Recidivism in Australia: findings and future research

2007

Director’s introduction
In 2005 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) identified 12 national priority areas underpinning the National information development plan for crime and criminal justice (ABS 2005b). One was a commitment to develop ‘an agreed measure or measures of recidivism and an evidence base that will inform policy research in the development of effective strategies’ (2005b: 36). The plan outlines a shared responsibility between key research and government agencies to achieve these priorities.

In June 2005 the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) convened a roundtable of national research and policy delegates to explore the value and limitations of defining recidivism and its analysis. The delegates confirmed that there is an inherent difficulty in developing a single definition of recidivism in the research and policy environments. They recommended that further work be undertaken to consolidate what was then known about recidivism in Australia. The delegates agreed that AIC would develop a report on recidivism as a first step towards building a systematic evidence base in this national priority area.

This report summarises studies published in the Australian literature that have focused on recidivism over the past 10 years. Despite recidivism being a key aspect in understanding offenders and their offending behaviour, there have been relatively few studies. This is partly because of legislated privacy and ethics constraints in working with human subjects and their criminal histories. Two other factors that can impede access to data are the problem of data linkage across the justice sector and a risk averse approach by public officials to data and the publication of those data. There is a strong policy focus on recidivism in European countries because they know that strategies that target recidivist offenders, based on a solid understanding of the existing data, will be effective in driving down crime and reducing the number of victims. However, Australia is well behind in developing national recidivism datasets that are widely accessible for research purposes.

This report brings together, for the first time, the different methods used by Australian researchers to measure recidivism, and highlights their strengths and weaknesses. All methods and data have limitations. Quality research is not just about the best methodologies and data, however. It is also the art of interpreting the findings in the context of a thorough knowledge of criminological theory as it applies to the question being asked and the context in which the estimates have been generated. As the methodology and data will vary according to the question, there will be different measures and different numbers, making a single definition of recidivism unrealistic. This means that it is important that researchers locate their results within the broader theoretical and empirical work on recidivism so that policy makers are not left with a confusing array of findings. Understanding the context and detail of the specific research is sometimes just as important as the ultimate findings from the work.

This report identifies three priority areas for future investment – the development of a national research agenda and national indicators of recidivism; improving capacity through improving the quality of administrative databases (including linkage) and positively enabling access to the data by researchers; and improving the value of recidivism for policy development by improving methodological clarity and rigour.

Investments in some key areas of research are likely to generate important findings for public policy and crime prevention including:
developing recidivism prediction models for specific offender populations

•focusing recidivism research on emerging areas of crime such as white collar crime,

• transnational crime and cybercrime

• greater investment in evaluating the number and variety of crime prevention and reduction programs operating across Australia with a commitment to publish evaluation results, both positive and negative.

Toni Makkai

Director

Australian Institute of Criminology ..more.. by Jason Payne