1. Justice system statistics: an overview – including their use and misuse South Pacific Council of Youth and Children's Courts Jonathon Rees and Tony Jacques

2. Introduction National Data within Australia Data available within the Courts in Tasmania Use of the Data

3. 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/

4. 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

5. ROGS General Model

6. ROGS Framework

7. ROGS Courts Framework

8. 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)

9. 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)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

10. 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.

11. Youth Justice Jurisdiction in Tasmania – Criminal Lodgements Children’s Court

12. Youth Justice Jurisdiction in Australia – Criminal Lodgements per 100,000 people

13. Youth Justice Jurisdiction in Australia – Children’s Court Expenditure per Finalisation

14. Use – Court Pending Caseloads Measurement of performance activity Assessment of current workload and allocation of new tasks

15. Pending Caseloads – Children’s Court Proportion pending more than 6 months

16. Pending Caseloads – Adult Court Pending more than 6 months

17. Pending Caseload – Adult Court Current Workload

18. 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.

19. Impact of safe at home on demand for Child Protection Orders

20. 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

21. Applications to vary orders relating to family violence

22. 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.

23. Questions