Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I hate to sound unreasonable but that doesnt mean squat. Hand-picking 13 likely candidates and seeing some success doesnt show any meaningful support that the same results would be demonstrated in a national program.
Giving a dozen experienced transients £50K is a far-cry from dropping $18K on 30 million people.
|
Here is a report, about the Social Return on Investment for the school at Louise Dean school for pregnant and parenting teens in Calgary over about 7 years. These students are given flexible education, free or subsidized childcare, subsidized housing and were given a living allowance if they attended school.
The additional cost a year, over traditional education, looks to be about $4 million in bursaries, student financing and child care subsidies.
Quote:
|
More importantly, the value of the difference between making the investment versus NO investment, ranges from an initial return of $0.80 in year one to $13.95 in year seven, and remains positive throughout.
|
That means that at the end of 7 years, they were having $13.95 in value returned for every dollar invested. My rough math puts that value at about $50 million returned on top of the initial investment.
You can say that giving people money doesn't help them, and it makes sense to you. The reality is that money invested into these people's well being will almost always save the taxpayers money to some degree. Obviously that depends on the program and you can't just shovel money out of the back of a truck.