justice system statistics: an overview – including their use and misuse south pacific council of...
TRANSCRIPT
Justice system statistics: an overview – including their use and misuse
South Pacific Council of Youth and Children's Courts
Jonathon Rees and Tony Jacques
Introduction
• National Data within Australia• Data available within the Courts in Tasmania• Use of the Data
National Authorities of Interest
• Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP)– Publishes the Report on Government Services (ROGS)
(www.pc.gov.au/gsp/index.html)
• Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (www.abs.gov.au)
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (www.aihw.gov.au)
• Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) www.aic.gov.au
• Australian Centre for Policing Research (ACPR) www.acpr.gov.au/
Report on Government Services (ROGS)
• The Review was initiated by the Prime Minister, Premiers and Chief Ministers at the Premiers’ Conference in July 1993. It operates under the auspices of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).– Terms of Reference include ‘…the collection and
publication of data that will enable ongoing comparisons of the efficiency and effectiveness of Commonwealth and State government services…’
• Justice section of report– Police Services– Courts Administration– Corrective Services
ROGS General Model
Program or serviceobjectives
Input Process Output Outcomes
External influences
Program effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness
Service
Technical efficiency
ROGS Framework
Outputs Outcomes
Equity ofoutcomeindicators
Programeffectiveness
indicators
Costeffectiveness
indicators
Access
Access
Appropriateness
Quality
Inputs peroutput unit
Equity
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Equity of accessindicators
Accessindicators
Appropriatenessindicators
Qualityindicators
Technicalefficiencyindicators
PERFORMANCE
Objectives
ROGS Courts Framework
Effectiveness
PERFORMANCE
OutputsOutputs
Equity
Efficiency
Access
Quality
Affordability
To bedetermined
Timelinessand delay
Judicialofficers
Attendanceindicator
Clearanceindicator
Inputs per unitof output
Fees paid byapplicants
Geographicalaccess
Backlogindicator
Cost perfinalisation
Objectives
Access
Outcomes
Key to indicators
Text
Text Information not complete or not directly comparable
Text Yet to be developed or not collected for this Report
Provided on a comparable basis for this Report subject tocaveats in each chart or table
ABS – National Centre for Crime and Justice Statistics (NCCJS)
• Collections and Publications– Crime Statistics
– Recorded Crime – Victims (Police)– Crime and Safety, Australia (National Crime and Safety
Survey)– Personal Safety Survey
– Court Statistics– Criminal Courts Australia
– Prisoners and Corrections– Prisoners in Australia– Corrective Services, Australia
• National data standards and classifications (eg ASOC)
AIHW Juvenile Justice in Australia 2000-01 to 2003-04
• Published by Australian Institute of health and Welfare (AIHW - http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10244)
• First national publication in February 2006• Covers period 2000-01 to 2003-04 • Scope covers supervision and detention of young
offenders by Juvenile Justice Agencies.• Comparisons of length of supervision etc
Tasmania’s contribution from Youth Justice and Children’s Courts
• Statistical collection is a ‘by product of an administrative process’
• Implications for requirements and design of IT systems to cater for National Counting Rules
• Implication for administrative processes (‘Dismissed problem’)
• Need to allow for analysis at a lower level than National Counting Rules allow
• Small jurisdictions cooperate.
Youth Justice Jurisdiction in Tasmania – Criminal Lodgements Children’s Court
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Youth Justice Jurisdiction in Australia – Criminal Lodgements per 100,000 people
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
2003-04 2004-05
Youth Justice Jurisdiction in Australia – Children’s Court Expenditure per Finalisation
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
2003-04 2004-05
Use – Court Pending Caseloads
• Measurement of performance activity• Assessment of current workload and allocation
of new tasks
Pending Caseloads – Children’s CourtProportion pending more than 6 months
Pending Greater than 6 Months Childrens Court
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
NSW Vic Qld WA SA TAS ACT
30/06/2004 30/06/2005
Pending Caseloads – Adult CourtPending more than 6 months
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%
AGS DJJ HMW IRM MRH OM PFD PHW RW SFM TJH ZS CPW GrandTotal
30-Jun-05 30-Sep-05 31-Dec-05 28-Feb-06
Pending Caseload – Adult Court Current Workload
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
AGS DJJ HMW IRM MRH OM PFD PHW RW SFM TJH ZS CPW
30-Jun-05 30-Sep-05 31-Dec-05 28-Feb-06
Use – Evaluation of Impact of Changes (Safe at Home)
• Changes in the Law, community expectations or actions by others can change workloads by the Courts.
• Data to measure activity in the courts can be used to assist in the evaluation of those changes.
• Example, Safe at home- expected impact was to increase children reported as being at risk, Court activity data shows the number of Child Protection Orders has doubled.
Impact of safe at home on demand for Child Protection Orders
0
10
20
30
40
Jul-03
Oct-03
Jan-04
Apr-04
Jul-04
Oct-04
Jan-05
Apr-05
Jul-05
Oct-05
Jan-06
Use – Justification of Resource allocation
• Court data can be used to assess current workloads and the distribution of tasks within the Court
• The impact of changes, such as legislation, on the activity of the courts can be monitored and used to support bids for additional resources.
• Safe at home - expected increase in applications to vary orders
Applications to vary orders relating to family violence
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Feb-04
Apr-
04
Jun-04
Aug-0
4
Oc t-0
4
De c-
0 4
Feb-05
Apr-
05
Jun-05
Aug-0
5
Oc t-0
5
De c-
0 5
Feb-06
Use – Comparative data
• Comparing data can highlight areas where improvements may be made by looking at processes used by different authorities which appear to be more efficient or effective at what they do.
• Need to be careful not to assume that another authority is efficient or more effective just because the data indicates that it is so. Differences in laws or expectations may mean that we are comparing different things but the data can highlight the need for further investigation.
Questions