Targeting Crime Prevention to Reduce Offending Identifying communities that generate chronic and costly offending Anna Stewart Troy Allard April Chrzanowski School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

Outline  Why we did this study?  How we did the study?  What we found?  What it means? Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

What we know from previous research?  Small number of offenders responsible »For a large amount of crime  We know that these chronic offenders »Start offending young »Offend frequently »Offend seriously »End up in prison »Often are Indigenous Australians »Mainly male  We have also done work costing offending trajectories »identifying lifetime costs of offending »Found very different costs for different offenders »Small no of offenders account for large amount of costs Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

Why we did this this study?  Major limitation with this work is that we can not identify these chronic offenders early on  So »Thought we would examine where these offenders came from »Increasing interest in place based rather than individual based targeting of crime prevention interventions »Most of this research examines where the crimes are »We were interested in examining where the offenders are Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

Research Questions  How do we identify chronic offenders?  What is the cost of these chronic offenders?  Which communities generated chronic offenders?  Which communities bear the cost of chronic offending? Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

How we did the study?  Data: 1990 Queensland Longitudinal Database »Linked administrative data »Had contact with  Police diversion (cautioning and youth justice conference)  Youth justice courts  Adult courts »Individual offending profiles between years old »14,171 offenders  70.2% male  13.4% Indigenous Australian  33,000 events (police caution, conference or court finalisation)  71,000 offences Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

How we did the study?  Three analyses:  Trajectory analysis »How do we identify chronic offenders ?  Costing analysis »What is the cost of these chronic offenders?  Place based analysis »Which communities generated chronic offenders? »Which communities bear the cost of chronic offending? Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

How do we identify chronic offenders? School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

How do we identify chronic offenders?  Two low offending trajectories »84% of offenders »33% offences »Average 2 offences per individual (SD = 1.4) »10% Indigenous Australian  Three high (chronic) offending trajectories »16% offenders (2,200) »67% offences »Average 21 offences (SD = 27.9) »34% Indigenous Australian Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

What is the cost of these chronic offenders?  Criminal Justice costs »Transactional and Institutional cost analysis  Social and economic costs »Rollings (2008) AIC report 12 offence categories  Medical costs  Costs of property loss damage  Cost of lost output  Intangible costs (pain and suffering)  Calculated »average cost for individuals »total cost of low and high offending trajectories Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

Criminal Justice Costs School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

What is the cost of these chronic offenders?  Total cost of the 1990 cohort (10-20 years) - $386 million  Low offending trajectories »84% of offenders »30% of total cost ($117 million) »$9,800 average per individual  High (chronic) offending trajectories »16% offenders »70% of total cost ($269 million) »$120,000 average per individual  Max $4 million Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

Are these offenders geographically randomly distributed?  Identified each offenders postal area of first offence (329 of 432)  Examined two questions »Which communities (postal area) generated chronic offenders?  Controlled for population size (16 year olds) »Which communities (postal area) bear the cost of chronic offending?  Did not control for population size  For each question examined the top 10% of postal areas »Index of Relative Disadvantage (IRSD) »Australian Standard Geographical Classification – Remoteness Areas Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

Which communities generated chronic offenders? Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

Which communities generated chronic offenders?  Remote and very remote Queensland  High levels of socio-economic disadvantage  High populations of young Indigenous people Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

Which communities bear the cost of chronic offending? Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

Which communities bear the cost of chronic offending  Criminal justice costs and wider social and economic costs  10% of postal areas accounted for 40% of costs  Cost between $2.3 m and $14.0m  Regional Queensland Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013

So what does it all mean?  Chronic offenders are not randomly distributed  Cost of chronic offenders and chronic offending not equally distributed  Need to geographically target evidence based crime prevention interventions »Early intervention programs to prevent initiation of offending »Holistic treatment programs to prevent reoffending  expensive (eg Functional Family therapy) »Need to ensure these programs are delivered in areas of high need »Community programs »Situational prevention programs  Challenges »Remote and regional areas »High Indigenous populations Applied Research in Crime and Justice 2013