Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 6219 Variable Government outcomes only BCR Holistic case BCR Baseline judgement 2% 2.33 : 1 3.66 : 1 Low case 1% 2.16 : 1 3.48 : 1 High case 3% 2.63 : 1 3.95 : 1 Variable Government outcomes only BCR Holistic case BCR Baseline judgement 5% 2.33 : 1 3.66 : 1 Low case 3% 2.28 : 1 3.61 : 1 High case 7% 2.39 : 1 3.71 : 1 Sensitivity 3.  Lower incarceration (reduced burden on the justice system) – percentage of all rangers who are diverted from a prison sentence per year It is difficult to estimate the number of rangers that will avoid a sentence as a result of the program, however meaningful employment has been proven to be a successful diversion method. Given that we have been conservative with this estimate, the BCR is not sensitive to changes. Increasing the percentage from 2% (2 ranger per year) to 3% (3 rangers per year) increases the holistic BCR by 8%. Sensitivity 4.  Less crime – percentage of ranger days on country that would otherwise have ended in a crime requiring a police touchpoint Other analyses of Indigenous land management programs have shown that by having rangers working on country can lead to reduced crimes (both for the rangers themselves and other community members who see rangers as role models). The sensitivity analysis shows that the overall BCR is not very sensitive to variations in this assumption. *More info about this analysis can be found in the methodological statement.