|
Dillane et al.
(2001) |
The operating costs of the
DFP.
Potential cost savings
(The broad costs of
providing a range of
services):
• Average costs pertaining
to the eviction process
(e.g. costs to landlords re
defending cases; costs to
other agencies including
the Scottish Legal Aid
Board and the Sheriff
Court. Housing officer costs
are also subsumed within
the average costs of an
eviction.)
• The average cost,
incurred by the Dundee
Homeless Persons Unit,
of processing a homeless
application
• The average cost of
placing a child in foster
care, a residential school
or a children’s unit.
Potential cost-
effectiveness of the DFP
(illustrative examples
were used to indicate
the potential cost-
effectiveness of the DFP, by
assuming likely outcomes
if the project were not
there). |
Budget data (i.e. financial
accounts) indicated the
operating costs of the
project. (The operating
costs of the DFP are
met by Dundee District
Council (inclusive of
stakeholder contributions)
and the Social Inclusion
Partnership.)
Potential cost savings:
Stakeholder interviews
and previous research
provided estimates of the
broad costs of providing
a range of services:
"None of the agencies
surveyed in this research
exercise had quantified
the financial costs and
savings accrued in any
given instance (or case)
as a result of a successful
intervention being made
by the DFP. However,
the case record analysis
was able to determine
the number of successful
cases managed by the
DFP, while stakeholders
were able to provide
broad costs of providing
a range of services. In
addition, previous research
(Atkinson, et al 2000) can
be utilised to quantify
other relevant direct and
societal costs.” (p110) |
Data drawn from the
stakeholder interviews and
vignette data analysis are
merged with case record
and cost data derived
from the DFP and other
agencies to assess the cost-
effectiveness of the DFP |
The operating costs of the DFP "can be calculated as being
about £345,000 per annum. This figure approximates to the
amount for 1999-2000, which was the year when our other
financial data were collected. The rental income received
by the DFP has not been calculated.” (p 110)
Illustrative calculations of the potential cost-effectiveness
of the DFP:
'The stakeholder interviews indicated that the 'routine’
staff time costs involved in input to the families were on the
whole neither increased nor decreased by DFP involvement,
so the estimates include only the additional costs that would
have been incurred if the Project had not been used.”
The calculations were based on the assumption that 2
successful core cases and 9 successful dispersed∕outreach
cases were achieved per annum between November 1997
and October 2000 (and a number of other assumptions about
the number of families that would be evicted, children who
would be placed in care, etc).
For the 2 core cases, the costs were expressed as follow:
Eviction process: £21,400
Homeless presentations: £3,800
Residential school: £156,000
Foster care: £52,000
Total Illustrative Cost for these 2 core cases = £233,200
For the 9 'dispersed∕outreach, cases, the costs were
expressed as follows:
Eviction process: £ 53,500
Homeless presentations: £9,500
Residential school: £104,000
Foster care: £ 62,400
Total Illustrative Cost for these 9 dispersed/outreach cases
= £229,400
"Adding the cost implications of the absence of the DFP for
both types of case (11 families) yields an estimated annual
expenditure of £462,600, which compares with the average
operating cost of the DFP of £345,000. This represents
an immediate financial saving of around £117,600 per
annum.” (p 111-2)
"The illustrative examples presented above should be
treated with some caution, as they are based on a set
Ofassumptions, rather than actual data. .However...the
analyses were based upon family problems persisting for one
year only and excluded a set of broader societal costs....” (p 112-3) |
Low
WOE D Low |