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

In either case, it is clear that recidivism analysis requires the capacity to identify each criminal
event belonging to an individual within and across different data systems. Intra-system
identification is the minimum requirement necessary for the proposed national measures,
although the preferred standard, to be included on a forward working plan, would be the
implementation of unique identification across all systems in the criminal justice process.
Currently only South Australia and the Northern Territory have the capacity to routinely
match and track offenders in this way: other jurisdictions, including Victoria, Queensland,
Western Australia and Tasmania, are developing integrated justice data systems to allow
offender tracking across multiple systems. The Australia Bureau of Statistics is undertaking
a feasibility study to assess jurisdictional capacity to measure recidivism.
Understanding inter- and intra-jurisdiction variation
Future directions for recidivism research in Australia
Aside from the issues of unique person identification, there are three factors that limit
current ability to undertake national recidivism research. The first is jurisdictional variation,
where each jurisdiction employs different data collection methodologies and data definitions
and where ultimately, standardised methodological specifications of the key elements
of recidivism are likely to be difficult to implement.
The second is longitudinal variation which results when separate data systems are used
to capture similar information, but at different points across an individual’s life course.
A classic example is that of court appearance and conviction data which, in some jurisdictions,
is split between the Children’s Courts and Magistrates Courts. Court records for people
under the age of 18 years are recorded in Children’s Court collections, while all criminal
conviction records from 18 years onwards are recorded in the adult court collections.
This longitudinal variation in data collection may have implications for the identification
of retrospective and prospective recidivism where juvenile records are concerned.
The third limiting factor, procedural variation, is a product of the jurisdictional and longitudinal
variations, but is not limited to when an offender is processed, but also, where the information
is stored. Not all records of arrest are held by the police and not all records of conviction
are held by the magistrates Court. At each level of the criminal justice system there are other
agencies with some responsibility for the processing of offenders. If these agencies maintain
separate data collection systems, recidivism identification may be impeded. A common
example is that court records may be maintained separately at different levels of jurisdiction
within the court system – such as the magistrates, district or supreme courts.
109