Silo - Tips - Review of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics Consultation Paper

Review of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics:
Consultation Paper
Social Conditions Business Unit

Review of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics: Consultation Paper
Reproduction of material
Material in this report may be reproduced and published, provided that it does not purport to be
published under government authority and that acknowledgement is made of this source.
Citation
Statistics New Zealand. (2008). Review of crime and criminal justice statistics:
consultation paper
Wellington: Statistics New Zealand
Published in June 2008 by
Statistics New Zealand

Tatauranga Aotearoa
Wellington, New Zealand
_____________________
ISBN 978-0-478-31528-8
2
Information
Liability statement
While all care and diligence has been used in producing this report, Statistics New
Zealand gives no warranty it is error free and will not be liable for any loss or damage
suffered as a result of the use, directly or indirectly, of information in this report.
Statistics New Zealand’s Information Centre

For help finding and using statistical information available on our website or in the
INFOS database, contact the Information Centre:
email: info@stats.govt.nz
phone toll-free: 0508 525 525
phone: (+64) (04) 931 4600
fax: (+64) (04) 931 4610
post: PO Box 2922, Wellington
website: www.stats.govt.nz
3
Contents
Executive summary......................................................................................................5
1 Background ..........................................................................................................8
1.1 Introduction to the review process................................................................8
1.2 Statistical reviews .........................................................................................8
1.3 Scope ...........................................................................................................9
1.4 Overview of the justice sector ......................................................................9
1.5 The significance of crime and criminal justice statistics .............................11
1.6 Past reviews of crime and criminal justice statistics ...................................12
1.7 Changes since the 1982 review .................................................................12
1.8 The crime and criminal justice framework ..................................................13
2 Enduring research and policy topics ..................................................................18
2.1 Topic 1: Trends in the nature and extent of crime ......................................18
2.2 Topic 2: Victims ..........................................................................................19
2.3 Topic 3: Offenders ......................................................................................20
2.4 Topic 4: Crime prevention ..........................................................................21
2.5 Topic 5: Responses to crime ......................................................................23
2.6 Topic 6: Access to justice services.............................................................25
2.7 Topic 7: Costs of crime...............................................................................26
2.8 Topic 8: Public perceptions of crime and criminal justice ...........................27
2.9 Other information requirements..................................................................28
3 Identifying key statistical development areas .....................................................29
3.1 Trends in the nature and extent of crime....................................................30
3.2 Victims ........................................................................................................32
3.3 Offenders....................................................................................................33
3.4 Crime prevention ........................................................................................35
3.5 Responses to crime....................................................................................36
3.6 Access to justice services ..........................................................................37
3.7 Costs of crime ............................................................................................37
3.8 Public perceptions of crime and criminal justice.........................................38
3.9 Conclusion..................................................................................................38
Glossary .....................................................................................................................40
References.................................................................................................................47
Appendix 1 Paths through the criminal justice system ..........................................55
Appendix 2 Related work.......................................................................................57
Appendix 3 Recommendations of the report of the review on New Zealand justice
statistics 1982.....................................................................................60
Appendix 4 Information sources ............................................................................66
Appendix 5 Members of the working group .........................................................100
Figures
1 Justice sector outcomes and agencies ..........................................................10
2 Crime and criminal justice conceptual framework..........................................14
3 Crime prevention partnerships .......................................................................22
4
Executive summary
Introduction to the review process
Statistics New Zealand is undertaking a review of crime and criminal justice statistics.
Because a range of agencies produce and use these statistics, the review involves
consultation with individuals, groups, and agencies within, and with interest in, the
justice sector. This review is part of a broader initiative under section 7 of the
Statistics Act 1975 to undertake periodic reviews of official subject-matter statistics in
consultation with other agencies, and interested individuals and groups. A review of
this type for crime and criminal justice statistics was last undertaken in 1982.
The purpose of this review is to establish key priorities for the official statistics system
to address in the field of crime and criminal justice.
A working group of experts from justice sector agencies has been involved in the
preparation of this document, and has worked through a process of identifying the
enduring research and policy questions relating to crime and criminal justice,
assessing the extent to which data is available to answer these questions, and
identifying key areas for statistical development. The next stage in the review
involves making this paper available to the public for comment.
The final key statistical development priorities for the official statistics system to
address in the field of crime and criminal justice will be established after the public
consultation, and the Government Statistician will then consider recommendations on
addressing these priorities. Justice sector and Statistics New Zealand officials will
then work together to implement the recommendations.
Statistical reviews
Statistical reviews are an important aspect of Statistics New Zealand's role in leading,
strengthening and coordinating the development and ongoing integrity of the official
statistics system. Statistical reviews seek to:
• develop a long-term picture of information needs, rather than reacting to

issues
• develop a coordinated plan to address issues, rather than tackling them on a
piecemeal basis
• work in partnership with other agencies to obtain agreement to priorities,
rather than take a single agency view.
This statistical review covers crime and criminal justice. Although not all crimes are
reported to or detected by police or other enforcement agencies, these crimes are
still included in the review. The criminal justice system formally deals with crimes and
offenders that are reported to or detected by enforcement agencies. Civil matters
dealt with by the courts are not included in the statistical review.
Enduring research and policy topics
This section identifies enduring key information needs of users. Eight topics and
associated questions were identified.
5
Topic 1 Trends in the nature and extent of crime: What is the size and nature
of crime in New Zealand and how is it changing?
Topic 2 Victims: Who are the victims of crime and in what ways are they
affected by crime victimisation?
Topic 3 Offenders: What are the characteristics of offenders and what types of
crime are committed by what offenders?
Topic 4 Crime prevention: What measures are effective in preventing crime?
Topic 5 Responses to crime: How efficient and effective is the criminal justice
system in responding to crime, holding offenders to account and
reducing the incidence of criminal offending and reoffending?
Topic 6 Access to justice: How accessible are the different parts of the criminal
justice system to victims and offenders?
Topic 7 Costs of crime: What is the cost of crime to individuals and society?
Topic 8 Public perceptions of crime and criminal justice: What are the public's
attitudes to, and knowledge about, crime and criminal justice issues?
Assessment of the extent to which statistical needs are being met
There is a wide range of official statistics on crime and criminal justice in New
Zealand. These compare favourably with other countries such as Australia, Canada
and the UK, and cover the major areas outlined by the United Nations in its "Manual
for the Development of a System of Criminal Justice Statistics" (United Nations
2003). However, there are some gaps in the statistical information base or where
there is scope for improving the quality of the available statistics.
Key statistical development areas
Nine key areas for the official statistics system to address have been identified.
Except for key statistical development area I, these apply to both young and adult
offenders. They are not listed in order of priority. In some of these areas preliminary
work is already underway, but substantial work is still required. Other areas are new
and have potential for development. The final key statistical development areas and
the measures to address them will be placed in order of priority after this paper has
been made available to the public for comment.
A There is potential for making better use of existing data for statistical
purposes within the crime and criminal justice sector, particularly the
administrative data. This could be facilitated by improved access to the
data to enable more analysis, and by identifying which statistics should be
produced from administrative data at each stage in the criminal justice
process (underway).
B Existing published statistics should be assessed for suitability to become

Tier 1 official statistics (potential new development).
C New Zealand Police has operated without a documented national standard

for recording crimes. This has meant that it was possible for staff based in
different locations to interpret and classify situations differently. However,
in April 2008, Police Executive Committee approved a national recording
standard which becomes policy on 1 July 2008. Implementation and
6
ongoing operation of the standard should be monitored to ensure it is

effective (underway).
D Different procedures, definitions and classifications are used across the

criminal justice system. Standard definitions and classifications
coordinated by the Justice Sector Information Strategy (JSIS) should be
implemented for administrative data and surveys (underway).
E There is also a need to improve the comparability of data within the

criminal justice system with data from other parts of the official statistics
system. The classifications used to code the data are often inconsistent or
not readily reconcilable with other official statistics classifications and
coding, making comparisons across social variables and geographic areas
problematic (underway).
F The survey methodology and instrument of the New Zealand Crime and
Safety Survey (NZCASS) have been significantly improved with each
survey. However, these improvements have not made it possible to use
the data from the surveys to monitor crime trends over time. There is a
need to use consistent methodologies and questionnaires to ensure
comparability of crime trends (underway).
G Information on victims from the police, including the relationship between

an offender and a victim, is required to complement what is available on
NZCASS (potential new development).
H Existing police statistics on offenders are based on events. Statistics on

distinct offenders should become part of police official statistics (potential
new development).
I Statistics on children and young persons who offend are fragmented as

they are spread across three agencies (New Zealand Police, Child, Youth
and Family, and the Ministry of Justice) making it difficult to develop a
coherent picture of youth offending. These agencies will work together to
share data for statistical and research purposes (subject to legislation)
(underway).
Submission process
This report has been designed to assist users to make submissions to Statistics New
Zealand about crime and criminal justice statistics. The submission should provide
details about users’ information needs and what they use the information for. The
submissions will be evaluated and priorities set according to a focus on enduring
information needs (that is, likely to be relevant for at least five years). They should
also meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. be relevant to crime and criminal justice policy (that is, development,

evaluation or monitoring) or contribute to a better understanding of crime and
criminal justice
2. fill a gap or address a deficiency in the existing body of official statistics,
where official statistics must:
• provide valid and cost-effective measurement
• confer public benefits that clearly outweigh the compliance burden and
privacy impact.
7
1 Background
1.1 Introduction to the review process
Statistics New Zealand is undertaking a review of crime and criminal justice statistics.
The review involves consultation with individuals, groups, and agencies within, and
with an interest in, the justice sector. This review is part of a broader initiative under
section 7 of the Statistics Act 1975 to undertake periodic reviews of official subject-
matter statistics in consultation with other agencies. A review of this type for the
crime and criminal justice domain was last undertaken in 1982.
The purpose of this review is to establish key priorities for the official statistics system
to address in the field of crime and criminal justice.
A working group of experts from justice sector agencies was involved in the
preparation of this document, and worked through a process of identifying the
enduring research and policy questions (chapter 2), assessing the extent to which
data is available to answer these needs (chapter 3 and appendix 4), and identifying
nine key statistical development areas (chapter 3). The next stage in the review
involves making this paper available to the public for comment.
The final key statistical development areas for the official statistics system to address
will be established after the public consultation, and the Government Statistician will
then consider recommendations on addressing these developments. Justice sector
and Statistics New Zealand officials will work together to implement the
recommendations.
1.2 Statistical reviews

Statistical reviews are an important aspect of Statistics New Zealand’s role in
leading, strengthening and coordinating the development and ongoing integrity of the
official statistical system. This leadership role is largely achieved through promoting
shared responsibility and the cooperation of other agencies to improve official
statistics.
Statistical reviews provide a structured approach in areas which span the statistical
activities of several agencies or sectors. Specifically, they seek to:
• develop a long-term picture of information needs, rather than reacting to

issues
• develop a coordinated plan to address issues, rather than tackling them on a
piecemeal basis
• work in partnership with other agencies to obtain agreement to priorities,
rather than take a single agency view.
Statistical reviews are tailored to the uniqueness of each sector and the needs of the
stakeholders concerned. Notwithstanding this, there are some common threads
which include:
• identifying the key questions – the starting point for all statistical reviews is to
identify the enduring research, policy, planning and monitoring questions that
stakeholders are seeking to answer
8
• identifying key data sources relevant to these questions – undertake a

stocktake of data sources that are currently available to answer the research
and policy questions
• identifying barriers to answering the key questions – assess the available
data sources in light of the information required to answer the key research
and policy questions. Barriers may include, for example, information gaps,
poor data quality, privacy constraints, timeliness issues and lack of coherence
between available data sources
• having a strategic focus over at least the next five years – to avoid being
focused on operational or short-term policy demands, all plans aim to have a
minimum time horizon of at least five years
• identifying key priorities and how to address them: a key part of the plan is to
make trade-offs amongst competing needs and develop a list of key priorities
together with the key steps needed to achieve these.
This review has identified key priorities for the official statistics system to address in
the crime and criminal justice field. However, key steps needed to address these
priorities will be identified after this paper has been made available to the public for
comment.
1.3 Scope
This statistical review covers crime and criminal justice. Although not all crimes are
reported to or detected by police or other enforcement agencies, these crimes are
still included in the review. The criminal justice system formally deals with crimes and
offenders that are reported to or detected by enforcement agencies.
The criminal offences dealt with by courts in New Zealand are included in the scope
of this statistical review, but civil matters dealt with by the courts are not. Civil matters
dealt with by the High Court include company law, bankruptcy, the administration of
estates and trusts, property transfer, land valuation, and many other areas. Four
other types of court deal with civil matters: the Employment Court, Mäori Land Court,
Environment Court, and Family Court.
1.4 Overview of the justice sector

The justice sector comprises a diverse array of institutions and participants in which
justice sector agencies work together to an agreed set of justice sector outcomes. A
diagram in the Ministry of Justice Statement of Intent 1 July 2007–30 June 2008
illustrates the justice sector outcomes, sector agencies, Crown entities and other
agencies. An amended version of this diagram is reproduced in figure 1 with
elements not relevant to this statistical review removed.
A key focus of current policies and programmes in the justice sector is the protection
of public safety and the provision of a fair and effective justice system (Ministry of
Justice 2007a). The importance of these two areas is reflected in the following two
key outcomes for the sector:
• safer communities
• civil and democratic rights and obligations enjoyed.
Supporting these outcomes are several intermediate outcomes, or short-term goals.

These include:
9
Figure 1 Justice Sector Outcomes and Agencies
Justice sector outcomes
A safe and just society
Safer communities Civil and democratic rights and obligations enjoyed
Impact of crime Offenders held to Crime reduced Trusted justice Accessible

reduced account system justice services
Sector agencies
Core sector agencies
Ministry of Justice New Zealand Police Department of Corrections Ministry of Social Development
Crown entities and other agencies
Legal Services Agency Law Commission
Source: Adapted from Ministry of Justice Statement of Intent 1 July 2007–30 June 2008
• impact of crime reduced

• offenders held to account
• crime reduced
• trusted justice system
• accessible justice services.
The goals and activities of individual agencies within the justice sector are closely
aligned with these intermediate and longer term outcomes, and have a strong focus
around working collaboratively with other agencies and the community.
When an offence is committed different agencies are responsible for different parts of
the criminal justice system. The same offences and offenders flow sequentially
through the system, with decisions being made about the offender and offence at
each stage. Diagrams showing the major paths through the criminal justice system
are given in appendix 1. These diagrams will assist understanding of the need for
statistics at each stage.
Young offenders (both children and young persons) follow a different path through
the system than adult offenders, so separate diagrams are provided for the adult
system and the Youth Justice system. Two distinct groups of youth offenders,
differing in age, are covered under different sections of the Children, Young Persons
and Their Families Act 1989: child offenders (aged 10–13 years) and young persons
who offend (aged 14–16 years).
The agencies in the justice sector work together on projects to achieve the outcomes
shown in figure 1. A number of these projects are relevant to this review. For
example, the Justice Sector Information Strategy (JSIS) provides a framework to
manage and share relevant information between justice sector agencies. Good
information-sharing systems will ensure that the administrative data used to generate
statistics is of good quality. Examples of the sector working together that are relevant
to this review are given in appendix 2.
Agencies involved in administering the criminal justice system have data systems to
assist them to use their records for operational purposes. Most crime and criminal
justice statistics in New Zealand are produced from these systems. Using this data
does lead to some trade-offs between operational needs and circumstances, and the
type of data recording that would be desirable for statistical purposes. The collection
of ethnicity information is an obvious example. This issue is discussed in more detail
in section 3.1.
1.5 The significance of crime and criminal justice statistics

Crime and criminal justice statistics are used to monitor the nature and extent of
criminal activity in the community and its impacts on the safety and well-being of
individuals and families. They are essential to monitoring the performance of different
elements of the justice system and in the development of practical interventions to
reduce crime and protect public safety. With the growth of evidence-based policy, the
demand for good quality statistical information to support operational and strategic
decision-making has increased. The needs of evidence-based policy development
have also created pressure to deal with issues in ways that take into account the
different drivers of the justice system. This need requires that data on crime is able to
be related to data from other social sectors and across agencies.
The United Nations’ (2003) "Manual for the Development of a System of Criminal
Justice Statistics" provides guidelines on how to set up a system of criminal justice
11
statistics and what should be in such a system. The major areas that should be
included in a system of criminal justice statistics are:
• the criminal event

• the criminal act
• the offender
• the victim
• the criminal justice system
• unit of count (for example, crimes, or offenders, or victims)
• standard offence classifications
• demographic, social and economic information.
Crime and criminal justice statistics attract a great deal of interest from the media and
the general public who want information about crime and disorder, particularly about
their local community. This information helps the public assess the risk of crime in
their everyday lives. They also use this information to evaluate government
responses to crime and to hold local community organisations to account. Public
confidence in the justice system is influenced by community perceptions of how well
the police are able to apprehend offenders, the appropriateness of penalties imposed
on offenders by courts, and the effect of these penalties on offenders in the long
term.
1.6 Past reviews of crime and criminal justice statistics

The last official review of justice statistics commenced in the late 1970s with its
findings and recommendations published in 1982 (Department of Statistics 1982).
The review was set up following an assessment by an Interdepartmental Committee
on Statistical Needs and Priorities which determined that the existing system of
justice statistics needed a detailed review. The terms of reference were to review the
methodology and processing needs of justice statistics, to examine any needs for
additional statistics and to investigate methods for more effective exploitation of the
statistics.
The review concluded that the available statistics on crime and justice needed
greater integration and coordination. It stressed the importance of uniform crime-
recording across the country and recommended that all collections be encouraged to
use standard classifications and definitions. It highlighted the need to increase the
cost-effectiveness of official statistics, through the development of a statistical system
that could produce statistics directly from the Wanganui Computer. The review also
noted the need for improved statistical information on victims and recidivist offenders,
and for improved timeliness in the dissemination of statistics.
After the review several of its recommendations were implemented resulting in an

improved system of crime and criminal justice statistics. In particular, the Wanganui
Computer became the source for many statistical series. (Appendix 3 lists the
recommendations of the review and assesses how well they were implemented.)
1.7 Changes since the 1982 review

Since the 1982 review, there have been some major changes in the justice sector. In
1990 the responsibility for publishing justice statistics moved from the Department of
Statistics to the justice sector agencies. One effect of this change was the removal of
statistical series no longer considered important. However, since the control of the
statistics moved to the agencies involved in policy advice to the government, the
potential to use statistics to inform policy improved. Increased computer storage
12
meant that data could be kept and used to produce statistics needed to assist with
policy advice. The Department of Justice’s series "Conviction and Sentencing of
Offenders in New Zealand" was first published in 1991 (Spier, Southey and Norris
1991) and, although it did not completely replace the Justice Statistics reports
produced by the Department of Statistics, it provided more commentary on the
figures than had been previously available.
There have also been changes in the justice sector agencies with the Department of
Justice splitting into the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Courts, and the
Department of Corrections in 1995. The Department for Courts and the Ministry of
Justice merged into the new Ministry of Justice in 2003. The responsibility for
providing Youth Justice services to children and young persons also went through
several changes starting with the Department of Social Welfare splitting into several
agencies including Child, Youth and Families Services. This agency is now part of
the Ministry of Social Development.
Major legislative changes since the review include the Children, Young Persons and
Their Families Act 1989 which replaced the Children and Young Persons Act 1974;
the Criminal Justice Act 1985 was replaced by the Sentencing Act 2002 and the
Parole Act 2002. These changes were accompanied by changes in the statistics.
The Law Enforcement System (LES) — the former Wanganui Computer, which
provided the central base for information processing across the justice sector for over
20 years, was decommissioned in June 2005 when the last agency ceased to use
LES. As a result agencies within the sector developed their own operational systems.
Access to sector-wide information and mechanisms for cost-effectively sharing
information has been a key focus of justice sector information strategies over the last
12 years.
Another significant change since the last review of justice statistics has been the shift
towards a stronger focus on evidence-based policy, requiring information to address
‘what works’, ‘for whom’ and ‘why’. This was accompanied by a growing interest in
outcomes, particularly for victims. As a result, crime victim surveys are now
conducted on a regular basis in New Zealand. The focus on evidence-based policy
also resulted in more evaluations of the effectiveness of intervention programmes.
These evaluations often contain a statistical component where the reoffending of
individuals who have attended the programme are analysed and compared with a
group of similar individuals who did not attend the programme. (See, for example,
Paulin and Kingi (2005) who evaluated a restorative justice programme.)
1.8 The crime and criminal justice framework

A framework provides a structured way of thinking about and organising information
in a particular domain or area of interest. It defines the scope of activities in a
particular area, identifies key concepts and elements associated with the area and
organises these into a logical structure. It also identifies links with other relevant
areas and population groups.
Figure 2 presents a conceptual framework for crime and criminal justice. The criminal
justice system is dynamic and complex; therefore a framework is particularly
important. It shows key elements, connections and relationships that are important to
understanding outcomes in the criminal justice sector.
13
Figure 2 Crime and Criminal Justice Conceptual Framework
Societal well-being Individual well-being

Safer communities Civil and democratic rights and obligations enjoyed
Criminal justice outcomes

Related Domains Population
Impact of crime reduced Offenders held to account Crime reduced Trusted justice system Accessible justice services
groups
Health
Children
Interventions
Cultural identity
Youth
Leisure and Education Criminal justice Health
recreation interventions Women
Corrections Local
Paid work Courts government Men
CYF
NGOs Police Social
Knowledge and Mäori
welfare
skills
Migrants
Human rights
Offender Victim Family
Social
connectedness Older people
Criminal incident Disabled
Physical
environment
Housing Contexts of crime and victimisation
Economic Individual Family Society

standard of living
Sex Structure Neighbourhood
Age Transitions Economic conditions
Literacy Functions Population or housing density
Mental health Supports Social cohesion
Labour market engagement Globalisation
Well-being
The overall aim of the framework is for all of the parts to work together to ensure
individual and societal well-being. Well-being is influenced by criminal justice
outcomes, and influences the determinants of crime and victimisation. Victims of
crime and those close to them may suffer physically, emotionally and financially. The
well-being of individuals may be affected not only from the direct experience of being
a victim but from fear of crime generated from learning about the experience of other
victims. Fear of crime may cause some people to restrict the choices they make
about how to lead their lives, such as avoiding certain areas or avoiding going out at
night. The well-being of offenders may be affected, for example, by having their
freedom restricted through a custodial sentence or by having to pay reparation to the
victim. Crime also affects the well-being of society because of the costs associated
with law enforcement and the impact of crime or fear of crime on social cohesion.
Criminal justice outcomes
As outlined in section 1.4, key outcomes of the justice system include a reduction in
crime, the impact of reduced crime on victims and the community, holding offenders
to account, public trust and confidence in the justice system and accessible justice
services. These outcomes are significant in their own right but also (because of their
impact on individual and societal well-being) and are influenced by criminal justice
interventions.
Contexts of crime and victimisation
Understanding justice sector outcomes requires taking account of the situational and
environmental contexts that may result in crime or victimisation, as well as the range
of factors in an individual’s background or life experience that may influence these
events. (For example, Triggs (1997) identified that crime is influenced by a variety of
factors such as the demographic structure of the population, and social and
economic conditions.) The contexts and factors are grouped into three broad
categories: individual, family and society.
Individual
There are a range of characteristics of individuals that may predispose them to either
engage in criminal behaviour or become a victim. (Note that the characteristics
influencing whether an individual becomes a victim or an offender may be different.)
These characteristics include literacy and skill development, mental and emotional
health, socio-demographic characteristics, attitudes and beliefs, and lifestyles.
Family
The family environment exerts a powerful influence on the development of

individuals. Parents’ values and beliefs, parenting styles, conflict and violence in the
home, family stability, parental substance abuse, and family income and resources
may contribute to or protect individuals from becoming an offender or victim.
Society
The extent to which communities are cohesive, inclusive and supportive can have an
influence on levels of crime and victimisation. Informal social control in communities
can be important to the local management of crime. The diversity of communities –
ethnic, religious and cultural – can also influence outcomes, as can situational
15
factors, such as land use or building design. Increasing globalisation has influenced
the cohesion of communities.
Criminal incidents
Criminal incidents are those where a crime, as defined in legislation, has been
committed, regardless of whether or not they come to the attention of the criminal
justice system. Reported or detected incidents initiate criminal justice processes.
Three characteristics of a criminal incident are of interest: the type of incident (or
crime), victims, and offenders.
Type of incident
The type of crime committed is one of the factors that determine criminal justice
intervention. For example, legislation may state whether a custodial sentence can be
imposed or not, and may also state the maximum length of any custodial sentence.
Victim
Most, but not all, criminal incidents have a victim associated with them. The victim
may be an individual or an organisation. Staff misappropriation of company funds is
an example of an organisation being victimised. In some instances a criminal incident
may involve multiple victims, such as an arson attack on a residential boarding
hostel.
Offender
All crimes involve one or more offenders, although the offender(s) is not always
identified and subject to criminal justice processes. As with the victim, the offender
may be an individual or an organisation. The description of the offender changes as
they move through the criminal justice system. For example, a person may be a
suspected offender to begin with. As the investigation of the incident proceeds, this
status may change to an alleged offender, a convicted offender and ultimately, to a
prison inmate.
Interventions
Criminal justice interventions
Criminal incidents may trigger various interventions. These may occur when an
offender is identified and formal criminal justice processes follow. Agencies involved
in these processes include: the New Zealand Police, Ministry of Social Development
(Child, Youth and Family), the Ministry of Justice (courts), the Department of
Corrections, and the Ministry of Health (mental health services). Local government is
involved in local crime prevention activities. Both offenders and victims may be
affected by these interventions.
The justice system may also intervene through developing policies, changing
legislation, and running programmes to provide services for offenders.
Other interventions
In addition to the criminal justice interventions, a number of agencies outside the

justice system may intervene in matters involving victims and offenders. Non-
16
government agencies include Victims Support, Prisoners’ Aid Rehabilitation Society,

and Women’s Refuge.
Interventions are affected by the availability of resources such as the police, judges
and prisons and may lead to intended or unintended outcomes for individuals and
society as a whole.
Related social domains
The justice system does not operate in isolation. Interventions and outcomes in other
domains (such as knowledge and skills, cultural identity, and health) may have a
desirable or undesirable effect on outcomes in the justice sector. Therefore, it is
important to understand the factors that affect justice sector outcomes. These can be
influenced by policy, the broad range of policy levers that can influence outcomes,
and the extent to which integration of policy levers across sectors may maximise
policy impact.
Population groups
The likelihood of being a criminal offender or the victim of a crime does not fall evenly
across all groups in the population. Those known to be at risk include males, youth,
and people belonging to particular ethnic groups, such as Mäori and Pacific peoples.
17
2 Enduring research and policy topics

The field of crime and criminal justice is complex, involving a wide range of
stakeholders. These include government agencies, research organisations, the
private sector and community organisations concerned with addressing the specific
needs of offenders, victims, and the general public.
Statistical information required by stakeholders is diverse. Data is required for many

purposes, including:
• development of appropriate policies, programmes and services
• monitoring and evaluation of such policies, programmes and services
• undertaking of research and analysis
• communication of information about crime and criminal justice issues to the
public.
This section presents an overview of the main information needs of users, focusing
on enduring rather than short-term needs. It is important for an official statistical
system to strike a balance between current information needs that may not endure
beyond the present, and long-term needs that will endure. The timeframe and
investment needed to develop or adapt official statistical collections means that it is
more important to address enduring information needs.
Questions for stakeholders are included after each topic so that they can be
considered in context.
Chapter 3 evaluates whether the needs identified under each topic are being met by
existing information sources.
This section draws on the information presented in the strategic plans of the Ministry
of Justice, New Zealand Police, and the Department of Corrections. It also draws on
the intelligence gained through the development of the Programme of Official Social
Statistics, where there was extensive consultation with social sector and population-
based agencies to identify the enduring research and policy questions.
2.1 Topic 1: Trends in the nature and extent of crime

What is the size and nature of the crime problem in New Zealand and how is it
changing?
This topic is relevant to all aspects of the ’criminal incident’ section of the framework.
It also links to the outcome of ’crime reduced’ and ’impact of crime reduced’.
A fundamental requirement of justice sector policy and planning is information on the

incidence and severity of different types of crime, and more particularly on the types
of crime where levels are changing. This information is required at a national and
local level, to provide a picture of how crime varies between different parts of the
country. There is growing interest in comparing New Zealand’s crime level with that
of other countries, despite the varying criminal justice systems. Another need is for
more information on the circumstances surrounding criminal incidents, such as the
time and location of the incident, whether weapons were involved, and the
relationship of the offender to the victim. There is substantial evidence that crime
tends to cluster in certain places and certain times, and that the offender and victim
are often related or known to each other. Situational information about criminal
incidents is needed to inform crime prevention strategies and programme planning.
18
Certain types of crime, such as violent offending (including family violence and
sexual offending) are of particular interest because of the potential severity of the
impacts on victims. The hidden nature of family violence and some sexual offending
makes it difficult to know the true extent of these crimes in society.
Two dynamic factors that may significantly affect criminal offending in the coming
years and which are largely visible now are globalisation and technology.
Globalisation has resulted in an increasing flow of people, goods and capital across
national borders. This flow has presented new opportunities for criminal acts and
threats to safety and security. These threats include terrorist acts, smuggling of illegal
drugs, money laundering schemes and the use of illegal offshore tax havens.
Similarly, advances in science and technology have given rise to an increasingly

technology-dependent and interconnected world accompanied by issues of privacy,
security and intellectual property. Technology not only provides new opportunities for
crimes (such as fraud, theft of intellectual property and identity, price fixing, and child
pornography) but also the ability to commit them faster and with a greater degree of
anonymity.
Questions for stakeholders
1. What information do you need on the nature and extent of crime that is
currently missing or of poor quality?
2. How would you or your organisation use this information for crime and
criminal justice research and policy?
3. Should we add or change anything in this section of the paper?
2.2 Topic 2: Victims

Who are the victims of crime and in what ways are they affected by crime
victimisation?
This topic focuses on the ‘victim’ part of the ‘criminal incident’ section of the
framework. The topic is related to the ‘determinants of crime’, and is connected to
outcomes ‘impact of crime reduced’ and ‘trust in the justice system’. Some population
groups are more likely to be the victims of crime than others and this topic recognises
the importance of the ‘population groups’ part of the framework.
Information about victims is needed to monitor and assess the impact of crime on the
well-being of various sectors of the community. Key information needs includes the
characteristics of victims, the type of crime they were subjected to, and the
circumstances surrounding the crime (for example, location, relationship of victim and
offender, involvement of alcohol, etc). This information will be used to understand risk
factors for crime victimisation and to focus crime prevention efforts (for example, how
extensive are the connections between particular socio-demographic factors and
crime victimisation?). People who repeatedly experience crime, and the types of
crimes they are victims of, are of special interest to justice sector practitioners.
The development of strategies to prevent crime and protect public safety partly
depends on understanding victim behaviour in relation to criminal incidents and the
effectiveness of measures taken by people to protect themselves and reduce their
fear of crime. Relevant information includes the extent to which people report
victimisation to the police, their satisfaction with police response, and the
effectiveness of support services. For those who choose not to report incidents,
information is needed on the reasons for non-reporting.
19
Understanding the impacts of crime on individual and societal well-being is essential

for developing programmes and services to support victims. The impacts can involve
financial loss, property damage, physical injury, psychological and emotional trauma
and even death. They can be immediate or long-term in nature and can affect many
different areas of peoples’ lives, such as their participation in employment, their
income and their leisure time activities. Furthermore, the impacts of victimisation can
extend beyond those people immediately affected to include family, friends,
neighbours and whole communities – secondary or indirect victims – who may suffer
trauma as a result of crime. Empirical data is needed to assess the impacts (both
immediate and long-term) of victimisation on those who have been directly and
indirectly affected.
1. What information do you need on victims that is currently missing or of poor

quality?
2.3 Topic 3: Offenders

What are the characteristics of offenders and what types of crime are
committed by what offenders?
There are relationships between the ‘offender’, the ‘criminal incident’ and the ‘victim’
parts of the framework. There is also a connection to the ‘population groups’ and
‘determinants of crime’.
Statistical information is needed to monitor changes in the characteristics of

offenders, and their offending over time, so that programmes and services can be
targeted at those groups most at risk of offending and reoffending. Stakeholders want
information on offenders that provides an indication of their prevalence in different
groups in the population (for example, age, sex, ethnicity, socio-economic groups),
as well as the seriousness of the crimes they have committed.
Repeat offenders and career criminals are of particular interest. Information is

needed on their characteristics (for example, age at first offence, progression of
offending, interaction with the criminal justice system over time, types of offences
committed) and the amount of crime for which they are responsible. This information
would assist research on predicting the likelihood of offending, and build an
understanding of the causes of crime so that appropriate and cost-effective
interventions can be designed.
Other groups of interest are youth offenders and Mäori offenders. Youth offenders
are of significant policy interest because of the need to evaluate the association
between early intervention and a lifetime of offending. Similarly, Mäori offenders are
of great interest to policy makers because they are overrepresented in the criminal
justice system. Information is needed to help develop strategies and programmes to
reduce the level of Mäori representation in the criminal justice system.
To better understand how to address the behaviour of offenders, a range of

information is needed on the circumstances of their offending, such as whether drugs
or alcohol was a factor in the sequence of events leading to the commission of the
offence. Other information relating to the lifestyles of offenders and the wider social
and economic environment in which they live or have been raised is also relevant.
20
This may include, for example, information on their health status, family history and
current family environment, their school experience and employment situation and
their values and attitudes. Findings from longitudinal studies have shown that many
serious adult offenders have come from socially and economically disadvantaged
families.
Information is needed on the nature and extent of organised crime in New Zealand to
develop effective strategies to combat it. Information of interest is the type of
activities that organised criminal groups are involved with, such as drug offences
(trafficking, cultivation, and manufacture), financial crimes (fraud, false loans, money
laundering, cheque and credit card fraud), illegal gambling and fisheries offences, the
use of new technology to commit offences, and the effects of globalisation as
organised crime activities may cross national boundaries.
Gangs are one form of organised crime group. Gangs vary in their demographic
make-up, level of criminal activity, and their level of organisation. In New Zealand
particular attention has been paid to the formation and characteristics of youth gangs.
There is need for information on what drives youths to form gangs and the extent of
their involvement in criminal activity.
1. What information do you need on offenders that is currently missing or of poor

quality?
2.4 Topic 4: Crime prevention

What measures are effective in preventing crime?
This topic informs the ‘crime reduced’ and ‘impacts of crime reduced’ outcomes of
the framework. It also relates to the broader ‘individual and societal well-being’
outcomes of the framework.
There is a crime prevention element to every process throughout the criminal justice
system. Therefore aspects of crime prevention can be found through other topics.
This topic focuses on crime prevention programmes that operate in communities and
identifies which crime prevention strategies are most effective (based on good
evidence).
Several approaches to crime prevention have developed out of different traditions.

The main approaches are:
• situational crime prevention

• social crime prevention
• developmental crime prevention
• multi-faceted crime prevention.
Situational crime prevention involves reducing crime through effective management

and design of the physical environment. It aims to reduce the opportunity to commit
crime, increase the risk of detection, and reduce the rewards of crime. Examples of
situational crime prevention are increased lighting and surveillance cameras in public
places.
21
Social crime prevention aims to prevent offending by providing tools to change social
conditions. Some programmes strengthen community bonds, especially for those at
risk of offending, and so prevent crime. Other programmes strengthen informal
defences in the community (for example, Neighbourhood Support).
Developmental crime prevention focuses on the individual, based on attitudinal and

behavioural change in potential offenders. An example is a programme aimed at
improving children's health or education.
Multi-faceted crime prevention programmes contain elements of some or all of the

other approaches.
Understanding the effectiveness of different crime prevention programmes is needed.

Internationally there is interest in evidence-based crime prevention strategies, and
compiling best-practice examples of interventions that work, balanced with solutions
tailored for local needs. Evaluation of crime prevention programmes helps establish
best-practice models, while acknowledging what works in a particular type of
community.
Information about a neighbourhood, both before and after a crime prevention

programme is implemented, that would help assess the effectiveness of the
programme includes:
• socio-economic conditions
• spatial layout
• community education and health programmes available
• the level of social capital (that is, the level of social relations between people
that facilitate action and cohesion)
• socio-demographics
• an effective way to link this information with recorded and actual crime levels.
Various agencies in New Zealand work in partnership to prevent crime: the police,
local government, and the Crime Prevention Unit of the Ministry of Justice. This
partnership approach is illustrated in figure 3.
Figure 3 Crime Prevention Partnerships
Local service providers New Zealand Police
Local government
Crime Prevention Unit Community organisations

Ministry of Justice
Source: Ministry of Justice website http://www.justice.govt.nz/cpu/crime-prevention-

partnerships/guidelines.html#2 [April 2008]
22
Information on how these partners work together is needed to assess how effective
these partnerships are in preventing and reducing crime.
Other pertinent information includes the actions taken by people to keep themselves
safe. These actions may range from installing a security system in their house to
prevent a further burglary, participating in self-defence courses, not walking in their
neighbourhood alone after dark, or reducing their social contacts.
The private security industry has become increasingly involved in crime prevention.
Information is needed on the factors fuelling the recent growth of the private security
industry and services, and the implications for the distribution and prevention of
crime. An important principle behind the growth of the security industry has been the
reduction of risk. There is now a competitive market for security systems and
services which may reduce the risk of crime occurring. Information is needed on the
actual crime reduction and prevention potential of these, and their effect on the
public's fear of crime.
1. What information do you need on crime prevention that is currently missing or

of poor quality?
2.5 Topic 5: Responses to crime

How efficient and effective is the criminal justice system in responding to
crime, holding offenders to account and reducing the incidence of criminal
offending and reoffending?
This topic is relevant to four outcomes in the framework (‘offenders held to account’,
‘crime reduced’, ‘trust in the justice system’, and ‘accessible justice systems’).
‘Interventions’ by criminal justice and other agencies are also part of the response to
crime.
At every stage of the criminal justice system from reporting crime to sentencing,
people (both offenders and victims) expect to be treated fairly and appropriately by
the system.
The public expects the police to solve crimes in a timely way. How long it takes the
police to respond to criminal incidents and apprehend offenders is of great interest to
the public.
The whole area of offender prosecution and sentencing also attracts a great deal of
public attention and debate. Stakeholders want to know how offenders are dealt with
by the justice system. Some of their questions are:
• how many apprehensions result in prosecution
• how many prosecutions result in conviction
• what types of sentences are imposed for different types of crime.
Other areas of interest in relation to holding offenders to account are:
• the proportion of custodial sentences that are actually served

• the proportion of alleged offenders remanded in custody
23
• the frequency bailed alleged offenders fail to appear for trial

• the frequency offences are committed by those on bail or on parole
• the number of people who have assets recovered under the Proceeds of
Crime Act 1991, and the value of those assets.
Whether offenders are treated fairly is an area of particular concern. Of specific

interest is the extent to which sentences vary in type and severity in relation to the
ethnicity and socio-economic characteristics of offenders. Similarly, there is interest
in whether there are differences in the treatment of offenders between different parts
of the country.
Understanding the outcomes of different types of justice sector interventions is critical

to reducing reoffending and the level of crime in the community. This requires
information on the effectiveness of different sentences in reducing reoffending (such
as non-custodial sentences compared with custodial sentences).
There is also need for information on the size of the prison population and the factors
contributing to its growth. This information will inform forecasts of the prison
population, which are used to make decisions on the need for additional prison
capacity. To develop specialised programs, information on the characteristics and
well-being of prison inmates are required. For example, research studies have shown
that on imprisonment, prisoners have poorer health status than the population in
general, and are much more likely to experience mental health and substance abuse
problems. There is particular interest in the change in the health status of people who
move from the community to the care of the Department of Corrections and then
back to the community.
Interventions in the Youth Justice system are designed to prevent young people
becoming adult offenders. These include: police youth diversion, family group
conferences, and youth court orders (custodial and community based). Information
on the effectiveness of these interventions is needed as is information on the health
status of young offenders.
In recent years there has been a growth in alternative justice practices. These aim to
aid the rehabilitation of the offender, address the needs of victims, or increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of the justice system. Examples are:
• the infringement system (developed to efficiently take care of lower-level

offences)
• the diversion scheme (where first-time offenders who have committed non-
serious offences, who admit their guilt and complete the diversion scheme
have the court charge withdrawn)
• restorative justice schemes that attempt to bring together the victim and the
offender.
Statistical information will assist with evaluating the use and effectiveness of these
interventions.
Measuring the responses to crime and the effectiveness of various interventions is

easier if it is possible to track an offender through the system.
1. What information do you need on responses to crime that is currently missing

or of poor quality?
24
2.6 Topic 6: Access to justice services

How accessible are the different parts of the criminal justice system to victims
and offenders?
This topic relates directly to the outcome in the framework of ‘accessible justice
services’. It also relates to the different criminal justice interventions, and to the
offender and victim.
It is an important component of a fair and free society that people have access to
justice when needed. Victims, who need to report crime, should be able to do so
confident that they will be treated fairly and appropriately by the system. Alleged
offenders too need to be treated appropriately by the criminal justice system. In
particular, those charged with serious offences need access to legal services.
Victims' access to justice is directly related to the confidence they have in the justice
system. Victims will not report crimes to the police if they do not trust that the matter
will be taken seriously. Some victims also want to be kept informed of progress if the
matter proceeds to court. If an offender is imprisoned, they may want to know when
the offender will be released. Most other issues related to victims' access to justice
are discussed under topic 8, Public perceptions. Information on victim participation in
the criminal justice system is useful in assessing victims' access to justice. For
example, how many victims (or their representatives) attend family group
conferences (FGCs) where the offender is a young person and what is their
experience of the FGC? How many victims attend court? How many victims take up
the offer of a restorative justice conference and what is their experience of the
conference?
For persons charged with offences, especially serious offences, affordable legal
services are a key component of access to justice services. For those who cannot
afford legal representation, the legal aid system is necessary. Consistent decisions
on the distribution of legal aid are important for the integrity of the criminal justice
system as a whole. Information is needed on the number of alleged offenders who
apply for legal aid, the decisions made, and the criteria used to make these
decisions. Information on levels of reimbursement by those granted legal aid is also
required. Access to justice is also affected by the quality of the defence counsel
provided by the legal aid system. Information linking case outcomes to defence
counsel experience may aid the evaluation of the quality of legal services provided.
Another important aspect of access to justice is the capacity of the criminal justice
system to deal with the volume of crime in a timely manner. This issue includes the
ability of the police to investigate crime reported, the ability of the courts to schedule
court cases at appropriate times, and the ability of the prison system to house all
prisoners. To address this need, information is needed on the duration of all events in
the system.
New migrants may have come from a society and criminal justice system that is very
different to that in New Zealand. Information is needed on the difficulty these diverse
population groups face when they encounter a justice system that is different to the
one they know: from the customs surrounding law; the relationships with, and powers
of, enforcement agencies; and court processes.
25
1. What information do you need on access to justice services that is currently

missing or of poor quality?
2.7 Topic 7: Costs of crime

What is the cost of crime to individuals and society?
The ‘interventions’ part of the framework relates to the costs of crime. The topic also
contributes to ‘impact of crime reduced’.
The costs of crime and the costs of addressing crime represent a huge burden on
society. The costs include both economic and social costs. Economic costs include
the costs of the criminal justice system, in particular the human resources (for
example, police, court staff, prison officers, policymakers) and infrastructure (for
example, courts, prisons, communications, etc). Crime can also have an adverse
impact on foreign investment, tourism and other areas of the general economy.
Communities and businesses may incur financial costs as a result of crime, such as
costs of replacement or repair of stolen or damaged items, loss of income and the
costs of deterrence.
Beyond the economic costs, there are the social costs to communities and
individuals, including the negative impacts on social interaction and cohesion,
perceptions of corruption or bias in the justice system and the concentration of
deprivation and disadvantage. Information on the social costs of crime is difficult to
acquire, due to their intangible nature. Further difficulty is encountered when
estimating the costs of the fear of crime (time spent in the prevention of crime and
reducing the risk of further victimisation) and the indirect effects of victimisation such
as ongoing psychological and physical health-related costs, and broader changes in
behavioural patterns (Dolan and Peasgood 2007). The Home Office (Dubourg et al
2005) has been developing methods to measure the social costs of crime, and in
New Zealand the Treasury (Roper and Thompson 2006) used these methods.
However, there is a need to continue working on methods to estimate the social
costs of crime.
Estimates of the social and economic costs of crime provide a measure of the impact
of crime on society. They provide a way of measuring the impact of policies aimed at
reducing crime and its consequences. Knowing what different crimes cost, rather
than simply knowing their numbers, gives a better base for assessing where crime
prevention efforts are best targeted. It is also essential to cost-benefit analysis where
the costs of crime reduction initiatives are set against savings made from crimes
prevented.
1. What information do you need on the costs of crime that is currently missing
or of poor quality?
26
2.8 Topic 8: Public perceptions of crime and criminal

justice
What are the public’s attitudes to and knowledge about crime and criminal
justice issues?
Public perceptions of crime and criminal justice may influence how much trust people
have in the justice system, and also relate to another outcome in the framework,
‘accessible justice systems’ as people's perception or knowledge of the criminal
justice system may determine whether they use the system or not.
There is a growing recognition in contemporary democratic nations that promoting

public confidence in the administration of justice is one of the primary goals of good
government. Public trust or confidence is critical to the functioning of the criminal
justice system.
The police rely on victims drawing offences to their attention. If members of the public
have little confidence in the police, they are less likely to report crimes. Public
participation is also critical when an individual is charged with an offence.
Prosecution is generally possible only if the victim (the complainant) is willing to give
evidence in the event that the matter proceeds to trial. In addition, the participation of
other witnesses is often vital in order to secure a conviction. Public confidence that
the system will not convict an innocent person is equally important. Victims and
witnesses will only cooperate with the police and prosecutors if they have confidence
in the justice system as a whole, and if they trust the specific justice professionals
whom they have contact with. Court delays and the amount of time it takes to finalise
a court case are further areas of interest to the public and may influence the way that
the system is perceived.
The justice system must inspire the confidence of the public to ensure its authority
and legitimacy. Notions of fairness and integrity are central to the concept of
legitimacy. A justice system that discriminates against certain groups or where the
professionals lack integrity, or are out of touch with community values, will not be
perceived as legitimate in the eyes of the public.
Public knowledge about the criminal justice system and sentencing outcomes is also
important. Low levels of public confidence in the justice system are likely to lead to
calls for change in the system. However, if the public holds inaccurate beliefs about
crime and criminal justice, reforms may take the wrong policy direction. For example,
if the public thinks that prisoners released on parole represent a threat to the safety
of the community, this will undermine confidence in the parole system and lead to
calls for the abolition of parole.
Public perceptions and confidence in the effectiveness of the alternative and

restorative justice areas outlined in the ‘responses to crime’ topic are also of interest.
It may also be of interest to know what influences and informs people's perception
and knowledge of the criminal justice system; for example, what influence does the
media have? Wider social conditions (socio-demographics and the economy) may
have an effect on public perceptions of crime and attitudes to the criminal justice
system.
1. What information do you need on public perceptions of crime and justice that
is currently missing or of poor quality?
27
2.9 Other information requirements

In addition to the need for information on enduring research questions and policy
issues, many users require data of a less frequent nature to answer specific research
and policy issues, and to benchmark some crimes that are of interest but do not
require regular monitoring. Examples of these types of questions and issues are:
• What is the extent of corruption in our prisons?

• What is the extent of drug use among prison inmates?
1. What other information on gaps or deficiencies in crime and criminal justice

do you require?
2. Why do you need this information and how would you or your organisation
use this?
Stakeholders are also asked to list their top three priority information needs. This list
will help Statistics New Zealand determine the relative importance of all identified
needs.
28
3 Identifying key statistical development areas

This section assesses whether the statistical needs identified under each topic are
currently being met. Appendix 4 provides a detailed list of statistics on crime and
criminal justice, and this list has been used in the assessment. Nine statistical
development areas have been identified through an assessment of the current
information needs and gaps. In some of these areas preliminary work is already
underway, but substantial work is still required. Other areas are new and have
potential for development. The final key statistical development areas and the key
steps that need to be taken to address them will be placed in order of priority after
this paper has been made available to the public for comment.
The justice sector agencies in New Zealand have a large amount of administrative
data available. Administrative data may be used to compile statistics, for example the
Ministry of Justice data on all the charges laid in courts may be used to generate
statistics on the number of convictions for a particular type of offence during a given
year. An important statistical development need identified under almost all of the
topics is to make better use of the existing data for statistical purposes.
Improved data management is required to produce high quality official statistics and
to enable better use of the data. Improved data management includes: rigorous
quality assessment, the use of standard procedures and methodologies, the
availability of metadata, and sharing data across the justice sector agencies. The
Justice Sector Information Strategy (JSIS) provides a framework for these
developments.
Improved access to the data would enable better use of the available data,
particularly by individuals and agencies outside the justice sector. Some statistics are
available to the public and justice sector agencies through Table Builder1 on the
Statistics New Zealand website and through publications analysing the statistics.
However, it is difficult for people outside the justice sector agencies to access
microdata needed for some types of research. More tables and microdata could be
made available to those outside the justice sector agencies.
Making data more widely available will contribute to better usage of the existing data,
but only if that data is analysed and the results published. Some justice agencies
present their statistics in the form of analytical reports (for example, Soboleva et al
2006) and some crime and criminal justice statistics are used to complement
analytical reports on other topics (for example, Paulin and Kingi 2005). However,
there is potential for more (and better) analysis of available data.
Within the official statistics system, Tier 1 statistics are a defined set of key official
statistics that are performance measures of New Zealand. There are three sets of
Tier 1 crime and criminal justice statistics: recorded crime, apprehensions of
offenders, and court outcomes. In conjunction with making better use of existing
data, some existing statistical collections could be assessed and identified as
suitable to become Tier 1 statistics.
Two key statistical development areas identified apply across all of the topics:
1
Table Builder is the software used by Statistics New Zealand to make data publicly available on its
website. Using Table Builder, data cubes generate interactive tables designed by the user.
29
purposes within the crime and criminal justice sector, particularly the
process (underway).

3.1 Trends in the nature and extent of crime

The two main sources of data on the nature and extent of crime are police statistics
on recorded crime and the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS). Police
statistics on recorded crime provide trend information on the incidence of different
offences, the severity of offences, the time of the offence (at the monthly level), at the
national and subnational level (police district and area, and station on request).
Information on the location of the incident is available, but other information on the
circumstances surrounding the incident, such as the time the incident occurred (by
exact date – where possible), whether a weapon was involved, and the relationship
of the offender to the victim, are not available. NZCASS provides information on both
reported and unreported crime, providing an alternative and complementary picture
of the nature and extent of crime than that shown by police statistics.
Although many crimes in New Zealand are detected by or reported to the police,
some are prosecuted by other agencies. For example, the Inland Revenue
Department prosecutes breaches of tax laws. Information on the number of
prosecutions by these other agencies is available from the courts, although the
equivalent statistical information on crimes reported to or discovered by the police is
not published at the moment. Information from the agencies that bring a large
number of prosecutions each year is of interest.
Each of these data sources has limitations, they are published separately, and
measure different aspects. Nevertheless, they complement each other so that
together they provide a more comprehensive picture of the nature of crime in New
Zealand than each one does on its own. However, coverage and under-recording
issues bring into question the validity of attempting to produce a total count of crime,
and the concept of total crime is less robust than it might appear. The Australian
Bureau of Statistics' paper on measuring crime victimisation (Australian Bureau of
Statistics 2002) provides a good discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of
different methodologies for counting crime, and concludes that "ultimately users must
decide which measure of crime is fit for their purpose".
A further important limitation of the available sources is that they do not provide
robust measures of changes in crime over time. Changes in the methodology used in
the NZCASS in each of the last three surveys make it difficult to monitor crime trends
using data from this source. Stabilising the NZCASS methodology and instrument will
address this issue. Operational changes impact on the comparability of police-
recorded crime across police districts and over time. Developing standard counting
rules and protocols for recording the data will help address this issue. During 2008
the police are developing a National Recording Standard (NRS) for recording
information in their systems.
The need for greater uniformity in crime statistics extends to the need for standard
definitions and classifications and a common data quality framework. JSIS provides a
30
framework for these to be developed and maintained for administrative data (for
example, through the Justice Sector Data Dictionary). The JSIS work programme for
2007/08 includes the development of a data quality framework, to make better use of
the data quality assessment methodology developed approximately four years ago.
The offence classification, which provides the basis for the production of statistics on
different types of crime, was recently reviewed and found to be in need of a major
overhaul. Because this classification is not standardised, and different agencies use
different classifications in their statistical publications, it is difficult to track the volume
of different types of offences at different parts of the system, except at the lowest
(offence code) level. The Traffic Precedent and Offence Code project (TPOC) is
addressing this issue (see appendix 2).
Other classifications not unique to the justice sector (for example, gender and
ethnicity) used in crime statistics do not conform to New Zealand standards making
comparison with other official statistics difficult. The justice classification for gender
allows for values of ’corporation’, and ’unknown’ which are not in the standard
classification. The value of corporation occurs when a corporation, rather than a
person, is apprehended or prosecuted. These records should be excluded from
analysis by age, gender, or ethnicity.
The recording of ethnicity is not standard for any of the Tier 1 official statistics in the
crime and criminal justice domain. Police and courts data on the ethnicity of the
offending population is in principle based on self-reported ethnicity, but in practice
ethnicity is often assigned by the person who apprehends the offender based on his
or her physical appearance or name. (Police record a person's physical appearance
as an aid to identifying an offender, but physical appearance needs to be
distinguished from ethnicity.) No allowance is made for multiple reporting of ethnicity.
As a result, the data cannot be readily integrated with ethnicity data from other official
sources. Given the over-representation of some ethnic groups in the criminal justice
system and the associated policy interest in them, the lack of quality data is a major
shortcoming. For example, it is difficult to calculate a crime rate for Mäori using
population data.
The international comparison of crime statistics has been a problem since the first
counts of crime. New Zealand has participated in two United Nations surveys, Crime
Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, and the International Crime
Victims Surveys. The first of these surveys is subject to the inevitable problems of
varying definitions (both legal and statistical), reporting and operating practices as
well as other problems associated with recorded crime (Van Dijk and Kangaspunta
2000). The International Crime Victims Surveys overcame these problems by
standardising definitions and collection methods, however, these standard definitions
and methods do not reflect New Zealand's legal system (as NZCASS does).
While there are problems with comparing levels of crime internationally, New Zealand
should endeavour to use international best-practice methods, such as the methods of
counting crime discussed in Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002), when compiling
and analysing its crime and criminal justice statistics.
There are four key statistical development areas identified under this topic:

31

in April the Police Executive Committee approved a national recording
standard which becomes policy on 1 July 2008. Implementation and
ongoing operation of the standard should be monitored to ensure it is

criminal justice system. Standard definitions and classifications co-
ordinated by the Justice Sector Information Strategy (JSIS) should be

Safety Survey (NZCASS) has been significantly improved with each
survey. However, these improvements have meant that it is not possible to
use the data from the surveys to monitor crime trends over time. There is a
3.2 Victims
The New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS) is the major source of
information on victims of crime in New Zealand. This survey, which has been
conducted every five years since 1996, helps identify those most at risk of different
types of crime in terms of their socio-demographic characteristics. The survey also
provides information on the nature of victimisation, such as its physical, financial and
emotional effects. As well as the Key Findings report, the NZCASS 2006 resulted in a
number of reports focusing on analysis of particular areas (for example, community
safety and the experience of e-crime).
No information is available on the longer-term impacts of victimisation or on the inter-

relationship between victimisation and outcomes in other domains such as health,
paid work and economic standard of living. This type of information will be available
from the General Social Survey (GSS), although the GSS uses a different measure
of victimisation than NZCASS. The GSS is scheduled to be conducted in 2008, on a
two-yearly cycle thereafter, and the first results will be available in 2009.
Because the coverage of NZCASS is restricted to private households and adults

aged 15 years and over, it does not capture corporate victims, those under 15 years
of age and victims residing in institutions and other types of non-private households
such as boarding houses. (The Youth 2000 Survey has information on violence and
victimisations among younger people, including those under 15 years of age.)
NZCASS can only provide limited information on victimisation at a subnational level
and amongst small population groups. Victimisation surveys cannot accurately
capture crimes that rarely occur.
As noted previously, changes to the design of NZCASS have had an adverse impact
on the comparability of the data over time, thus reducing the ability to monitor trends
in crime estimates. However, it has been useful in tracking trends on perceptions of
the criminal justice system, and concern about crime.
32
Police collect information on victims of crime but the information is incomplete and of
insufficient quality to publish as a regular statistical output. Police are investigating a
means of compiling information on the relationship between an offender and a victim
for all apprehensions. The victim will not always know who the offender is, so no
relationship can be stated, and this situation will need to be taken into account when
the information is compiled.
Information on physical injuries as the result of crime, particularly assault, that result
in the victim’s hospitalisation could provide information on the impact of physical
injuries on victims of crime. This information could be published with other
information on assaults. However, this analysis may provide only a partial picture as
hospitalised people do not always identify their injury as the result of an assault, and
typically only the most severe cases result in hospitalisations.
Key statistical development area
There is one key statistical development area identified under this topic, and key
statistical development areas C, E and F are also relevant:

an offender and a victim, is required to complement that available on
3.3 Offenders
Most data on offenders is an administrative by-product of the justice system. Data is
available at the main points at which offenders are processed by the system
including when they are apprehended by the police (police apprehension statistics),
when young offenders have an FGC (FGC referrals), when they are dealt with by the
courts (conviction and sentencing statistics) and when they come into the care of the
Department of Corrections (prison inmate statistics).
Police data on offenders relates to events rather than individuals. Methods of

counting both events (crimes for which there is an apprehension) and individuals
(offenders) are needed for different purposes. In addition to the current count of the
number of crimes for which there is an apprehension, a count based on offenders is
needed for analysis of offenders who commit multiple offences (either at the same or
different times). The National Crime Recording Standard should address this issue,
so that police data can produce a count of distinct offenders as well as events.
An important need is to be able to track an offender through the justice system for
statistical and research purposes. Most of the justice sector in New Zealand
participates in a system (Justice Sector Unique Identifier Code) that authorises
justice sector agencies to share existing identifiers (unique to each agency). (This is
a legacy of LES which was maintained after LES was decommissioned.) Although
there are issues with the system, particularly with offenders having multiple identity
numbers (largely because offenders do not want to be identified), the system works
well. This system has made it easier to track offenders through particular parts of the
system and has been a crucial element in many recidivism studies. For example,
studies of offending on bail used the identity number of those on bail, and the identity
number on their criminal record to identify offences committed while on bail. Personal
identity numbers are not currently part of the police's recorded crime statistics,
although they are on the police administrative data. Child, Youth and Family is not
currently authorised to participate in the system of sharing unique identifiers.
33
Information required on children and young persons who offend includes:
• an assessment of the effectiveness of interventions, including police

diversion, FGCs and Youth Court orders (custodial and community-
based)
• individual characteristics of young offenders, such as health status
and educational achievement, and links with potential influences, such
as family violence and care arrangements
• the history of youth offending for people in the care of the Department
of Corrections.
Statistical information on young offenders is held by several agencies, including the

New Zealand Police, Ministry of Justice, and Child, Youth and Family. It has been
difficult to integrate data from the various sources to obtain a coherent picture of the
involvement of children and young persons in the criminal justice system. In 2004 the
Ministry of Justice published the results of a pilot study to establish a Youth Justice
Minimum Dataset (Spier and Segessenmann 2004). The aim of the pilot was to
document the range of Youth Justice information collected electronically by the police
and CYF, the quality of the data and the degree to which data between agencies can
be linked on individuals who have a police-referred Family Group Conference.
The study found that there was potential for a Youth Justice minimum dataset to be
established in the justice sector. However, there were a number of issues that
needed to be addressed before such a dataset could be established. These included:
• police and CYF do not record a common unique identifier to enable accurate
linking of data from each agency on individuals
• restrictions in the Privacy Act 1993 mean that the Ministry of Justice cannot
automatically access in bulk important classes of Youth Justice data on
identifiable individuals
• large under-recording of offence and other youth-related data in the National
Intelligence Application (NIA) computer system
• some important information captured by CYF cannot be easily analysed
because it is recorded in text form. This includes the specific elements of
FGC plans, offence information and information on children and young people
held in CYF residences.
A range of work is underway to enable Youth Justice data to be exchanged more

effectively.
There is limited information on the background and characteristics of offenders, apart

from their demographic characteristics (that is, age, sex, and ethnicity). Although they
are not nationally representative data sources, the Christchurch and Dunedin
longitudinal studies are potentially rich sources of information on the characteristics
of offenders, and the factors that may lead an individual to become an offender.
Several studies on recidivism have been conducted by the Ministry of Justice and the
Department of Corrections. Two regular series have analysed offending on bail and
offending amongst people released from prison. However, information on people who
offend while on parole has not yet been compiled or analysed.
Until recently, a census of prison inmates was conducted every two years. It provided
a snapshot of the characteristics of the prison population which can be compared
with previous censuses. Changes to census methodology have affected the
robustness of the comparisons between some censuses. The most recent census
34
was conducted in 2003 and the information is now outdated. In 2008 the Department
of Corrections released the first of a series of reports on the volume of offender
population managed by the department. This report partly replaces the census of
prison inmates and gives information on those released from prison under orders
(parole, home detention, post-release conditions, or extended supervision) and those
serving community-based sentences.
In addition to the prison census, two surveys on the health of the prison population
have been conducted over the last 10 years. The most recent was conducted in 2005
and looked at the general health of the prison population, producing data comparable
with that from the New Zealand Health Survey. The earlier survey collected
information on psychiatric disorders amongst prison inmates. The Ministry of Health
and the Department of Corrections are working on a project to track the health status
of people as they move from the community into prison, and any changes in health
status on release from prison.
There are two key statistical development areas identified under this topic, and key
statistical development areas C, and E are also relevant:

new development).
I Statistics on children and young persons who offend are fragmented,

being spread across three agencies (New Zealand Police, Child, Youth
(underway).
3.4 Crime prevention

Geographic information on where crime is occurring is essential for measuring crime
levels in specific communities. The growth of technology and the development of
more accurate justice sector information collection procedures have enabled the
potential use of crime and criminal justice information at a variety of geographic
levels. Police statistics on recorded crime provide the only source of information on
the nature of crime at a regional and local level. Currently the data is published at the
police district and area level, although there is potential for publication at a lower
level.
The National Intelligence Application (NIA) system which replaced LES for the police
in June 2005 allows for geocoding of the location of an offence. To date, police
development has focused on providing the ability to record geocoding through police
applications, and promoting correct geocode recording. Further investigation of what
significant improvements can be made in the quality of police's geocoding of
information is needed. Possible means of improving the quality of the information are
practice improvements, and the wide-scale deployment of Global Positioning System
(GPS) technology integrated into electronic forms. Justice sector agencies are also
active participants in the all-of-government National Address Register (NAR) project
to enable geocoding of information collected and held.
From time to time evaluations are conducted on the effectiveness of particular crime
prevention programmes. Ideally these evaluations will have a quantitative as well as
35
a qualitative aspect. The type of quantitative information that might be required

includes the number and type of crimes in particular areas before and after the
programme was implemented, the relationship between victims and offenders, and
reoffending patterns of offenders in the area. Apart from the relationship between
victims and offenders, this type of information is available.
However, such evaluation presents challenges. It can be difficult to attribute crime

reduction in a particular area to the crime prevention programme. Identifying all of the
interventions (for example, in the health, education and social services areas) in the
community that may affect crime levels is necessary. Some interventions, such as
reading programmes, will take years to have a measurable effect.
There are no key statistical development areas identified under this topic, although
statistical development areas C, E, F and G are relevant to the topic.
3.5 Responses to crime

At every stage of the criminal justice system there are responses to crime. The main
sources of official statistics on the justice sector’s response to crime are police
statistics on recorded and resolved offences, apprehensions of offenders; and court
statistics on convictions and sentencing.
Police statistics on recorded offences resolved count only those offences which are
resolved in the same calendar or fiscal year the offence was committed. Thus, if an
offence is resolved a month after the end of the calendar year, the offence will not be
counted as resolved. This means that the statistics undercount the number of
resolutions, particularly for offences involving lengthy periods of investigation, such
as homicides. No data are available in the public domain on the length of time taken
by police to respond to and resolve crimes.
Police apprehensions and court outcome statistics both provide information about
how offenders are dealt with by the criminal justice system. They enable analysis
over time and by region, type and severity of sentence, demographic characteristics,
and the previous criminal record of the offender (number of previous convictions).
However, the lack of information on the socio-economic characteristics of offenders
precludes analysis of sentencing outcomes according to these qualities.
The Ministry of Justice has undertaken evaluation studies to look at the effectiveness
of different sentencing options or alternative justice practices in reducing reoffending.
Child, Youth, Family also evaluate Youth Justice programmes, and the Department
of Corrections also evaluate their own programmes. These studies have often had
both a qualitative and a quantitative nature, and as discussed under the crime
prevention topic above, it is important to ensure that appropriate quantitative
information is available for these evaluations.
Basic information on the size of the prison population and its composition of remand
and sentenced inmates is available through the offender volumes report mentioned in
section 3.3.
Data on court delays and the length of time taken to finalise court cases is not readily
available in the public domain. There is also a dearth of published information about
how much of the court sentence offenders actually serve.
36
statistical development areas D and E are relevant to the topic.
3.6 Access to justice services

Information on access to legal services was collected for the first time in a nationwide
survey in 2006. The survey, commissioned by the Legal Services Agency, provides
information on where people seek help with their legal problems, where they
encounter problems getting services and what happens if services are not available
to them. The focus of the survey is on civil rather than criminal matters.
The relationship between legal representation and case outcome has not been
explored.
The Legal Services Agency also compiles annual data on providers, grants and
recipients of legal aid. The statistics cover domestic violence and criminal matters.
Information from the Legal Services Agency is relatively recent (first published
2003/04) and work on publishing more of the available data is being developed. The
Legal Services Agency has also identified a need to integrate the data with other
justice sector data. The Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Agency are
working together to provide better access to information. Some data on the provision
of legal aid is recorded by the Ministry of Justice in the Case Management System
(CMS), and the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Agency are working to
validate the accuracy of this data.
statistical development area D is relevant to the topic.
3.7 Costs of crime

Statistical information about the costs of crime in New Zealand is not routinely
produced. In 2006 Treasury produced a working paper estimating the costs of crime
in New Zealand in 2003/04. The paper represents the first official analysis of the full
costs of crime, including both private and public sector costs. It is based on
assumptions of the assumed volume of actual crime and the costs that crime
imposes on victims, drawing heavily from UK data. The robustness of the estimates
is also affected by missing and incomplete data in some areas, such as the health
and lost output costs associated with drug and ‘other’ offences and the costs incurred
by not-for-profit organisations. The Ministry of Justice is planning to update the
Treasury analysis using extra information from NZCASS, and more up-to-date figures
for other costs.
New Zealand lacks a well established and comprehensive means of estimating the
full cost of crime in New Zealand. Internationally, while there are methods for
estimating the cost of crime, it is difficult to establish a robust methodology. New
Zealand should continue to monitor international work in this area and apply the
methods to New Zealand when appropriate.
There are no key statistical development areas identified under this topic.
37
3.8 Public perceptions of crime and criminal justice

Information on public perceptions to crime and the criminal justice system has been
collected in a variety of surveys in recent years. The first national survey on public
attitudes to crime and the criminal justice system’s response to crime was conducted
by the Ministry of Justice in 1999. The 2006 NZCASS sought to update some of this
information. The survey asked victims of crime about their satisfaction with police
response. Respondents were also asked to rate different criminal justice groups,
including the police, juries, judges, criminal lawyers, probation officers and the prison
service.
A range of other surveys have collected information on public attitudes to the

services provided by different agencies within the criminal justice system. For
example, police have commissioned surveys on a regular basis on public satisfaction
with their services. Similarly, the Ministry of Justice has commissioned surveys on
public perceptions of the New Zealand court system and processes. These agencies
use these surveys for operational purposes to monitor their performance, but they
are not generally suitable for official statistics purposes.
There are no key statistical development areas identified under this topic.
3.9 Conclusion
There is a wide range of official statistics on crime and criminal justice in New
Zealand. The range of statistics available compares favourably with other countries
such as Australia, Canada and the UK, and covers the major areas of content
outlined by the United Nations in its "Manual for the Development of a System of
Criminal Justice Statistics" (United Nations 2003). However, there are some gaps in
the statistical information base or where there is scope for improving the quality of
the available statistics.
Nine key areas for the official statistics system to address have been identified.
Except for key statistical development area I, these apply to both young and adult
offenders. They are not listed in order of priority. In some of these areas preliminary
work is already underway, but substantial work is still required. Other areas are new
and have potential for development. The final key statistical development areas and
the key steps that need to be taken to address them will be placed in order of priority
after this paper has been made available to the public for comment.
purposes within the crime and criminal justice sector, particularly
process (underway).


38
in April 2008, the Police Executive Committee approved a national

recording standard which becomes policy on 1 July 2008. Implementation
and ongoing operation of the standard should be monitored to ensure it is

criminal justice system. Standard definitions and classifications co-
ordinated by the Justice Sector Information Strategy (JSIS) should be

Safety Survey (NZCASS) has been significantly improved with each
survey. However, these improvements have meant that it is not possible to
use the data from the surveys to monitor crime trends over time. There is a

an offender and a victim, is required to complement that available on

new development).
I Statistics on children and young persons who offend are fragmented,

being spread across three agencies (New Zealand Police, Child, Youth
(underway).
1. Do you have any comments on chapter 3: Identifying key statistical

development areas?
2. Do you have any other comments or suggestions?
39
Glossary
Administrative data
A class of records, in any form, in the whole or in part, created or received by a
government or non-government agency in conduct of its affairs.
Apprehension
When a person has been dealt with by the police in some manner (for example, a
warning, prosecution, referral to Youth Justice Family Group Conference, etc) to
resolve an offence.
ASOC (Australian Standard Offence Classification)

The objective of ASOC is to provide a uniform national statistical framework for
classifying offences for use by justice agencies and other persons and agencies with
an interest in crime and criminal justice issues within Australia.
Bail
Involves a defendant being released, with various conditions imposed. Police bail
occurs when a person is released before going to court for the first time. Court bail is
one of several remand options available to the court. (See Remand)
CMS (case management system)

This is operated by the Ministry of Justice and contains data on court outcomes from
all courts (District Court, Youth Court, High Court and Court of Appeal).
Community-based sentences
These sentences are administered by the Department of Corrections. The
Sentencing Act 2002 legislates for two community-based sentences in New Zealand
– community work and supervision. Previously there were four such sentences:
periodic detention, community service, community programme, and supervision.
CAPI (computer-assisted personal interviewing)

The interviewer administers the survey face-to-face with the respondent and enters
responses into a laptop computer. The questionnaire is a computer program that
specifies the questions, the range and structure of permissible answers, and
instructions for navigating through the questionnaire. Plausibility and consistency
checks are incorporated to improve data quality.
CASI (computer-assisted self-interviewing)

The interviewer gives the laptop to the respondent to allow them to report their
experiences without revealing them to the interviewer.
Child offender
Special provisions are set out in the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act
1989 to deal with child offenders who are between 10 and 13 years old.
Community probation service

A division of the Department of Corrections and administers community-based
sentences, parole, and home detention.
40
Criminal incident
Occurs when a crime, as defined in legislation, has been committed.
Criminal justice system

The process where the state responds to behaviour that it deems unacceptable, and
is delivered through a series of stages: charge, prosecution, trial, sentence, appeal,
punishment. These processes, and the agencies which carry them out, are referred
to collectively as the criminal justice system. The framework of criminal justice is laid
down by legislation specifying the penalties available in consequence of various
crimes; and the powers, rules and procedures for each process and agency. (Based
on McLaughlin and Muncie, 2005, 93.)
CYRAS (Care and Protection, Youth Justice, Residential, Adoptions System)

This is the information management system of Child, Youth and Family services.
Domestic violence
See Family violence.
Diversion Scheme
The Police Adult Diversion Scheme (diversion) is a lawful way to exercise
prosecutorial discretion instead of full prosecution. Diversion enables eligible
offenders to complete diversion activities within a given timeframe to avoid both a full
prosecution and the possibility of receiving a conviction. It involves first-time
offenders who have committed non-serious offences and who admit their guilt, and
complete the diversion scheme to have the court charge withdrawn.
E-crime (electronic crime)

Covers offences where a computer or other ICT (information, communication,
technology) device is used as a tool to commit an offence, is the target of an offence
or is used as a storage device in an offence.
Evidence-based policy
A paradigm from the health system stating that sound research and scientific
evidence should inform all areas of policy making and official decision making.
FGC (family group conference)

Family Group Conference is a formal meeting for members of the family/whänau, the
young offender and the victim to decide how the young offender can be held
accountable and encouraged to take responsibility for their behaviour. The FGC is
convened and facilitated by a Youth Justice coordinator from Child, Youth and
Family. The police, a social worker, or a youth advocate may also attend the
conference. The entitled members participating in the conference try to reach
agreement on a plan of action that suits everybody. Decisions the FGC can make
include: apologies by the offender to the victims; reparation; replacement of stolen
property; work for the victim; community work; and voluntary disqualification from
holding or obtaining a driver licence.
41
Family violence
Has the same meaning as domestic violence as defined in the Domestic Violence Act
1995. In summary, domestic violence, in relation to any person, means violence
against that person by any other person with whom that person is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship, where violence includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, or
psychological abuse. Domestic relationships include relationships with a spouse or
partner, family member, someone who shares the household, or a close relationship.
GPS (global positioning system)

A fully functional global navigation satellite system (GNSS) that uses a constellation
of at least 24 medium earth orbit satellites that transmit precise microwave signals.
The system enables a GPS receiver to determine its location, speed, direction, and
time.
Geocoding
The process of assigning geographic identifiers (for example, codes or geographic
coordinates expressed as latitude-longitude) to map features and other data records,
such as street addresses.
Home detention
Involves an offender serving prison sentence, or part of the sentence, at an approved
residence. Offenders on home detention wear an electronic device so their
movements can be monitored. The offender’s home detention is managed by the
Community Probation Service.
Infringement system
Administers infringement offences which differ from other offences in that no criminal
conviction is entered, and the onus is usually on the defendant to prove that the
offence did not occur or the defendant was not liable. They are usually characterised
by strict liability, low-level offending and a fixed penalty.
Interpersonal victimisation
The NZCASS defines interpersonal violence as follows:
Committed by people known and unknown to the

Sexual victimisation
victim
Assaults
Threats of force Committed by strangers
Committed by partners and
Threats of damage to property and people not known to
people known to the victim
Damage to property by people with the victim
whom the victim had contact
Justice sector change control notification system

Used by justice sector agencies to notify all agencies in the sector of proposed
changes to operational data systems (for example, code or classification changes),
that may affect the other agencies.
42
JSIS (Justice Sector Information Strategy)

Agencies in the justice sector use this to improve the way information is managed
and shared in the sector.
LES (Law Enforcement System)

Formerly the Wanganui Computer. This IT system was established in late 1970s and
used by justice sector agencies (New Zealand Police, Department of Justice, Ministry
of Justice, Department for Courts, Department of Corrections, Ministry of Transport,
Land Transport New Zealand, Land Transport Safety Authority) to share data on
offending and offenders. The police were the last agency to leave LES in June 2005.
Mental health
Both the experience of well-being or illness of the mind, and an area of health
practice relating to illness or well-being of the mind, including psychiatry, psychology
and other more general practice. (Based on New Zealand Family Violence
Clearinghouse, 2006, 33.)
Neighbourhood Support
A community programme that aims to make homes, streets, neighbourhoods and
communities safer. Neighbourhood Support works closely with the police and many
other organisations to reduce crime and to prepare people to deal with emergencies
and natural disasters in their community.
NIA (National Intelligence Application)

The New Zealand Police IT system that replaced LES from June 2005. It contains
information on criminal incidents recorded and resolved, apprehensions, and mode of
apprehension.
Offender
The perpetrator of a crime. An offender exists regardless of whether they are
identified and subject to criminal justice processes. The offender may be an
individual or an organisation.
Official statistics
The Statistics Act 1975 defines official statistics as "statistics derived by Government
Departments from:
a) Statistical surveys; and

b) Administrative and registration records and other forms and papers the
statistical analyses of which are published regularly, or are planned to be
published regularly, or could reasonably be published regularly."
Organised criminal group

Under the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime, an
organised criminal group is a structured group of three or more persons, existing for
a period of time and acting in concert with the aim of committing one or more serious
crimes or offences established in accordance with this convention, in order to obtain,
directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit.
43
Parole
Occurs when an offender is released from prison to serve the remainder of his or her
sentence in the community on conditions supervised by the Community Probation
Service. Most offenders will be on parole for a set period and during that time they
can be recalled to prison if they do not comply with the conditions of their parole.
Offenders sentenced to life imprisonment or preventive detention are on parole
indefinitely.
Programme of official social statistics

An all-of-government programme to improve the coherence of official social statistics.
Recidivism
A term used in a variety of ways, depending on the context within the criminal justice
system. At a general level, it relates to the concept of reoffending or repetitive
criminal activity. In New Zealand, recidivism statistics measure a conviction for an
offence that occurred within the period of interest.
Remand
There are several remand options available to the court. When a person appears in
court and is charged with an offence, the court case is not always decided at the first
appearance. Several hearings may be required before a final decision on the case is
made, and in the case of jury trials there is often a delay of several months before the
trial takes place. This means that several adjournments of the case may occur. When
a court hearing is adjourned, the court has the following options for dealing with the
defendant:
• remand at large: a time and place for the next court hearing are specified, but
no conditions are imposed on the defendant
• remand on bail: the defendant is released, but has various conditions
imposed
• remand in custody: the defendant is kept in custody until the next court
appearance.
Remand in custody
See Remand.
Reoffending
Similar to Recidivism. A person reoffends when, after they have been convicted for
an offence, they commit more offences for which they are convicted. Statistics on
reoffending often measure reoffending in a particular period, for example, in the two
years after release from prison.
Restorative justice
An alternative means of responding to an offence and its effects that places a focus
on the people affected by the crime. Face-to-face meetings with the victim are used
to make offenders accountable and support people are invited to assist the parties in
achieving reconciliation. Restorative Justice tries to achieve accountability,
restoration, and reintegration. (Based on New Zealand Family Violence
Clearinghouse, 2006, 35.)
44
Social capital
The social resource that embodies the relations between people. It resides in and
stems from the contact, communication, sharing, cooperation and trust that are
inherent in ongoing relationships. It is described as ‘capital’ because it can be
accumulated over time and then drawn on in the future for use in achieving certain
goals. Social capital is a collective resource rather than one accruing to an individual.
Table Builder
Table Builder is the software used by Statistics New Zealand to make data publicly
available on its website. Using Table Builder, data cubes generate interactive tables
designed by the user.
Tier 1 official statistics

Tier 1 statistics are a defined set of key official statistics that are performance
measures of New Zealand. Tier 1 statistics:
• are essential to central government decision making
• are of high public interest
• need to meet public expectations of impartiality and high statistical quality
• require long-term continuity of data
• provide international comparability in a global environment or meet
international statistical obligations
• align with the Tier 1 statistics principles and protocols.
TPOC (Traffic Precedent and Offence Codes)

A system of four digit codes, originally developed for LES, used by justice sector
agencies to code the type of offence. These codes are the basis of the type of
offence classifications used in New Zealand.
Victimisation
The process or act of being initiated into the status of a victim as defined below.
Victims
Persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or
mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their
fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws. A
person may be considered a victim, regardless of whether the perpetrator is
identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the familial
relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. The term also includes, where
appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who
have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent
victimisation (Based on the ‘1985 United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of
Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power’).
Wanganui computer
See LES.
Well-being
Well-being depends on all the factors that interact within our society and can be seen
as a state of health or sufficiency in all aspects of life. At the individual level, this can
include the physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual aspects of life. At a
broader level, the social, material and natural environments surrounding each
45
individual, through interdependency, become a part of the well-being equation.

(Based on Trewin, 2001, 6.)
Young offender
Used to refer to both children and young persons who offend, and dealt with under
the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989.
Young person or youth offender

Special provisions are set out in the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act
1989 to deal with offenders who are between 14 and 16 years old. This group are
referred to as young persons or youth offenders.
Youth Justice system

The process of dealing with young offenders as set out in the Children, Young
Persons and Their Families Act 1989.
46
References
General
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002). Information Paper: Measuring Crime

Victimisation, Australia: The Impact of Different Collection Methodologies, Australian
Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Available at
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/C7A5DB6A3C
9F49BACA256E30007C91E2?OpenDocument [April 2008].
Department of Statistics (1982). Report of the Review Committee on New Zealand

Justice Statistics, Department of Statistics, Wellington.
Dolan P and Peasgood T (2007). "Estimating the Economic and Social Costs of the
Fear of Crime", British Journal of Criminology 47 pp. 121-132.
Dubourg R, Hamed J and Thorns J (2005). The economic and social costs of crime
against individuals and households 2003/04, Home Office Online Report 30/05.
Available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr3005.pdf [April 2008].
Maxwell G, Kingi V, Robertson J, Morris A and Cunningham C (2004). Achieving

Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice: Final Report. Ministry of Social Development,
Wellington.
McLaughlin and Muncie (2005). The Sage Dictionary of Criminology, second edition,
Sage, London.
Ministry of Justice (2007a). Ministry of Justice Statement of Intent 1 July 2007-30

June 2008, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Ministry of Justice (2007b). Justice Information Stocktake: What's Where?, Ministry

of Justice, Wellington. Available at http://registry.e.govt.nz/view.php?pid=nzssc:49
[April 2008].
Ministry of Justice (2006). Justice Sector Information Strategy: 2006—2011, Ministry

of Justice, Wellington. Available at http://www.justice.govt.nz/jsis/strategy.html [April
2008].
New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse (2006). An Agenda for Family Violence
Research, New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse.
New Zealand Police (2006). New Zealand Police Statistics Strategic Plan 2006 -
2010, New Zealand Police, Wellington.
Paulin J and Kingi V (2005). The Wanganui Community-Managed Restorative Justice

Programme: an Evaluation, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Roper T and Thompson A (2006). Estimating the Costs of Crime in New Zealand
2003/04: New Zealand Treasury Working Paper 06/04, New Zealand Treasury,
Wellington. Available at http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-
policy/wp/2006/06-04/twp06-04.pdf [April 2008].
Soboleva N, Kazakova N and Chong J (2006). Conviction and Sentencing of

Offenders in New Zealand: 1996 to 2005, Ministry of Justice, Wellington. Available at
47
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2006/conviction-sentencing-1996-
2005/index.html [April 2008].
Spier P and Segessenmann T (2004). Youth Justice Minimum Dataset: Data

Integration Pilot, Ministry of Justice, Wellington. Available at
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2004/yj-min-dataset-data-pilot/index.html
[April 2008].
Spier P, Southey P and Norris M (1991). Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in

New Zealand: 1981 to 1990, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Trewin D (2001). Measuring Wellbeing: Frameworks for Australian Social Statistics,

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Triggs S (1998). From Crime to Sentence: Trends in Criminal Justice, 1986 to 1996,
Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Triggs S (1997). Interpreting Trends in Recorded Crime in New Zealand," Ministry of

Justice, Wellington.
United Nations (2003). Manual for the Development of a System of Criminal Justice
Statistics, Studies in Methods, Series F No. 89, United Nations, New York. Available
at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/SeriesF/SeriesF_89E.pdf [April 2008].
Van Dijk, J and Kangaspunta K (2000). Piecing Together the Cross-National Crime
Puzzle, Washington (DC), National Institute of Justice, National Institute of Justice
Journal, January 2000
References for information sources in appendix 4

In general, these references are for the latest published statistics for each information
source.
A4.1.1 Recorded crime
Police National Headquarters (2007). New Zealand Crime Statistics 2006/2007: A

Summary of Recorded and Resolved Offence Statistics, Police National
Headquarters, Wellington.
Statistics New Zealand. Table Builder tables available at

http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/table-builder/crime-tables/default.htm
[April 2008].
A4.1.2 Apprehensions of offenders
Statistics New Zealand. Table Builder tables available at

http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/table-builder/crime-tables/default.htm
[April 2008].
A4.1.3 New Zealand Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Programme (NZ-ADAM)
Hales J and Manser J (2007). New Zealand Police NZ-ADAM, Health Outcomes
International, South Australia. Available at
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2008/nzadam-annual-report/nzadam-annual-
report-2007.pdf [April 2008].
48
A4.1.4 Public Satisfaction with Police Service
New Zealand Police (2007). New Zealand Police Annual Report for the year ended
30 June 2007, New Zealand Police, Wellington. Available at
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/annual-report/annual-report-2007.pdf [April
2008].
A4.1.5 Ethnic Community Perceptions of New Zealand Police
Ho E Cooper J and Rauschmayr B (2006). Ethnic Community Perceptions of New

Zealand Police, New Zealand Police, Wellington. Available at
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/ethnic-perceptions/ethnic-perceptions-of-
nz-police.pdf [April 2008].
A4.2.1 Court outcomes
Morrison B Soboleva N and Chong J (2008). Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders

in New Zealand: 1997 to 2006, Ministry of Justice, Wellington. Available at
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2007/conviction-sentencing-1997-
2006/report/index.html [April 2008].
A4.2.2 NZCASS
All reports for the 2006 survey are available at

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/pvictims.html [April 2008].
Mayhew P and Reilly J (2007a). The New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006:
Key Findings, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Mayhew P and Reilly J (2007b). Community Safety: Findings from the New Zealand
Crime and Safety Survey 2006, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Mayhew P and Reilly J (2007c). The Experience of E-Crime: Findings from the New
Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
A4.2.3 Youth Justice
Chong J (2007). Youth Justice Statistics in New Zealand: 1992 to 2006, Ministry of
Justice, Wellington. Available at http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2007/nz-
youth-justice-statistics-1992-2006/index.html [April 2008].
A4.2.4 Offending on Bail
Lash B (1998). Those on Bail in 1994 and their Offending, Ministry of Justice,
Wellington. Available at http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/1998/bail/index.html
[April 2008].
Lash B (2003). Trends in the Use of Bail and Offending While on Bail: 1990 - 1999,
Research findings number 3, Ministry of Justice, Wellington. Available at
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2003/bail-1990-1999/index.html [April 2008].
A4.2.5 Reconviction and Reimprisonment of Released Prisoners
Spier P (2002). Reconviction and Reimprisonment Rates for Released Prisoners

research findings number 1, Ministry of Justice, Wellington. Available at
49
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/reconviction-imprison-
rates/reconvict.pdf [April 2008].
A4.2.6 Attitudes to Crime and Punishment
Paulin J, Searle W and Knaggs T (2003). Attitudes to Crime and Punishment: A New
Zealand Study, Ministry of Justice, Wellington. Available at
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2003/publicattitudes/index.html [April 2008].
A4.2.7 Public Perceptions of the New Zealand Court System and Processes
ACNeilson (NZ) Limited (2006). Public Perceptions of the New Zealand Court
System and Processes, available at
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2006/public-perceptions-nz-court-system-
processes/index.html [April 2008].
A4.2.8 Burglary Survey
All reports are available at

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2005/burglary/survey-household-part-
one/index.html [April 2008].
Triggs S (2005a). Surveys of Household Burglary Part One (2002): Four Police Areas
and National Data Compared, Research on the effectiveness of Police practice in
reducing residential burglary: Report 1, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Triggs S (2005b). Surveys of Household Burglary Part Two: Four Police Areas
Compared between 2002 and 2004, Research on the effectiveness of Police practice
in reducing residential burglary: Report 2, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Harvey S (2005). Literature Review: Police Practice in Reducing Residential

Burglary, Research on the effectiveness of Police practice in reducing residential
burglary: Report 3, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Johns K (2005). Case Study of the Manurewa Police Area, Research on the
effectiveness of Police practice in reducing residential burglary: Report 4, Ministry of
Segessenmann T and Johns K (2005). Case Study of the Rotorua Police Area,
Research on the effectiveness of Police practice in reducing residential burglary:
Report 5, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Chetwin A and Barwick H (2005). Case Study of the Lower Hutt Police Area,
Research on the effectiveness of Police practice in reducing residential burglary:
Report 6, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Carswell S and Johns K (2005). Case Study of the Sydenham Police Area, Research
on the effectiveness of Police practice in reducing residential burglary: Report 7,
Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Baker G and Gray A (2005). Victims of Burglary, Research on the effectiveness of

Police practice in reducing residential burglary: Report 8, Ministry of Justice,
Wellington.
50
Baker G and Gray A (2005). Burglary Offenders, Research on the effectiveness of

Police practice in reducing residential burglary: Report 9, Ministry of Justice,
Wellington.
Chetwin A (2005). Overview Research on the Effectiveness of Police Practice in

Reducing Residential Burglary, Research on the effectiveness of Police practice in
reducing residential burglary: Report 10, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
A4.2.9 Court Referred Restorative Justice Pilot
All reports available at http://www.justice.govt.nz/restorative-justice/index.html [April

2008].
Triggs S (2005). Evaluation of the Court-Referred Restorative Justice Pilot: Technical

Report, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Crime and Justice Research Centre Victoria University of Wellington (2005).

Evaluation of the Court-Referred Restorative Justice Pilot: Case Studies, Ministry of
Triggs S (2005). Evaluation of the Court-Referred Restorative Justice Pilot: Two year
follow-up of reoffending, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
A4.3.1 Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees
Harpham D (2004). Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees 2003,

Department of Corrections, Wellington. Available at
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/pdf/census/census-20031120-07-release.pdf
[April 2008].
A4.3.2 Offender Volumes
Harpham D (2008). Offender Volumes Report 2007, Department of Corrections,

Wellington. Available at http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/research/offender-
volumes-report-2007/index.html [May 2008].
A4.3.3 Prison population statistics
Section 4.5 in Morrison B Soboleva N and Chong J (2008).
A4.3.4 Recidivism index of released prisoners and of those commencing

community based sentences
Department of Corrections (2007). Annual Report: 1 July 2006 – 30 June 2007,

Department of Corrections, Wellington. Available at
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/pdf/annualreports/ar2007-complete.pdf [April
2008].
A4.3.5 Reconviction patterns of released prisoners
Nadesu A (2007). Reconviction Patterns of Released Prisoners: A 36-Months Follow-

up Analysis, Department of Corrections, Wellington. Available at
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/pdf/research/reimprisonment-
report/reimprisonment-report.pdf [April 2008].
51
Nadesu A (2008). Reconviction Patterns of Released Prisoners: A 48-Months Follow-

up Analysis, Department of Corrections, Wellington. Available at
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/research/recidivism-report/index.html [April
2008].
A4.3.6 National Study of Psychiatric Morbidity in New Zealand Prisons
Department of Corrections (1999). An Investigation of the Prevalence of Psychiatric

Disorders Among New Zealand Inmates, Department of Corrections, Wellington.
Available at
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/pdf/research/nationalstudy/nationalstudy.pdf
[April 2008].
A4.4.1 Youth Justice referrals
Ministry of Social Development (2007). Ministry of Social Development Annual

Report 2006/2007, Ministry of Social Development, Wellington. Available at
http://www.msd.govt.nz/publications/annual-report.html [March 2008].
A4.5.1 Prisoner Health Survey
Ministry of Health (2006). Results from the Prisoner Health Survey 2005, Ministry of
Health, Wellington. Available at
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5650/$File/prisoner-health-survey-
2005.pdf [March 2008].
A4.5.2 Census of Forensic Mental Health Services 2005
Ministry of Health (2007). Census of Forensic Mental Health Service 2005, Ministry of
Health, Wellington. Available at
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/6045/$File/census-forensic-mental-health-
services-2005.pdf [March 2008].
A4.5.3 Cause of death statistics
New Zealand Health Information Service (2006). Mortality and Demographic Data
2002 and 2003, Ministry of Health, Wellington. Available at
http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesns/71 [April 2008].
A4.5.4 National minimum dataset (hospital events) (NMDS)
New Zealand Health Information Service (2007). Selected Morbidity Data for publicly
funded hospitals 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004: Summary tables, Ministry of Health,
Wellington. Available at http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesns/33?Open#04
[April 2008].
A4.5.5 New Zealand Health Behaviours – Drug Use Survey
Ministry of Health (2007). Drug Use in New Zealand" Analysis of the 2003 New
Zealand Health Behaviours Survey – Drug use, Ministry of Health, Wellington.
Available at http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/drug-use-in-new-zealand-
analysis-2003-health-behaviours-survey?Open [March 2008].
52
A4.6.1 Costs of crime
Roper and Thompson (see above).
A4.7.1 Supply of legal aid services
Legal Services Agency An Analysis Of The Supply, Distribution and Assignment to

Legal Aid Providers in New Zealand 2005 – 2006, Legal Services Agency,
Wellington. Available at
http://www.lsa.govt.nz/documents/ProviderCoverageReport0506_000.pdf [March
2008].
A4.7.2 National Survey of Unmet Legal Needs and Access to Justice
Legal Services Agency (2006). Report on the 2006 National Survey of Unmet Legal
Needs and Access to Services, Legal Services Agency, Wellington. Available at
http://www.lsa.govt.nz/Research.php [March 2008].
A4.9.1 Offenders for traffic offences involving alcohol
Ministry of Transport (2007). Motor Vehicle Crashes in New Zealand 2006, Ministry
of Transport, Wellington. Available at http://www.transport.govt.nz/annual-statistics-
2006/ [March 2008].
A4.10.1 Quality of Life
Quality of Life Project (2007). Quality of Life in Twelve of New Zealand's Cities 2007,
Available at http://www.qualityoflifeproject.govt.nz/ [April 2008].
A4.11.1 United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of

Criminal Justice Systems
United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice
Systems available at http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/United-
Nations-Surveys-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-
Systems.html [May 2008].
A4.11.2 International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS)
Harland A (1995). Victimisation in New Zealand as Measured by the 1992

International Crime Survey, Ministry of Justice, Wellington. Available at
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/1995/victimisation/index.html [March 2008].
Van Dijk J and Mayhew P (1992). Criminal Victimisation in the Industrialised World:
Key Findings of the 1989 and 1992 International Crime Survey, Ministry of Justice,
The Netherlands.
Van Dijk J, van Kesteren J. and Smit P. (2008). Criminal Victimisation in International
Perspective, Key Findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS, Boom Legal
Publishers, The Hague.
A4.11.3 Global Economic Crime Survey
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007a). Economic Crime: People, Culture and Controls:

the 4th biennial Global Economic Crime Survey New Zealand. Available at
53
http://www.pwc.com/Extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/B0DCA2294FF35305CA2573
740078976A [April 2008].
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007b). Economic Crime: People, Culture and Controls:

the 4th biennial Global Economic Crime Survey. Available at
http://www.pwc.com/Extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/B0DCA2294FF35305CA2573
740078976A [April 2008].
A4.12.1 Christchurch Health and Development Study
There are too many publications to list here. A full list is available at
http://www.chmeds.ac.nz/research/chds/index.htm [March 2008].
A useful study is:
Fergusson D, Poulton R, Horwood J, Milne B and Swain-Campbell N (2003).

Comorbidity and Coincidence in the Christchurch And Dunedin Longitudinal Studies
Ministry of Social Development, Department of labour, The Treasury, Wellington.
Available at http://www.chmeds.ac.nz/research/chds/publications/2003/comor.pdf
[March 2008].
A4.12.2 Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study
There are too many publications to list here. A full list is available at
http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/ [March 2008].
A useful study is Fergusson et al (2003) (see above).
A4.12.3 Illicit Drug Monitoring System
Wilkins C, Girling M, and Sweetsur P (2006). Recent Trends in Illegal Drug Use in
New Zealand, 2006: Findings from the combined modules of the 2006 Illicit Drug
Monitoring System (IDMS) Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and
Evaluation and To Ropu Whakiri Massey University, Auckland. Available at
http://www.shore.ac.nz/projects/idms_study.htm [March 2008].
A4.12.4 Youth 2000 – National Secondary School Youth Health and Wellbeing
Survey
Fleming T, Watson P, Robinson E, Ameratunga S, Dixon R, Clark T, and Crengle S.

(2007). Violence and New Zealand Young People: Findings of Youth2000 - A
National Secondary School Youth Health and Wellbeing Survey, Auckland: The
University of Auckland. Available at http://www.youth2000.ac.nz/ [April 2008].
A4.12.5 New Zealand Computer Crime and Security Survey
Quinn, K (2006). Second Annual New Zealand Computer Crime and Security Survey,
Alpha-Omega Group, Dunedin. Available at
http://eprints.otago.ac.nz/732/01/2006_CC%26SS_Report_Distribution_Version.pdf
[May 2008].
54
Appendix 1 Paths through the criminal justice system
Figure A1.1 Major Pathways Through the Criminal Justice System
Offences recorded by the police (and other enforcement agencies)

Enforcement
Cleared Not cleared
Prosecution Diversion Youth Aid FGC1 Warning Caution No offence Other

Prosecution
Proved Not proved2

Sentence
Prison Community-based Monetary Defer or suspend Other
1 Family Group Conference.

2 "Not proved" does not necessarily imply "not guilty". Offenders dealt with by FGCs or
Police diversion may admit guilt but the outcome is entered as "case withdrawn",
technically a "not proved" outcome.
3 Based on figure 1.1 in Triggs 1998 P 21.
The Youth Justice system is particularly complex so figure A1.2 focuses on possible
pathways through the Youth Justice system.
55
Figure A1.2 Pathways Through the Youth Justice System
Young person
detected in alleged
offending
No action, informal Refer to Charges laid in

warning Youth Aid Youth Court
Denial –
defended
hearing
Warning Police Refer for No denial:

youth FGC Refer for
diversion FGC
Family Group Family Group

Conference Conference
(for decisions) (for recommendations)
Denied or non-
agreed – refer
back to police
Youth
Court
FGC plan
implemented Court
orders
1 FGC = Family Group Conference.

2 Based on figure 2.1 in Maxwell et al (2004, 16).
56
Appendix 2 Related work

Justice Sector Pipeline project
The Ministry of Justice has established the Justice Sector Pipeline project as one
vehicle through which agencies can collectively simulate, understand and improve
the operational connections and flow-on implications of changes at a system level.
Development of the Justice Sector Pipeline model is a long-term initiative intended to

reduce the risks of unanticipated demands on the justice system and to inform policy
development.
The model is designed to be used to:
• simulate the implications of changing the policy setting or operational delivery

strategy in one part of the system on other parts of the system
• enable policy development and operational service design to be informed by
these implications
• ensure the costs and system capacity issues can be advised to government
as part of the policy advice process
• enable managers to examine where and how backlogs and bottlenecks form
in the system and to evaluate different actions to address them.
The model itself aims to map the paths that individuals take through the justice
system, building a range of decision points (and resulting next steps) based on
available data regarding past patterns. In this way, the model can simulate the flow of
persons through various parts of the system (eg in prison or cases waiting to be
heard in court) as well as the related resource requirements throughout the system.
The model has been developed initially as a prototype and is now being
progressively further developed by building modules to model different parts of the
justice system. It is planned that the modules will function both as stand alone
simulation tools, suitable for use by the agencies they simulate, and, when linked
together, as a model of the overall system.
Over the next year, it is planned that parts of the model will be developed to inform
analysis in specific areas. Two examples of this are modules on the effects of varying
police deployment and the operation of the Community Probation Service (CPS). In
the longer term (3+ years), when the model is complete and calibrated, it will be able
to inform analysis across the sector and track how changes in one area impact upon
the others.
The Justice Sector Pipeline Model is related to this statistical review because it has
been developed as a method of answering some of the key research and policy
questions in the justice sector. One purpose of a statistical review is to identify these
policy questions, and assess whether information is available to answer them. Many
of the information sources that will be used by the pipeline model have been
identified in this statistical review.
Justice Sector Information Strategy 2006–2011
The Justice Sector Information Strategy (JSIS) 2006–2010 (Ministry of Justice

2006b) was developed during the 2005/06 financial year. This is the third strategy
that has been developed through sector collaboration, with key agencies such as the
57
Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Police, Department of Corrections, Ministry of

Social Development (CYF), Land Transport New Zealand and Legal Services Agency
all involved.
The latest strategy provides the framework to expand and improve the existing sector
information-sharing network over the next five years, including extending towards
other relevant agencies.
Key elements of the new strategy include:
• improve the quality and integrity of justice sector operational data sets
• effectively manage shared justice sector data and information
• supporting strategic decision making in the justice sector
• actively leverage the resource base across the justice sector
• improve information and service provision to our communities.
The strategy is a mechanism that could be used to address issues related to more
than one agency that have been identified by this statistical review, for example
issues with the quality of the data. Two examples of JSIS projects are given next.
The Traffic Precedent and Offence Code (TPOC) Project
The TPOC project is an example of a collaborative project that contributes to the

themes of JSIS. The project addresses part of the important issue of developing
standard classifications across the sector for each agency to use in their reports.
Traffic precedent and offence codes (TPOC) are a fundamental basis for criminal
prosecution and infringement management. TPOC information is used by the justice
sector for operational agency processes, interfaces, systems, and reporting areas.
The offence code table was established in 1976 on the Law Enforcement System of
the former Wanganui Computer (LES) and used by all agencies then in the sector.
With the decommissioning of LES (beginning in 1990 and completed in June 2005),
the use of TPOC in today's justice sector information environment differs in that:
• each agency is now the custodian of their own (and sometimes multiple)
systems
• each agency uses their own local copy of the offence table
• there are increased access to analytical and data-mining tools
• there are increased expectations of data quality and demand for reporting.
To assess the effect of these changes, a data quality assessment of the offence
codes was completed in 2004. The assessment identified seven issues that needed
to be addressed. These included:
• no authoritative offence code table, leading to potential inaccurate and

inconsistent offence code information and data for research reporting
• inconsistent structures and levels of information held within the offence code
description
• problems with no agreed sector classification leading to inconsistent reporting
throughout the sector.
The proposed approach to address these issues involves a two-phase process, with
the first phase scheduled to be completed in the 2008/09 year. Phase one includes
the development of a rationalised offence code table; mapping TPOC to the
Australian Standard Offence Classification (ASOC) to meet international reporting
58
needs; and completing a legislative referencing review; and developing an agreed

authoritative classification structure. Phase two includes a review of the outcomes
from phase one, and a decision on whether to proceed with the design and
implementation of a new offence code structure. If phase two proceeds, it is
projected that it will be developed over a two- to three-year period.
Integrated Sector Intelligence System (ISIS)
The latest iteration of JSIS focuses on the strategic value of information and how it
can continue to meet the changing demands of the sector and the wider government.
The current focus is to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of the
interrelationship of the various components of the justice sector.
The justice sector recognised the need for improved access to information in the first
iteration of JSIS in 1996. At this time data warehouse technologies were investigated.
It was envisaged that a data warehouse would ensure the data sets were integrated
from different sources, while simplifying access to the data. As part of the LES
decommissioning, historical data was extracted and held on a central data
warehouse in the Ministry of Justice. This enabled both an archival copy to be
retained, and historical trend analysis.
The first iteration of the justice sector’s data warehouse was implemented in 2003
using the archival copy of LES as the basis. New datasets were progressively added
in an iterative approach as new data requirements were identified. New datasets
continue to be added as needs are identified (for example, work on an integrated
Youth Justice dataset commenced in 2007).
The data warehouse has expanded from being a repository of data solely for the use
of policy and research analysis, to enabling wider access for operational staff within
the Ministry of Justice, and to justice sector stakeholders.
Police Statistics Strategic Plan
In 2006 the New Zealand Police published their Statistics Strategic Plan 2006–2010
to establish a planned direction for developments in statistical information in the New
Zealand Police. The plan is based on four principles:
1. standardise
2. simplify
3. design
4. assure.
The plan proposes that seven key initiatives be implemented:
1. recording and counting

2. standardise reporting
3. common repository and access
4. integrate statistics into design
5. rationalise codes
6. automate statistics
7. audit.
The key initiatives identified in the strategic plan are important components of
addressing the key statistical development areas identified in this document.
59
Appendix 3 Recommendations of the report of the review

on New Zealand justice statistics 1982
This appendix looks at the recommendations of the 1982 review of New Zealand
justice statistics. Since the previous review included civil as well as criminal justice
statistics, recommendations that relate only to civil law are not listed. The degree to
which each recommendation was implemented will be assessed to establish whether
there are still some information needs that need to be met.
In the period since the report of the 1982 review was published, there have been
several major changes in the justice sector which mean that the changes
recommended have occurred, but are no longer operating in exactly the manner
stated in the recommendation.
These changes are detailed in section 1.7 of the main report and include:
• Statistics New Zealand is no longer the primary agency responsible for

publishing justice statistics
• replacement of the Wanganui Computer with individual agencies' computer
systems
• restructuring of the Department of Justice and the Department of Social
Welfare
• major legislative changes (for example, Children, Young Persons and Their
Families Act 1989) changing the need for some statistics.
In addition, because of the length of time between the 1982 review and the current
statistical review, it has been difficult to assess whether some recommendations
were implemented.
Recommendations
1 That the Department of Statistics, in consultation with the other organisations,

report at least annually on progress with implementing the Review Committee’s
recommendations, and the committee meet, as necessary, until the next major
review of justice statistics is undertaken.
It has not been possible to establish if this recommendation was implemented.

Neither the annual reports of the Department of Statistics nor the justice statistics
series report on progress on implementing the recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON STATISTICS ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS
2 That the Department of Social Welfare continue in its work on developing a

computer system capable of producing data on appearances and recidivism.
Statistical information on young offenders is held by several agencies, including the

New Zealand Police, Ministry of Justice, and Child, Youth and Family. It has been
difficult to integrate data from the various sources to obtain a coherent picture of the
involvement of children and young persons in the criminal justice system. A range of
work is underway to enable Youth Justice data to be exchanged more effectively so
that a range of statistics can be produced. The Ministry of Justice produces some
statistics on apprehensions of young people and appearances in the Youth Court.
60
3 That in its future development of a social work database system, the

Department of Social Welfare allow for the collection of details from Children’s
Board meetings (including date, who attended, and outcome of the meeting).
This recommendation is no longer applicable since Children's Boards were

disestablished when the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989
came into force.
4 That when designing its social work database system, the Department of
Social Welfare collect for all court hearings: the court identification, date of
hearing, whether child and/or parents attended, whether legal representation
existed, whether Legal Aid was applied for and whether granted, and
outcome.
See the comment on recommendation 2.
5 That the Review Committee endorse the continued liaison between the
Departments of Social Welfare and Statistics over the exchange of data tapes
for the production of statistics on complaints in the Children and Young
Persons Courts.
This recommendation arose because of discrepancies between the statistics

produced from the Wanganui Computer and manual forms coded by the Department
of Statistics before the Wanganui Computer came into operation. The Department of
Social Welfare tapes appeared to be a more reliable source of statistics.
This recommendation is no longer applicable.
6 That the review committee endorse the basic counts of informal disposals of
children and young persons presently undertaken by the Police Department
and the Department of Social Welfare.
Statistics on informal disposals are still not produced.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON STATISTICS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT
7 That if the Department of Statistics' Social Indicators Survey is repeated in

the future, consideration be given to including questions on personal safety
and justice similar to those included in the 1981 questionnaire.
The Social Indicators Survey has not been repeated, but questions on personal
safety and security have been included in the General Social Survey 2008. The
NZCASS explores New Zealanders' experience of crime victimisation.
8 That for any act designated an infringement, the following information should
be collected: number of notices issued by type, by disposal, by amounts
levied and collected in fines.
Some information on infringement notices issued by the police is available on

request, but is not regularly published.
9 That as a high priority, a working group, comprising representatives of

Computer Services Division, the Police Department, the Ministry of Transport
and the Departments of Justice and Statistics be convened to examine the
61
potential for statistical data to be made available from the Wanganui

Computer.
It is not clear whether this working group was ever established. However, the
Wanganui Computer did become the source of much statistical data.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON STATISTICS ON THE COURTS’ CRIMINAL

JURISDICTION
10 That, as a high priority, the Wanganui computer sub-group investigate the

possibility of including the following variables on the case monitoring
subsystem: the date the information was laid, the length of each hearing, by
whom the hearings were conducted, the verdict of the jury, and the accused’s
employment status.
It is unclear if these variables were added to the case monitoring subsystem. The
date of offence was added in 1986/1987. The length that it took a charge to go
through the court process was calculated from the dates of the first and last court
hearings. A free text field for occupation was added, but never analysed.
11 That, as a high priority, the Departments of Justice and Statistics liaise on the
development of a statistical system to produce all criminal court statistics
directly from the Wanganui Computer.
The departments worked together to develop a statistical system to produce court

statistics from the Wanganui Computer and by the time of publication of 1984 justice
statistics, this system was the source of most of the statistics. In 1986, the
Department of Justice began to extract data from the Wanganui Computer and
develop a data base of all court hearing records to produce standard statistics and to
be available for ad hoc queries. In 2003, because of the decommissioning of LES,
the justice sector's data warehouse was implemented as the source of this type of
data. This database is still used to produce the conviction and sentencing series of
reports, and is the basis for the interactive tables on the Statistics New Zealand
website.
12 That, as a high priority, for records of criminal appeals, date of appeal

lodgement and length of hearings be recorded on the case monitoring
subsystem of the Wanganui Computer.
The information on appeals was still inadequate at the time court information was
transferred from LES (the former Wanganui computer) to the Department for Courts'
new Case Management System (CMS) in 2003. However, the information on appeals
improved on CMS.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON STATISTICS ON SANCTIONS
13 That as a high priority part of its consideration of extending the use of the
Wanganui Computer, the subgroup decide on the best means of producing
data on distinct prisoners with the objective of minimising direct collection
from penal institutions.
Information on prisoners was produced biennially from the census of prison inmates
from 1987 to 2003. Much of the information from the census was produced from the
Wanganui Computer and its successors. (See section 8.3.1.)
62
14 That the Wanganui Computer subgroup has as a high priority the task of
recommending ways of providing statistics on persons serving sanctions
under the administration of Department of Justice District Probation Offices.
The equivalent is now the sentences of community work and supervision, known as
community-based sentences. Some statistics on those serving community-based
sentences are probably available from the Department of Corrections data
warehouse (CARS). The Department of Corrections is developing a publication with
statistics on the community-based sentences.
15 That, as a high priority, the Wanganui Computer subgroup investigate the

provision of statistics on recidivism for all sanctions of the courts, and search
for and report on ways to make valid tests of the value of existing sanctions
and new sanctions imposed by the courts.
Recidivism statistics for those who have been in prison or serving community-based
sentences are available each year in the Department of Correction's annual report
(see section 8.3.3). Several one-off recidivism studies have also been conducted by
the Ministry of Justice. Methods of producing statistics on recidivism have been
developed.
16 That, as a high priority, the Police Department commence a statistical

collection on lock-ups to record the number of prisoner escapes, suicides,
deaths, and emergency transfers to psychiatric institutions without prior
referral to the courts.
It is not clear if this recommendation was implemented.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON STATISTICS ON THE COURTS’ CIVIL JURISDICTION
Recommendations 17 to 21 concern the production of statistics on civil matters.

These recommendations are outside the scope of this statistical review.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON STATISTICS ON FAMILY PROCEEDINGS
Recommendations 22 to 23 concern the production of statistics on family

proceedings. These recommendations are outside the scope of this statistical review.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON MISCELLANEOUS JUSTICE STATISTICS
Recommendations 24 to 28 concern the production of statistics from the Commercial

Affairs Division of the Department of Justice, and on Small Claims Tribunals (now
Disputes Tribunals). These recommendations are outside the scope of this statistical
review.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON STANDARD CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
29 That all collectors of information on justice (both in the private and public
sectors) be encouraged to use the standard classifications, codes, and
definitions laid down in this report.
The increasing use of the Wanganui Computer to produce statistics ensured that a
common coding system was used by agencies using the computer. Since LES was
decommissioned, the work of JSIS has sought to ensure that justice sector agencies
continue to use common coding and classification systems.
63
30 That, as a high priority, collection agencies for personal data in the justice
area specify fully the information collected, including the time to which the
data refer.
This recommendation especially applies to variables that may change over time. It
arose because it is often not possible for the information on an event (for example,
an offence) to be collected at the time the event occurred. However, the information
should refer to the situation at the time of the event, not the time of data collection.
Because of the large number of items that this recommendation covers, it is difficult
to assess whether this recommendation was implemented.
31 That in its high priority consideration of the difficulties of linking the records of
different law enforcement agencies, the Wanganui Computer working group
examine the possibility of all agencies reconciling their offence classifications
and codes.
The TPOC project (see appendix 2) is working on establishing a classification for

offences that is standard for the sector to use in statistical reporting.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COLLECTION OF

JUSTICE STATISTICS
32 That in their training of departmental officers, all governmental departments

involved in the collection of justice data stress the importance of statistical
information and the necessity for uniform record keeping throughout the entire
country.
This recommendation addresses an ongoing need.
33 That when changes to justice legislation are being planned, the Department
of Statistics be advised so that the statistical development can proceed
concurrently with the formulation of draft legislation when the new legislation
comes into operation.
This recommendation addresses an ongoing need. However, since the production of

justice sector statistics is no longer a prime responsibility of Statistics New Zealand,
the recommendation applies to the relevant justice sector agencies. The New
Zealand Police and the Ministry of Justice do allow for new legislation in the
production of their statistics. New offence codes developed as a result of new
legislation are circulated to all justice sector agencies through the Justice Sector
Change Control Notification system.
34 That the Department of Statistics continue to circulate the Government

departments represented on this Review Committee for comment on survey
planning proposals to conduct surveys likely to be of relevance to the justice
area.
This recommendation addresses an ongoing need. Relevant agencies, including the

Ministry of Justice, were consulted during the development of the General Social
Survey. The NZCASS has an inter-agency advisory group which provides ongoing
advice on the survey's development, analysis and dissemination.
64
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DISSEMINATION OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
35 That all departments involved in the production of justice statistics aim for
publication within one year of the conclusion of the period to which the figures
relate.
Identifying the most important justice sector statistics as Tier 1 official statistics has
helped to ensure that these statistics are published in a timely manner. For example,
police statistics are available three months after the end of the year. Ministry of
Justice conviction and sentencing statistics are generally available before the end of
the year after the period to which the figures relate.
36 That, as a high priority, the Department of Statistics convene a group of

representatives from the Police Department, the Ministry of Transport, and
the Departments of Justice, Social Welfare and Statistics to discuss and
recommend to the Review Committee on the dissemination of both short- and
long-term justice statistics.
It has not been possible to establish if this recommendation was implemented.
Recommendations with outstanding issues that are still relevant
2 There are still issues with producing statistics on children and young people
who offend.
14 Regular production of statistics on the number of people on community-based

sentences is still an issue.
16 An investigation on whether police have information on lock-ups, including the

number of prisoner escapes, suicides, deaths and emergency transfers to
psychiatric institutions with prior referral to the courts, is needed.
29 JSIS continues to work on common coding and classifications.
31 Work on offence codes and classifications continues.
32 Training of staff entering operational data that stresses the importance of

accuracy of data entry for statistics purposes is an ongoing need.
65
Appendix 4 Information sources

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of existing, published2, statistics
on crime and criminal justice that are currently available from the official statistics
system. The Statistics Act 1975 defines official statistics as:
"Official statistics" means statistics derived by Government Departments from:

(a) Statistical surveys as defined in this section; and
(b) Administrative and registration records and other forms and papers the
statistical analyses of which are published regularly, or are planned to
be published regularly, or could reasonably be published regularly.
In general, the statistics included in this section fall into three categories: Tier 1
official statistics, statistics that are produced on a regular basis, and one-off ad hoc
studies. The crime and criminal justice collections that are Tier 1 are:
• recorded crime
• apprehensions of offenders
• court outcomes.
Some publications that are outside the official statistics system, but inform an
enduring information need, are included in this section. Every endeavour has been
made to include all relevant information sources available at 14 May 2008.
Some assessment of the quality and limitation of the statistics is provided.
A4.1 New Zealand Police

A4.1.1 Recorded crime
Lead agency New Zealand Police

Collection type Administrative data
Frequency Ongoing
Unit of measurement Offences
Coverage All offences detected by or reported to
the New Zealand Police, and
subsequently recorded by the New
Zealand Police in a given year
Key variables Type of offence, whether cleared, region
Accessibility Statistics are published on Statistics New
Zealand’s website and the New Zealand
Police website
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 1, 4 and 5
Police statistics on recorded crime are compiled and published by New Zealand
Police on a six-monthly basis. The statistics provide a picture of the incidence of
different offences, their clearance rates, and changes in these over time at the
national and sub-national level (police district and area).
The statistics have some known limitations as they only provide information on those
criminal offences that have come to the attention of the police. Not all crimes are
2
Information on data available that might be used to produce crime and criminal justice
statistics is available in the "Justice Information Stocktake: What's Where".
66
detected by the police or necessarily the victims, and of those crimes detected by
victims not all are reported to the police. Factors that affect reporting include the
seriousness or triviality of what occurred (with trivial offences less likely to be
reported), whether the victim requires it for insurance purposes, victim
characteristics, and attitudes of the victims. The NZCASS – see A4.2.2 – collects
information on crimes that have not been reported to the police and so are
complementary to police statistics on recorded crime.
Due to the complex nature of offence coding, police may sometimes incorrectly
record an offence.
There are a number of reasons for some crimes to be inaccurately reported or

recorded. Examples are crimes with no obvious victims such as drug possession that
are discovered by the police rather than reported to them by a victim. Some crime is
known about but not reported to the police. For example, some sexual crimes and
crimes within the family are often unreported.
Police are currently developing a National Crime Recording Standard similar to work
begun in Australia after the Australian Bureau of Statistics' (ABS) Differences in
Recorded Crime project. Associated quality frameworks are also intended to address
local differences in recording practice. The recording standard is planned to be in
operation by mid-2008.
Police statistics on recorded crime exclude traffic offences prosecuted by the police,
which numbered around 74,000 in 2005. (Traffic offences are reported separately
from recorded crime statistics.) They also exclude offences where the prosecuting
agency is an agency other than the police. In 2005, there were almost 35,000
charges prosecuted by agencies other than the police.
Crime statistics based on police records therefore do not provide an accurate and
comprehensive picture of the nature and extent of crime. They may reveal more
about the willingness of the public to report crimes and the efficiency of the police in
detecting and recording crime than reflect any real change in crime levels. They do
not provide an accurate measure of total crime, as there will always be crimes not
adequately captured in the statistics. A complementary picture is provided by victim’s
surveys such as NZCASS.
A4.1.2 Apprehensions of offenders

Frequency Ongoing
Unit of measurement Apprehensions
Coverage All offenders apprehended by the New
Zealand Police in a given year
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, type of offence, type
of resolution, region
Zealand’s website
Police statistics on apprehensions are compiled and published by New Zealand

Police on a six-monthly basis. The statistics represent the number of apprehensions
and not the number of offenders. An apprehension means that a person has been
dealt with by the police in some manner (for example, prosecution or referral to Youth
67
Justice Family Group Conference). For offenders, being apprehended by the police is
the gateway to further involvement in the criminal justice system.
Although the statistics include information on the demographic characteristics of

offenders apprehended by the police, they do not count distinct individuals. A person
apprehended for multiple offences will be counted multiple times in the data, and
multiple offenders apprehended for the same offence will also be counted multiple
times.
Other information available is the type of offence for the apprehension and the way
the offender has been dealt with. The data is available at a national and subnational
level (police district and area).
The picture of offenders that the statistics present may be subject to a degree of
distortion if some groups are more likely than others to be apprehended or have their
offences detected (because of the nature of crime or the nature of policing). Also, to
the extent that some individuals are counted multiple times during a given year, the
statistics will present a biased picture of the characteristics of the offender
population.
The recording of ethnicity by police is in principle based on self-identified ethnicity of

the offender. However, in practice the recording is a mix of offender self-identification
and assignment of ethnicity by the police officer who apprehended the suspect,
usually on the basis of appearance. No allowance is made for people wanting to
specify more than one ethnicity, and the range of ethnicities available is limited. The
data therefore do not strictly adhere to the ethnicity standard for official statistics.
A4.1.3 New Zealand Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Programme (NZ-ADAM)

Collection type Survey
Frequency Ongoing to 2009
Unit of measurement Individual
Coverage People who have recently been
apprehended and detained in watch
houses by police, excluding those clearly
under the influence of alcohol or other
drugs
Achieved sample In 2006/2007, 895 were interviewed
Response rate 90%
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, employment, income,
living arrangement, offending, previous
alcohol and drug treatment, drug use
Accessibility Report available on New Zealand Police
website
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 1, 3, and 5
The New Zealand Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NZ-ADAM) programme

measures drug and alcohol use among people who have recently been apprehended
and detained in watch houses by police. New Zealand Police funds NZ-ADAM data
collection at four sites (Whangarei, Henderson, Hamilton and Dunedin). Health
Outcomes International (HOI) has been contracted by New Zealand Police to collect
and analyse data for the programme. The programme is managed from the Office of
the Police Commissioner and is informed by a multi-agency Advisory Committee,
comprising members from Ministry of Health, Ministry of Justice, Department of
68
Corrections, Accident Compensation Corporation, Alcohol Advisory Council and New

Zealand Police.
New Zealand’s participation in the international ADAM programme is seen as an

important way for police to monitor drug trends in New Zealand and to assess the
impact of illicit drug use on different types of criminal behaviour. Data from NZ-ADAM
are used to examine issues such as the relationship between drugs and property and
violent crime, to monitor patterns of drug use over time, and to help assess the need
for drug treatment amongst the offender population. NZ-ADAM is expected to aid in
community planning, monitoring, and resource allocation and represents an
important source of data for New Zealand policy makers. Data collected through NZ-
ADAM sites also provide a research and evaluation tool for local analysts, policy
makers and practitioners.
The NZ-ADAM programme commenced across all participating sites in July 2005 on
a twelve-month trial basis. In late 2006, New Zealand Police advised that the
decision had been made to continue with the programme for a further three years to
the end of 2009.
A total of 2,386 detainees were available to participate in NZ-ADAM during the

2006/2007 year. Of these, 989 met the inclusion criteria and agreed to be
interviewed, with 895 completing the interview. A total of 565 (63 percent)
interviewees agreed to provide a urine sample, and of these, 496 provided samples
acceptable for analysis.
Figures for alcohol, cannabis and amphetamines are conservative because arrestees
clearly under the influence of alcohol and other drugs had been excluded from being
interviewed, as it is difficult to accurately survey these people.
A4.1.4 Public Satisfaction with Police Service

Frequency Annual until 2002
From 2003 to 2007 conducted quarterly
and updated annually. See note below
about changes from 2008 onwards
Unit of measurement Individuals
Coverage Individuals aged 15 years and over in
households with a landline
Achieved sample 4,800 per year, 1,200 per quarter
Response rate 45% in 2002
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, confidence in police,
nature of recent contact with police,
satisfaction with police service, reasons
for satisfaction/dissatisfaction
Accessibility High level results are published in the
New Zealand Police annual reports
The purpose of the police satisfaction surveys is to monitor public satisfaction with
police services at a national and police district level. Specifically the objectives of the
survey are to measure:
• the level of public satisfaction with police service delivery
69
• the level of trust and confidence that the public has in the police
• the change in the level of satisfaction over previous years.
The response rate varied between 40 and 50 percent for this survey. The low
response rate is likely to adversely affect the robustness of the survey estimates,
particularly when the data is disaggregated by variables such as age, ethnicity and
police district. The restriction of the sample to households with a landline telephone is
likely to be a further source of bias in the data.
However, a consistent survey methodology and instrument since 2003 means that
conclusions about changes over time are useful.
Police now report high level results of these surveys via their annual report, as is
their intention for the 2007/2008 Annual Report, the last iteration of this survey. The
survey is to be replaced by the Citizen Satisfaction Survey as part of current 'Citizen
First' work being undertaken with the State Services Commission. 'Common
Measurement Tool' survey questions and methodology form the core of this survey,
and are used under licence from the Canadian Government through the State
Services Commission. No decision has been made yet on the level of detail that will
be published from this survey.
A4.1.5 Ethnic Community Perceptions of New Zealand Police

Collection type Qualitative
Frequency Ad hoc
Coverage 18 research assistants from different
linguistic and cultural backgrounds
recruited participants though their
networks
Sample 108 participants from eight ethnic groups
Response rate Not applicable
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, experiences of
crime/violence, perceptions of
crime/violence, perceptions of police
Accessibility Report available on New Zealand Police
website
In 2005 the New Zealand Police commissioned a research project to explore the
perceptions of police held by members of various ethnic communities and to provide
information on the current crime and safety issues that ethnic communities face.
Eight ethnic groups were used in total (Chinese, Indian, Korean, Japanese,
Vietnamese, Cambodian, Somali and Middle Eastern), which came from four
research sites (Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and Christchurch).
A qualitative approach was adopted for this study using face-to-face interviews and
focus groups as the two data gathering techniques. A total of 58 in-depth individual
interviews and seven focus groups were completed between August 2005 and
February 2006. There were 108 focus group members from the eight specified ethnic
communities, 58 males and 50 females. Eighteen research assistants from different
linguistic and cultural backgrounds recruited the participants though their networks.
Emphasis was placed on finding participants from a wide range of backgrounds
70
including migrants, refugees, and international students; different ages, gender,

religious and cultural backgrounds, length of residency in New Zealand, migration
history and occupations.
A study of this sort has a number of strengths and limitations. The report noted that
this project was exploratory and was not intended to be a representative study. This
type of focused study helps to obtain the perceptions of people from minority ethnic
groups as they are often difficult to pick up in survey data due to their small numbers.
There was some difficulty in tracking down appropriate research assistants because
of the small size of some of the ethnic groups. Once identified, these research
assistants helped to break down barriers and encourage ethnic members to
participate. As the majority of the participants were aged between 25 and 64 years,
older people and younger people were somewhat under-represented.
A4.2 Ministry of Justice

A4.2.1 Court outcomes
Lead agency Ministry of Justice

Frequency Ongoing
Unit of measurement Charges, cases
Coverage All alleged offenders prosecuted through
the New Zealand courts
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, type of offence, type
of court, type of trial, outcome, court
region
Zealand’s website in a data cube.
Reports are also available on the Ministry
of Justice website
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 3 and 5
Administrative data from the Ministry of Justice contains information on court

outcomes from all courts (District Court, Youth Court, High Court and Court of
Appeal). Prior to 2004 LES was the source of this data, but from 2004 the Case
Management System (CMS) replaced LES as the source of this information. Two
types of statistics are produced from this database: charge-based and case-based
statistics. Charge-based statistics are produced for prosecutions and convictions for
each type of offence, and for each court. Case-based statistics are produced by age,
sex, ethnicity of offender and type and seriousness of offence, for each type of
sentence. In case-based statistics involving offenders convicted of more than one
charge, the statistics relate to the most serious offence.
Where a person appears in court on several different charges at the same time,
charge-based statistics count this person for each charge, whereas case-based
statistics count the person only once. Thus, case-based statistics provide a better
basis for analysing the characteristics of offenders appearing in court, although they
may be subject to over-counting of individual offenders if offenders appear in court
several times during the same year.
The offender data for age, sex and ethnicity is usually recorded by the prosecuting
authority (mostly the police) and is not updated or corrected. Data on age and sex is
generally accurate. Official police practice is for data on ethnicity to be self-identified
71
by the offender; however in practice ethnicity is likely to be recorded by a mixture of

self-identification and recorder judgement. Thus the ethnicity data is not strictly
comparable with data from other official sources. Most traffic offences are prosecuted
using a driver licence as the identity number. Ethnicity is not recorded on driver
licences, and so is not recorded for traffic offences.
A4.2.2 New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS)

Frequency Five-yearly till 2006, changing to three-
yearly
Units of measurement Individuals and households
Coverage New Zealand residents aged 15 years
and over living in private households
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, household
composition, tenure, labour force status,
marital status, type of victimisation,
whether incident reported to police,
victim satisfaction with police,
relationship to offender, concerns about
crime and safety.
Achieved sample In 2006, 5,416 including a Mäori booster
sample of 1,187
Response rate In 2006, 59% for main sample, 56% for
Mäori booster sample
Accessibility Survey results are published in a report
which is available on the Ministry of
Justice’s website. The 2006 survey
results are being published in a series of
reports on specific subjects.
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8
The New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims (NZNSCV) was first conducted in
1996. This was followed by further surveys in 2001 and 2006. In 2006 the name of
the survey was changed to the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS).
The aim of the survey is to explore the experience of crime victimisation amongst
New Zealanders, including the propensity of citizens to report incidents, the
repercussions of victimisation, and attitudes towards crime and criminal justice.
Because the survey captures unreported crime, it provides an alternative picture of
the nature and extent of crime than that shown by police statistics.
Changes to the design and methodology in each of the surveys have affected the
ability to make robust comparisons of crime estimates over time.
The survey is administered using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI).

However, the components on three types of interpersonal victimisation are completed
on computer by respondents using computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI). One
interview per selected household is conducted using a quasi-random procedure for
selecting the participant.
Crime rates derived from the NZCASS are not sensitive to changes in operational
policies and procedures in the same way that police statistics are. A further strength
of the survey is that it permits an investigation of the consequences of victimisation
72
and how victims cope with these consequences. The survey also allows the
monitoring of peoples’ perceptions, concerns and fears about crime and criminal
justice. It provides data on the costs of victimisation, on the financial losses, on the
physical injuries and on the concern and fear that victimisation may produce.
Expert coders are used to code the description of the offence that the victims
provided into types of offences based on legal definitions of crime. Incidents that
were not crimes were not counted as offences.
The NZCASS provides a complementary measure to police crime statistics, but, like
the administrative data police statistics are derived from, the survey does have
limitations. In particular, the survey does not attempt to capture crimes where there
are no direct victims, such as drug use and gambling. Further, because the survey is
restricted to private households and adults living within them, it does not capture
crimes committed against some types of victims, such as corporate victims, children,
the homeless and those living in institutions. There is evidence that some of these
groups may be heavily victimised. Victimisation surveys cannot accurately capture
crimes with a rare occurrence.
Other known limitations, which are common to all surveys of this type include:
• some respondents may not perceive a victimisation incident as being a crime,

and therefore not report it
• some respondents may have difficulty recalling accurately the details of their
victimisation
• some respondents may not report a victimisation within the appropriate time
frame
• some respondents may be unwilling to report an incident of victimisation
• non-response typically has an unknown effect, and has the potential to cause
inaccuracies in the survey estimates.
A4.2.3 Youth Justice

Frequency Annual
Unit of measurement Apprehensions, charges and cases,
rates per 10,000 cohort population
Coverage Youth offenders (aged 14–16 years at
time of offence)
Key variables Age, sex, offence type, outcome,
sentence
Accessibility The report is available on the Ministry of
Justice website
In 1997 the Ministry of Justice began publishing a chapter on youth statistics in their
series "Conviction and Sentencing of Offenders in New Zealand". This chapter
analysed police apprehensions as well as court statistics. In 2007 the Ministry of
Justice published a separate report on these statistics. The Ministry of Justice
intends to expand the report to include statistics from Child, Youth and Family,
particularly statistics on family group conferences.
73
As discussed in section 3.3 there have been some difficulties in establishing a Youth
Justice dataset to produce statistics on the entire Youth Justice system, but a range
of work is underway to enable Youth Justice data to be exchanged more effectively.
This work should make better use of the data that agencies collect to produce more
comprehensive statistics.
A4.2.4 Offending on Bail

Frequency Annual – the most recent report was
published in 2003
Coverage Cases, that did not start and finish on
the same day, finalised in each year
1990–1999 where a person had been on
bail at some stage during the case
Key variables Type of charge for which on bail,
number offending on bail, type of
offence committed while on bail
Accessibility The statistics are published on the
Ministry of Justice’s website
In 1998 the Ministry of Justice published extensive statistics on people on bail in

1994 and their offending. These included information on the previous offending by
those on bail. Prior to this study there had been three previous publications of
offending on bail in New Zealand. It is difficult to compare data from the different
studies because they are based on different methods.
After publishing the study in 1998, the Ministry of Justice identified the need to
establish a database of those on bail, and publish a regular series of statistics of
offending on bail. The database is derived from the court outcomes data discussed in
section A4.2.1, so all of the limitations discussed in that section also apply to the bail
statistics. Bail is not usually relevant to court cases that start and finish on one day,
so these cases are excluded from the data.
An offence committed while on bail is defined as a conviction for an offence

committed while on bail. Some court proceedings for offences committed while on
bail were not finalised until two years after the offence was committed. To allow for
this, convictions for two years after a period on bail are included in the measurement
of offending on bail. For example, for those on bail in 1999, convictions in 2000 and
2001 are included in the measurement of offending on bail. Allowing for convictions
occurring in the next two years means that the earliest period for statistics to be
produced is up to three years after the period on bail. For example, the 1999 bail
statistics used 2001 data, which was not available until 2002. Statistics on offending
while on bail could be made available earlier, by decreasing the number of years
included in the measurement of offending while on bail. However, these statistics
would not be accurate, especially for cases that are more serious and therefore more
likely to take longer to progress through the court.
74
A4.2.5 Reconviction and Reimprisonment of Released Prisoners

Frequency Ad hoc
Coverage All prison inmates released from prison
between 1995 and 1998
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, number of previous
convictions, offence type, sentence type,
seriousness of offence
Accessibility The results are available on the Ministry
of Justice website
This study presents statistics on reconviction and reimprisonment rates for the cohort
of offenders released from prison between 1995 and 1998. The reconviction data are
presented for four time periods after release from prison: within 6 months, within 1
year, within 2 years and within 3 years.
Issues with reconviction and recidivism studies are discussed in sections A4.3.3 and
A4.3.4.
A4.2.6 Attitudes to Crime and Punishment

Frequency Ad hoc
Coverage All persons aged 18 years and over
living in private households
Achieved sample 1,006 adults from 1,500 households
Response rate 71%
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, education level,
personal income, attitudes to criminal
justice professionals, crime seriousness,
sentencing practice, aims of sentencing
Accessibility Survey results are published on the
The Attitudes to Crime and Punishment study conducted in 1999 was the first
national survey of the views of adult New Zealanders about crime and the criminal
justice system’s response to crime. The aim of the survey was to assess the public’s
level of knowledge about crime and some criminal justice issues, including their
knowledge of the criminal law and actual sentencing practice.
The questions in this survey were included in NZCASS 2006, and the results have
been published in Mayhew and Reilly (2007a).
The main sample comprised 1,006 adults drawn from 1,500 households in 14
locations throughout New Zealand. One adult per household was interviewed face-to-
face between 6 March and 2 May 1999. The response rate was 71 percent. The main
sample was supplemented with ‘booster’ samples of 250 Mäori and 250 Pacific
75
peoples adults aged 18 years and over. The response rate for the booster samples
was 72 percent for the Mäori booster and 66 percent for the Pacific peoples booster.
The questionnaire was developed using questions or modified versions of questions

from other national surveys, primarily the British Crime Survey. The order of the
questions within the survey may have influenced the responses given by participants.
The choice of ordering may have also affected the comparability of the findings with
other surveys that have covered the same issues but asked the questions in a
different order.
A4.2.7 Public Perceptions of the New Zealand Court System and Processes

Frequency Annual
Coverage Individuals aged 15 years and over living
in private dwellings
Sample 1,000
Key variables Age, sex, region, household income,
ethnicity, labour force status
Relationship to information needs Informs topic 8
The objectives of this survey, which has been undertaken annually for eight years,
are to investigate and monitor the perceptions New Zealanders have of court system
and processes. The survey covers issues such as:
• availability of information about the courts
• time frame for delivery of services
• costs involved in using the courts
• the importance of the court system to the democratic process
• fair treatment of people within the court system
• whether people who have fines can get away without paying them.
The survey asks whether people have been in a court building within the last two
years. In the 2006 survey, the opinions of courts and court processes amongst those
who have been in a court building in the past two years differed slightly from those
who have not experienced courts.
The survey is conducted as an omnibus using ACNielsen’s CATI service. Telephone

numbers are selected at random from a white pages listing supplied by Telecom.
Respondents are randomly selected using the ‘next birthday’ technique with only one
person interviewed per household.
The most recent survey was conducted in March 2005 and had a response rate of 22
percent. In light of the low response rate the survey results cannot be considered to
provide a robust record of public perceptions of the New Zealand court system and
processes.
76
A4.2.8 Burglary Survey

Frequency Ad hoc (2002 and 2004)
Coverage All persons aged 16 years and over
living in private households in four police
districts
Sample 2,000 individuals from 500 households
Response rate 66% in 2002 and 71% in 200
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, household tenure,
household structure, socio-economic
status of main earner, number of
attempted and completed burglary
incidents, details of most recent
burglary, concern about crime,
household security, neighbourhood
crime prevention
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 2, 4, 5 and 8
The Burglary Survey was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice as part of a wider
evaluation of police practice in reducing burglary. The survey collected information on
residential burglary victimisation, crime prevention and crime perceptions from 500
households in each of four police areas in 2002. The survey was repeated in 2004
using the same sampling methods and a slightly expanded range of questions. The
aim of the second survey was to establish changes over the period of the Ministry of
Justice burglary evaluation.
The population of interest for the survey was the adult population of New Zealand
living in residential homes in the following four police districts: Hutt City, Manurewa,
Rotorua and Spreydon/Heathcote. Individuals within the households who were over
the age of 16 years and aware of household matters were sought for interviews.
Face-to-face interviews of approximately 20 minutes were conducted by a trained
interviewer.
Many of the questions in the survey were the same as or very similar to the questions
asked in the NZNSCV. This allowed comparison between the results for the four
police areas and the national findings. The topics common to both surveys included
perceptions about local crime, worry about victimisation, burglary victimisation rates,
details of burglary incidents and the impact of the burglary, interactions with the
police and household security.
The response rate for the survey was 66 percent in 2002 and 71 percent in 2004.
77
A4.2.9 Court Referred Restorative Justice Pilot

Collection type Evaluation
Frequency Ad hoc
Coverage 539 cases (577 offenders) referred for
restorative justice conferences between
4 February 2002 and 3 February 2003
and the 192 conferences held.
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, employment
perceptions of conferences from victim,
offender and facilitator, reasons for
attendance
Accessibility Reports are available on the Ministry of
Justice website, with one- and two-year
follow-ups on reoffending
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8
The court-referred restorative justice pilot started at the end of 2001 in Auckland,
Waitakere, Hamilton and Dunedin District Courts.
The pilot provided restorative justice conferences between victims and offenders, and
their support people, in cases of moderately serious offending by adults. The pilot
aimed, through restorative justice conferences, to provide an opportunity for victims
to have a say and for offenders to take responsibility for putting things right.
Agreements reached at restorative justice conferences involved, for example,
payment of money to victims, attendance by offenders at courses, or offenders
carrying out specific work. The pilot covered all property offences with a maximum
sentence of no less than two years imprisonment, and other offences with maximum
sentences of between two and seven years.
The evaluation examined the extent to which the following objectives were met:
• increased resolution of the effects of crime for victims who participate in
restorative justice conferences
• increased victim satisfaction with the criminal justice process
• a reduced rate of reoffending by offenders referred to restorative justice
conferences compared with offenders dealt with through conventional criminal
justice processes.
The evaluation covered the 539 cases (577 offenders) referred for restorative justice
conferences between 4 February 2002 and 3 February 2003 and the 192
conferences held. It drew information from a wide variety of sources, including survey
forms to participants and facilitators; interviews of offenders and victims referred to
the conferences; observations of 90 of the conferences; and questionnaires sent to
around 100 key informants during the first year of the evaluation and a follow up
questionnaire sent 12 months later.
Participation in a restorative justice conference was voluntary for both victims and
offenders, and only 36 percent of the 577 offenders referred by judges had a
restorative justice conference. This was primarily because victims chose not to
participate.
There have also been two analytical reports on the reconviction patterns of those
involved in the restorative justice pilot, to help evaluate the success of the pilot. The
78
first report was based on a one-year follow-up to reconviction, whilst the second was
based on a two-year follow-up to reconviction.
If the pilot is implemented nationwide a series of statistics of the numbers referred to

restorative justice conferences, the types of offences involved, the characteristics of
the offenders and the victims, and the outcomes of the conferences should be
developed. This evaluation will be useful for that process.
A4.3 Department of Corrections

A4.3.1 Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees
Lead agency Department of Corrections

Collection type Administrative data and census
questionnaire
Frequency Two-yearly. The last census was
conducted in 2003
Coverage All inmates and home detainees (from
1999) as at census date
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, marital status, iwi,
highest secondary school qualification,
income, number of dependent children,
age of youngest child, security status,
sentence length, age at first conviction,
age at first custodial sentence, offending
history
Accessibility Results are available on the Department
of Corrections website, from the 1999
Census onwards. The 1995 and 1997
Censuses are available on the Ministry of
Justice website
The Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees was carried out biennially (in
November) between 1987 and 2003. Since the census has not been conducted since
2003, the information is out of date. The data for the most recent census was drawn
from three major sources: the Integrated Offender Management System, prison
records and a census form. Data from the census provides a snapshot of the socio-
demographic and criminal offending characteristics of the population in prison and on
home detention.
While prison population figures are produced weekly, allowing the Department of
Corrections to monitor the number of people in each prison, the census produced
more detailed information on the characteristics of the prison population. The census
allowed trends in the characteristics of the prison population to be monitored over
time. Changes in methodology have affected the comparability of the data at some
censuses.
Following the introduction of the IOMS (Integrated Offender Management System) in

1999, a substantial proportion of the information collected by the census was
available electronically, directly from individual records. After a period of investigating
the possibilities of the new information source, the department concluded that the
value of the additional information collected from the census was not sufficient to
79
justify the signification cost of conducting a separate survey. Most of the previous
prison census information is now available either from the new Offender Volumes
Report (A4.3.2) or the Prison Population Statistics (A4.3.3).
A4.3.2 Offender Volumes

Frequency Yearly. The first report was published in
2007
Coverage All inmates (sentenced and remanded in
custody), prison released-ordered, and
those serving community-based
sentences at 30 June 2007
Key variables Offender counts, Department of
Corrections management category,
Department of Corrections management
history, age, sex, ethnicity, type of
offence
Accessibility Results are available on the Department
of Corrections website
This new report has been developed to partly replace the census of prison inmates.
The report presents information on the offender population managed by the
Department of Corrections, both in prison and in the community. The subgroups
analysed are sentenced prisoners, inmates remanded in custody, prison release-
ordered (released on parole, home detention, post-release conditions, or extended
supervision), and those serving community-based sentences. The report will be
updated annually.
The report is based on a new and enriched data source which has been established.
The sentence histories, for sentences administered by the Department of
Corrections, of all offenders managed by the New Zealand Prison and Probation
Services since 1980 have been incorporated in the dataset. The data does not
include information on some variables that were collected for the census of prison
inmates. These variables are those that are not available on the administrative data
but were collected via the census questionnaire, and include highest secondary
school qualification, income, number of dependent children, age of youngest child.
The data in the main report is presented graphically, so that trends over time may be
analysed. The numbers behind the graphs are available on the website in hyper-
linked spreadsheets.
The first offender volumes report was published just before this review was finalised.
The report and data source are clearly major sources of information on the offender
population managed by the Department of Corrections, filling the gap left by the
census of prison inmates and providing information on those serving community-
based sentences. However, the report is too recent for a thorough assessment of its
quality and limitations to be included in this review document.
80
A4.3.3 Prison population statistics

Frequency Ongoing
Unit of measurement Prison inmates
Coverage All sentenced and remand inmates
Key variables Sex, sentenced or remand
Accessibility Annual average prison inmate numbers
are published annually by the Ministry of
Justice
The Department of Correction records daily the number of males and females held at
each prison on each day and whether they are remand or sentenced inmates. The
primary purpose of the collection is to allow the Department of Corrections to monitor
the number of people in each prison. The counts do not include people serving their
sentence by way of home detention. More detailed statistics of those in prison are
available from the census of prison inmates.
The data are used by the Ministry of Justice to produce statistics on the annual
average prison inmate population, which are published in Conviction and Sentencing
of Offenders in New Zealand. They are also used to inform the forecasts of the prison
population.
A4.3.4 Recidivism index of released prisoners and of those commencing

community based sentences

Frequency Annual
Coverage All prison inmates released during the
year ended 31 March, all individuals
commencing community based
sentences during the year ended 31
March
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, sentence length,
offence type, risk type, security
classification, type of community based
sentence
Accessibility The results are available in the
Department of Corrections annual report
and on their website
A primary objective of the Department of Corrections is to reduce reoffending of

those who are subject to sentences administered by the Department. In its annual
report the department measures the reoffending of those released from prison using
the recidivism index methodology. The method quantifies the rate of reconviction of a
specified group of offenders over defined follow-up periods after release from a
custodial sentence, or from the start date of a new community sentence.
81
Two main statistics are produced: reconvictions leading to any sentence

administered by the Department of Corrections and reconviction leading to a term of
imprisonment (these are included in the former statistic). Reconvictions that lead to
other types of sentences (for example, fines) are not measured.
Two follow-up periods are used: 12 months for the most recent group, and 24 months
for the group before that. As with all reconviction studies, the length of follow-up time
needs to be balanced against the need for timely information. The follow-up period
needs to be of sufficient length to allow time for a person to offend and be re-
convicted. As discussed in section A4.2.4 (offending on bail) some court cases
involving more serious offences take up to two years to be completed. The one-year
follow-up period allows comparable statistics to be produced for the most recent
group, but the longer two year follow-up period is of sufficient length to capture most
of the offending in the period immediately after a prisoner is released.
A4.3.5 Reconviction Patterns of Released Prisoners

Frequency Ad hoc
Coverage All prison inmates released during the
year ended March 2003
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, sentence length,
previous prison sentences, offence type,
risk type
Accessibility The results are available on the
Department of Corrections website
This study, published in March 2007, looks at patterns of reconviction amongst 4,945
offenders released from prison over a 12-month period in 2002/03. The analysis
gives reconviction rates over a 36-month period. Two main statistics are produced:
reconvictions leading to any sentence administered by the Department of Corrections
and reconviction leading to a term of imprisonment (these are included in the former
statistic). Reconvictions that lead to other types of sentences (for example, fines) are
not measured.
The most recent analysis of the reconviction patterns of the cohort of offenders
released from prison in 2002/03 has been completed as a four-year follow-up. The
Department of Corrections intends to undertake a five-year follow-up analysis on this
group, and then probably not again until ten years. A new series of a more recent
cohort is likely, as well as an equivalent analysis of offenders completing a
community-based sentence.
As with all reconviction studies, the length of follow-up time needs to be balanced
against the need for timely information. The follow-up period needs to be of sufficient
length to allow time for a person to offend and be re-convicted. As discussed in
section A4.2.4 (offending on bail) some court cases involving more serious offences
take up to two years to be completed. The three-year follow-up period is of sufficient
length to capture most of the offending in the period immediately after a prisoner is
released.
82
A4.3.6 National Study of Psychiatric Morbidity in New Zealand Prisons

Frequency Ad hoc
Coverage All female inmates, all male remand
inmates, and 15 % of sentenced inmates
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, marital status, living
arrangements, usual occupation, highest
level of education, offence
characteristics, mental health problems
Sample size 1,200
Accessibility Results published on the Department of
Corrections website
A national study of the prevalence of psychiatric disorders amongst inmates in New

Zealand prisons was commissioned in 1997 by the Department of Corrections,
Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Health.
All female inmates and all remand inmates were approached for their consent to
participate in the study. A further 15 percent of sentenced male inmates were
randomly sampled, with refusals being replaced until 15 percent of the prison
population had consented. The interview methodology involved a structured interview
using a World Health Organisation (WHO) instrument which diagnoses a
comprehensive range of mental disorders. A screening questionnaire for personality
disorders, and questions regarding suicide ideation and action since being in prison
followed the interview.
Results from the Christchurch Epidemiology Study were used as a reference point for
the community prevalence of mental disorders. This study was 10 years old at the
time of the prison study, and because it was confined to Christchurch was not
representative of the rest of New Zealand from an ethnicity perspective. There was
no other community study of adequate quality and similar methodology with which to
compare the results from the prison study.
A4.4 Ministry of Social Development (Child, Youth and

Family)
A4.4.1 Youth Justice referrals
Lead agency Ministry of Social Development

Frequency Ongoing
Coverage All young people referred to Child, Youth
and Family by Police and Courts
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, geographical
location, family group conferences,
young people in Youth Justice
placement or detention
Accessibility Published in annual report
83
Statistics are compiled annually on the number of youth referred to Child, Youth and
Family for family group conferences, the number of family group conferences held
and the number of young people in Youth Justice placement or detention. Summary
statistics are published in the annual report to Parliament. In addition, Child, Youth,
Family have developed a fact sheet to be published on the Ministry of Social
Development’s website quarterly from May 2008. Youth Justice statistics included
are Youth Justice residence placements over time, and historic FGC data by gender,
age, ethnicity and geographical location.
As with the police-recorded crime data, the number of Youth Justice referrals is
almost certainly an undercount of the number of offending incidents involving young
people. Apart from the fact that not all youth offending comes to the attention of the
police, changes in sector priorities, in police practice or resourcing can all affect the
numbers referred.
There is a recognised need for more statistical information on the Youth Justice
system in New Zealand. The Ministry of Justice integrates publication of
apprehensions and prosecutions of young people (see section A4.2.3), but statistics
on family group conferences are not included in this publication. The pilot study on
setting up a Youth Justice minimum dataset discussed in section 3.3 was an attempt
to address that need. The Youth Justice referrals data will be an important
component of any Youth Justice dataset that is established. In particular, information
is needed on whether a Family Group Conference is the result of a referral from the
police or the court. Information on the outcomes of the family group conferences,
particularly if the young person has been referred back to the Youth Court is also
needed.
The pilot study on setting up a Youth Justice minimum dataset identified some
enhancements which need to be made to the Child, Youth and Family IT system to
improve statistical reporting. Child, Youth and Family regularly assess requests from
within the service for enhancements to CYRAS, the CYF operating system. In the
Youth Justice area these could include making offence type, currently captured in the
narrative fields, a structured field and therefore more accessible for reporting.
However, any changes to CYRAS must be balanced against social work practice
needs. In addition, the New Zealand Police, Ministry of Justice, and Child, Youth, and
Family are currently working on a project to include Child, Youth and Family in the
relevant schedule to the Privacy Act 1993, in conjunction with the necessary IT
modifications, that will enable data sharing across the agencies to make better use of
the data that are collected within the sector.
84
A4.5 Ministry of Health

A4.5.1 Prisoner Health Survey
Lead agency Ministry of Health

Frequency Ad hoc
Coverage Sentenced prisoners aged 16 years and
over
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, household
circumstances, dependent children,
income, employment history, chronic
disease, health service utilisation, risk
and protective factors, self-reported
health status, disability, communicable
disease
Sample size 420
Accessibility Results are published on the Ministry of
Health’s website
The Prisoner Health Survey 2005 was the first national survey of sentenced
prisoners in New Zealand. Its aim was to improve understanding of the extent of
health needs among New Zealand prisoners and inform future prisoner health
service planning, policy, processes and programmes. Face-to-face interviews were
conducted with sentenced prisoners over an eight-month period (May to December)
using a questionnaire mainly adapted from the 2002/03 New Zealand Health Survey
and the 2001 New South Wales Prisoner Survey.
The survey results provide a picture of the health status of prisoners in New Zealand.
Where possible a comparison of the health status of the male prisoner population
and the general male population was made using the 2002/03 New Zealand Health
Survey data. The sample for the female prisoner population was too small to allow
such a comparison.
85
A4.5.2 Census of Forensic Mental Health Services 2005

Collection type Census
Frequency Ad Hoc
Coverage Forensic inpatients and community-based
forensic service users at all regional
forensic services, and Hauora, Waikato, as
at 10 October 2005; prison liaison service
users as at census date (10 October 2005),
and prison liaison service activity for the
month from 10 October to 10 November
2005; court liaison service activity for the
2005, and court reports prepared in the
2005
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, referral source, legal
status, length of admission, previous
referrals, primary diagnosis, staffing, bed
numbers
Accessibility Report available on Ministry of Health
website
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6
In September 1999 a census and qualitative survey of forensic services was

conducted. In October 2005 a new census of forensic services was carried out. This
census had wider coverage than the 1999 census, and information was collected on:
forensic inpatients and community-based forensic service users at all regional
forensic services, and Hauora, Waikato, as at 10 October 2005; prison liaison service
users as at census date (10 October 2005), and prison liaison service activity for the
month from 10 October to 10 November 2005; court liaison service activity for the
month from 10 October to 10 November 2005, and court reports prepared in the
month from 10 October to 10 November 2005; bed numbers and staffing levels at all
regional forensic services, and Hauora, Waikato.
Services were also asked to provide qualitative answers to 11 questions, including

which population groups each service felt they were serving well, the major problems
they faced, and their views on the direction the service framework should take in the
future.
The census did not cover specialised youth services or intellectual disability services.
With some exceptions, most mental health services to youth who are in contact with
the Youth Justice system are not provided by the forensic service providers included
in this census. While a small number of service users captured in the census were
below 20 years of age, the census data primarily covers people in contact with the
adult justice system.
86
A4.5.3 Cause of death statistics

Frequency Ongoing
Coverage All registered deaths in New Zealand
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, cause of death
Accessibility Results published on the Ministry of
Health’s website
This collection contains data on deaths registered in New Zealand. There is limited
data on deaths related to external causes (for example, assaults). The latest
available data is for the year ended 2003. The lack of timeliness of these statistics
reflects delays in the coronial process.
A4.5.4 National minimum dataset (hospital events) (NMDS)

Frequency Ongoing
Coverage All hospital inpatient and day patients in
New Zealand
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, clinical information
Accessibility Results published on the Ministry of
Health’s website
There is limited data related to assaults as people may not always identify that an
injury is the result of an assault. The latest available data is for the year ended 2003.
A4.5.5 New Zealand Health Behaviours – Drug Use Survey

Frequency Previously carried out in 1998 and 2001
Coverage New Zealand population 13-65 - private
residential buildings
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, location, type of drug,
frequency
Sample 8095
Response rate 68%
which is available on the NZHIS website.
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 1,2 and 3
The 2003 Health Behaviours Survey-Drug Use (HBS-DU) survey is part of the New
Zealand Health Monitor (NZHM) programme, a coordinated cycle of population-
based health-related surveys. The purpose of the 2003 HBS-DU was to provide
information on recreational drug use and drug-related harms in the New Zealand
population.
87
The survey design and data collection for the 2003 HBS-DU was carried out by the
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation (SHORE) and Te
Ropu Whariki, of Massey University. Public Health Intelligence (PHI), the
epidemiology group in the Ministry of Health, analysed the survey data and prepared
the report.
The target population for the 2003 HBS-DU survey was the New Zealand population
aged 13–65 years living in private residential dwellings. The survey was carried out
with a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) system, with a sample size of
8,095 respondents. A stratified sample design was used for the survey, with
increased sampling of Mäori. The overall weighted response rate for the survey was
68 percent. The survey interviews were carried out between April and November
2003.
A4.6 Treasury
A4.6.1 Costs of crime
Lead agency Treasury

Collection type Derived estimates of the costs of crime
based on administrative data on
recorded crime and convicted cases, and
the Census of Inmates
Frequency One-off
Unit of measurement Dollars
Coverage All incidents of crime recorded by the
Police in 2003, convicted cases in 2003
and prison inmates as at November
2003.
Key variables Recorded crime incidents, type of crime,
public and private sector costs
Accessibility A report of the study’s findings is
published on the Treasury website
This study is a first attempt to estimate the costs of crime in New Zealand. These
include the costs to society as a whole and the fiscal costs to the New Zealand
Government.
The study uses data from the UK on unrecorded crime to convert recorded crime to
actual crime levels. It also draws on UK data to measure the costs facing the private
sector.
The estimates are incomplete in some areas owing to limitations in the availability
and consistency of data. These include:
• health and lost output costs associated with drug offences

• health and lost output costs associated with ‘all other offences’
• costs for a number of public sector agencies including the Ministry of
Education (preventing damage to schools); the NZ Defence Force (sea
patrols to deter illegal fishing); the NZ Fire Service (responding to deliberately
lit fires); ACC (preventing/responding to fraud); Internal Affairs (preventing
and detecting illegal pornography); and MED (preventing ad detecting insider
trading)
88
• costs incurred by not-for-profit organisations that deal with the consequences

of crime (such as the Women’s Refuge).
A4.7 Legal Services Agency

A4.7.1 Supply of legal aid services
Lead agency Legal Services Agency

Collection type Administrative Data
Frequency Annual
Unit of measurement Providers, individuals
Coverage Providers, grants and recipients of legal
aid throughout NZ
Key variables Location
Accessibility A statistical report is published annually
and is on the Legal Services Agency
website
The Legal Services Agency compiles statistics on the supply, distribution and
assignment to legal aid providers under the legal aid scheme annually (since
2003/04) across 51 standard locations. The statistics compare the location of
providers with legal aid recipients, and the litigation experience levels of listed
providers across different areas of law.
The Legal Services Agency also has information on the demographics of legally
aided people. The data includes information on age, gender, income, work status,
marital status, region, types of offences, some data on the amounts of legal aid
provided ($) and the relative debt of legally aided people. The Legal Services Agency
is considering making this information available on their website.
A4.7.2 National Survey of Unmet Legal Needs and Access to Services
Lead agency Legal Services Agency

Frequency One-off
Coverage People aged 15 years and over living in a
household with a landline.
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, income, labour force
status, marital status, health status,
housing tenure, region, type of legal
problem, types of barrier to legal aid,
reasons for not accessing legal services
Sample size Over 7,200 with a booster sample for
Mäori and Pacific peoples
Accessibility A report of the survey’s findings is
published on the Legal Services Agency
website
In June and July 2006 the Legal Services Agency conducted a nationwide survey on
access to legal services and the extent of unmet legal needs. The survey provides a
comprehensive picture of who seeks legal information, advice and representation, for
89
what and where from. The survey identifies barriers to access and outcomes for
people who do not access services.
The survey of over 7,200 New Zealanders aged 15 years and over included a
booster sample of 350 Mäori and 150 Pacific people. The sample was stratified by
region, with a minimum sample size of 400 interviewed in each region. Households
were selected at random using a random digit dialling technique, meaning that both
listed and unlisted numbers were dialled. The person interviewed was the one in the
household aged 15 years and over to have the next birthday.
The survey’s primary focus was on problems with a legal aspect, with criminal
problems being a secondary focus.
A4.8 Statistics New Zealand

A4.8.1 General Social Survey
Lead agency Statistics New Zealand

Frequency Two-yearly
Coverage Individuals aged 15 years and over
resident in private dwellings
Target sample size 8000
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, family type, income,
housing tenure, birthplace, years lived in
New Zealand
Accessibility Results from the survey will be published
on Statistics New Zealand's website
The General Social Survey (GSS) will be conducted in 2008, with the first results
available in 2009. The survey will collect information on social outcomes across 12
social domains, including safety and security. In the safety and security domain the
GSS will provide information on:
• actual experiences of safety and security incidents

• the impact of safety and security incidents on well-being
• the impact of feeling unsafe
• the interaction between safety and security incidents, feeling unsafe, and
influences from other domains of the GSS
• the types of impacts of safety and security incidents (for example, financial,
physical, psychological)
• the strategies that people use to protect themselves from safety and security
incidents.
The GSS will collect information from a random sample of about 8,000 respondents
during 2008 in a computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI).
90
A4.8.2 Census of Population and Dwellings
Lead agency Statistics New Zealand

Collection type Census
Frequency Five-yearly
Unit of measurement Individuals and Dwellings
Coverage All population and dwellings in New
Zealand on Census night
Key variables/topics Age, ethnicity, sex, Mäori descent, family
characteristics, income, birthplace,
employment, education, dwelling
characteristics, location
Accessibility Available on Statistics New Zealand's
website and through customised
requests
The next Census of Population and Dwellings will be conducted in 2011, with
detailed results available in 2012. Information from previous censuses is also
available which facilitates analysis of trends over time. The census provides
information on the characteristics of the population and housing in New Zealand on
census night and provides for the analysis of a significant number of subgroups for a
range of geographic areas that will be of interest to the crime and criminal justice
domain.
A4.9 Ministry of Transport

A4.9.1 Offenders for traffic offences involving alcohol
Lead agency Ministry of Transport

Frequency Annual
Unit of measurement Offenders
Coverage All traffic offences involving alcohol
detected by or reported to the New
Zealand Police, and subsequently
recorded by the New Zealand Police in a
given year
Key variables Age, sex, crash, month, time of day, day
of week, road type, alcohol level
Accessibility Statistics are published on Ministry of
Transport website
As noted in section A4.1.1 traffic offences are not included in police statistics.
However, the traffic offences involving breath and blood alcohol are provided to the
Ministry of Transport who analyse the data for their regular reports.
91
A4.10 Local government studies

A4.10.1 Quality of Life Survey
Lead agency Local government

Frequency Biennial since 2003
Coverage Sample from 12 territorial authorities
(cities)
Sample size 7,500
Response rate 21%
Key variables Age, region, income, sex, ethnicity,
perceptions of crime, sense of safety
Accessibility Quality of Life Report and Report on
Quality of Life Survey available from
Quality of Life Website
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 8
These biennial surveys are conducted in partnership with the Ministry of Social
Development and measure resident perceptions of health and well-being, their
community, crime and safety, education and work, the environment, culture and
identity. The Quality of Life Survey focuses on subjective measures of well-being and
reflects people’s perceptions of their own situation, which may differ from their
objective status. Samples were taken within 12 territorial local authorities.
Data collection for the survey is undertaken using computer-assisted telephone

interviewing (CATI). The sample from the 12 territorial authorities involved was
obtained through the electoral roll. The 2006 survey had a low response rate (21.0
percent) which means care should be taken in interpreting the data.
A4.11 International surveys New Zealand participates in

A4.11.1 United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of
Criminal Justice Systems
Lead agency United Nations

Collection type International survey
Frequency Varies, but recently biennial
Unit of measurement Various
Coverage 70 countries (including New Zealand) for
8th survey 2001–2002
Key variables Number of police, sex of police, police
budget, recorded crime, apprehensions,
definitions of offences, numbers of justice
personal, prosecutions, prison staff
numbers, prisoner numbers, prisoner
health
Accessibility Available on the United Nations website
The major goal of the United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations
of Criminal Justice Systems is to collect data on the incidence of reported crime and
the operations of criminal justice systems with a view to improving the analysis and
92
dissemination of that information globally. The survey results provide an overview of

trends and interrelationships between various parts of the criminal justice system to
promote informed decision making in administration, nationally and internationally.
International comparisons of crime statistics are difficult to make because of the

different legal definitions of crime, and the ways that the criminal justice systems
operate in different parts of the world. The survey asks participating countries to
provide details of the operations of the system in their country as an aid to
interpreting the statistics. However, the information is not published, rather tables of
numbers are published without clarification. For the eighth survey New Zealand did
not supply some information because of the risk of misinterpretation and
unfavourable comparison with other countries.
New Zealand has not yet responded to the ninth (2003–2004) or tenth (2005–2006)
surveys.
A4.11.2 International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS)
Lead agency United Nations

Frequency Varies, but recently biennial
Coverage 23 countries (including New Zealand) for
5th survey 2004–2005
Individuals aged 16 years and over living
in a private household
Key variables Age, sex, occupation, income, marital
status, religion, household composition,
type of victimisation, reporting of Incident
to police, perceptions of safety,
satisfaction with police, perceptions on
sentencing, security
Sample 2000 (For New Zealand)
Response rate 49%
Accessibility New Zealand report on 1992 survey
published and available on Ministry of
Justice website.
International report also published.
International report on 2004–2005 survey
available on the Intervict hosted website:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/ [March 2008]
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 1,2, 4, 5 and 8
The ICVS is a programme of standardised sample surveys to look at householders’

experience with crime, policing, crime prevention and feelings of safety and insecurity
in a large number of countries. The surveys are conducted using computer-assisted
telephone interviewing (CATI).
New Zealand participated in the 1992 survey, but did not participate again until the
2004/05 surveys. After participating in the 1992 survey, New Zealand decided to
develop its own series of victimisation surveys (see section 8.2.2 NZCASS). For the
2004/05 survey, New Zealand had a sample size of 2,000 and a response rate of 49
percent.
93
An issue with international comparisons in the crime and criminal justice area is that
criminal justice systems vary across different countries. For example, countries may
define offences in different ways. Behaviour defined as an offence in one country
may not be an offence in another country. The ICVS addresses these issues by
using the same methodology in all countries.
The methodology does have some limitations. First, the survey is not able to be
tailored to provide good information for each country by asking questions relevant to
their particular criminal justice system. Secondly, by using CATI rather than CAPI
coverage is limited to those who have a telephone. For these reasons New Zealand
developed its own surveys for a period before participating in ICVS again. Like other
victimisation surveys, the types of crimes able to be identified are limited, with the
ICVS limiting itself to ten conventional crimes.
A4.11.3 Global Economic Crime Survey
Lead agency PricewaterhouseCoopers

Frequency Biennial
Unit of measurement Organisations
Coverage 78 organisations in New Zealand
Key variables Type of offence, sex, age, education,
position and experience in organisation,
way crimes dealt with
Accessibility The survey and a variety of supplementary
country reports are available on the
Pricewaterhouse Coopers Website
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 1,2,3 and 5
The PricewaterhouseCoopers fourth biennial Global Economic Crime Survey 2007

interviewed 5,428 leading organisations globally, 894 in the Asia-Pacific region and
78 in New Zealand. The survey aims to provide organisations with relevant
information to understand and protect themselves from the defined areas of
economic crime.
The survey was previously conducted in 2001, 2003 and 2005 but this is the first time
that focused New Zealand results have featured, with 78 organisations in New
Zealand taking part (although in the 2005 survey some New Zealand organisations
were included in the Australian results).
Companies were randomly selected and the target number of respondents for each
country was determined according to its GDP. Interviews were conducted with
organisations from various industries, and with various areas of functions. One–on-
one telephone interviews was the method of contact, occurring in 40 countries and in
21 languages. The interviews were undertaken in the native language of each
country by native speakers, where a consistent definition of fraud, as outlined below,
was used. As the same methodology was used consistently in participating countries,
there is a level of international comparability possible between the data.
Economic crime was defined to include asset misappropriation, accounting fraud,

corruption and bribery, money laundering and IP (intellectual property) infringement.
A description of each of these types of economic crime was read to the respondent at
the beginning of the interview to ensure this definition was followed.
94
A4.12 Non-government studies

A4.12.1 Christchurch Health and Development Study
Lead agency Christchurch School of Medicine and

Health Sciences
Collection type Longitudinal study
Frequency Varies. Annually to age 16, 2–4 years
since then.
Coverage 1,265 children born in Christchurch urban
region during mid 1977
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, health, education, life
progress, social background, socio-
economics, family violence, substance
abuse
Accessibility 230 scientific papers, books and book
chapters describing the 25-year life
history of the CHDS cohort. Listed on
CHDS website
The Christchurch Health and Development Study (CHDS) has now been in existence
for more than a quarter of a century. During this time it has followed the health,
education and life progress of a group of 1,265 children born in the Christchurch
urban region during mid-1977. This cohort has now been studied from infancy into
childhood, adolescence and adulthood. The data gathered over the course of the
study now comprises some 50 million characters of information describing the life
history of this cohort. The study has published over 230 scientific papers, books and
book chapters describing the 25-year life history of the CHDS cohort.
Sample retention of the participants in the study has been good with nearly 80
percent of the original cohort members still participating at the age of 21.
A4.12.2 Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit
Lead agency Dunedin School of Medicine

Collection type Longitudinal study
Frequency Varies. Biennially to age 15, 3–5 years
since then.
Coverage 1,037 children born in Dunedin between
April 1972 and March 1973.
Key variables Age group, sex, health and behaviour.
Accessibility Scientific papers, books and book
chapters describing the cohort. Listed on
Dunedin School of Medicine website
The DMHDS sample retention has been good with 96 percent of the original sample
still participating at the age of 26.
95
The Dunedin and Christchurch studies were both used in a 2003 report written for the
Ministry of Social Development, Department of Labour and the Treasury. The report
analyses information on:
• mental health measures: major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct

disorder, substance use disorders, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt
• crime and delinquency: self-reported violent and property offences; police
records of arrest, and court appearance for crime
• educational achievement: age of school leaving; levels of achievement in
school certificate, sixth form certificate and bursary examinations;
participation in tertiary education; reading delays
• labour force participation: experience of unemployment
• sexual activity and health: age of onset of intercourse; contraceptive use;
pregnancy; parenthood; sexually transmitted disease
• physical and dental health (DMHDS only): cardio respiratory fitness, blood
pressure, body mass index, decayed and filled teeth, tooth loss.
These studies are potentially a rich source of information on the determinants of

crime and victimisation, as shown in the conceptual framework in figure 2.
A4.12.3 Illicit Drug Monitoring System
Lead agency Centre for Social and Health Outcomes

Research and Evaluation (SHORE)
Collection type Survey/research
Frequency Previously carried out in 1998 and 2001,
From 2005, intended to be conducted
annually on an ongoing basis
Coverage 16 years older, heavy user, resided in site
location for 12 months
Sample 316 frequent drug users, 27 key experts
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, employment,
accommodation, education, sexual
orientation, marital status, income, location
which is available on the SHORE website.
The aim of the Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS) is to provide information on
illegal drug use and drug related harm to inform appropriate responses to drug
problems in New Zealand. The IDMS was established in 2005 and is intended to be
conducted annually as part of the National Drug Policy. The most recent reports and
bulletins available are based on data from the 2006 research.
The IDMS consists of three sources of information: face-to-face interviews with

frequent drug users in the community; interviews with key experts who have regular
contact with drug users through their work; and the collation of secondary data
sources on drug related statistics. The survey of frequent drug users is not intended
to be representative of drug use in the general New Zealand population, but to
provide first hand reports of changes in drug use and drug-related harm by those
heavily involved in drug use and the surrounding drug culture.
96
A total of 318 frequent drug users were interviewed for the 2006 IDMS, including 114
frequent methamphetamine users, 111 frequent ecstasy users and 93 frequent
injecting drug users. Frequent drug users were recruited for the study from the three
main centres (Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch) using purposive sampling and
‘snowballing’. Interviewing took place from July to October 2006. To be eligible to be
interviewed a respondent had to be 16 years or older, to have used one of three
drugs of central interest at least monthly in the previous six months, and to have
resided in the site location for the past 12 months.
Twenty-seven ‘key experts’ were interviewed to provide greater understanding to the

findings obtained through interviewing the frequent drug users. These key experts
came from a number of areas, such as drug treatment agencies and law
enforcement, all which had regular contact with the frequent drug users. This was
further contextualised with a number of secondary data sources on drug use
obtained from a variety of government and non-government sources.
A4.12.4 Youth 2000 – National Secondary School Youth Health and Wellbeing
Survey
Lead agency The University of Auckland

Frequency One off
Coverage New Zealand secondary school students –
year 9 to 13, from 114 schools with 50 or
more students in years 9–13 in the year
2000
Sample size 9,699
Response rate ?
Key variables Age, ethnicity, sex, experiences of
crime/violence, perceptions of
crime/violence, help seeking
Accessibility Reports (including one on violence) and
the survey are available from University of
Auckland’s ‘Youth 2000’ website
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 1,2,3,5, and 8
Youth 2000 is New Zealand’s first large scale, nationally representative, youth health
and well-being survey. Topics in the questionnaire included: culture and ethnicity;
home and family; school; injuries and violence; health and emotional health; food and
activities; sexuality; substance use; neighbourhood; and spirituality. A report on
violence and young people derived from this survey’s data is now available on the
Youth 2000 website, and provides a unique perspective on violence and victimisation
that may not be covered in other similar surveys such as the New Zealand Crime and
Safety Survey.
The survey was administered during the 2001 school year using laptop computers
with multimedia technology. A total of 9,699 students from 114 New Zealand
secondary schools were surveyed. This represented approximately 4 percent of all
New Zealand secondary school students at the time of the survey. The schools were
randomly selected from all 390 New Zealand schools with 50 or more students in
Years 9–13 in the year 2000.
97
The findings of this survey may not accurately reflect the experiences of all young
people, particularly the experiences of those young people who have left school or do
not regularly attend school.
A4.12.5 New Zealand Computer Crime and Security Survey
Lead agency University of Otago

Frequency Annual
Unit of measurement Organisations
Coverage 500 computer security practitioners, drawn
from 750 organisations, from two sources:
top 500 organisations by turnover, and
national and local government
organisations
Sample size 113
Key variables Respondents by industry sector,
employment number, budget, job title;
expenditure on security; cyber insurance;
frequency, nature and cost of security
breaches; actions taken; reasons for
inaction; outsourcing of security functions
Accessibility The reports of the 2005 and 2006 surveys
are available on the University of Otago
Eprints website.
Relationship to information needs Informs topics 1,2,4 and 5
The New Zealand Computer Crime and Security Survey is conducted by the Security
Research Group of the University of Otago, in partnership with the Government
Communications Security Bureau, Centre for Critical Infrastructure Protection, New
Zealand Police and the Computer Security Institute. The 2006 survey is the second
annual survey. It is based on the US CSI/FBI Computer Crime and Security Survey,
and is relatively comparable with this US survey and the Australian counterpart.
This survey aims to measure the actual level of relatively unreported computer-
related crime. It provides information on the level of protection from computer threats
that organisations use, the number of security incidents they face, whether they
reported to the police, and if they did not, then why. Given that NZCASS does not
measure e-crime incidents from an organisation point of view, the New Zealand
Crime and Security Survey can offer both a complementary and contextual view to
the NZCASS.
The 2006 survey results are based on the responses of 113 computer security
practitioners in New Zealand manufacturing, governmental, financial and medical
organisations, and tertiary education providers in the 2005 calendar year. The 2006
survey had a low response rate of 22 percent of the same 500 organisations used in
the 2005 survey, which had 218 respondents. This low response rate was due to
time and budget constraints, a lack of contact by telephone, and conducting it in
parallel with the 2007 survey in one twelve-month period. Conducting the two
surveys during this time was necessary to bring publications in line with the USA and
Australian surveys. Additionally, the 22 percent response rate is argued to be above
average in regards to surveys of IT management. Respondents were the persons
responsible for IT security in their organisation.
98
As the survey respondents were anonymous, a direct longitudinal study of the data
from each survey is not possible. Reliable trend data will be possible, however, when
a regular time series of the survey has been conducted.
99
Appendix 5 Members of the working group

A working group of experts from justice sector agencies was involved in the
preparation of this document, and worked through a process of identifying the
enduring research and policy questions, assessing the extent to which data is
available to answer these needs, and identifying nine key statistical development
areas. The working group members were:
Name Organisation Position
Bridget Murphy (Chair) Statistics New Zealand Justice Subject Matter

Project Manager
Denise Brown Statistics New Zealand Principal Social
Statistician
Steve Creed Ministry of Health Team Leader
David Evans Legal Services Agency Business Development
Support Manager
Wayne Goodall The Law Commission Principal Policy Advisor
David Harpham Department of Corrections Senior Data Analyst
Barb Lash Statistics New Zealand Statistical Analyst
Margaret McArthur Department of Corrections Principal Strategic Advisor
Pat Mayhew Crime and Justice Director
Research Centre, Victoria
University of Wellington
Ong Su-Wuen Ministry of Justice Principal Advisor
Nick Strachan Statistics New Zealand Statistical Analyst
Fiona Sturrock Child, Youth and Families Team Manager
Chris Worsley New Zealand Police Statistics Business Analyst
Wiebe Zwaga Ministry of Justice Team Leader
Five other people made significant contributions to this paper by commenting on

parts of the draft and providing information.
Sally Faisandier Ministry of Justice Senior Research Adviser

Alison Handley Ministry of Justice Senior Policy Adviser
Paul Henderson Ministry of Justice Principal Advisor
Carol Hewitt Ministry of Justice Manager, Justice Sector
Information Strategy
Roger Waite The Treasury Principal Adviser
100

Silo - Tips - Review of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics Consultation Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Silo - Tips - Review of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics Consultation Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics:

Social Conditions Business Unit

Published in June 2008 by

Statistics New Zealand

Statistics New Zealand’s Information Centre

• develop a long-term picture of information needs, rather than reacting to

Enduring research and policy topics

Assessment of the extent to which statistical needs are being met

Key statistical development areas

B Existing published statistics should be assessed for suitability to become

C New Zealand Police has operated without a documented national standard

ongoing operation of the standard should be monitored to ensure it is

D Different procedures, definitions and classifications are used across the

E There is also a need to improve the comparability of data within the

G Information on victims from the police, including the relationship between

H Existing police statistics on offenders are based on events. Statistics on

I Statistics on children and young persons who offend are fragmented as

1. be relevant to crime and criminal justice policy (that is, development,

1.2 Statistical reviews

• develop a long-term picture of information needs, rather than reacting to

• identifying key data sources relevant to these questions – undertake a

1.4 Overview of the justice sector

Supporting these outcomes are several intermediate outcomes, or short-term goals.

Justice sector outcomes

A safe and just society

Safer communities Civil and democratic rights and obligations enjoyed

Impact of crime Offenders held to Crime reduced Trusted justice Accessible

Core sector agencies

Crown entities and other agencies

Legal Services Agency Law Commission

• impact of crime reduced

1.5 The significance of crime and criminal justice statistics

• the criminal event

1.6 Past reviews of crime and criminal justice statistics

After the review several of its recommendations were implemented resulting in an

1.7 Changes since the 1982 review

1.8 The crime and criminal justice framework

Societal well-being Individual well-being

Criminal justice outcomes

Housing Contexts of crime and victimisation

Economic Individual Family Society

Criminal justice outcomes

Contexts of crime and victimisation

The family environment exerts a powerful influence on the development of

Criminal justice interventions

In addition to the criminal justice interventions, a number of agencies outside the

government agencies include Victims Support, Prisoners’ Aid Rehabilitation Society,

Related social domains

2 Enduring research and policy topics

Statistical information required by stakeholders is diverse. Data is required for many

2.1 Topic 1: Trends in the nature and extent of crime

A fundamental requirement of justice sector policy and planning is information on the

Similarly, advances in science and technology have given rise to an increasingly

Questions for stakeholders

2.2 Topic 2: Victims

Understanding the impacts of crime on individual and societal well-being is essential

Questions for stakeholders

1. What information do you need on victims that is currently missing or of poor

2.3 Topic 3: Offenders

Statistical information is needed to monitor changes in the characteristics of

Repeat offenders and career criminals are of particular interest. Information is

To better understand how to address the behaviour of offenders, a range of

Questions for stakeholders