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

0200

400600

8001000

12001400

16001800

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-04

Oct-04

De c-04

Feb-05

Apr-05

Jun-05

Aug-05

Oc t-05

De c-05

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