the youth justice and child protection jurisdictions in the by 4yb628f

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 23

									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

                                                                       External influences



                           Service



      Program or service
                               Input          Process         Output       Outcomes
          objectives




                                       Technical efficiency

                                                 Cost-effectiveness

                               Program effectiveness
ROGS Framework
                                                                              Equity of
                                                         Equity of access
                  Equity           Access                                     outcome
                                                            indicators
                                                                             indicators


  Objectives                                                  Access
                                   Access
                                                            indicators


                                                                               Program
                                                         Appropriateness
               Effectiveness   Appropriateness                              effectiveness
                                                            indicators
                                                                              indicators
PERFORMANCE
                                                              Quality
                                   Quality
                                                            indicators


                                                            Technical            Cost
                                 Inputs per
                Efficiency                                  efficiency      effectiveness
                                 output unit
                                                            indicators        indicators


                                               Outputs                       Outcomes
ROGS Courts Framework
                                                                                      Fees paid by
                                 Equity                 Access        Affordability
                                                                                       applicants

                                                                                        To be
                                                        Quality
    Objectives                                                                        determined

                                                                       Timeliness        Backlog
                             Effectiveness                             and delay        indicator
                                                        Access
                                                                      Geographical      Judicial
PERFORMANCE                                                             access          officers

                                                                                      Attendance
                                                                                       indicator

                                                    Inputs per unit                    Clearance
                               Efficiency
                                                       of output                       indicator

                                                                                         Cost per
                                                                                       finalisation
Key to indicators

        Provided on a comparable basis for this Report subject to         Outputs                     Outcomes
Text
        caveats in each chart or table                                      Outputs
Text    Information not complete or not directly comparable

Text    Yet to be developed or not collected for this Report
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

2500

2000

1500

1000

 500

  0
       2001-02   2002-03   2003-04   2004-05
Youth Justice Jurisdiction in Australia – Criminal
Lodgements per 100,000 people

 600
 500

 400
 300
 200
 100

  0
       NSW   Vic   Qld    WA        SA       Tas   ACT   NT

                         2003-04   2004-05
Youth Justice Jurisdiction in Australia – Children’s
Court Expenditure per Finalisation

    1800
    1600
    1400
    1200
    1000
     800
     600
     400
     200
      0
           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 Court
Proportion pending more than 6 months

                 Pending Greater than 6 Months
                        Childrens Court

 30.0%


 20.0%


 10.0%


 0.0%
         NSW   Vic      Qld       WA          SA    TAS   ACT

                          30/06/2004   30/06/2005
Pending Caseloads – Adult Court
Pending more than 6 months


70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
 0.0%
        AGS DJJ HMW IRM MRH OM     PFD PHW RW       SFM TJH    ZS   CPW Grand
                                                                         Total

                     30-Jun-05 30-Sep-05 31-Dec-05 28-Feb-06
Pending Caseload – Adult Court
Current Workload

1400
1200

1000

 800

 600
 400

 200
  0
       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


   40


   30


   20


   10


   0
        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
F
    eb




                     0
                         50
                              100
                                    150
                                          200
                                                250
                                                      300
                                                            350
         -0
                 4
A
    pr
         -0
                 4
Ju
        n-
             0
                 4
A
    ug
         -0
                 4
O
    ct
      -0
                 4
D
    e
        c-
             0
                 4
F
    eb
         -0
                 5
A
    pr
         -0
                 5
Ju
        n-
             0
                 5
A
    ug
         -0
                 5
O
    ct
      -0
                 5
D
    e
        c-
             0
                 5
F
    eb
         -0
                 6
                                                                  Applications to vary orders relating to family violence
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

								
To top