IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i22p12111-d682006.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact and Return on Investment of the Take Kare Safe Space Program—A Harm Reduction Strategy Implemented in Sydney, Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher M. Doran

    (Cluster for Resilience and Well-Being, Centre for Indigenous Health and Equity Research, Central Queensland University, Level 4, 160 Ann Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia)

  • Phillip Wadds

    (School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW 2052, Australia)

  • Anthony Shakeshaft

    (National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW 2052, Australia)

  • Dam Anh Tran

    (National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW 2052, Australia)

Abstract

Safe spaces are increasingly utilized to reduce alcohol-related harm, violence, crime and improve public safety in nightlife settings. This study aimed to determine the impact and return on investment of the Take Kare Safe Space (TKSS) program—a harm reduction program implemented to address alcohol-related violence and disorder in three locations in Sydney’s night-time economy between 2014 and 2019. TKSS ambassadors provided support at static safe spaces and patrolled designated nightlife precincts to provide practical assistance to vulnerable and intoxicated people. Ambassadors recorded information relating to these interactions including ‘client’ age, gender, perceived level of intoxication, time and length of engagement with the program. Costs of program implementation and benefits of major incidents averted were obtained to allow calculation of return on investment. From December 2014 to April 2019, 66,455 people were supported by TKSS ambassadors. Most users were male (62%) and aged 18–25 years (66%). Of 3633 interventions by ambassadors, serious risk of harm was averted in 735 cases (20%). The program’s return on investment is estimated at 2.67, suggesting that a $1 investment results in $2.67 in benefits. Safe Spaces are extensively utilized, particularly by young males with high levels of intoxication, and represent a positive return on investment. Despite the growth of such services, there remains a notable absence of rigorous, independent evaluation regarding the outcomes and/or social benefit of safe space programs. From a policy perspective, there is a need for more high-quality economic evaluations to better inform decisions about competing uses of limited resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher M. Doran & Phillip Wadds & Anthony Shakeshaft & Dam Anh Tran, 2021. "Impact and Return on Investment of the Take Kare Safe Space Program—A Harm Reduction Strategy Implemented in Sydney, Australia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-10, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:22:p:12111-:d:682006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12111/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12111/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alice Knight & Alys Havard & Anthony Shakeshaft & Myfanwy Maple & Mieke Snijder & Bernie Shakeshaft, 2017. "The Feasibility of Embedding Data Collection into the Routine Service Delivery of a Multi-Component Program for High-Risk Young People," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Kim Edmunds & Laura Wall & Scott Brown & Andrew Searles & Anthony P. Shakeshaft & Christopher M. Doran, 2021. "Exploring Community-Based Options for Reducing Youth Crime," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-12, May.
    3. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simon Deeming & Kim Edmunds & Alice Knight & Andrew Searles & Anthony P. Shakeshaft & Christopher M. Doran, 2022. "A Benefit-Cost Analysis of BackTrack, a Multi-Component, Community-Based Intervention for High-Risk Young People in a Rural Australian Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    3. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    4. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    6. Boniface Oyugi & Olena Nizalova & Sally Kendall & Stephen Peckham, 2024. "Does a free maternity policy in Kenya work? Impact and cost–benefit consideration based on demographic health survey data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 77-89, February.
    7. Lili Wang & Lei Si & Fiona Cocker & Andrew J. Palmer & Kristy Sanderson, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies of Multimorbidity," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 15-29, February.
    8. Etienne Nédellec & Judith Pineau & Patrice Prognon & Nicolas Martelli, 2018. "Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 793-802, December.
    9. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    10. Hensher, Martin & Canny, Ben & Zimitat, Craig & Campbell, Julie & Palmer, Andrew, 2020. "Health care, overconsumption and uneconomic growth: A conceptual framework," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    11. Dongzhe Hong & Lei Si & Minghuan Jiang & Hui Shao & Wai-kit Ming & Yingnan Zhao & Yan Li & Lizheng Shi, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 777-818, June.
    12. Werner Brouwer & Kaya Verbooy & Renske Hoefman & Job Exel, 2023. "Production Losses due to Absenteeism and Presenteeism: The Influence of Compensation Mechanisms and Multiplier Effects," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(9), pages 1103-1115, September.
    13. Simon Pol & Paula Rojas Garcia & Fernando Antoñanzas Villar & Maarten J. Postma & Antoinette D. I. Asselt, 2021. "Health-Economic Analyses of Diagnostics: Guidance on Design and Reporting," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1355-1363, December.
    14. Paul Revill & Simon Walker & Valentina Cambiano & Andrew Phillips & Mark J Sculpher, 2018. "Reflecting the real value of health care resources in modelling and cost-effectiveness studies—The example of viral load informed differentiated care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.
    15. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    16. Omar B. Da'ar & Abdi A. Gele, 2023. "Tuberculosis in a weak health system, conflict and fragile zone: The monetary value of human lives lost associated with deaths of persons older than 14 years in Somalia," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 53-68, January.
    17. Fredrik Salvesen Haukaas & Audun Ohna & Tania Krivasi, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Obinutuzumab in Combination with Bendamustine Followed by Obinutuzumab Maintenance versus Bendamustine Alone in Treatment of Patients with Rituximab-Refractory Follicular Lymphom," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 569-577, August.
    18. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Kurt R. Brekke & Dag Morten Dalen & Odd Rune Straume, 2022. "The price of cost-effectiveness thresholds," NIPE Working Papers 5/2022, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    20. McNamara, Simon & Tsuchiya, Aki & Holmes, John, 2021. "Does the UK-public's aversion to inequalities in health differ by group-labelling and health-gain type? A choice-experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:22:p:12111-:d:682006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.