not having their license, and being unemployed. Each of these factors only increase the youth crime rate in Bourke. In order to combat this, research into crime prevention has been implemented in Bourke. Increased expenditure on community development programs like domestic violence consultation groups, football clubs, free driving lessons and talks between elders and the youth have been implemented in the hope to reduce youth in detention.
My model demonstrates the effect of increased expenditure on community development verse increased expenditure on policing. The ultimate outcome would be to establish a balance between expenditure on policing and expenditure on community development, thus resulting with as little youth in detention as possible.

Assumptions:

Bourke total population: 3,000
Bourke total youth population: 2,000
Initial Value are as followed -
Bourke youth in community: 500
Bourke youth involved in crime: 250
Bourke youth in Juvenile detention: 250

Clone of Assignment 3 44650701

Vinzaris

MKT 563, Assessment 4

Name Sothearen Khuoy

ID: 11709868

This model illustrated how crime impact on community development.

The diagram illustrated of community development and unemployment rate in Bourke town. The assumption of Bourke population is set as 3,000, and unemployment population set as 500. While unemployment rate is effective by crime and prisoners. The value of crime is 100, and the initial value of prisoners are 300.

Variable of diagram is shown the relationship between community development and lack of human resource. If Bourke community lack of human resource, it will be negative impact to unemployment and positive impact to crime. While all of the influences will be impact to community development. All in all, the crime in Bourke community is affect to community development and unemployment in community also.

Influence of Community development in Bourke

Sothearen Khuoy

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

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

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

Assumptions
-1000 Youth Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

STOCKS

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

VARIABLES

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

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

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

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

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

INTERESTING RESULTS

Slide any of the 3 variables to the extreme.

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

1/ Juvenile Support Unit impact

Press Simulate.

Slide Juvenile Support Units to the extreme. Simulate again.

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

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

2/ Social Support Unit impact

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

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

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

3/ Police Unit Impact

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Clone of Impact of Social Services and Police on Youth Crime

Harikrishna Elaprolu

Model Explanation

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

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

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

Assumptions

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting Results

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

44854730 - Justice Reinvestment Framework for Bourke

Josh Stevens

HOW A NEW COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT INITATIVE MAY IMPACT YOUTH CRIME IN THE TOWN OF BOURKE, NSW

MKT563 Assessment 4: Kari Steele

Aim of Simulation:

Bourke is a town in which Youth are involved in high rates of criminal behaviour (Thompson, 2016). This simulation focuses on how implementation of a community engagement initiative may impact crime patterns of youths in Bourke. The specific aim is to assess whether the town should initiate a program such as the Big Brothers Big Sisters Community-Based Mentoring (CBM) (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, 2018) program to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour (National Institute of Justice, n.d). Big Brothers Big Sisters is a community mentoring program which matches a volunteer adult mentor to an at-risk child or adolescent to delay or reduce antisocial behaviours; improve academic success, attitudes and behaviours, peer and family relationships; strength self-concept; and provide social and cultural enrichment (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, 2018).

Model Explanation:

An InsightMaker model is used to simulate the influence of Big Brothers Big Sisters Initiative on Criminal Behaviour (leading to 60% juvenile detention rates) with variables including participation rate and also drug and alcohol use.

Assumptions:

1/ ‘Youth’ are defined, for statistical purposes, as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, n.d).

2/ Youth population (15 – 24 years) makes up 14.1% of the total population of LGA Bourke which according to the most up-to-date freely available Census data (2008) is 3091 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Therefore, youth population has been calculated as 435 individuals.

3/ Big Brothers Big Sisters Program is assumed to impact LGA Bourke in a similar manner that has been shown in previous studies (Tierney, Grossman, and Resch, 2000) where initiative showed mentored youths in the program were 46% significantly less likely to initiate drug use and 27 percent less likely to initiate alcohol use, compared to control. They were 32 less likely to have struct someone during the previous 12 months. Compared to control group, the mentored youths earned higher grades, skipped fewer classes and fewer days of school and felt more competent about doing their schoolwork (non-significant). Research also found that mentored youths, compared with control counterparts, displayed significantly better relationships with parents. Emotional support among peers was higher than controls.

Initial Values:

Youth Population = 435

Criminal Behaviour = 100

40% of youth population who commit a crime are non-convicted

60% of youth population who commit a crime are convicted

20% of youth involved in the Big Brothers Big Sisters Initiative are non-engaged

80% of youth involved in the Big Brothers Big Sisters Initiative are engaged

Variables:

The variables include ‘Participation Rate’ and ‘Drug and Alcohol Usage’. These variables can be adjusted as these levels may be able to be impacted by other initiatives which the community can assess for introduction; these variables may also change in terms of rate over time.

Interesting Parameters

As can be seen by increasing the rate of participation to 90% we can see juvenile detention rate decreases with engagement (even with the 20% non-engagement of youths involved in program). By moving the slider to 10% participation however you can see the criminal behaviour increase.

Conclusion:

From the simulation, we can clearly see that the community of Bourke would benefit in terms of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Initiative decreasing criminal behaviour in youths (15 – 24 years of age) over a 5-year timeframe. Further investigation regarding expenditure and logistics to implement such a program is warranted based on the simulation of impact.

References:

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Census Data for Bourke LGA. Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/LGA11150Population/People12002-2006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=LGA11150&issue=2002-2006

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development. (2018). Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Blueprints Program Rating: Promising, viewed 26 May 2018, <www.blueprintsprograms.com/evaluation-abstract/big-brothers-big-sisters-of-america>

National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Program Profile: Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) Community-Based Mentoring (CBM) Program, viewed 26th May 2018, <https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=112>

Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J.B., and Resch, N.L. (2000). Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, Pa.: Public/Private Ventures.
http://ppv.issuelab.org/resource/making_a_difference_an_impact_study_of_big_brothersbig_sisters_re_issue_of_1995_study

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

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (n.d.). Definition of Youth, viewed 24th May 2018, www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/youth/fact-sheets/youth-definition.pdf

Bourke Community Engagement Impact on Youth Detention

Kari Steele

Crime Models