year in review - ocsar · jsu justice strategy unit ... the year in review is designed as a source...

Office of Crime Statistics and

Research

The Year in Review

2004

O F F I C E O F C R I M E S T A T I S T I C S A N D

R E S E A R C H

T H E Y E A R I N R E V I E W

2 0 0 4

© Attorney-General’s Department Office of Crime Statistics and Research GPO Box 464, Adelaide, SA 5001 Telephone (08) 8207 1731 – Facsimile (08) 8204 9575 Website: www.ocsar.sa.gov.au April 2005

O C S A R ’ S Y E A R I N R E V I E W § P a g e 4

C O N T E N T S

Glossary .....................................................................................................................................7

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................9

1. Agency overview/ introduction.............................................................................................12

Objectives.........................................................................................................................12

Functions .........................................................................................................................12

Customers and Stakeholders .............................................................................................15

Involvement in Committees .............................................................................................19

Work Area 1: Data Management and Application Development..............................................21

Data Management ............................................................................................................21 Management of JIS based applications ........................................................................22 Development and management of reference lists and registers.....................................23

Application Development.................................................................................................23

Contributing to improved data quality across the Portfolio: the Criminal Justice Data Quality Committee ..................................................................................................25

Work Area 2: Research.............................................................................................................27

A profile of male remandees in custody.............................................................................28

Explanations for the high proportion of South Australian Higher Court matters classified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as ‘withdrawn’ in 2001/02........................28

Estimating future numbers in Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) Secure Care facilities ....................................................................................................................29

Modelling the South Australian Juvenile Justice System....................................................29

Attrition rates of child victimisation incidents as they proceed from CYFS, to Police Incident Reports and through to finalisation in court .............................................30

Apprehension levels amongst a South Australian cohort of juvenile offenders ...................31

Identifying and profiling chronic offenders aged 16-20 years ............................................31

Involvement of Indigenous Youth in the criminal justice system: identifying risk and protective factors........................................................................................................32

Changes in the seriousness of offending from 1992-2003 .................................................32

Bail granted and bail breach statistics: Cases finalised during 2003/04. .............................32

Work Area 3: Evaluation..........................................................................................................34

Drug related evaluations ...................................................................................................35 Community Resilience Project ...................................................................................35 Drug Action Teams (DATs) ...................................................................................35


Trial of Indigenous Community Constables working with Drug Action Teams ..........36 Police Drug Diversion Initiative (PDDI) ....................................................................36 Court Assessment Referral & Drug Scheme (CARDS)................................................37 Drug Court Program – analysis of retention rates and post program offending ...........38

Evaluations associated with remand ..................................................................................38 LSC After Hours Bail Advice Pilot Program at the Holden Hill Police Station............38 LSC Expanded Duty Solicitor Service at the Adelaide Magistrates Court Pilot Program ...................................................................................39

Crime prevention related evaluations ................................................................................39 Bush Breakaway - Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program...........................................40 Fake ID Project ...................................................................................40 Sexual Offence Awareness Program (SOAP) in Schools...............................................41 Crime Prevention Education Program (DECS)...........................................................41

Other evaluations .............................................................................................................41 Magistrates Court Diversion Program – analysis of post program offending................42 Rollout of services for Victims of Crime in regional areas............................................42 Blue Light camps (evaluation framework only) ...........................................................43 Video-conferencing on the Anungu Pitjantjatjara Lands .............................................43 Monitoring of the Adelaide City Dry Area Trial .........................................................43

Evaluation advice service...................................................................................................44

Work Area 4: Statistical Monitoring ........................................................................................46

Crime and Justice .............................................................................................................46 Calendar Year Report ...................................................................................46 Conversion to a financial year report...........................................................................47

Assessing the level of drug use and drug related crime amongst the offender population ...47 Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA)...............................................................47 Drug Use Careers of Offenders (DUCO)....................................................................48

Justice Portfolio Illicit Drug Strategy Performance Indicators ...........................................48

Community Cabinet Briefings..........................................................................................49

Ngaanyatarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY) Lands.................................................49

South Australian child and youth profile...........................................................................50

Work Area 5: Information Dissemination................................................................................51

1. Information Service ......................................................................................................51

2. Dissemination of OCSAR’s research and evaluation findings........................................51 Website ...................................................................................52 OCSAR Seminar Series ...................................................................................52 Staff Presentations ...................................................................................53


3. Increasing awareness of the Office: OCSAR’s Newsletter ..............................................53

Work Area 6: CARS ................................................................................................................54

CARS Knowledge Bank....................................................................................................55

VIN Dots Study ...............................................................................................................55

Data Quality Improvement ..............................................................................................55

Monthly Reporting to Stakeholders ..................................................................................55

Local Government Area Profiles .......................................................................................56

New Zealand CARS .........................................................................................................56

National Meetings Attended.............................................................................................56

Involvement/contribution to other OCSAR work.............................................................56

Conclusion What is planned for 2005......................................................................................57

Appendix A..............................................................................................................................59

Appendix B..............................................................................................................................60 Justice Portfolio Strategic Plan 2004-2006..................................................................60

Appendix C .............................................................................................................................64

Publications/briefing papers completed in 2004................................................................64 DUMA ...................................................................................66 CARS ...................................................................................68

Appendix D .............................................................................................................................69

OCSAR Presentations in 2004 .........................................................................................69


G L O S S A R Y

AGD Attorney-General’s Department

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

AIC Australian Institute of Criminology

CAA Courts Administration Authority

CARDS Court Assessment Referral & Drug Scheme

CARS Comprehensive Auto-theft Research System

CJDQC Criminal Justice Data Quality Committee

CJS Criminal Justice System

CJLG Criminal Justice Leadership Group

CYFS Child, Youth and Family Services

DASSA Drug & Alcohol Services South Australia (formerly DASC)

DAT Drug Action Team

DCS Department for Correctional Services

DECS Department of Education and Children Services

DFC Department for Family and Communities

DPC Department of Premier and Cabinet

DUCO Drug Use Careers of Offenders

DUMA Drug Use Monitoring in Australia

JPLC Justice Portfolio Leadership Council

JIS Justice Information System

JPLC Justice Portfolio Leadership Council

JSD Justice Strategy Division

JSU Justice Strategy Unit

LGA Local Government Area

LSC Legal Services Commission

NPY Lands Ngaanyatarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands

NMVTRC National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council


ODPP Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

OCSAR Office of Crime Statistics and Research

PDDI Police Drug Diversion Initiative

SAPOL South Australian Police

SOAP Sexual Offence Awareness Program

VIN Vehicle Identification Number


F O R E W O R D

Since its establishment some 26 years ago, the nature, range and complexity of work undertaken by the Office of Crime Statistics and Research has continued to expand. The year 2004 was no exception. Yet as the work of the Office grows and as our stakeholders become more diverse, there is a tendency for knowledge about what we do to become fragmented. This report attempts to counteract that by bringing together, in the one document, a comprehensive overview of all of the major initiatives and projects in which OCSAR was involved in 2004, with a view to providing a more holistic profile of our activities and functions.

To a large extent, the Year in Review is designed as a source of information for our external stakeholders. However, the task of preparing this document has also proved a useful one for myself and staff within the Office, because it has provided us with an opportunity to look back and critically assess what we have achieved during the year - to identify what worked well, what could perhaps be done differently, and what new directions we wish to pursue in the coming year.

While our key achievements in 2004 are covered in more detail in the body of the report, several of the more critical ones are worthy of comment here.

In the data management area, considerable progress was made in developing an offender based tracking system which gives the Office the capacity to undertake recidivism studies and to track incidents/victims/cases through the system from initial report to police through to finalisation in court. OCSAR is one of the few criminal justice research agencies in Australia that now has the capacity to track to this level of detail.

We also took advantage of emergent software technologies to develop three computer-based applications - a web-based Crime Mapper, an Offence Analyser and a Demographic Analyser - which, in combination, has made information on the spatial distribution of crime far more accessible to the general public, and has significantly reduced the time taken by OCSAR to respond to the increasing demand for spatially based crime data from the Government, policy makers and other stakeholders.

Our three volume Crime and Justice publication, which already provides the most comprehensive statistical overview of crime and the criminal justice system produced by any Australian state, also underwent a major review. Although triggered by the need to convert it to a financial year reporting period, we have taken the opportunity to significantly review and enhance the number and range of tables presented, and to streamline the accessibility of the information by distributing it on CD Rom with ‘drill down’ capacity. Revamping of Volume 1 is now almost complete and work has commenced on the other two volumes.

In the research area, a number of projects were completed, all of which are documented in the ensuing report. Some of these were funded by agencies external to the Justice Portfolio, which is a good indicator of the reputation OCSAR has earned over the years for delivering high quality research within relatively limited budgets. We anticipate this trend will continue in 2005, with several new contracted research projects currently being negotiated.

O C S A R ’ S Y E A R I N R E V I E W § P a g e 1 0

In the evaluation area, two developments are worthy of note. One was the establishment in 2004 of an Evaluation Advice Service, designed to assist other agencies undertake their own evaluations. Demand for this Service proved to be greater than anticipated and, although commenced on a 12 month trial basis, it will now be extended. The second development was the establishment of a Senior Research and Evaluation Officer position within OCSAR dedicated to evaluating crime prevention programs in association with the Crime Prevention Unit. This position has given OCSAR the capacity to build a strong evidence base of ‘what works’ with respect to crime prevention, and to provide evaluation assistance to a range of crime prevention agencies at both a state and local level.

In terms of statistical monitoring, OCSAR continued to produce quarterly and annual reports outlining the key findings from the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) project, and in 2004, with the agreement of the AIC and relevant state agencies, we also became responsible for analysing South Australian data collected by the AIC’s Drug Use Career of Offenders (DUCO) projects.

National CARS continued to expand, with two particular milestones in 2004. In March, it received an award from the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators for its ‘Outstanding contribution to the reduction of motor vehicle theft throughout Australasia’ and in the latter part of the year, was commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice to undertake a feasibility study into expanding CARS to include New Zealand motor vehicle theft data. Work on this study is continuing.

To ensure that these and other OCSAR projects contribute to evidence based policy development, in 2004 we explored new ways of disseminating the key findings from our work to relevant stakeholders and to the general public. In addition to maintaining our well patronised Information Service which provides statistical information to the general public and other users, we continued to publish a variety of Research and Evaluation Reports, Information Bulletins and Research Findings, all of which are available via the OCSAR website. In 2004 we also placed strong emphasis on giving presentations to key bodies, such as the Criminal Justice Leadership Group and various inter-agency Steering Committees and Working Groups. In addition, we initiated an OCSAR Seminar Series and launched a bi-monthly newsletter entitled “OCSAR News”.

Through participation in key national committees, such as the Australian Criminology Research Council, the National Crime Statistics Advisory Group, the National Criminal Courts Statistics Advisory Group and International Association of Auto Theft Investigators, the Office was able to contribute to research and statistical development at a national level.

Our aim in 2005 will be to continue to provide a high quality and timely research, evaluation and statistical monitoring service to the Justice Portfolio, other stakeholders and the general South Australian community. In so doing, we look forward to on-going close working relationship with agencies such as SAPOL, DCS, CAA and CYFS, all of whom are key data providers to OCSAR.


In conclusion, I would like to express my thanks to all staff within OCSAR for their commitment and support, and to the Chair and members of the OCSAR Advisory Committee for their wise counsel and advice which ensures that our work continues to reflect the priority needs of the Justice Portfolio.

Joy Wundersitz

DIRECTOR

Office of Crime Statistics and Research


1 . A G E N C Y O V E R V I E W / I N T R O D U C T I O N

Objectives

The South Australian Office of Crime Statistics & Research (OCSAR) was established within the Attorney-General's Department in 1978 to monitor and report on crime trends within the state. It has three key objectives:

§ To provide timely, accurate and comprehensive statistical information on crime and criminal justice, with a particular focus on providing relevant data for policy development and legislative change;

§ To conduct research into crime and criminal justice issues, including evaluations of the impact of legislative change and new criminal justice practices; and

§ To disseminate information on crime and criminal justice to Government, members of Parliament, relevant agencies and the community in order to increase the general level of understanding and to inform public debate and policy development in these areas.

Functions

OCSAR’s activities are grouped into six key work areas:

§ Data management and application development; § Statistical monitoring; § Research into crime and criminal justice issues; § Evaluations of criminal justice initiatives; § Information dissemination; and § National CARS Project.

These work areas are reflected in the Office’s organisational structure (see Figure 1.1).

In 2004 the Office had a complement of 22 staff (refer to Appendix A for a full list). The majority have post-graduate degrees, majoring in a wide range of fields including psychology, criminology, geography, sociology, mathematics, computer and spatial information science. Historically, most of the research staff recruited by the Office had quantitative skills. However, with the increase in the number of evaluations being undertake by OCSAR, in recent years there has been a deliberate strategy to enhance the qualitative skills and evaluation research capabilities within the Office through the recruitment of researchers with specialist skills in using a variety of evaluation methodologies. These staff have particular knowledge and experience in undertaking fieldwork, case studies, interviews, focus groups, participant observation, survey design and implementation and evaluation readiness assessments, as well as analysing, interpreting and reporting on qualitative data.

Figure 1.1 Organisational structure

OOffffiiccee ooff CCrriimmee SSttaattiissttiiccss aanndd RReesseeaarrcchh aass aatt 3311//1122//0044

Director

Deputy Director

A/Manager CARS Senior Analyst Programmer

Senior Research Officer, CARS

Data Analyst Administrator

CARS

Data Analyst Administrator

CARS

Project Officer CARS

Administration Officer

Office Administrator Information Officer

Database Manager

Assistant Database Manager

Codes Project Officer

Senior Research and Statistical

Officer

Senior Research and Statistical

Officer

Research Manager

Senior Research Officer

Senior Research Officer

Evaluation Manager

Senior Research and Evaluation Officer (Crime Prevention)

Senior Research and Evaluation

Officer

Research Officer

Research Officer


Oversight of the Office’s forward work plan: The OCSAR Advisory Committee

In line with OCSAR’s role of contributing to evidence-based policy and program development within the Justice Portfolio, its work plan is closely aligned with the Justice Portfolio ‘Strategic Plan 2004-2006: Taking Action’. The four key goals of this plan are:

§ To ensure all South Australians have access to democratic, fair and just services; § To ensure that crime and disorder are dealt with effectively in our state; § To improve public safety through emergency prevention and management; and § To excel in service delivery, innovation and government efficiency. Examples of OCSAR’s projects that slot within the relevant focal points listed under these goals are detailed in Appendix B. Further guidance on work priorities is provided by the OCSAR Advisory Committee, which was established in 2003 following an external review of the Office conducted by Des Semple and Associates.

The main functions of the OCSAR Advisory Committee are detailed below.

1. To provide advice on the annual OCSAR work plan, to ensure that it meets the needs of the JPLC while also retaining scope for OCSAR to respond to selected research issues of relevance to its wider constituency;

2. To monitor the progress of projects undertaken by OCSAR, particularly those being done at the instigation of the JPLC and where required, provide support for individual projects by, for example:

- Facilitating access to additional data/information necessary to ensure the successful completion of projects;

- Providing advice on appropriate ways of dealing with politically sensitive research or evaluation findings; and

- Helping to address difficulties which may arise between OCSAR and individual agencies in relation to the conduct or findings of particular projects.

3. Provide advice to OCSAR in the development of strategies to increase the level of understanding of the implications of OCSAR research and evaluation findings for policy development, and to ensure appropriate dissemination of those findings.

4. Promote OCSAR as a key research/evaluation unit within the Justice Portfolio.

5. Increase the level of understanding within the CJLG of OCSAR’s work capabilities and skills.

6. Act as the Sponsor Group for the Justice Data Warehouse.

7. Monitor the activities of the Criminal Justice Data Quality Committee, with the chair to that Committee being appointed by the Advisory Committee in consultation with the Director of OCSAR.


In 2004, the Committee consisted of: Mal Hyde, APM, Commissioner of Police (Chair);

Terry Evans, Deputy Chief Executive, Attorney-General’s Department;

Steve Ramsey, Director, Programs and Quality Services, Child Youth and Family

Services;

Gary Thompson, State Courts Administrator, Courts Administration Authority;

Greg Weir, Director, Strategic Services, Department for Correctional Services;

Brendan Williams, Director, Information Knowledge Management, Attorney General’s

Department;

Di Chatres, Acting Director, Justice Strategy Division, Attorney-General’s Department

(until March 2004);

Tim Goodes, Director, Justice Strategy Division, Attorney-General’s Department (from

April 2004); and

Joy Wundersitz, Director, Office of Crime Statistics and Research.

Customers and Stakeholders

OCSAR undertakes projects for, and provides statistical information and advice to, a broad range of stakeholders both within and external to Justice. Figure 1.2 outlines key stakeholders within the Justice Portfolio and lists some of the projects undertaken in association with those stakeholders in 2004. Figure 1.3 presents similar information for key agencies outside of the Portfolio.

In addition, in 2004 OCSAR responded to hundreds of ad hoc requests for statistical information about crime and the criminal justice system from a diverse cross-section of individuals and organizations including:

§ Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Committees and Ministerial Advisors; § Interstate/overseas government departments (such as New Zealand’s Ministry of Justice,

Queensland Health, Australian Bureau of Statistics, VICPOL, WAPOL, and Canadian Police);

§ Non-Government organisations (including Youth Affairs Council, Mission SA, Local Governments, Access Economics, Para Worklinks and the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council);

§ Private companies and industry groups (including Crown Casino, Australian Automotive Intelligence, Brandt Corporation, BayCorp Advantage, Subaru Australia, Australian Hoteliers Association and the Royal Automobile Association of SA);

§ Media (including the Advertiser, the Australian, ABC, Channels 7, 9, 10, Messenger Group and 2UE);

§ Private law firms and the Law Society of South Australia;


§ Academics and Research Units (eg. University of South Australia; Flinders University School of Law, Western Australian Crime Research Centre, Australian Institute of Criminology and the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research); and

§ Secondary and Tertiary students.

Attorney General’s Dept. Justice Strategy Unit • Evaluation of community resilience project • Evaluation of Drug Court Program - analysis of

retention rates & post program offending • Evaluation of Magistrates Court Diversion

Program

Crime Prevention Unit • Evaluation of Bush Breakaway • Evaluation of Regional Crime Prevention Program

(selected projects)

Strategic Development & Communication • Provision of data for Cross Border Tri-State

Project

Office of Director Public Prosecution • Explanations for the high proportion of SA higher

court matters classified as withdrawn in 2001/02

Policy and Legislation • Controlled Substances • Bail Reform

Attorney-General’s Office • Video Conferencing Pilot • Victim Support Services Country Roll-out

Evaluation • Crime and Demographic profiles • Ad-hoc Ministerial briefings

Attorney-General’s Department SAPOL • Law Codes and Offence Codes • Evaluation of Drug Action Teams (DATS) • Evaluation of the trial of Indigenous

Community Constables working with Drug Action Teams

• Evaluation of Police Drug Diversion Initiative (PDDI)

• Fake ID project evaluation • Sexual Offence Awareness Program (SOAP)

SAPOL

DCS

• Law Codes and Offence Codes • Drug Use Careers of Offenders - Female

prisoners

Dept. for Correctional Services

Criminal Justice Leadership Group / OCSAR Advisory Group

• Aboriginal involvement in the CJS • Profile of remandees in custody • Apprehension levels amongst a cohort of juvenile offenders • Monitoring of Illicit Drugs KPI’s • Explanations for the high proportion of SA higher court matters classified as withdrawn in 2001/02 • Drug Use Monitoring in Australia

Criminal Justice Leadership Group / OCSAR Advisory Committee

Legal Services Commission

• Evaluation of the After Hours Bail Advice pilot project

• Evaluation of the Expanded Duty Solicitor Service pilot program

Legal Services Commission

Courts Administration Authority • Evaluation of the Court Assessment &

Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS) • Evaluation of Magistrates Court Diversion

Program • Evaluation of Drug Court Program - analysis

of retention rates & post program offending • Law Codes and Offence Codes

Courts Administration Authority

Office of Commissioner of Liquor & Gaming • Fake ID project evaluation

Office of Commissioner of Liquor & Gaming

Figure 1.2 OCSAR’s Research & Evaluation Service Clients and Stakeholders - Justice Portfolio based

Attorney General’s Dept. • Evaluation of Police Drug Diversion

Initiative (PDDI) • Child and Youth Population in South

Australia - a statistical profile on offending

Dept. of Health

SAPOL

• Attrition rates of child victimisation

incidents as they proceed through the CJS

• Tracking Child abuse cases from the point of notification.

• Juvenile Bail • Drug Use Careers of Offenders -

Juvenile detainees • Predicting secure care numbers

Dept. for Families and Communities

C • Monitoring of the Adelaide Dry Area Trial • Community Cabinet Briefings - Crime

and Demographic Profiles

Dept. of Premier and Cabinet

Legal Services Commission • Drug Use Monitoring in Australia • Drug Use Careers of Offenders

Drug & Alcohol Services Council


• OCSAR Website • OCSAR Crime Mapper • Regular provision of statistical

information

Media and the Public Office of Commissioner of Liquor

• Gambling and Crime

Independent Gambling Authority


• National CARS Project

National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council Inc.

Office of Commissioner of Liquor • New Zealand CARS Project - Feasibility

Study

New Zealand, Ministry of Justice

South Australian Government agencies or statutory authorities External clients – Non State government agencies

Courts Administration Authority • DUMA • DUCO • Delegate on AIC Board and Australian

Criminology Research Council

Australian Institute of Criminology

Figure 1.3 OCSAR’s Research & Evaluation Service Clients and Stakeholders – External to the Justice Portfolio


• Crime Prevention Curriculum project

Dept. of Education and Children Services


Involvement in Committees

One of the key ways in which OCSAR is able to contribute to crime and criminal justice developments at both a state and national level is to participate in relevant committees and working groups.

At a national level, in 2004 OCSAR’s Director represented South Australia on:

§ The Australian Criminology Research Council (CRC) and the Australian Institute of Criminology Board of Management, which provided OCSAR with an opportunity to have a direct input into the development of a national criminology research agenda and in oversighting various CRC-funded research projects and consultancies.

§ The National Criminal Courts Statistics (NCCS) Advisory Committee and the National Crime Statistics Advisory Committee, which provide advice on the content, enhancement and use of national statistical collections on crime and criminal justice. As chair of the NCCS Advisory Committee, OCSAR’s Director also attended meetings of, and provided advice to, the National Criminal Court Statistics Unit Board of Management.

In 2004, OCSAR’s Director of the National CARS project completed his second year as President of the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators (Australasian Branch and International Board) and was also appointed a member of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice’s Vehicle Crime - External Advisory Group. This enabled him to play a significant role in the dissemination of information and advice on strategies for responding to vehicle theft.

At a state level, OCSAR initiated and convened inter-agency working groups to oversight some of its key research projects, including the Child Victims Working Group, and it chaired and provided executive support to the Criminal Justice Data Quality Committee. It was also represented on a range of external committees set up by external agencies to monitor the progress of work undertaken by OCSAR. These included the:

§ City of Adelaide Dry Area Evaluation Steering Committee; § Murray Bridge Community Resilience Steering Committee; § Court Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme Evaluation Steering Committee; § Drug Use Monitoring in Australia Data Management Committee and Drug Use

Monitoring in Australia Steering Committee; § State Reference Group on Drugs ; and § Legal Services Commission Steering Committee.

The extensive knowledge and skills possessed by OCSAR staff in the areas of statistical analysis, research and evaluation also led to invitations to participate in a range of other committees, such as the Government Agencies Statistical Committee, the Children of Offenders and Prisoners Working Group, Department for Correctional Services Research Management Committee, Illicit Drugs Performance Indicators Working Group and the South Australian Vehicle Theft Reduction Committee.


Our status as a member of the Justice Information System community also required our involvement in the Justice Data Warehouse Committee, Justice Information Services (JIS) Privacy Committee, the Justice Data Interchange Site Managers Committee, and the JIS Business and Operations Committee.


Work Area 1: Data Management and Application Development

Within this work area there are three key components, namely:

§ Data management; § Application development; and § Contributing to improved data quality across the Portfolio.

Each is discussed below.

Data Management

The Data Management Team is responsible for the acquisition, storage and maintenance of a wide range of data collections, received in many different forms, to service the Office’s extensive data requirements. It is also the Team’s responsibility to identify new sources of data to supplement and enhance OCSAR’s existing data collections in anticipation of expanding research and evaluation needs.

To fulfil its data requirements, OCSAR accesses data from a number of criminal justice and related agencies on both a regular and an ad hoc basis. Some of these are derived from the Justice Information System (JIS) while others involve stand-alone, non-JIS based collections which must be linked to JIS-based systems for analysis.

These include:

§ Fortnightly data extracts from CAA’s CrimCase database; § Monthly extracts of data from SAPOL’s Police Information Management System relating

to incident and apprehension reports; § Direct access via the Justice Data Warehouse to Correctional Services tables relating to

custodial matters; § Direct access to SAPOL’s Offender History database, via JIS; § Extracts from specialised databases such as CARDS, PDDI and DAAP; § Extracts of Expiation data on an ad hoc basis to service individual projects; and § Copies of ODPP’s Crimes Access database (soon to be replaced by ODPP’s Offender

Tracking system).

Many of these data collections date back to 1991, with ongoing access subject to various Memoranda of Understanding with the source agencies, covering such issues as frequency and type of access and limitations on the use and publication of data.

Data are received in a number of formats, including SAS datasets, text files, Access databases and Excel spreadsheets. The data are incorporated into the Office’s SAS-based data warehouse.


In providing data for particular projects, the data management team works closely with the research and evaluation staff to determine appropriate counting rules and definitions, and to provide advice on data quality issues to ensure that the specific requirements of each project are met. This close working relationship not only provides the researchers with a more detailed understanding of the data collections, but also enables the data management team to gain an insight into how the data can be applied to answer particular research questions.

Traditionally, much of the data extraction process has focussed on providing snapshot data for OCSAR’s regular Crime and Justice publications, for external ad hoc information requests which cannot be satisfied from published sources, and for various research projects. For example, in 2004 the Data Management Team extracted data for the evaluations of the Drug Court and Police Drug Diversion Initiative, for the ‘Aboriginal involvement in the criminal justice system’ project and for the secure care modelling exercise. The Team also worked on the new format for the Crime and Justice series of publications, which will be provided in electronic form, with drill down capacity.

In addition to the need for snapshot data, in recent years there has been a growing requirement for more complex data extractions to underpin recidivism and tracking studies. In 2004 considerable time was spent developing a comprehensive Offender Tracking database which links Police, Courts, Correctional Services and Secure Care data so that offences/cases/offenders/incidents can be traced from the point of initial report to police through to finalisation in Court and incarceration in a correctional facility. OCSAR is one of the few agencies in Australia which has developed the capacity to track through the system. In part, this is possible because of the integrated nature of the South Australian Justice Information System. In 2004, OCSAR’s offender tracking database was used to provide data for a number of projects within the Portfolio, including the EDB project, the investigation of attrition rates of child victimisations from the lodgement of an Incident Report through to finalisation in court (refer to page 30 for more information), the tracking of bouncer assaults through the criminal justice system for SAPOL and a study of recidivism levels amongst a 1984 birth cohort. It is anticipated that OCSAR’s involvement in such projects will expand in 2005.

Management of JIS based applications

The Data Management Team is responsible for two JIS-based applications, owned by OCSAR, which provide reference tables for criminal justice agencies to allow standardised reporting of offences across those agencies. OCSAR maintains these on behalf of criminal justice agencies in South Australia, including SAPOL, Correctional Services and the Courts Administration Authority. This requires monitoring of legislative amendments at both the State and Commonwealth level on a regular basis.

§ Law Codes is a database of legislative references which provides a standard representation of an offence and includes information on the Maximum Statutory Penalty applicable to that offence, as well as a full description of the offence.

§ Offence or JANCO Codes, based on the Australian National Classification of Offences (ANCO) produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), classifies law codes into grouped offence categories, such as Assault, Sexual Assault, Drug Offences and Property


Damage. OCSAR also maintains a conversion table to allow agencies to report via ASOC rather than via ANCO. ASOC, the Australian Standard Offence Classification, was developed by the ABS to replace ANCO.

Development and management of reference lists and registers

To provide a context for the interpretation of trends in crime and criminal justice data, the Data Management Team maintains a number of reference lists and registers, as described below.

§ The Significant Events Register is an Access database containing information on significant events that could have an impact on crime figures, such as new legislation, SAPOL operations and changes in Court practices. The Register is updated regularly to include information gathered from the media and Parliamentary website. Processes for receiving regular updates from other Justice agencies (SAPOL, Courts and Department for Correctional Services) have been implemented through the Criminal Justice Data Quality Committee.

§ The Major Legislative Changes in SA Register was initiated in 2003 and details all significant legislative changes, such as the introduction of Serious Criminal Trespass offences to replace Break and Enter offences. The Register also comments upon the potential impact of these changes on criminal justice data collections and is updated on a monthly basis. A Briefing Paper summarising the legislative changes can be accessed on the OCSAR website: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/technical_papers/Legislative_ changes10.pdf

§ The Sentencing Remarks Database is an Access database, with search capabilities, which provides background information on sentences imposed in the Higher Courts.

§ The Cause List Database for Family Violence and Aboriginal Sentencing/Nunga Courts was established to identify cases processed through the Family Violence Court and the Aboriginal Sentencing Courts, which are currently not flagged on the CAA database. These cause lists are linked with OCSAR’s other extracts from the Court Administration Authority’s Crimcase mainframe systems.

Application Development

As a consequence of the Justice Portfolio’s increasing emphasis on evidence-based policy development, OCSAR has experienced a significant increase in demand for criminal justice statistical data, particularly at a regional and local area level. To manage this demand for spatially-based crime statistics, OCSAR identified a need to produce detailed regional profiles and other standard reports in automated format, thereby making them easy to produce and readily accessible to a broad range of stakeholders. Commencing in 2004, three applications are being developed in-house: namely Crime Mapper, Demographic Profiler and Offence Profiler.

§ ‘Crime Mapper’ is a web-based application that allows users to thematically map the geographic distribution of recorded offences for various geographical units across South Australia. At present, data can be extracted at a Local Government Area level but future


development of the application will allow data to be extracted for Collectors Districts, postcodes and suburbs. As well as selecting the type of offence to map (eg vehicle theft, assaults), users can select how to measure those offences (eg number/rates of offences), the geographical unit (LGA) and the time period of interest.

It is intended to provide three different levels of access to users:

§ Members of the public will be able to access information at the Local Government Area level or above;

§ General users within the Justice Portfolio will have access to information at the more specific level of postcodes and suburbs; and

§ “power users” (that is those with special authorisation) will be able to extract data at the lowest spatial level of Collector Districts.

The first draft of this new mapping based application was developed in January 2004 and was subsequently updated in July 2004. The application was made publicly available on the OCSAR website in December 2004 (http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/maps.html).

This application also serves as an interface for external users to request the Local Government Area profiles from the Demographic and Offence Profilers.

§ The Offence Profiler allows OCSAR to generate automated reports that profile offences recorded in any geographic area across South Australia. These reports include an analysis of four year trends of offences committed in the given area, complete with graphs and commentary text enabling comparisons with a given benchmark area. Members of the public can request reports through the Crime Mapper application on the OCSAR website.

§ The Demographic Profiler is a Windows-based application that allows OCSAR to generate automated demographic profiles for any geographic area across South Australia. These profiles, which complement and facilitate the interpretation of crime data provided in the Offence Profiler, are based on information derived from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001 Census of Population and Housing. They contain information on population counts, population density, age, sex and Indigenous profiles, ethnicity (including country of birth and language spoken), year of arrival, proficiency in English, education (including current education status and educational history), employment (including labour force participation, unemployment levels, occupation, income) and household status (including family type, dwelling structure, tenure type). Data for the Northern Territory and Western Australia have also been included in this application, primarily to provide demographic information for the Ngaanyatarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY) lands. As with the Offence Profiler, these reports contain automated graphs and commentary text enabling comparisons with a given benchmark area and can be requested by members of the public through the Crime Mapper application on the OCSAR website.

Each of the three applications detailed above will allow data to be extracted according to a range of standardised Australian Bureau of Statistics geographical units, ranging from Collector Districts (containing around 100-200 households) and Local Government Areas through to


Statistical Divisions. It will also be possible to build customised reports pertaining to different non-ABS geographical areas (eg suburbs and postcodes) by aggregating Collector Districts.

Although not yet fully developed, these applications have already significantly reduced the production time of local area profiles and enabled OCSAR to better meet the increasing demand for this type of information. The Offence and Demographic Profilers are also used by OCSAR to provide regular briefings to the Justice Portfolio and to Community Cabinet meetings. Feedback from users has indicated that these applications are proving very useful to those requiring access to crime and demographic information for specific areas of the State.

It is envisaged that these applications will be continually improved and updated during 2005 as more data become available. Work will also commence on preparing analysers for Police apprehensions and victims data.

Contributing to improved data quality across the Portfolio: the Criminal Justice Data Quality Committee

The CJDQ Committee, which reports to the OCSAR Advisory Committee, is chaired by the Director of OCSAR and includes representatives from the Department for Correctional Services, Child, Youth and Family Services, SA Police, the Courts Administration Authority, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney-General’s Department’s Justice Technology Services. Established by OCSAR in 2003 in response to one of the recommendations arising from the Semple Review, its role is:

§ To identify, monitor and resolve data quality issues which impact on the ability to conduct statistical research and analysis across the Justice agencies;

§ To encourage the development and implementation of uniform definitions, counting rules, and collection procedures across the Justice community to ensure increased understanding and more accurate interpretation of justice related data; and

§ To encourage (and facilitate where possible) intra and inter-agency auditing of justice related datasets.

The Committee met on nine occasions during 2004 and its achievements included:

§ The establishment and ongoing maintenance of a Portfolio-wide ‘significant events register’ which is used to aid in the analysis and interpretation of crime trends;

§ The release of technical papers on how variables such as age, date of birth, Indigenous status, and victim/offender relationship are recorded across the different criminal justice data collection and how they are used in analyses undertaken by these agencies; and

§ An investigation of the use of spatial and address data across the Portfolio.

The Committee’s 2005 work plan includes:

§ Exploring the use of standardised spatial units and boundaries across all Justice agencies to facilitate greater integration and portfolio-wide analyses;


§ Preparing a consolidated list of spatial and address-related issues and problems and identifying possible solutions for those problems;

§ Assessing the manual coding for the Law Codes and Offence Codes classification systems; and

§ Ongoing maintenance of the Significant Events Register.


Work Area 2: Research

During 2004 a number of research projects were completed, progressed or commenced by the OCSAR’s research team. While the remainder of this section provides more detail on each research project, in summary during 2004 the research team completed the following:

§ A profile of male remandees in custody on 30 June 2002; § Explanations for the high proportion of South Australian Higher Court matters classified

by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as “withdrawn” in 2001/02; and § Estimating future numbers in CYFS secure care facilities (stages 1 and 2).

Work on the following projects continued:

§ Attrition rates of child victimisation incidents as they proceed from CYFS to Police Incident Reports and through to final court disposition and sentence;

§ Apprehension levels amongst a South Australian cohort of juvenile offenders; and § Changes in the seriousness of offending from 1992-2003.

The research team also commenced a number of new projects, which will continue into 2005, including:

§ Involvement of Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system: an assessment of risk and protective factors associated with offending;

§ Modelling the juvenile justice system; § A profile of ‘chronic offenders’ aged 16 to 21 years; and § Assessing the link between adult and juvenile offending.

As the above list illustrates, a number of these projects focused on young people and their involvement with the juvenile justice system. This reflects the continuing concern about juvenile offending in South Australia, which has also prompted other developments such as the establishment of the Select Committee into Juvenile Justice and the Social Inclusion Unit’s initiative, ‘Breaking the Cycle’, which aims to provide effective interventions for ‘chronic’ offenders within the 16 to 20 year old age group.

Research staff also assisted with a number of OCSAR’s evaluation projects (refer to Work Area 3 of this report) and responded to the more complex ad hoc information requests that could not be handled by the Information Officer (refer to Work Area 5 for further detail about the information service). Given that research staff often spent many weeks analysing data and writing up the results for these ad hoc requests, this service comprised a substantial component of the workload of the research team during 2004.

As in previous years, the research team also provided the Attorney-General’s Office with various briefing papers, including several which compared South Australia with other states and territories using data contained in national publications such as Criminal Courts and Recorded Crime, Australia produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).


The following section provides a more detailed description of each of the key research projects undertaken in 2004.

A profile of male remandees in custody

In 2004 OCSAR continued its research into the reasons for the continuing high rate of remand in SA. In particular, the Office, at the request of the Criminal Justice Leadership Group, developed a profile of male custodial remandees to determine, within the context of current legislative guidelines:

§ The proportion for whom custodial remand seemed the most appropriate option; and § The proportion who could potentially be diverted from custody if new, non-custodial

options were to be introduced.

To undertake this study, data were obtained from the Department for Correctional Services for all males who were on remand on 30 June 2002. A random sample of 100 was then selected from the 438 male remandees in custody on that date. A profile of these individuals was developed using data from the Department for Correctional Services, Courts Administration Authority and South Australia Police.

The study comprised two stages:

§ Stage 1 involved the development of a simple bail risk measure to provide a broad indication of the proportion of remandees in the study group who could be classified as low, medium and high risk. The underlying assumption in developing this measure was that custodial remand would be more appropriate for those who fell in the high risk category, while those in the low risk category could potentially be candidates for diversion from custody if appropriate strategies and programs were introduced.

§ Stage 2 consisted of more in-depth analysis of the individuals within each of the identified risk categories and provided a more refined estimate of the proportion that could potentially be diverted from custody.

The key findings from the study were presented to the Criminal Justice Leadership Group, and the final report (Information Bulletin Number 37) was publicly released in early 2004 (see OCSAR website http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB37.pdf ).

Explanations for the high proportion of South Australian Higher Court matters classified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as ‘withdrawn’ in 2001/02

This project, requested by the OCSAR Advisory Committee, was undertaken in collaboration with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP). It arose in response to concern about the apparently high proportion of matters withdrawn by the prosecution in South Australian higher courts in comparison with other Australian jurisdictions, as reported in the ABS Criminal Courts, Australia 2001/02 report (catalogue number 4513.0).


To undertake the project, OCSAR obtained a download of the 2001/02 South Australian higher court data that the ABS had used to compile its report. The matters that were ‘withdrawn’ were then identified and the ODPP were provided with an extract containing details of these matters, which they compared with their records for the same period. Through this process, they divided matters into two groups: those for which they agreed with the ABS coding of ‘withdrawn’ and those where they disputed this classification. A detailed analysis of the disputed cases was then conducted by OCSAR.

The study found that one of the key contributors to South Australia’s apparently high withdrawal rate was the inclusion of ‘white papers’ in the ABS statistics. The final report is available on the OCSAR website (http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/technical_papers/nolles.pdf).

Estimating future numbers in Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) Secure Care facilities

OCSAR was commissioned to undertake this work by Child, Youth and Family Service (CYFS). The aim was to provide background data to assist in determining whether a new secure care facility to replace the Magill Training Centre was required. More specifically, the project sought to estimate the future number of juveniles in Secure Care by sex, age, Indigenous/cultural status, region, sentence/remand status and time spent in custody.

The project was conducted in two stages:

§ Stage 1 involved identifying past growth rates and changes in the number of persons in Secure Care using time series analysis of historical data and then making general predictions about future numbers;

§ Stage 2 involved the use of key stakeholder interviews and time series analysis to identify the factors that could have impacted upon Secure Care numbers in the previous ten years (for example, population size, policing practices) and where possible, determine if there was a relationship between these factors and secure care numbers. The identified factors were then used to refine the estimates from Stage 1.

A report was forwarded to CYFS and several seminars were convened at which key findings were presented to the main stakeholder groups within CYFS.

Modelling the South Australian Juvenile Justice System

This study arose in response to work being undertaken for CYFS in the area of secure care, as outlined above. As that research unfolded it became clear that simple, time series projection models were inadequate for future predictions and that what was required instead was a comprehensive understanding of the processes operating throughout the juvenile justice system.

In response, OCSAR commenced development on a stock and flow model of the juvenile justice system. Using a software package named ‘Stella’, a skeleton model of the system has been developed. To date, all parts of the juvenile justice system, from the point of apprehension,


through to Secure Care, have been identified, together with the flow paths between the different elements.

The next stage is to develop a detailed understanding of the relationships between the different elements of the model (for example, what proportion of offenders flow onto the Youth Court) and those factors influencing decision making at each key junction in the model (for example, the decision to divert to a caution or conference).

The development of a stock and flow model of the juvenile justice system will be a useful tool to underpin policy development. In particular, it will make it possible to assess the likely impact of legislative changes, program implementation, population shifts etc, which will facilitate more accurate forward planning.

Attrition rates of child victimisation incidents as they proceed from CYFS, to Police Incident Reports and through to finalisation in court

This study sought to test the common assumption that many incidents brought to the attention of authorities never result in the apprehension of a suspect or a successful prosecution in court.

The first stage, which was largely completed in 2003, involved tracking child victimizations reported to police in 2001/02 from the initial police incident report through to finalisation in court, to identify the key attribution points in the system. This led to the preparation of two papers. The first outlined the key findings from Stage 1 (see http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs /research_reports/sexualassault.pdf) while the other detailed the methodological issues confronted by the Office in attempting to track child victimizations through the criminal justice system (http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/technical_papers/victimizations.pdf).

The results from Stage 1 of the study were submitted to the Layton Inquiry into Child Protection (2003), and in response, that Inquiry recommended:

That the data system for the criminal justice system be substantially reviewed to enable an interlink across departments allowing the notifications from FAYS to be traced through to outcomes in the Court. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In response, a second component of the project was commenced, which aimed to assess the feasibility of linking CYFS and police data and, once linked, to identify attrition levels of child abuse cases from the point of CYFS notification to the lodgement of a police incident report. To oversee this work a Steering Committee comprising representatives from CYFS, SAPOL, the Family Conference Team and the Youth Court was established. During 2004 a detailed research plan was developed and signed off by the Inter-agency Steering Committee and an application was submitted to the Department of Health Human Research Ethics Committee. In late 2004, the Committee gave in-principle support for the project but requested clarification on several


points which OCSAR is currently addressing. Once the relevant approvals are obtained, data linking and analysis will commence.

Apprehension levels amongst a South Australian cohort of juvenile offenders

As part of the Office’s focus on providing a more detailed understanding of the nature and extent of young people’s involvement with the juvenile justice system, in 2004 OCSAR undertook a series of studies focusing on the 1984 birth cohort. This cohort was selected because it is the first group who, for the entirety of their juvenile years, came under the jurisdiction of the new juvenile justice system introduced in SA in 1994. It therefore provides some insight into whether apprehension levels were higher or lower than under earlier systems (as identified by the work of Morgan and Gardner, 1992).

This research considered:

§ The extent of involvement with the juvenile justice system for all juveniles in this birth cohort;

§ The profile of those juveniles who had been apprehended, including the age of onset, the nature and severity of the alleged offending and the number of apprehensions; and

§ The characteristics of those juveniles who were repeatedly apprehended and the degree of specialisation of offending.

Much of the analysis has now been undertaken and preliminary findings have been presented to the Justice Cabinet Sub-Committee and the Criminal Justice Leadership Group. The final report(s) will be completed in 2005.

Identifying and profiling chronic offenders aged 16-20 years

In the criminological research literature it is well documented that, while the majority of youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system do not reoffend, there is a small minority who become persistent offenders. These youths are repeatedly apprehended by police during their juvenile and young adult years and are often referred to as ‘chronic’ offenders. This group is loosely described in the literature as those offenders (5%-8% of the offender population) who are responsible for about half of all offences.

The starting point for any intervention strategy which aims to ‘break the cycle’ of offending for such chronic offenders is to identify how many and who they are. Hence, this study aims to define and profile chronic offenders in South Australia by examining prior apprehension records of a pool of young people dealt with in 2003/04 who were aged 16-20 at both the time of the offence and at time of apprehension.

So far, the study has examined issues such as the age of onset of offending (i.e. early onset or late onset), the seriousness of the offending and the number of offences charged against them during the criminal career, differentiated by gender and Indigenous status.


This study, which will be completed in 2005, will provide an empirical base to inform policy and practice development for this group of chronic offenders.

Involvement of Indigenous Youth in the criminal justice system: identifying risk and protective factors

This project was developed in response to a request from the OCSAR Advisory Committee which recognised that while the high levels of Indigenous over-representation in the juvenile justice system may be partly due to systemic issues, different patterns of offending are also important. A considerable body of research now exists on how the system itself operates but relatively little information is available about the risk and protective factors associated with actual offending. The aim of this study then, is not to focus on whether and how the system impacts differently on young Indigenous people, but to identify the underlying causes for any differences in their offending behaviour.

Given the complexity of this topic, an extensive literature review is currently being undertaken which will inform the development of an appropriate research brief and data collection instruments. This project will form a major component of OCSAR’s research program in 2005.

Changes in the seriousness of offending from 1992-2003

This study was requested by the OCSAR Advisory Committee in response to concerns that there had been an increase in the seriousness of offending over the last decade. To investigate this issue all apprehensions recorded by police between July 1992 and June 2003 were analysed. Changes in the seriousness of offending by both adults and juveniles were considered by gender, Indigenous status and offence type.

This analysis was completed in 2004 and the key findings were presented to the OCSAR Advisory Committee at their September meeting.

Bail granted and bail breach statistics: Cases finalised during 2003/04.

This project was undertaken in response to a request from the Attorney-General’s Office for information on the number of persons who breach bail and are subsequently granted bail at a later date.

The study looked at:

§ general bail/remand in custody outcomes for the Youth Court, Magistrates Courts and higher courts (District and Supreme Courts combined), for cases finalised during 2003/04;

§ Bail/remand outcomes by major charge for cases where the major charge was an imprisonable offence;


§ Number of persons granted bail after appealing a sentence of direct imprisonment; § Findings of guilt for breach of bail during the case; and § Prior bail breach offences.

Key findings included the following:

§ For all courts, the majority of defendants were either released without condition (ie no bail or remand imposed) or granted bail. A very small proportion of Youth Court and Magistrates Court defendants remained in custody for the entire case, compared with approximately one-fifth of higher court defendants. This is not surprising, given the more serious nature of the charges finalised in the higher courts.

§ Of all cases finalised during 2003/04 where bail was granted at some point during the case, approximately one in six were charged with breach of bail during that case.

§ Of cases finalised during 2003/04 where the defendant was granted bail, just over one in five had at least one finding of guilt for a breach of bail in the previous five years.


Work Area 3: Evaluation

With the range of new criminal justice initiatives now being introduced in South Australia by the Justice Portfolio, the Office is becoming more heavily involved in evaluations. The majority of this work focuses on evaluating initiatives that are either instigated by the Justice Portfolio or which involve a strong justice agency input into the implementation process. OCSAR’s work in this area contributes to ensuring a strong evidence base for policy and program development within the Portfolio.

OCSAR has only two full time (ongoing) staff members devoted to evaluations1. Therefore much of the evaluation work relies on employing contract researchers using funds provided by the ‘client’ agencies. Other senior researchers within the Office also undertake some of the evaluation work, particularly where there is a heavy focus on quantitative analysis.

Overall, 2004 was a significant year with respect to the growth and consolidation of OCSAR’s evaluation activities. Over this twelve month period OCSAR:

§ implemented a new management structure, bringing those contract staff involved in evaluations together under one team;

§ formalised the provision of an Evaluation Advice Service to agencies within the Justice Portfolio;

§ Completed evaluations of: § The rollout of Drug Action Teams; § Indigenous Community Constables working with Drug Action Teams; § The Fake ID project; § The Sexual Offence Awareness Program in schools; § The rollout of services provided by Victim Support Services; § The expanded Duty Solicitor Service at the Adelaide Magistrates Court Pilot

Program; § The Legal Services Commission After Hours Bail Advice Pilot Program at the

Holden Hill Police Station; and § The monitoring the Adelaide City Dry Area Trial;

§ Continued evaluations of: § The Drug Court Pilot Program and the Magistrates Court Diversion Program, with

particular emphasis on assessing the impact of these specialist courts on post-program re-offending;

§ The Police Drug Diversion Initiative (PDDI); and § A pilot community resilience project in Murray Bridge.

1 These positions are designated as the Evaluation Manager and a Senior Research and Evaluation Officer responsible for the evaluation of crime prevention related projects.


§ Commenced several new evaluations which will continue into 2005, including: § The Court Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS); § The Bush Breakaway Program in Ceduna; § The DECS Crime Prevention Education Program; and § A pilot of video-conferencing on the AP Lands.

A more detailed description of each of these projects is provided below.

Drug related evaluations

OCSAR is currently undertaking a number of evaluations of programs introduced by, or in partnership with, Justice agencies to respond to illicit drug use and related offending. These programs span the continuum from community-based prevention and diversionary responses through to court based programs.

Community Resilience Project

The Community Resilience project is a pilot initiative, based at Murray Bridge, which aims to build the resilience of the local Indigenous community in relation to drugs via a range of community development strategies. The project was initiated by the Justice Strategy Unit, Attorney-General’s Department. The evaluation commenced in late 2002 and is due for completion in early 2005.

As part of this evaluation OCSAR has worked with the project officer, mentor and others to develop systems for planning, monitoring and reviewing the project and that of other related projects based at the Lower Murray Nunga’s Club.

Drug Action Teams (DATs)

Drug Action Teams (DATs), led by a Drug Action Team Sergeant and aligned to police Local Service Areas, are intended to bring together stakeholders in the community to share information, to problem solve and develop collaborative responses to local problems associated with licit drug misuse and illicit drug use. Following a pilot of the initiative in 2000, DAT Sergeants were appointed in 13 of the 14 police Local Service Areas across the state. SAPOL commissioned OCSAR to evaluate the rollout in May 2002. The evaluation focused on the extent to which the DATs achieved their stated aims and objectives, the level of satisfaction with the initiative from the perspectives of a range of stakeholders, strengths and weaknesses, and areas for improvement. An action research approach was adopted to ensure the ongoing communication of findings which could contribute to continuous improvement within the DATs.

A final report was submitted to SAPOL in late 2004, with additional briefings provided to the SA Police Drug and Alcohol Policy Section (DAPS) and the DAT Coordinators. In response to evaluation findings which indicated that DAT Sergeants were keen to develop skills and


confidence in evaluating their projects, OCSAR provided evaluation training, resources and ongoing advice to DAT Sergeants who wished to evaluate specific projects. In addition, in partnership with the Sturt and South Coast DATs, OCSAR evaluated two DAT-related projects (see Fake ID and Sexual Offence Awareness Program evaluations).

The final report identified strong support for the initiative amongst most where stakeholders, along with areas where the DAT model and its operation could be fine-tuned or where the understanding of and response to DATs could be improved. OCSAR staff have been asked to be part of a SAPOL working group in early 2005 to implement the recommendations arising from the final report.

Trial of Indigenous Community Constables working with Drug Action Teams

In 2002 SAPOL received funds from the South Australian Drug Summit outcomes to conduct a two-year trial of Community Constables working with Drug Action Teams. This funding was contingent upon an external evaluation being conducted. SAPOL commissioned OCSAR to undertake an evaluation of the trial between July and September 2004 to assist in understanding the extent to which the objectives of the trial were achieved, the effectiveness of the model in responding to drug-related harm in Indigenous communities and the extent to which the Community Constables were able to enhance the operation and effectiveness of the Drug Action Teams.

The final report, which was submitted to SAPOL in December 2004, concluded that there was strong support amongst external agencies for the Initiative, that the trial had led to new and stronger links between SAPOL and Indigenous agencies, and that a range of projects, consistent with the objectives of the Initiative, had been established. However, the relatively short timeframe for the pilot, combined with the time needed to adopt an holistic community development approach meant that limited progress had been made toward achieving the objectives. The trial was suspended at the conclusion of the pilot funding. In early 2005 OCSAR will work with staff from the Drug & Alcohol Policy Section, SAPOL, to review the model and determine a future strategy based on the recommendations made in the evaluation report.

Police Drug Diversion Initiative (PDDI)

The Police Drug Diversion Initiative commenced in September 2001. The initiative aims to divert individuals apprehended for simple drug possession away from the courts and into health treatment. OCSAR was commissioned by the (then) Department of Human Services to evaluate the initiative. The evaluation focuses on the extent to which the initiative has achieved its objectives, its strengths and weaknesses and the level of satisfaction amongst stakeholders. From 2001 to mid 2003 the evaluation focused largely on process issues associated with the rollout and implementation of the initiative. Since then we have moved on to focus largely on the outcomes of the initiative and levels of satisfaction with its operation.


In 2004 OCSAR produced a briefing paper for the PDDI State Reference Group, looking at the extent of contact with the criminal justice system of those diverted. There was some evidence that adults were more likely than young people to have had prior contact with the criminal justice system, drug charges decreased in the post diversion period, and that amongst adults particularly, there was a decrease in overall offending post-diversion.

To date, the PDDI State Reference Group has made a number of changes to operational processes and service arrangements as a result of the evaluation findings. For example:

§ Many of the gaps identified in services, including the availability of appointments, location of assessors and range of services provided, were addressed when considering the tenders for Phase 2 service delivery;

§ Findings relating to the impact of knowledge and attitudes of operational staff on the diversion process have led to further training in these areas; and

§ 14-17 year olds detected in possession of cannabis are no longer provided with educational material on the first occasion but instead, are sent for assessment.

The evaluation is expected to be completed in mid 2005. Currently, OCSAR is continuing to interview individuals who have been diverted in an effort to learn more about their views of the initiative, as well as re-surveying or interviewing police, assessment and treatment workers. The information obtained is being used to provide regular feedback to the State Reference Group and other key stakeholders.

Court Assessment Referral & Drug Scheme (CARDS)

In mid 2004, at the request of the Justice Strategy Division and Department of Health, OCSAR commenced a two-year evaluation of the Court Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS). The scheme is currently being piloted at the Port Adelaide and Adelaide Magistrates Courts and is due to commence at Murray Bridge in early 2005. The scheme enables Magistrates at these courts to refer individuals charged with a drug-related offence for assessment and, where appropriate, for treatment sessions with a qualified clinician at Drug & Alcohol Services of South Australia (DASSA).

Using the skills available within OCSAR a database was designed to collect program and client information for both program and evaluation purposes. A comprehensive evaluation framework has been developed, ethics approval for the project has been granted, contact with stakeholders has been established and pre/post questionnaires have been implemented with individuals undertaking the scheme, along with interviews of individuals completing the scheme.

The evaluation uses an action-research approach to provide regular feedback to the scheme’s Steering Committee, allowing them to make process and other improvements along the way. On this basis, several briefing papers providing client demographic and other program information, along with emerging ‘lessons’ from the pilot, have been provided to the Steering Committee.

In 2005 a similar scheme for juveniles, based at the Adelaide Youth Court, is expected to commence. OCSAR will be responsible for evaluating this scheme also.


Drug Court Program – analysis of retention rates and post program offending

The pilot Drug Court program commenced operation in May 2000 and the Justice Strategy Unit (JSU) subsequently commissioned OCSAR to evaluate the program. The evaluation has been conducted in several phases. In 2000-2003 it focused on throughput and process aspects of the program. In 2004, when a sufficient number of individuals had completed the program to permit statistical analysis, the evaluation focused on outcomes and involved two stages:

1. Identification of post-program offending, and in particular whether there had been a reduction in the frequency and/or seriousness of offending amongst participants who completed the program; and

2. Identification of factors contributing to the high drop out rate amongst Drug Court clients.

Stage 1 has now been completed. It found that overall, there was a reduction in the number of ‘completers’ who were charged with a criminal event following program completion as well as a reduction in the actual number of criminal events charged against them. The report is available on OCSAR’s website http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/DrugCourt1.pdf.

Stage 2 of the evaluation will commence in 2005.

Evaluations associated with remand

As noted earlier, there is continuing concern in South Australia about the high number of remand prisoners. In addition to undertaking research in this area, OCSAR was requested by the then Chief Executive of Justice to evaluate two programs initiated by the Legal Services Commission which were designed to reduce remand numbers. In particular, OCSAR was asked to consider whether the programs were implemented as intended and whether they met their key objectives.

The implementation of the pilot programs was overseen by a Steering Committee comprising representatives from the Legal Services Commission, South Australia Police, Courts Administration Authority, and the Office of Crime Statistics and Research.

LSC After Hours Bail Advice Pilot Program at the Holden Hill Police Station

The Legal Services Commission after hours bail advice pilot program commenced at Holden Hill Police Station in August 2003. It arose out of recognition that, while an advice service is available to arrestees charged with major indictable offences, and while persons held in police custody during office hours have the opportunity to access a general advice service, there was a gap in the provision of services to police detainees who did not fit into either of these two categories.


By increasing access to legal advice prior to the police bail authority making a bail decision, the program aimed to reduce the number/proportion of eligible arrestees who were refused police bail which, it was thought, would translate to a reduction in the number appearing at their first court appearance ex-custody and by extension, a reduction in the number of defendants remanded in custody at the end of their first court appearance.

Findings from the evaluation report were presented to the Criminal Justice Leadership Group in April 2004 and a final report was submitted to the Justice Cabinet Committee for consideration at their December 2004 meeting.

Overall, it found that relatively few police prisoners used the service and as a result, the program was terminated.

LSC Expanded Duty Solicitor Service at the Adelaide Magistrates Court Pilot Program

This pilot program commenced in the Adelaide Magistrates Court in August 2003. Its objective was to reduce remand numbers by:

§ Increasing the number of successful bail applications; and/or § Increasing the number of matters finalised at the first court appearance.

The Program entailed the appointment of a Senior Duty Solicitor to augment the service already provided by the two existing Legal Services Commission duty solicitors at the Adelaide Magistrates Court. A Senior Police Prosecutor with the authority to amend and withdraw charges without first seeking approval was appointed to negotiate with the Senior Duty Solicitor.

The key findings from the evaluation were presented to the Criminal Justice Leadership Group in April 2004 and the final report was completed in May 2004. This report was subsequently provided to the Justice Cabinet Committee for consideration at its December 2004 meeting.

Overall, the evaluation found that the program was not successful in reducing remand admissions and as a result, the program was terminated.

Crime prevention related evaluations

The establishment of a position within OCSAR dedicated to evaluating crime prevention related programs or projects, combined with OCSAR’s close working relationships with SAPOL and the Crime Prevention Unit, have provided us with both the capacity and the opportunity to evaluate a range of crime prevention initiatives over the past year. Some of these have been new initiatives while others have been operating for some time. Collectively these evaluations, which aimed to determine the efficacy and outcomes of the respective initiatives, enable us to build a stronger evidence base as to ‘what works’ with respect to crime prevention.


Bush Breakaway - Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program

Bush Breakaway is a mentoring program for Indigenous youth in Ceduna who have been involved in offending or are at risk of future offending. The program aims to provide support to participants via a paid mentor in order to divert these young people from a criminal pathway. The program has operated in the Ceduna area for several years. Having lapsed in 2003, the program recommenced under the auspice of the Ceduna District Council as part of the Regional Crime Prevention Program. A planning committee met regularly in 2004 and the evaluation design has been built into the program’s operation where possible. The evaluation will seek to investigate process issues associated with the operation of the program and measure the outcomes for the ‘target group’ of young people. Interim reports will be provided to the Crime Prevention Unit and program Steering Committee on two occasions during 2005, with a final report to be completed in mid 2006.

The evaluation findings will assist the auspicing agency and funders to determine the future of the project.

Fake ID Project

The Fake ID project involved a partnership between the Sturt Drug Action Team and the Office of the Commissioner of Liquor and Gambling. It aimed to reduce the number of under-age people in the local area using false or altered identification in order to enter licensed premises or purchase alcohol. As part of the initiative several strategies were implemented, including the development and implementation of a training package for licensees and staff of licensed premises, the production and distribution of a pamphlet to Year 11 and 12 students, and uniform police spot checks on patrons in licensed premises.

OCSAR agreed to evaluate the pilot project, focusing particularly on the effectiveness of the pamphlet distributed to students. Almost five hundred students were surveyed several months after the pamphlet was distributed. Students were asked about their recall of information contained in the pamphlet, any attempts made to enter licensed premises or purchase alcohol and whether or not they possessed or had used fake or altered identification. The survey findings revealed that the pamphlet was largely ineffective in increasing young people’s awareness of the consequences of using fake or altered identification and that many of those surveyed had entered a licensed premise or purchased alcohol in the months preceding the survey.

The final report was completed in October 2004. The results will be used by the Drug and Alcohol Policy Section (SAPOL), Office of the Commissioner of Liquor and Gambling and Drug Action Teams to inform the development of future strategies. The Evaluation Findings report can be accessed on the OCSAR website: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_ reports/FakeID.pdf


Sexual Offence Awareness Program (SOAP) in Schools

In 2003 the South Coast Drug Action Team, with input from a range of services, developed a school-based program which aimed at promoting safe socialising practices and reducing the number of adolescents putting themselves at risk and potentially becoming the victim of sex-related crimes. The program comprised two lessons provided to upper high school students. The DAT Sergeant requested OCSAR conduct an evaluation of the initiative.

Students participating in the program were surveyed at four separate intervals about their knowledge of safe socialising practices and the prevention of sexual offences. The final evaluation report was completed in October 2004. It provided useful information about young people’s level of knowledge and practices which are being used by the Drug and Alcohol Policy Section (SAPOL) to consider possible ways in which the lessons could be delivered to other audiences and their content refined.

Crime Prevention Education Program (DECS)

The program was launched by the Department of Education and Children’s Services and involves Year 6/7 teachers (sometimes with the assistance of police) delivering education modules targeted at helping young people understand the consequences of crime and anti-social behaviours, helping them to develop constructive relationships with police and ultimately, assisting them to avoid involvement in criminal and anti-social behaviours.

At the request of the Crime Prevention Unit and the program’s Steering Committee OCSAR agreed to evaluate the program and, in particular, to gauge changes in student knowledge and attitudes (measured via surveys administered to students at both pilot and control sample schools prior to and following the delivery of the modules at pilot schools) and stakeholder viewpoints concerning the project (including DECS, teacher, parent and police views).

While data collection for the evaluation will not commence until Term 1 of 2005, substantial preparatory work was conducted in 2004. This included negotiations with schools to participate in the evaluation, the development of survey tools and obtaining ethics approval for the evaluation.

The findings from the evaluation will be provided to DECS to assist them in making decisions regarding the future delivery of the lessons to schools throughout South Australia and to identify any necessary modifications.

Other evaluations

In addition to the projects outlined above, OCSAR also evaluated a range of other initiatives, as described below.


Magistrates Court Diversion Program – analysis of post program offending

The Magistrates Court Diversion Program (MCDP), which commenced operation in the Adelaide Magistrates Court in August 1999, aims to ensure that people with a mental impairment who come before the court have access to appropriate interventions that will assist in addressing their offending behaviour. Participants who are accepted onto the program have their cases adjourned while an individualised intervention and treatment plan is developed to address their mental impairment needs.

OCSAR was commissioned by the Justice Strategy Unit to evaluate the program from its inception. A process-based evaluation, which showed that the program had largely been implemented as intended, was completed in 2002. An outcomes-based evaluation which sought to determine the program’s impact on post-program offending levels was completed in 2004. It comprised four components:

§ A comparison of pre-and post offending levels during the 12 months before and 12 months following program completion;

§ A prediction of the likelihood of offending in the 24 months after program completion and how this varied from one mental impairment typology to another;

§ Identification of those factors associated with post-program offending; and § Detailed case study assessments to determine what the program could do differently to

help reduce post-program offending.

Overall, this second stage of the evaluation found evidence of a reduction in the levels of recorded offending amongst MCDP clients after completing the program. This suggests that the program is successful in helping to address the causes of offending amongst this group of offenders.

The results from this study have been presented to various stakeholder groups including the Criminal Justice Leadership Group and the MCDP Steering Committee. The final report can be found on the OCSAR website http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/MCDP2.pdf.

Rollout of services for Victims of Crime in regional areas

In March 2001, the then Attorney-General provided funding to enable Victim Support Services Inc. (VSS) to extend the provision of services to victims of crime to five regional areas. The then Attorney-General requested that OCSAR undertake an independent evaluation in order to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the services provided. The evaluation commenced in March 2002.

The evaluation framework included multiple interviews with a broad range of stakeholders, along with analysis of client data provided by VSS. Two interim reports were submitted and updates tabled at the half yearly management meetings for regional services. A draft final report was submitted in June 2004 and minor amendments to this were completed in late 2004.


The evaluation found that the objectives set for the rollout were being met and that there were high levels of support for the initiative amongst those interviewed. These findings were used to support a decision to provide further funding to VSS and to expand the service to two new sites.

While it was originally intended to survey victims in regional areas, this has not been possible due to a lack of funding and difficulties in accessing necessary data. Should these barriers be overcome it is possible that this component of the evaluation may be conducted at a later date.

Blue Light camps (evaluation framework only)

As part of OCSAR’s Evaluation Advice Service, Blue Light sought help in developing an evaluation framework to assist them in internally monitoring and evaluating their Blue Light camps for ‘at-risk’ youth participants. The evaluation framework, based upon self-report surveys of participants both prior to and following their involvement in the Blue Light camp, was submitted to Blue Light in late 2004. In 2005, subject to approval and endorsement of the framework by Blue Light, a database will be developed by OCSAR which will allow Blue Light to record the survey data received. The framework provides the tools for both ongoing monitoring of the program combined with periodic evaluation.

Video-conferencing on the Anungu Pitjantjatjara Lands

In 2004 the Attorney-General’s Department commenced a small pilot program to determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of using video-conferencing to facilitate contact between solicitors, police, defendants and others prior to the court sitting each month at sites on the AP Lands. The project manager requested OCSAR’s assistance in evaluating the pilot.

An evaluation framework was devised and implemented prior to the December 2004 court sitting at Ernabella. Preliminary findings suggest that the use of video-conferencing technology was well-received by stakeholders and resulted in better preparation of some cases prior to the court hearing.

The use of video-conferencing facilities will be expanded to several other sites on the AP Lands in early 2005. OCSAR will assist in the evaluation of these sites. The findings will be used to inform decisions regarding the future use of video-conferencing on the AP Lands by Justice agencies.

Monitoring of the Adelaide City Dry Area Trial

In November 2003 the Adelaide Dry Area Trial was extended for a further year. At that time, it had already been operating for two years and had been the subject of two separate evaluations, the most recent of which recommended it be extended for a further 12 months and that during this period, it be subject to monitoring and data review. This recommendation was supported by Cabinet, who requested that OCSAR monitor the Trial over the next 12 months. Funding for this purpose was jointly provided by the Justice Portfolio and the Department of Premier and Cabinet.


During 2004 OCSAR:

§ Obtained and analysed existing electronic data considered relevant to the operation of the Dry Area Trial, including offences recorded and apprehensions data, expiation notices, Public Intoxication Act apprehensions, Police Computer Aided Despatch data and Ambulance data; and

§ Monitored the implementation of the 19 new service initiatives that were linked in some way to the Dry Area.

The final report, which was provided to Cabinet in September 2004, was divided into two sections. The first focused on the six key objectives of the Dry Area Trial and sought to identify whether these objectives were being achieved. The second section outlined possible strategies for ongoing monitoring of the Dry Area. Following the submission of this report in October 2004, Cabinet extended the Adelaide Dry Area for a further two years. The report is available from the OCSAR website: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/DryArea.pdf.

Evaluation advice service

In February 2004 OCSAR commenced a 12 month pilot of an Evaluation Advice Service. In many respects this formalised a role which OCSAR was increasingly being asked to fulfil by criminal justice agencies within the Portfolio. The response to the new Evaluation Advice Service has been very positive.

The objectives of the Evaluation Advice Service are:

§ To improve the commitment to evaluation by criminal justice (and related) agencies; § To build the capacity of criminal justice (and related) agencies to undertake evaluations; § To increase the number and range of programs which are evaluated; and § To improve the evidence base, via evaluation, for the success/shortcomings of criminal

justice related programs and policies.

Some of the types of assistance provided during 2004 include:

§ Training for small groups of staff; § Facilitation of project group meetings to scope projects and their evaluation; § Preparation of evaluation frameworks; § Development of data collection instruments; § Analysis of findings; and § Participation on staff/consultant selection panels.

Advice or assistance has been provided to a range of agencies, including:

§ The Social Inclusion Unit; § Strategic Development & Communications; § Department of Correctional Services;


§ SAPOL (including Drug & Alcohol Policy Section, the Crime Reduction Unit and Blue Light Camps); and

§ The Justice Strategy Division, Attorney-General’s Department.


Work Area 4: Statistical Monitoring

Since the establishment of the Office in 1978, one of its primary functions has been to monitor and report on trends in crime and criminal justice processes. While individual agencies maintain and publish their own statistics, these are generally designed to service the business needs of these departments and may use different definitions and counting rules that can make cross portfolio analysis difficult. OCSAR’s mandate is to serve as a central source of uniform statistics and information on South Australia’s entire criminal justice system.

There were a number of achievements in the area of statistical monitoring in 2004 including:

§ The publication of OCSAR’s three volume Crime and Justice reports and the commencement of a major review of this publication, to convert it to a financial year report;

§ The production of detailed annual and quarterly statistical reports from the South Australian Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) sites;

§ The production and enhancement of our Community Cabinet briefings, including the development of detailed demographic as well as crime data; and

§ Ongoing monitoring of a set of key illicit drug performance indicators relevant to the Justice Portfolio’s drug strategies.

Crime and Justice

Crime and Justice in South Australia is OCSAR’s flagship statistical report and has been produced since 1978. Production of Crime and Justice is part of OCSAR’s core work program and involves the analysis and processing of operational data supplied by SA Police, the Courts Administration Authority, Department for Correctional Services and Children, Youth and Family Services.

Calendar Year Report

Since 1998, Crime and Justice has been released as a three volume set comprising:

§ Vol. 1 – Offences reported to police, the victims and alleged perpetrators; § Vol. 2 – Adult Courts and Corrections; and § Vol. 3 – Juvenile Justice.

Each report contains an executive summary, interpretative analysis, numerous tables, graphs, and detailed documentation of counting rules and definitions. In combination, these three volumes of crime and criminal justice statistics are the most comprehensive published in Australia and are extensively used by a wide range of stakeholders, including Government and non-Government organizations, academics and the media. They also represent the primary source of information on crime and criminal justice available to the public.

The 2003 calendar year Crime and Justice reports can be downloaded from the OCSAR website (http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/publish_sections.html#candj).


Conversion to a financial year report

Given that Government agencies operate on a financial year basis, the Semple Review recommended that Crime and Justice move from a calendar year to a financial year reporting base. In 2004 OCSAR commenced work on this task by undertaking a comprehensive review of the Crime and Justice series, including the content of each report, the presentation of the information, the suitability of information for user requirements, consistency of structure across the three volumes, options for improving the automation and timeliness of the production process, the means and ease of access to desired information, and methods of distribution to key stakeholders.

Some of the changes now being implemented include:

§ The standardisation of offence groupings across all data sets in the report; § Revision of the counting rules for sexual offences; § The inclusion of a wide range of additional tables; § The production of the report as an electronic document only; § The development of a user friendly interface to the application that allows users to access

required information quickly and easily; and § The implementation of technology to minimise the need for clerical intervention in the

production of reports, thereby reducing the likelihood of introduced errors and reducing overall production time.

Because a significant amount of work is required to convert Crime and Justice to a financial year reporting base, it will be undertaken in a staged approach over several years. The intention is to produce experimental versions of the revised report, which will be distributed to key stakeholders for feedback on content and presentation. Preparation of these experimental versions are expected to be completed during 2005. As a first step, Volume 1 has been completely overhauled, and the programming changes are currently being made.

Assessing the level of drug use and drug related crime amongst the offender population

A key issue confronting the criminal justice system is the extent to which offenders commit crime either to support a drug habit or while under the influence of drugs. Until recently, information on these issues was lacking. However, with the introduction of the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia and the Drug Use Careers of Offenders projects, this information gap is now being addressed. Both projects are managed by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) with predominately Commonwealth and some state funding. The AIC is responsible for data collection and analysis at a national level, while OCSAR undertakes more detailed analysis at a state level for use by operational police, policy makers and other key stakeholders within Government.

Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA)

Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) has been operating in South Australia since the second quarter of 2002. The project involves quarterly interviewing and drug testing of detainees


held in police custody at selected police stations and watch houses in seven sites around Australia, including the Adelaide City Watch House and Elizabeth Police Station cells. These interviews aim to identify the level and nature of drug use amongst this group of alleged offenders. Each quarter, a new addendum is included in the questionnaire to examine additional areas of interest. In 2004, topics covered included weapon use, drug driving, mental health and amphetamine use.

In South Australia DUMA is funded by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department and the South Australian Attorney-General’s Department. In 2004 funding was provided from the Australian Government’s National Illicit Drug Strategy. In-kind support is also provided by SA Police.

During 2004 OCSAR released eight reports from the DUMA project, including two annual statistical publications for the 2002/03 and 2003/04 financial years (each comprising four volumes) and six quarterly reports (April - June 2003 through to July - September 2004). These reports contain detailed information on self-reported drug use and urinalysis results obtained from respondents, along with details of their previous criminal offending, socio-economic data and self reported drug related offending. These findings are used by both Justice and various non-Justice agencies to monitor changes in local drug trends, to assess the effectiveness of drug related strategies and for operational purposes. Each of OCSAR’s DUMA reports can be downloaded from the OCSAR website: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/publish.html.

Drug Use Careers of Offenders (DUCO)

The Drug Use Careers of Offenders Project (DUCO) involves interviewing prisoners held in various correctional agencies across six jurisdictions. While DUMA is based on quarterly interviews with arrestees, for DUCO only one round of interviews was conducted in each state. In South Australia interviews were conducted in 2004 with sentenced prisoners at the Adelaide Women’s Prison and juveniles in South Australia’s two secure care facilities. During these interviews information was collected on a broad range of issues, including family background, custodial and offending history, and patterns of drug use.

OCSAR obtained the South Australian data pertaining to the surveyed female prisoners in late 2004 and is currently drafting a report summarizing the key findings. It is anticipated that OCSAR’s analysis of data relating to juveniles will commence in early 2005.

The DUCO information will be useful for assessing the role of treatment both within and outside the correctional system and examining the intersection of drug use patterns and criminal careers.

Justice Portfolio Illicit Drug Strategy Performance Indicators

The aim of this project, which was initiated by the Justice Portfolio Leadership Council in July 2002, is to identify and monitor key performance indicators that can be used by the Portfolio to measure success in achieving its Illicit Drug Strategy objectives.


To identify appropriate Performance Indicators and to set specific targets, a working group comprising representatives from the Justice Strategy Unit, SA Police, the Courts Administration Authority, Department for Correctional Services, SA Ambulance Services, OCSAR and the Crime Prevention Unit was formed. As a first step, trend data on drug use and its impact, particularly as it relates to the criminal justice system, was extracted and key themes identified. These formed the basis for the development of a small number of priority indicators, which were subsequently endorsed by the Criminal Justice Leadership Group.

OCSAR now has the ongoing task of preparing annual trend analysis reports, which will monitor the extent to which the targets set for the Portfolio’s Drug Strategy are being achieved.

The 2003/04 annual report, which updated the trend data pertinent to the performance indicators and incorporated a set of agreed targets, was presented to the Criminal Justice Leadership Group in November 2004 and is now available on the OCSAR website: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/IDPI.pdf

Community Cabinet Briefings

This ongoing task was initiated in response to a request from the Attorney-General’s Office and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for regular briefings for regional Cabinet meetings. For each Community Cabinet meeting, OCSAR prepares detailed crime statistics and a demographic profile of the area where Cabinet is scheduled to meet. This usually involves an analysis of trends in one to three Local Government Areas.

During 2004, OCSAR prepared Community Cabinet briefings for the Local Government Areas of Adelaide, Barossa, Berri and Barmara, Ceduna, Charles Sturt, Coober Pedy, Gawler, Light, Loxton Waikerie, Marion, Port Adelaide Enfield, Prospect, Renmark Paringa, Unley, West Torrens and Gerard.

As part of its developmental work, OCSAR reviewed and substantially modified the content and format of these briefings to ensure they were easy to read and interpret by those outside the Justice Portfolio. OCSAR also streamlined production of these briefings by developing numerous programs that automate the data manipulation, analysis, and production of graphs and tables (see Work Area 1 of this report for further details). This work has substantially reduced the production time for these and similar crime and demographic briefings. Further developmental work will be undertaken in 2005 with the establishment of a detailed profile of individuals apprehended within the region of interest.

Ngaanyatarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY) Lands

The Attorney-General’s Department is participating in a joint project with the Western Australian and Northern Territory governments to review the range of services and needs of Indigenous people from the NPY Lands. In 2004, OCSAR produced several reports on crime trends in the NPY Lands. These reports contained detailed analyses of recorded offences, apprehensions, victims and court data as at 31st December 2003.


OCSAR also prepared 42 demographic profile reports for the various Indigenous communities across the three jurisdictions that make up the NPY Lands. These reports are now being used by staff within each of the jurisdictions to assist in the preparation of a detailed review and restructuring of policies and procedures that are more coordinated and consistent across each jurisdiction and reflect the joint needs of the NPY communities.

South Australian child and youth profile

During 2004 the Adelaide Office of the Australian Bureau of Statistics worked with a number of South Australian government and non-government agencies to produce a profile of children and young people in South Australia from a broad range of perspectives to provide a detailed source of information for state government policy makers and service providers. The profile includes chapters on population, education and training, health, labour, living arrangements and housing, income, and safety and justice.

OCSAR was responsible for providing data and commentary on the ‘Safety and Justice’ chapter. This included information on the number of apprehensions of young people aged 10 to 24 years during 2001 to 2003, differentiated by sex, age, Indigenous status and offence type.

The profile has been completed and is available (for use within State Government only) from the ABS website.


Work Area 5: Information Dissemination

OCSAR’s information dissemination strategy has three key goals, namely:

§ To provide an ad hoc Information Service; § To disseminate key findings from its research, evaluation and statistical monitoring work

program; and § To increase awareness of the Office, its work and the services it can provide in order to

ensure that its skills and resources are used effectively by the Portfolio.

These strategies are in line with OCSAR’s key objective to disseminate information on crime and criminal justice to Government, members of Parliament, relevant agencies and the community in order to increase the general level of understanding and to inform public debate and policy development in these areas.

1. Information Service

OCSAR continues to be a primary contact for organisations and individuals seeking information on crime and the criminal justice system in South Australia. During 2004, OCSAR’s Information Officer and other staff responded to approximately 500 information requests, with each request requiring between five minutes to 10 hours to process. In some instances, the requests evolved into longer projects requiring several weeks to complete. In addition to these direct requests for data, approximately 23,000 visits were made to the OCSAR website in 2004.

The Office is often required to provide information in response to legislative changes, court decisions or criminal offences that are scrutinized not only by the public but also the media. The most frequently requested information during 2004 included offence data for selected Local Government Areas, drive causing death offences, age of victims of crime, drink spiking, demographic profiles, sexual offences and motor vehicle offences.

Continuing the trend of recent years, there has been a decline in the number of relatively simple data requests being received from external clients such as students, the media or the general public. This is due to the increased availability of much of this information via the OCSAR website. To counter-balance this decline, OCSAR is experiencing increasing demands for more complex data. Many of these requests involve tracking individuals or offences through multiple stages of the criminal justice system and the development of complex programs to extract and analyse the data.

2. Dissemination of OCSAR’s research and evaluation findings

While the Office produces a range of publications, such as Information Bulletins, Research Reports, Crime and Justice, and Evaluation Findings, it recognises that many of its key


stakeholders do not have the time to read these detailed reports. Hence, OCSAR has developed a range of different strategies to ensure that its key research findings reach the appropriate audience. This includes:

§ Maintaining a website from which OCSAR publications can be downloaded; § Organizing a regular seminar series; and § Giving presentations to key stakeholder groups, such as the Criminal Justice Leadership

Group, and delivering papers at national and international conferences.

Website

The OCSAR website (www.ocsar.sa.gov.au) is a key point of contact for our external clients. During 2004 the website received 23,000 visits, at an average of 1,896 visits per month.

The website is used as the primary distribution vehicle for all publicly released OCSAR reports. As each report is loaded on to the website, emails advising of its availability are circulated to individuals on OCSAR’s mailing lists, members of the AGD intranet, and broadcast via the AIC Librarian’s distribution list and Crimnet.

In addition to its publications, the OCSAR website also provides descriptions of current projects, staff profiles, stats of the week and various news items. Late in 2004 OCSAR also launched its Crime Mapper application on the website which, as noted earlier, allows users to produce numerous thematic maps of the spatial distribution of crime across the Adelaide metropolitan area.

OCSAR Seminar Series

During 2004 OCSAR convened a series of seminars to disseminate the findings of its key research and evaluation projects and to promote broader discussion of the issues. The seminars were attended by representatives of divisions within the Justice Portfolio, as well as other government departments and related agencies.

In December OCSAR organised a full day seminar entitled “Illicit Drugs and Crime: Exploring South Australia’s Response”. This seminar, attended by 65 people, provided OCSAR with the opportunity to showcase the range of work it is currently undertaking on drug related initiatives.

During the year it also held three shorter seminars, as specified below:

§ Crime and Criminal Justice data; an overview of statistics held by OCSAR and how to use them; § DUCO - Drugs and Crime - A study of incarcerated female offenders - key speaker Holly Johnson

(AIC); and § Magistrates Court Diversion Program: An analysis of post program offending.


Staff Presentations

OCSAR staff gave presentations to a number of forums organised by other agencies and academic institutions in 2004 (see Appendix D). For example, presentations were given to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Juvenile Justice System, Sociology students at Flinders University, the State Reference Group on Drugs and the Crime Reduction Unit of SAPOL. In addition, OCSAR staff presented on the following topics:

§ The Magistrates Court Diversion Program to the Mental Impairment Implementation Recommendations Committee;

§ Estimating the number of persons in Secure Care to a number of groups consisting of representatives from CYFS;

§ Drug Court Re-offending Levels to the Criminal Justice Leadership Group, the Drug Court Steering Committee and to representatives from various Government and non-government agencies at the OCSAR seminar on “Illicit Drugs and Crime”; and

§ Juvenile Justice to the Inter-Government Youth Justice Advisory Committee Workshop, a CYFS stakeholder forum and to the Australian Association of Social Workers.

3. Increasing awareness of the Office: OCSAR’s Newsletter

To keep readers up-to-date with developments within the Office, in 2004 we launched a regular newsletter entitled OCSAR News. Three editions were released during 2004, commencing in August. These were distributed to key stakeholders on OCSAR’s mailing lists and uploaded to our website.

The newsletters included items on key projects, staff changes, details on upcoming publications and information about our seminar series on crime and criminal justice issues. Copies of the OCSAR News are published on the website: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/publish_newsletter.html .


Work Area 6: CARS

The Comprehensive Auto-Theft Research System (CARS) is funded by the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council (NMVTRC) to provide a national statistical monitoring and research service for government and industry in the area of motor vehicle theft. The NMVTRC, which reports to the Australian and New Zealand Crime Prevention Ministerial Forum, commissioned OCSAR to develop the National CARS project because of OCSAR’s expertise and experience with criminal justice data, database and application development, statistics and research and it understanding of vehicle theft issues through its work with the South Australian Vehicle Theft Reduction Committee.

CARS was established in the Office of Crime Statistics and Research in late 1994 to service the South Australian Vehicle Theft Reduction Council and other stakeholders’ needs for comprehensive, timely and detailed vehicle theft data. The central feature of the project is a relational database that integrates information from police, insurance companies, registration authorities, vehicle manufacturers and others into a single source that can be used to monitor trends, undertake research, and develop and evaluate effective vehicle theft reduction policies. In 1999, OCSAR was commissioned by the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council Inc. (NMVTRC) to expand the project nationally and to provide ongoing statistical and research support to the Council and their stakeholders.

Since its establishment CARS has been entirely externally funded, first by the insurance industry and the RAA of SA within South Australia and, since July 1999, by the NMVTRC.

Over the project’s 10 year history it has grown in reputation and is now recognised internationally as a ‘best practice’ approach for the analysis and research of motor vehicle theft issues. This recognition was highlighted by two events during 2004. Firstly, in March CARS received an award from the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators for its “Outstanding Contribution to the Reduction of Motor Vehicle Theft throughout Australasia”. Secondly, CARS was commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice to undertake a feasibility study into expanding CARS to include New Zealand motor vehicle theft data. If judged feasible, it is likely that OCSAR will commence capturing and analyzing New Zealand data sometime in 2005.

Throughout 2004, the CARS team continued to provide the NMVTRC with quarterly and annual statistical reports on national and state vehicle theft trends. The 2004 annual report included a complete redesign of the CD interface/packaging. The team also responded to over 400 ad hoc data requests from a wide range of stakeholders, including the NMVTRC, insurers, police, vehicle registration authorities, vehicle manufacturers, local governments and crime prevention groups.

The CARS team continued to develop and update the ‘CARS Analyser’, an application that allows users to easily query the CARS database over the internet and export their results as tables, maps or excel spreadsheets. The application was updated 13 times throughout 2004, including


enhancements such as quick stats, a motorcycle body type filter and the revision of all data to updated LGA/SLA boundaries (Australian Standard Geographical Classification 2004). The Analyser executed almost 5,800 queries in 2004.

CARS Knowledge Bank

The CARS Knowledge Bank is a key word searchable database summarizing national and international research, statistics and trends in relation to motor vehicle theft. The Knowledge Bank monitors the release of research and literature and updates references within the application, ensuring the provision of current motor vehicle theft information. The CARS Knowledge Bank was established and regularly upgraded in 2004.

VIN Dots Study

The National CARS Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Dot Study involves an initial analysis of VIN Dot data received and the subsequent production of quarterly reports for the NMVTRC. VIN Dots are a form of whole-of-vehicle identification that is strongly supported by the NMVTRC as a means of reducing professional vehicle theft. VIN Dots provide a means of identifying the true origin of vehicle parts which have no other means of identification, thus reducing the economic value of the vehicle and its parts to professional thieves. The longitudinal evaluation now being undertaken by CARS is monitoring the theft patterns of all VIN Dotted BMW, HSW and Subaru vehicles.

Data Quality Improvement

The National CARS project produces automated data quality reports for each agency that supplies data to the project. The reports were completed and distributed in 2004, and the CARS team will continue to monitor data quality on an ongoing basis.

Monthly Reporting to Stakeholders

The National CARS Project reports to a number of stakeholders on a monthly basis. For example, the CARS team supplies VicRoads (Victoria) with monthly ‘Early Warning’ bulletins, and the Northern Territory Police with monthly summary spreadsheets.

The National CARS team are currently negotiating with the New South Wales Police Service regarding the monthly supply of CARS data. User acceptance testing by CARS commenced in December 2004 and it is anticipated that the monthly supply of data to New South Wales will be implemented in January 2005.


Local Government Area Profiles

The Local Government Area (LGA) profiles comprise a brief report that describes the motor vehicle theft profile, demographic profile and relationship between the two for a selected area. In 2004, production of the LGA Profiles was automated, and the reports incorporated into NMVTRC’s local government awareness campaign. The production of selected profiles will continue on an ongoing basis.

New Zealand CARS

The year 2004 saw the development of a plan to include motor vehicle theft data from New Zealand into the National CARS database. At the request of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice and the NMVTRC, the CARS team undertook consultations with potential data providers in New Zealand. A report into the feasibility of establishing ‘NZ CARS’ was completed and ready for submission to the New Zealand Ministry of Justice by the end of 2004. Development of the project will continue in 2005.

National Meetings Attended

During 2004 CARS staff attended meetings of, and made presentations to, national and international bodies such as the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators (International Conference, Belgium and the Australasian Conference, Brisbane), Royal New Zealand Police Service (Vehicle Crime Workshop and Senior Executive Group), Insurance Council of New Zealand, IAG New Zealand Ltd., AMI Insurance Senior Management, Vero Senior Management Group, Farmers Mutual Insurance, Lumley General Insurance, Tower Insurance, and the New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority.

Involvement/contribution to other OCSAR work

CARS makes an important contribution to the work of the Office in numerous ways. In addition to helping OCSAR extend its knowledge of motor vehicle theft, it provides opportunities to access data and develop contacts outside the traditional criminal justice arena. Specialist skills possessed by the CARS project team have also contributed to the development of new and innovative tools and applications in the Office. Examples of this include the contribution CARS staff have made to the development of crime mapping applications and interactive analysers. In both cases these applications are now being used by OCSAR staff to service data requests and Community Cabinet briefings, and have been incorporated into the OCSAR website and the revised Crime and Justice application. Access to these applications has also been provided to other Justice Portfolio users and the programming code behind the applications has been given to Child, Youth and Family Services to assist in the development of similar applications within their agency.


C O N C L U S I O N W H A T I S P L A N N E D F O R

2 0 0 5

Many of the projects and initiatives commenced in 2004 will continue into 2005.

In terms of data management OCSAR will:

§ Continue to enhance the Office’s capacity to track offenders through the criminal justice system;

§ Explore the possibility of linking criminal justice databases with those held by other non-criminal justice agencies;

§ Negotiate new downloads from other criminal justice databases, such as Expiation Notices;

§ Continue to work through forums such as the Data Quality Committee and the National Criminal Courts and Crime Statistics Advisory Groups to enhance the quality of criminal justice data at both a state and national level; and

§ Continue the development of the Crime Mapper and associated applications to ensure easier access to criminal justice data by members of the public and external stakeholders.

In the research area, we will:

§ Continue to focus on juvenile justice issues, with an emphasis on identifying and understanding the risk and protective factors associated with offending, particularly amongst Indigenous young people;

§ Complete the linking of CYFS mandated notification and criminal justice data to enable tracking of child abuse cases;

§ Participate in a 12 month study on the relationship between chronic offending and multiple service use amongst young people; and

§ Develop an integrated stock and flow model of the juvenile justice system.

In the evaluation area we anticipate that in 2005 we will:

§ Complete evaluations of the Police Drug Diversion Initiative, the pilot Community Resilience Program in Murray Bridge and the Drug Court Pilot Program;

§ Continue evaluations of the Bush Break-Away Program in Ceduna and CARDS, which in 2005 will be extended to encompass a juvenile component;

§ Commence evaluations of: § The Family Violence Court and, the associated Violence Intervention Programs, if

funding is approved; § The Crime Prevention Education Program; and § Specific projects under the Regional Crime Prevention Program; and


§ Continue to enhance and expand OCSAR’s Evaluation Advice Service.

During 2005 OCSAR will continue to develop and refine its statistical monitoring role by:

§ Finalising the conversion of the Crime and Justice publication to a financial year format; § Enhancing the content and format of our Community Cabinet briefings; § Extending the DUMA and Justice Portfolio Illicit Drug Strategy Performance Indicators

reports; and § Completing the analysis of both female and juvenile data obtained through the DUCO

project.

In addition to servicing the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council and its stakeholders, the CARS project will:

§ Complete its research on criminal careers of car thieves; § Commence a research study on car-jackings in South Australia; § Explore the feasibility of developing a web-based tool to analyse vehicle registrations data; § Continue to work with the South Australia Vehicle Theft Reduction Committee including

undertaking an evaluation of the Committee’s Immobiliser Initiative; and § Continue to enhance and refine CARS products and reports.

In addition, CARS will undertake further work with New Zealand’s Ministry of Justice to explore the possibility of integrating their vehicle theft data into the CARS database and expansion of its research focus.


A P P E N D I X A

OCSAR Staff in

2004

Service Dates Position

Joy Wundersitz 1995 - Director

Paul Thomas 1990 - Deputy Director

Ingrid Ahmer 2004 - Assistant Database Manager

Graham Bath 2000 - Manager, National CARS Project

Fiona Bruce 2002 - Research Officer

Carol Castle 1989 - Database Manager

Tina Conroy 2000 - Office Administrator/Information Officer

Elissa Corlett Nov. 2003 - Nov. 2004 Senior Research Officer

Justine Doherty 1993 - 2004 Senior Research Officer

Norah Fahy April 2004 - Feb. 2005 Senior Research/Evaluation Officer

Bevan Fletcher 2004 - Senior Research/Evaluation Officer

Natalie Gatis 2000 - Administrative Officer

Nichole Hunter 1999 - A/Manager, Research

Judy Harvey July - Oct. 2004 Senior Evaluation Officer

Brianna Kenneally 2003 - Research Officer

Jayne Marshall 1996 - Senior Research Officer

Bev O’Brien 2001 - Manager, Evaluation

Rob Potter 2000 - Dec. 2004 Senior Research Officer, National CARS Project

Lynne Sampson 1996 - Codes Project Officer

Grace Skrzypiec 2003 - Senior Research and Statistical Officer

Nick Turner 2002 - Senior Research and Statistical Officer

Richard Yin 2004 - Database Analyst/Administrator, National CARS Project

Kristin Zeman 2001 - 2004 Database Analyst/Administrator, National CARS Project

Emma Ziersch 2001 - Project Officer, National CARS Project


A P P E N D I X B

Justice Portfolio Strategic Plan 2004-2006

1) To enhance all South Australians have access to democratic, fair and just services

Focus Sub-foci Examples of OCSAR projects

Legislation and advice • Continuing to create a robust, just and equitable legislative framework

Summary of bail granted & bail breached statistics: cases finalised during 2003/04 (refer to page 31).

Diversity and equity • Protecting the public from unlawful discrimination

An investigation of the risk and protective factors associated with Aboriginal juvenile offending. (refer to page 31).

• Improving public access to justice services

Evaluation of the rollout of services for Victims of Crime in regional areas (refer to page 41).

Video-conferencing on the AP Lands (refer to page 42).

Building resilient communities

• Working across Government and communities to deal with the causes and effects of people being socially excluded

Evaluation of Murray Bridge Community Resilience Project (refer to page 34.)

2) To ensure that crime and disorder are dealt with effectively in our state

Focus Sub foci Examples of OCSAR projects

Crime Prevention • Working in partnership to address the causes of crime

Evaluation of Fake ID project (refer to page 39)

Evaluation of Magistrates Court Diversion Program -Analysis of post program offending (refer to page 40).

An investigation of the risk and protective factors associated with Aboriginal juvenile offending (refer to page 31).

Evaluation framework for Blue Light Camps (refer to page 41).

Evaluation of Sexual Offence Awareness Program (SOAP) in schools (refer to page 39).


• Working to prevent drug misuse and its harm in society and prisons

Evaluation of Drug Court (refer to page 37).

Evaluation of Police Drug Diversion Initiative (refer to page 35).

Evaluation of Drug Action Teams (refer to page 34).

Evaluation of the Trial of Indigenous Community Constables working with Drug Action Teams (refer to page 35).

Evaluation of the Court Assessment Referral & Drugs Scheme (CARDS) (refer to page 36).

Justice Portfolio Drug Strategy Indicators (refer to page 46).

DUMA and DUCO statistical monitoring projects (refer to page 45, 46).

• Working to decrease the incidence of familial violence

Evaluation of Family Violence Court (refer to page 22, 55).

• Working with communities and other government agencies to target disorderly behaviour

Monitoring of the Adelaide City Dry Area Trial (refer to page 42).

Public order

• Improving crime management Criminal Justice Data Quality Committee (refer to page 24).

Crime Mapper (refer to page 22).

Modelling the Juvenile Justice System (refer to page 28).

Estimating future numbers in Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) Secure Care facilities (refer to page 28).

Justice Processes • Strengthening systems to protect children, victims and witnesses

Attrition rates of child victimisation incidents as they proceed from CYFS, to the criminal justice system through to finalisation in court (refer to page 29.)

Evaluation of the roll out of services for Victims of Crime in regional areas (refer to page 41).

• Ensuring Aboriginal people receive fair and just outcomes

Statistical monitoring of the nature and extent of Aboriginal involvement in the criminal justice system (refer to page 31).

Video-conferencing on the AP Lands (refer to page 42).

Ngaanyatarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY Lands) (refer to page 47).


• Enhancing programs to divert juveniles from the criminal justice system

Evaluation of the Police Drug Diversion Initiative (refer to page 45).

Statistical monitoring of the juvenile justice system, including police cautioning and family conferencing (refer to page 28).

Evaluation of the Crime Prevention Education Program (DECS) (refer to page 40).

Evaluation of Bush Breakaway - Indigenous Youth Mentoring Program (refer to page 38).

• Providing independent and effective prosecutions and legal services

LSC After Hours Bail Advice Pilot Program at the Holden Hill Police Station (refer to page 37).

LSC Expanded Duty Solicitor Service at the Adelaide Magistrates Court Pilot Program (refer to page 38).

Explanations for the high proportion of South Australian Higher Court matters classified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as ‘withdrawn’ in 2001/02 (refer to page 27).

• Broadening the range of pre-sentencing and sentencing options

Drug Court Program - analysis of retention rates and post program offending (refer to page 37).

Evaluation of the Magistrates Court Diversion Program - analysis of post program offending (refer to page 40).


Profile of chronic offenders 16-20 years old - Framework for the Social Inclusion Unit’s ‘Breaking the Cycle’ proposal (refer to page 30).

• Enhancing justice responses for vulnerable people with a mental impairment or disability


• Educating the public on justice issues and institutions

Provision of an Information Service via:

• the OCSAR website (refer to page 50).

• ad-hoc statistical advice (refer to page 49).

• report publications (refer to page 63).

• seminar series (refer to page 68).

• Community Cabinet Briefings (refer to page 47).


Rehabilitation • Improving rehabilitative, preventative and treatment programs for offenders

Advice to DCS re evaluation of treatment program (refer to page 43).

Drug Court Program - analysis of retention rates and post program offending (refer to page 37).



3) To excel in service delivery, innovation and government efficiency

Focus Sub focus Examples of OCSAR projects

• Providing strategic policy advice and research

OCSAR’s total work plan contributes to these three sub-foci,

• Planning effectively including:

Public policy and planning

• Improving our measurement and monitoring of justice services

Modelling the Juvenile Justice System (refer to page 28).

Crime and Justice (refer to page 44).

Criminal Justice Data Quality Committee (refer to page 24).

Participation in National Criminal Court Statistics and National Crime Statistics Advisory Groups (refer to page 18).

Development of Offender Tracking System (refer to page 21).

Crime Mapper (refer to page 22).


A P P E N D I X C

Publications/briefing papers completed in 2004

• Nichole Hunter and Carol Castle (January 2004) Technical Paper: Explanations for the high proportion of South Australian matters classified by the ABS as withdrawn in 2001/02, 18 pgs

• Jayne Marshall and Nichole Hunter (February 2004) Information Bulletin No. 37: A profile of remandees in custody in South Australia on 30 June 2002 , 16 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB37.pdf

• Grace Skrzypiec, Joy Wundersitz and Helen McRostie (March 2004) Research Findings: Magistrates Court Diversion Program: An analysis of post-program offending, 18 pgs

• Nichole Hunter, Carol Castle and Joy Wundersitz (May 2004) The link between adult and juvenile offending. Briefing prepared for the Social Inclusion Unit, 20 pgs

• Jayne Marshall (June 2004) Information Bulletin No. 38: National Crime Statistics - Recorded Crime Victims 2003: the South Australian Perspective, 18 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB38.pdf

• Nichole Hunter (June 2004) Graffiti offences within the Christies Beach Court Jurisdiction, 1/1/2000 - 1/1/2003. Briefing Paper prepared for the Justice Strategy Division, 9 pgs

• Fiona Bruce and Bev O’Brien (June 2004) Drug Action Teams: Final Report, Evaluation Report, 117 pgs

• Fiona Bruce and Bev O’Brien (June 2004) Evaluation of the Victims of Crime in Regional Areas: Final Report, Evaluation Report, 71 pgs

• Grace Skrzypiec, Joy Wundersitz and Helen McRostie (July 2004) Magistrates Court Diversion program: An analysis of post-program offending , Research Report, 162 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/MCDP2.pdf

• Fiona Bruce, Grace Skrzypiec, Joy Wundersitz and Bev O’Brien (August 2004) Contact with the Criminal Justice System by individuals under PDDI Issue No. 1, Briefing Paper, 40 pgs

• Bevan Fletcher and Bev O’Brien (August 2004) Evaluation Findings: Fake ID Project Evaluation, Evaluation Report, 36 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/ evaluation_reports/FakeID.pdf

• Bevan Fletcher and Bev O’Brien (August 2004) Sexual Offence Awareness Project Evaluation, Evaluation Report, 17pgs

• Carol Castle (August 2004) Controlled substances (Serious Drug Offences) Amendment Bill 2004, Briefing Paper, 13 pgs


• John Tomaino (September 2004) Information Bulletin No. 39 Aboriginal (Nunga) Courts , 16 pgs http://ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB39.pdf

• Norah Fahy (September 2004) Demographic profile of CARDS clients and lessons from Port Adelaide, Briefing Paper 1, 9 pgs

• Nichole Hunter, Judy Harvey, Bev O’Brien and Joy Wundersitz (September 2004) Monitoring the Adelaide Dry Area , Research Report, 102 pgs

Additional briefing papers • Nichole Hunter (August 2004) Monitoring the Adelaide Dry Area: Key

findings from police expiation notice data, 36 pgs • Nichole Hunter (August 2004) Monitoring the Adelaide Dry Area: Key

findings from PIA Data, 25 pgs • Nichole Hunter (August 2004) Monitoring the Adelaide Dry Area: Key

findings from computer aided dispatch data, 11 pgs • Nichole Hunter (August 2004) Monitoring the Adelaide Dry Area: Key

findings from Offences recorded by police, 51 pgs • Nichole Hunter (August 2004) Monitoring the Adelaide Dry Area: Key

findings from Ambulance ‘patient carries’ data, 9 pgs

• Joy Wundersitz and Grace Skrzypiec Juvenile Justice: Old challenges for a new millennium (Chapter in Chappell, D and Wilson, P) Australian Criminology, LBC, 2004 (in press).

• Brianna Kenneally and Bev O’Brien (October 2004) Evaluation of the trial of Community Constables working with Drug Action Teams, Evaluation Report, 70 pgs

• Jayne Marshall and Carol Castle (October 2004) Summary of bail granted and bail breach statistics: Cases finalized during 2003/04, Briefing Paper, 13 pgs

• Jayne Marshall (October 2004) Police apprehensions involving young people aged 10 to 24 years, Briefing Paper, 15 pgs

• Lynne Sampson (November 2004) Technical Paper: Major Legislative Changes in South Australia: 1998-2004, 28 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/technical_papers/ Legislative_changes10.pdf

• Fiona Bruce and Bev O’Brien (November 2004) Profile of PDDI clients October 2001 to July 2004, Briefing Paper, 35 pgs

• Bevan Fletcher (November 2004) Evaluation Framework for Blue Light Camps, Briefing Paper, 26 pgs

• Brianna Kenneally and Joy Wundersitz (Nov 2004) Justice Portfolio Illicit Drug Strategy Performance Indicators Annual Report, 29 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/ research_reports/IDPI.pdf

• November 2004) Crime and Justice in South Australia, 2003. Offences reported to Police, the Victims and Alleged Perpetrators, 225 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/ crime_justice/OFF_Text2003.pdf

• (November 2004) Crime and Justice in South Australia, 2003. Adult Courts and Corrections, 195 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/crime_justice/ACC_Text2003.pdf


• (November 2004) Crime and Justice in South Australia, 2003. Juvenile Justice, 155 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/crime_justice/JJ_Text2003.pdf

• Nichole Hunter (December 2004) The Expanded Duty Solicitor Service at the AMC: Key Findings from the evaluation, Evaluation Report, 15 pgs

• Elissa Corlett, Grace Skrzypiec and Nichole Hunter (December 2004) Offending profiles of SA Drug Court Pilot Program ‘completers’ , Research Report, 33 pgs

DUMA

• Nick Turner (January 2004) DUMA Quarterly Report April- June 2003, 52 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/DUMA_2003_Q2.pdf

• Nick Turner (June 2004) DUMA Quarterly Report July - September 2003, 54 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/DUMA_2003_Q3.pdf

• Nick Turner (August 2004) DUMA Quarterly Report October - December 2003, 52 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/DUMA_2003_Q4.pdf

• Nick Turner (June 2004) DUMA Annual Report Volume 1: Adelaide Watchhouse 2002/2003, 120 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/duma_ar_1.pdf

• Nick Turner (June 2004) DUMA Annual Report Volume 2: Elizabeth Police Station 2002/2003, 118 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/duma_ar_2.pdf

• Nick Turner (June 2004) DUMA Annual Report Volume 3: Comparison of South Australian DUMA sites, 32 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/ duma_ar_3.pdf

• Nick Turner (June 2004) DUMA Annual Report Volume 4: DUMA Addenda – 2002/03 (Drug Dealing, Weapon Use, Violence in the Home and Drug Driving), 51 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/duma_ar_4.pdf

• Nick Turner (August 2004) DUMA Quarterly Report January - March 2004, 56 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/DUMA_2004_Q1.pdf

• Nick Turner (September 2004) DUMA Quarterly Report April - June 2004, 56 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/DUMA_2004_Q2.pdf

• Nick Turner (November 2004) DUMA Quarterly Report July - September 2004, 56 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/DUMA_2004_Q3.pdf

• Nick Turner (December 2004) DUMA Annual Report Volume 1: Adelaide Watchhouse 2003/04, 107 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/ DUMA_ar_1_20034.pdf

• Nick Turner (December 2004) DUMA Annual Report Volume 2: Elizabeth Police Station 2003/04, 109 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/ DUMA_ar_2_20034.pdf


• Nick Turner (December 2004) DUMA Annual Report Volume 3: Comparison of South Australian DUMA sites, 2003/04, 33 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/ research_reports/DUMA_ar_3_20034.pdf

• Nick Turner (December 2004) DUMA Annual Report Volume 4: DUMA Addenda - 2003/04 (Amphetamine Use, Gambling, Weapon use and Drug Driving), 48 pgs http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/research_reports/DUMA_ar_4_20034.pdf

Demographic Profiles/Community Cabinets

• Nick Turner (February 2004) Charles Sturt Local Government Area - Briefing Paper prepared for Community Cabinet meeting, 19 pgs

• Nick Turner (March 2004) Barossa LGA, Gawler LGA, Light LGA - Briefing Paper prepared for Community Cabinet meeting, 59 pgs

• Nick Turner (March 2004) Northern Territory and Western Australia component of the NPY Lands: A demographic profile, Briefing Paper, 142 pgs

• Nick Turner (April 2004) North West Metro (including Port Adelaide LGA, Enfield LGA, Charles Sturt LGA and West Torrens LGA) - Briefing Paper prepared for Community Cabinet meeting, 80 pgs

• Nick Turner (June 2004) An analysis of demographic and crime trends in Port Adelaide/Enfield, Charles Sturt LGAs, Briefing Paper, 70 pgs

• Nick Turner (June 2004) An analysis of demographic and crime trends in Ceduna, Briefing Paper, 20 pgs

• Nick Turner (July 2004) Recorded Crime Trends and demographic profile - Coober Pedy LGA - Briefing Paper prepared for Community Cabinet meeting on 25 July 2004, 45 pgs

• Nick Turner (June 2004) Port Adelaide, Enfield, Charles Sturt and West Torrens: A profile of the Indigenous Community’s involvement with the criminal justice system, Briefing Paper, 19 pgs

• Nick Turner (June 2004) Ceduna: A profile of the Indigenous Community’s involvement with the criminal justice system, Briefing Paper, 19 pgs

• Nick Turner (July 2004) Recorded Crime Trends and demographic profile - Riverland Area (including Berri and Barmara LGA, Loxton Waikerie LGA, Renmark Paringa LGA and Gerard Indigenous Location) - Briefing Paper prepared for Community Cabinet meeting, 126 pgs

• Nick Turner (August 2004) Various Postal Area Demographic Profiles prepared for Community Safety and Justice, Westwood:

• 5020, 8 pgs • 5021, 8 pgs • 5022, 8 pgs • 5023, 8 pgs • 5082, 8 pgs • 5084, 8 pgs


• 5085, 8 pgs • 5094, 8 pgs

• Nick Turner (August 2004) Recorded Crime Trends and demographic profile - Adelaide Area (including Adelaide LGA, Prospect LGA and Unley LGA) - Briefing Paper prepared for Community Cabinet meeting, 82 pgs

• Nick Turner (August 2004) An analysis of demographic and crime trends in Coober Pedy and analysis of Indigenous involvement in the criminal justice system in Coober Pedy (Draft). Prepared for AJCC meeting in Coober Pedy on 22 September 2004, 59 pgs

• Nick Turner (September 2004) An analysis of crime trends in Whyalla. Briefing Paper prepared for Cabinet Office, 11 pgs

• Nick Turner (September 2004) An analysis of crime trends in Yalata. Briefing Paper prepared for Director, JSD, 8 pgs

• Nick Turner (November 2004) Marion LGA - Briefing Paper prepared for Community Cabinet meeting, 20 pgs

CARS

• (February 2004) October-December 2003 CARS Quarterly Statistical Report (Eight individual State/Territory reports and a national report)

• (May 2004) January-March 2004 CARS Quarterly Statistical Report (Eight individual State/Territory reports and a national report)

• (August 2004) April-June 2004 CARS Quarterly Statistical Report (Eight individual State/Territory reports and a national report)

• (November 2004) July-September 2004 CARS Quarterly Statistical Report (Eight individual State/Territory reports and a national report)

• (December 2004) Motor Vehicle Theft in Australia July 2003 - June 2004 CD-ROM (Eight individual State/Territory reports and a national report)


A P P E N D I X D

OCSAR Presentations in 2004

Joy Wundersitz (4 February 2004) Juvenile Justice - where are we now? Presentation to Inter-Government Youth Justice Advisory Committee Workshop, Adelaide.

Joy Wundersitz (16 February 2004) Juvenile Justice - past and present. Presentation to FAYS Stakeholder Forum, Adelaide.

Joy Wundersitz (20 February 2004) Juvenile Justice - an historical overview. Presentation to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Juvenile Justice System, Adelaide.

Joy Wundersitz (May 2004) Juvenile Justice: the changing role of social workers. Presentation to the Australian Association of Social Workers, Adelaide.

Jayne Marshall/Grace Skrzypiec (May 2004) Estimating the number of persons in Secure Care: Results from Stage 1. Presentation to representatives from Family and Youth Services.

Nichole Hunter (1 June 2004) Explanations for the High Proportion of South Australian Matters classified by the ABS as withdrawn by the prosecution. Presentation to the Criminal Justice Leadership Group, Adelaide.

Nichole Hunter (9 June 2004) Explanations for the High Proportion of South Australian Matters classified by the ABS as withdrawn by the prosecution. Presentation to the Justice Portfolio Policy Group, Adelaide.

Joy Wundersitz (July 2004) Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system - results from a birth cohort. Presentation to the Justice Portfolio Policy Group.

Jayne Marshall and Grace Skrzypiec (8 July 2004) Estimating the number of persons in Secure Care: Results from Stage 2. Presentation to representatives from Child, Youth and Family Services.

Joy Wundersitz and Carol Castle (8 July 2004) Crime and Criminal Justice data: an overview of statistics held by OCSAR and how to use them. OCSAR Seminar Series No 1. Presentation to representatives from the Justice Portfolio.

Jayne Marshall and Grace Skrzypiec (17 August 2004) Estimating the number of persons in Secure Care: the Indigenous perspective. Presentation to representatives from Child, Youth and Family Services.

Jayne Marshall and Grace Skrzypiec (20 August 2004) Estimating the number of persons in Secure Care. Presentation to a Secure Care Planning Forum conducted by Child, Youth and Family Services.

Joy Wundersitz (18 February 2004) Magistrates Court Diversion Program: an assessment of post-program offending. Presentation to Mental Impairment Implementation Recommendations Committee, Adelaide.


Nichole Hunter (6 April 2004) Key Findings from the evaluation of the pilot Expanded Duty Solicitor Service at the AMC. Presentation to the Criminal Justice Leadership Group.

Bev O’Brien (4 May 2004) Who’s watching? Surveillance, Statistics and Research. Presentation to 2nd Year Sociology students, Flinders University.

Bev O’Brien (26 May 2004) Project Design and Management (Part 1). Presentation to the Crime Reduction Unit, SAPOL.

Bev O’Brien (3 June 2004) Principles of evaluation (Part 2). Presentation to the Crime Reduction Unit, SAPOL.

Bev O’Brien (18 June 2004) Evaluation Tools (Part 3). Presentation to the Crime Reduction Unit, SAPOL.

Fiona Bruce and Bev O’Brien (15 June 2004) Demographics and Pre/Post Offending of individuals diverted by PDDI between September 2001 and December 2002 (Part 3). Presentation to the State Reference Group on Drugs.

Bev O’Brien (16 June 2004) Evaluation of Illicit Drugs Strategies Presentation to the JSD Policy and Planning Meeting.

Bev O’Brien (2 November 2004) Contact with the criminal justice system by individuals diverted under the Police Drug Diversion Initiative. Presentation to Criminal Justice Leadership Group.

Nichole Hunter (17 August 2004) Monitoring the impact of the Adelaide Dry Area: Interpreting the findings of the quantitative data analysis. Inter-agency Workshop presentation.

Grace Skrzypiec (17 September 2004) Mental Impairment Court Diversion Program: An analysis of post program offending. OCSAR Seminar No 2.

Joy Wundersitz (28 September 2004) An assessment of post program offending profiles of Drug Court clients. Presentation to Drug Court Steering Committee.

Joy Wundersitz (2 November 2004) An assessment of post program offending profiles of drug court clients. Presentation to Criminal Justice Leadership Group.

Fiona Bruce, Brianna Kenneally and Bev O’Brien (9 December 2004) Community Responses to Illicit Drugs and Crime. Illicit Drugs and Crime: Exploring South Australia’s Response Seminar. Presentation to representatives from government and non-government illicit drug agencies.

Norah Fahy, Bev O’Brien and Grace Skrzypiec (9 December 2004) Alternative justice responses to illicit drug offending. Illicit Drugs and Crime: Exploring South Australia’s Response Seminar. Presentation to representatives from government and non-government illicit drug agencies.

Nick Turner (9 August 2004) DUCO - Drugs and Crime - A study of incarcerated female offenders in South Australia - some preliminary results. OCSAR Seminar Series No 3.

Nick Turner (9 November 2004) DUMA in South Australia, A comparison of Adelaide and Elizabeth 2003/04. Presentation to DUMA Technical Workshop, Canberra.


Paul Thomas and Nick Turner (9 December 2004) Exploring the links between drugs and crime. Illicit Drugs and Crime: Exploring South Australia’s Response Seminar. Presentation to representative from government and non-government illicit drug agencies.

Joy Wundersitz (9 December 2004) Measuring our Performance. Illicit Drugs and Crime: Exploring South Australia’s Response Seminar. OCSAR Seminar Series No 4. Presentation to representatives from government and non-government illicit drug agencies.

Paul Thomas (March 2004) Motor Vehicle Theft: data driven policy development. Presentation to New Zealand Police Service - Vehicle Crime Workshop, New Zealand

Graham Bath and Rob Potter (March 2004) Comprehensive Auto-theft Research System. Presentation at the International Association of Auto Theft Investigators (Australasian Branch) Seminar, Brisbane.

Paul Thomas (May 2004) Motor Vehicle Theft: data driven policy development. Presentation to Royal New Zealand Police Executive Committee - Wellington (NZ).

Paul Thomas (May 2004) Motor Vehicle Theft: data driven policy development. Presentation to Hon. Phil Goff, Minister of Justice, New Zealand - Wellington (NZ).

Paul Thomas (May 2004) Australia’s National CARS project: Using data to drive policy. Presentation to IAG New Zealand Ltd. senior management - Auckland (NZ).

Paul Thomas (May 2004) Australia’s National CARS project: Using data to drive policy. Presentation to Royal AMI Insurance Ltd. senior management - Auckland (NZ).

Paul Thomas (May 2004) Australia’s National CARS project: Using data to drive policy. Presentation to Vero Senior Management Group - Auckland (NZ).

year in review - ocsar · jsu justice strategy unit ... the year in review is designed as a source...

Documents