If I were to look at an intervention for crime prevention, I would look to a couple of criteria. One would be, is this something that can show long-term reduction in recidivism? If the current programming can generate—I don't know the specific targets, but let's say that today you're generating 50% reduction in recidivism rates through programming. The intervention that you would want to invest should have a tangible target on top of that. If I want to increase that target by 10%, the interventions you look to invest in should have that as one key target, something tangible that can be measured. The more tangible the measurement, the better it is.
When it comes to social outcomes, they really are best left to anecdotal or case studies, but the more hard data you can create, the better. If there's a reduction in the use of resources, say in the criminal justice system—I believe that to prosecute one youth in the drug courts costs about $120,000 to go through the entire chain. If you can show that an intervention that is not directly supported by government, say through a social finance mechanism, can remove youth from going through the court system, it's not as if there's a de-investment of government. What you're doing is you're saving government money, and if the intervention is less than what would otherwise be spent to prosecute that youth.... The Peacebuilders example, I think their programming is in the vicinity of $30,000 per youth. Those would be some examples of criteria.