|
Jones et al |
Total cost of Shelter Two main unit costs were 1. The cost per household 2. The average total cost |
Costs (total and unit) of the Data provided by Shelter Short-term cost savings: |
|
Other costs which were (b) The average cost per Short-term cost savings: Long-term cost savings: Potential cost savings by A case study is used to |
re foster and residential re 'other potential cost Matrix Research and Long-term cost savings: Scott et al. (2002); NEETat 16-18; Godfreyet Potential cost savings by Rochdale Borough Council; Pawson et al. (2005); a |
Shelter Inclusion Project
provided the research team
with details on income and
expenditure for the pilot
periods, in the form of monthly
accounts.
Calculation of unit costs:
1. The cost per household month
for 2003/04 and for 2004/05
was calculated by dividing the
expenditure in the year by
the total number of months of
contact with each household
provided by the project during
the year. (For full details see
AppendixA, p 55)
2. The average cost per
discharged household was
calculated (for those leaving
the project in 2003/04) "by
multiplying the total number
of contact months with these
households in 2002/03 and
2003/04 by the average cost per
household month for 2003/04.
It is assumed that the cost per
household month in 2003/04
also applied to 2002/03. The
resulting total cost is then
divided by the number of
households discharged during
2003/04 to give the average
total cost per closed case for
that year. No households left
the project during 2002/03.
(For those leaving the project in
2004/5, see p 55.)
Calculation of potential cost
savings by Shelter Inclusion
Project: it is estimated that
if the family in the case study
were evicted, the following costs
could be incurred (court related
costs + other eviction-related
costs for landlord + custodial
sentence in a secure unit for the
older boy + specialist children’s
home for the younger boy +
foster care for the girl)
(See key findings - p 40) Low
Total costs: WOE D Low
-The total income and expenditure for the project per
year was approximately £300,000. The main income
sources were Supporting People and the Neighbourhood
Renewal Fund.
Unit costs:
-The average duration of contact with the project was
9.3 months for those households leaving the project in
2003/04, and 16.4 months for leaving in 2004/05.
-The average total cost for each household leaving
the project in 2003/04 was £6,280, compared with an
average cost of about £11,900 for those leaving the
project in 2004/05.
It is estimated that the average total cost per household
whose case closed in 2005/06 was £9,254. -The average
total cost per individual member of each household
whose case was closed during 2003/04 was £2,700, and
£3,380 in 2004/05.
Cost savings (long term):
-Longer term cost consequences of not preventing
antisocial behaviour include those associated with
sodal exclusion, educational underachievement and
unemployment
Cost savings (short term):
-In the short term, costs of up to £9,500 per household
could be saved by households not losing tenancies
because of antisocial behaviour. It is estimated that
antisocial behaviour costs £3.4 billion a year across
England and Wales.
The figure £9,500 is taken from the Pawson et al. study
and covers landlord costs of an eviction only. Jones
et al. also provides a case study of a more extreme
situation in which children are removed from the care
of the parent.
Potential cost savings by Shelter Inclusion Project:
"...the potential savings from supporting a family where
the mother is facing mental health problems and may
not be able to sustain her tenancy and household
without support....could amount to about £150,000 over
a six month period.” (p 47)
The Jones study does not claim that this case study
is representative. However, neither does it make a
systematic attempt to calculate likely savings.
Appendix 4 Summary of in-depth studies 71