Recidivism in Australia : findings and future research - Australian ...

National recidivism research agenda
The second, but equally important area for further prioritisation is the development
of a national recidivism research agenda. Unlike standardised recidivism indicators
that provide comparative data across jurisdictions, independent research conducted
by research agencies and universities are also valuable to enhance the national evidence
base. The AIC’s evaluation work on the Queensland Drug Courts (Payne 2005; Makkai
et al 2004), OCSAR’s 1984 cohort study (Skrzypiec 2005), the Crime Research Centre’s
research into sex offenders (UWA CRC), or BOCSAR’s juvenile transitions study (Chen
et al. 2005) are examples of jurisdictional-specific research that provide a unique insight
into recidivism and provide answers to specific policy questions that could not be undertaken
at a national level. They also highlight the distinctive policy focus of the work undertaken
by government research agencies.
The development of a national research agenda would highlight key areas where recidivism
research would assist in further developing knowledge on topics of national importance.
Current priority areas where recidivism is not well researched in Australia include fraud
and white collar crime, transnational crime, cybercrime, domestic and family violence,
and recidivism among the mentally ill.
Priority 2: improving capacity
Underlying the development of a national recidivism research agenda, including national
recidivism indicators, is recognition that recidivism research requires significant investment.
Not all jurisdictions will be able to immediately facilitate recidivism research at every level
of the criminal justice system, so national measures and research priorities should be seen
as a long term goals. Possibly a more important short term goal is to develop an understanding
of the current limitations faced by recidivism researchers and an agenda to be set for working
towards improving capacity. There are four key issues likely to impede recidivism analysis
at the national, state and territory levels:
•
•
•
•
availability of unique person identification numbers
inter- and intra-jurisdiction variations in data collections
availability and consistency of key demographic data
Future directions for recidivism research in Australia
willingness to provide access to administrative data for independent research.
107