Pritchard, |
1. Educational budget 2. Educational cost |
1. not reported 2. re cost of an exclusion |
to reduce |
savings of the project 3. Costs to the Criminal |
Unit [EBDU]): |
- the Dorset |
Justice System (of |
3. costs to the Criminal |
Healthy |
exclusion) |
Justice System: Cooper |
project |
4. Cost savings of the 5. Overall cost benefit |
Pritchard and Butler 4, Home Office costings |
5. Cooper and Lybrand
(1994); Blythe and Milner
(1998)
1. not reported
2. education budget cost savings:
"These were based upon the known
costs of an 'exclusion unit’ place, and
projected on the number of 'net’ savings
of young people who were successfully
'transferred in’ to the project schools
when under threat of permanent
exclusion.” (p. 59)
(It was assumed that young people
would only be in school for average of 6
months a year).
3. costs to the Criminal Justice
System:
Adifferent study by Pritchard is used
(Pritchard and Butler (2000) is used to
derive estimates for these costs, and
other secondary research
4. Criminal Justice System cost
savings:
"We estimate the potential cost savings
by the number of students in the project
schools who did not commit crime,
assuming that in the absence of the
project they would have offended at the
same rate as the comparator schools.”
5. Overall cost benefit of the Dorset
HealthyAlliance project
"A cost-benefit analysis estimated the
'value added’ (Morgan and Murgatroyd
1994) input of the project. This was
based upon Home Office costings of an
offence (Cooperand Lybrand 1994),
and fee-estimated 'Education’ costs for
'home tuition’ and/or admission into an
Exclusion Unit (Blythe and Milner 1998)
at the end of year three.
As no hard data was available for
possible costs related to SSD or Health,
they were not included in the cost-
benefit analysis, so the 'savings’ are
an under-estimate. This cost-benefit
approach has the merit of being simple,
yet based upon authoritative sources,
and typically is biased towards under-
estimating costs and savings (Goldblat
and Lewis 1998)” (434413, p28).
1. Cost of the project: £59,000 pa
2. education budget cost savings:
2 different results are reported in the main and linked reports
£395,000 p.a. (p. 50 main report)
"Consider the direct net 'savings’ of the 56 'included’ pupils
in the project secondary school: the cost of an Exclusion
Unit place in the county during the period of the research
was £39,000 per annum. Let us assume that these youngsters
would not have stayed in school for the usual year, but only
for an average of six months. This would represent a net
annual cost to education of at least £395,000 in the first year
of exclusion.”
An overall savingof £87,200 p.a. (Linked report ITT434413, p.38)
It was calculated that for the third year of the project alone,
the minimal estimated saving to the project primary school
(Atlee) would be £56,700, and to the project secondary school
(Bevan) £30,500.
3. costs to the Criminal Justice System
"Based only upon court appearances, costs of weeks in prison,
and the cost of their time in the Exclusion Units (excluding
other likely social service costs mentioned above) the 149
young adults had already cost the public purse £4.2 million.”
(p.50; data from Pritchard and Butler, 2000)
4. cost savings of the project to the Criminal Justice
System
Minimally £37,800, possibly over £400,000.
A 'saving’ of 14 offenders yielded a notional saving of £37,800
(14 offenders was thought to be the number most at risk of
a criminal career. The much higher figure of £400,000 was
based on an overall potential of 92 offenders).
(see linked report ITT434413, p 38).
5. Overall cost benefit of the Dorset HealthyAlliance
project
Minimally 111 percent return on the investment, possibly as
much as 250 per cent.
"Taking the education and criminal justice system known
costs, and contrasting these with possible 'savings’ on the
likely exclusion places alone, yields an estimated 'saving’
above the cost of the project, of at least 250 per cent.” (p 51
main report)
"Continuing on the side of caution, and including only the
minimal savings of criminal justice of £37,800, and the
£87,200 education 'savings’, after deducting the annual
cost of the project, we are looking at an estimated gross
saving in excess of £65,700, or an 111 per cent return on the
'investment’...” (linked report ITT 434413, p 38)
"This estimate does not include the potential savings from the
substantial fall in child protection referrals and likely health
gains.” (p xi)
Low
WOE Medium
72 Interventions for HCHHHU: technical report