Financial cost of social exclusion: follow up study of antisocial children into adulthood
S Scott, M Knapp, J Henderson, B Maughan, S Scott, M Knapp, J Henderson, B Maughan
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the cumulative costs of public services used through to adulthood by individuals with three levels of antisocial behaviour in childhood.
Design: Costs applied to data of 10 year old children from the inner London longitudinal study selectively followed up to adulthood.
Setting: Inner London borough.
Participants: 142 individuals divided into three groups in childhood: no problems, conduct problems, and conduct disorder.
Main outcome measures: Costs in 1998 prices for public services (excluding private, voluntary agency, indirect, and personal costs) used over and above basic universal provision.
Results: By age 28, costs for individuals with conduct disorder were 10.0 times higher than for those with no problems (95% confidence interval of bootstrap ratio 3.6 to 20.9) and 3.5 times higher than for those with conduct problems (1.7 to 6.2). Mean individual total costs were 70 019 pounds sterling for the conduct disorder group (bootstrap mean difference from no problem group 62 pound sterling; 898 pound sterling 22 692 pound sterling to 117 pound sterling) and 24 324 pound sterling (16 707 pound sterling; 6594 pound sterling to 28 149 pound sterling) for the conduct problem group, compared with 7423 pound sterling for the no problem group. In all groups crime incurred the greatest cost, followed by extra educational provision, foster and residential care, and state benefits; health costs were smaller. Parental social class had a relatively small effect on antisocial behaviour, and although substantial independent contributions came from being male, having a low reading age, and attending more than two primary schools, conduct disorder still predicted the greatest cost.
Conclusions: Antisocial behaviour in childhood is a major predictor of how much an individual will cost society. The cost is large and falls on many agencies, yet few agencies contribute to prevention, which could be cost effective.
Source: PubMed