/* nursingwritersbureau.com theme functions */
/* nursingwritersbureau.com theme functions */
{"id":81217,"date":"2023-05-11T13:18:26","date_gmt":"2023-05-11T13:18:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nursingwritersbureau.com\/?p=81217"},"modified":"2023-05-11T13:18:26","modified_gmt":"2023-05-11T13:18:26","slug":"psychology-please-read-all-requirements-what-i-offerd-is-all-i-have-thanks-reading-materiel-is-attached","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nursingwritersbureau.com\/psychology-please-read-all-requirements-what-i-offerd-is-all-i-have-thanks-reading-materiel-is-attached\/","title":{"rendered":"Psychology PLEASE READ ALL REQUIREMENTS WHAT I OFFERD IS ALL I HAVE THANKS . READING MATERIEL IS ATTACHED"},"content":{"rendered":"Have you ever made note of crime statistics in your community? These days, this information is readily available online. This information is often used when people consider moving into a new neighborhood or when they are trying to assess property values.To prepareAccess the Crime Mapping website listed in this module\u2019s Learning Resources.Explore the capabilities of this tool by selecting several major cities where crime rates are likely to be higher.Select one city, 2\u20133 crimes, and a 7-day time frame.(Note: Not all cities in the United States report crime data to this site, so you may need to try more than one city.)Save a screenshot of the map that is created by your selection.Upload a copy of the map screenshot you saved in your search. In a minimum of 150 words, discuss the city chosen, 2\u20133 of the highest crime occurrences, and whether the crimes you selected seem to be grouped closely together or spread out. Explain how law enforcement might use this type of technology. Specifically identify how this technology may be used to prevent crime.READ Materiel for assignmentDowsley,F.,& Hart ,T.C,(2017) \u00a0crime and Justice data. In A. decker & R.Sarre (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Australian and New Zealand criminology ,crime and justice (pp.65-80).Cham, Switzerland :Palgrave MacMillan.Crime and Justice DataFiona Dowsley and Timothy C. HartCrime remains one of the most challenging social constructs to measure. It is elusive. It wishes to remain hidden. It is in the interest of the offender, in most instances, for their crime to remain undiscovered. A victim may also have many reasons for not wishing to disclose that a crime has occurred. Such reasons include fear, guilt, embarrassment, fear of other interventions, and lack of faith in authorities. As a result, it is impossible for criminologists and policy makers to answer accurately seemingly fundamental questions about how much crime occurs; how many victims of crime there are; and how many offenders commit crimes within our society.The criminal justice system has extensive powers to surveil, detain, adju- dicate, imprison, and curtail the liberties of the citizenry. Many programmes are implemented to improve community safety. Comprehensive information about the operations and impacts of the criminal justice system, however, can also be challenging to obtain. Data may be sought to illustrate the individual\u2019s experience of the criminal justice system, which is not collected routinely by institutions or cannot be easily compiled. Gaining access to information about individuals can further involve clearing significant hurdles in the form of ethics and authorisation processes and privacy frameworks, which can differ across jurisdictions. The emergence of new areas of criminological focus andF. Dowsley (&)Crime Statistics Agency, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email\u00a0protected]T.C. HartGriffith Criminology Institute, Brisbane, Australia e-mail: [email\u00a0protected]\u00a9 The Author(s) 2017 65 A. Deckert and R. Sarre (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New ZealandCriminology, Crime and Justice, DOI 10.1007\/978-3-319-55747-2_566 F. Dowsley and T.C. Hartthe expansion of criminal and regulatory activities can also create demands for additional data and information about new crimes and criminal justice processes.Despite these challenges, there are various aspects of crime and criminal justice administration that can be observed through a range of sources. Knowing which sources exist, are available to use, when they can be most relevant, and the questions they can best answer is crucial for researchers and policy makers alike. This chapter describes the main forms of crime and criminal justice system data available in Australia and New Zealand, the strengths and limitations of some of these sources. It explores the future challenges and opportunities for advancing the development of crime and justice data.Crime and Justice Statistical SystemViewed in a global context, Australia and New Zealand\u2019s crime and justice statistical systems have good coverage across the UN\u2019s model criminal justice statistics system (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2003). In both countries, quantitative information about the prevalence of crime, char- acteristics of victims and offenders, and the basic function of the criminal justice system is accessible. National statistical collections have often been adminis- tered by the ABS and Statistics New Zealand, meaning the collections tend to be produced regularly and are inexpensive to access. Furthermore, oversight by national statistical agencies reflects a commitment to integrity and objective data administration. Modern statistical systems are complex. An increasing number of entities collect, produce, and disseminate data relating to crime and justice institutions and related fields that can be used in criminological research. Such institutions include justice system entities; health and social services institutions; specialised data and research centres such as the AIHW, AIC, and the Centre for Social Research & Evaluation in New Zealand; various state-based entities in Australia; academic institutions and partnerships; not for profit entities; and service providers. In a dispersed statistical system, researchers can struggle to identify all extant, relevant data sources.History of Official Crime and Justice Data SourcesCrime and justice statistics were collected from the establishment of the Australian colonies (Forster and Hazelhurst 1988). Despite data collection since European settlement,1 neither Australia nor New Zealand\u2019s data supportcomparisons over time. Too many changes to legislation and justice system business processes, along with technology, terminology, and counting rule changes, have transpired to make this possible (Graycar and Grabosky 2002).AustraliaSince federation, government statisticians who attempt to compile national data have bemoaned the lack of uniformity and comparability between states and territories (ABS 1908). As the states and territories have developed dif- ferent legal systems and institutions, collating a complete and comparable national view of crime and justice remains an aspiration. Serious efforts at compiling uniform Australian crime statistics have been undertaken since the 1960s (Wyman 1970), with both ABS and AIC compiling selected offence data from states and territories, albeit without achieving comparability (Mukherjee et al. 1987).Development of contemporary Australian recorded crime statistics began in the late 1980s when the National Uniform Crime Statistics Committee (1989, 1) reported that \u201cAustralian national crime statistics lag far behind statistics available in other areas of social concern … and compare unfa- vourably with other developed countries\u201d.2 To address these challenges, joint initiatives between the ABS and the Commonwealth, states, and territories were established. These joint initiatives include the National Crime Statistics Unit (NCSU) established in 1990, the National Criminal Courts Statistics Unit (NCCSU) established in 1994, and the National Corrective Services Statistics Unit (NCSSU) also established in 1994 (ABS 1994). The NCSU and NCCSU established the current national statistical collections, while the NCSSU adopted the publication of two statistical collections, which had previously been produced by the AIC, that is, the annual prisoner census and the quarterly corrective services collections. Development of statistical infrastructure, including standard offence classifications from the early 1980s to the current Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification (ABS 2011a), and national counting rules such as the National Crime Recording Standard for police statistics, has supported comparability efforts. Despite this, comparability issues still exist within the national police-recorded crime collections, in particular.3The AIC has established a number of statistical programmes between 1981 and 2007. This includes data on juveniles in detention; the aforementioned prisoner census and corrective services series; and national monitoring pro- grammes such as those relating to homicide, deaths in custody, firearm theft,5 Crime and Justice Data 6768 F. Dowsley and T.C. Hartarmed robbery, fraud against the Commonwealth, and human trafficking. Other evolving national collections include the AIHW Juvenile Justice National Minimum Dataset, which was developed in 2000.New ZealandIn 1978, the NZ Police commenced electronic recording of crime using the Law Enforcement System (LES), which has also been used by criminal courts and the NZ Department of Corrections since 2003 and 2005, respectively. This enabled the production of modern crime statistics. Despite intervening system and legislative changes over the years, recorded crime statistics gen- erated from 1978 to 2014 remained largely comparable (Knight et al. 2016). Statistics New Zealand has published data relating to courts from 1980 in the current time series, despite changes in the source used to generate these data. It changed from LES to the Ministry of Justice\u2019s Case Management System from 2004 and from the Department of Corrections\u2019 Integrated Offender Management System from 1999 (Statistics New Zealand 2016).NZ Police, in collaboration with Statistics New Zealand, have recently undertaken a significant overhaul of the nation\u2019s official recorded crime statistics. The redevelopment has included adopting a National Recording Standard for Crime, based on the Australian National Crime Recording Standard. It also involved undertaking a quality improvement project from 2009, redeveloping underlying data warehousing, revising the nation\u2019s key official crime statistics to expand information relating to victims, and moving towards greater alignment to Australian counting rules (Knight et al. 2016). Similarly, the Ministry of Justice\u2019s redevelopment of criminal court and prison information has moved New Zealand towards an integrated justice sector data warehouse, allowing exploration of system-wide justice data (Statistics New Zealand 2013a). The Australia and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification developed by ABS has been adopted by New Zealand, as have the counting rules used in generating recorded crime statistics (Statistics New Zealand 2015a, b). Unfettered by the challenges of compa- rability arising in Australia from the federated model where states and terri- tories have different justice systems, New Zealand as a single jurisdiction has been able to focus efforts into data improvement. Cross-government part- nerships and the Integrated Data Infrastructure and Information Sharing Project are unlocking opportunities for sophisticated analysis between justice and other key government datasets.5 Crime and Justice Data 69 Key Contemporary Data SourcesThere are two primary types of crime and justice data generally available to both criminologists and policy makers, namely administrative by-product data and survey-generated information. While project-specific or one-off data collections can also be undertaken, this chapter focusses on major data sources available for use by criminologists.Administrative Data SourcesAdministrative by-product data are generated as part of the daily business practices and transactions of an institution or entity. In the criminal justice system, information collection may serve an evidentiary or justice adminis- tration process; support operations; drive planning and effective management of the justice system; or acquit reporting requirements to an oversight mechanism. Administrative by-product data represent a low-cost source of information. Furthermore, it is highly relevant to the justice process and comprises a census of all documented activities within it. However, depending on the level of rigour applied during collection, data quality may vary considerably. Moreover, the scope of data collection can be restricted to include only that which is required for the business of justice to take place. Both of these challenges represent noteworthy limitations to administrative by-product data.A seamless view of the criminal justice system cannot be generated. Transitions between institutions of the justice system are challenging to observe in data collections. For example, police-recorded crime and court data may not align due to alterations during the intervening prosecution stage for which data are not published. Most states and territories in Australia struggle to track individuals or business entities throughout the justice system, requiring statistical linkage techniques to integrate data from disparate infor- mation systems. New Zealand\u2019s more comprehensive unique identifiers\u2014 primarily the Personal Record Number as established through the Justice Sector Unique Identification Code 1998\u2014may assist in criminal justice system anal- yses. Where datasets remain consistent over time and contain personal iden- tifiers, administrative data can support longitudinal analysis. The longitudinal analysis supports exploration of criminal trajectories, pathways through the justice system, and desistance, especially when augmented with other data sources (Stewart et al. 2015).70 F. Dowsley and T.C. HartCriminal justice agencies release data directly to researchers and the public. They also provide information to national data collections about crime recorded by states and territories,4 about criminal court finalisations, and about people in the custody or under the supervision of corrective services. These collections are primarily published by the ABS, AIHW, AIC, or Statistics New Zealand. Information about operations\u2014such as costs or personnel numbers\u2014are published to a limited extent by the Productivity Commission in their Report on Government Services in Australia, and need to be sourced directly from agencies, or become available through annual reporting obligations. Statistics New Zealand publishes a range of Tier 1 statistics\u2014designated as the most important statistics to inform decision-making\u2014from data provided by the criminal justice system (Statistics New Zealand 2013b).Table 5.1 Key administrative crime and justice sources in Australia and New ZealandCollection type Policerecorded crimeCriminal courtsCorrective servicesExamples of topics coveredOffences; incidents;offenders; victimsDefendants; cases; adjudication; sentencingPrisoners; people under supervision; remand prisoners; expected time to serve; prior imprisonment; breaches and escapesAustralian examples\u2022 Recorded crime,victims (ABS cat.no. 4510.0)\u2022 Recorded crime,offenders (ABScat. no. 4519.0) \u2022 Criminal courts(ABS cat. no.4513.0) \u2022 Federaldefendants (ABS cat. no. 4515.0)\u2022 Prisoners in Australia (ABS cat. no. 4517.0)\u2022 Corrective services (ABS cat. no. 4515.0)\u2022 Juveniles in detention (AIC)\u2022 National juvenile justice national minimum dataset (AIHW)\u2022 Deaths in custody (AIC)NZ examples\u2022 Crime andjustice statistics(Statistics NZ)\u2022 Integrated data infrastructure(Statistics NZ)(continued)Table 5.1 (continued)5 Crime and Justice Data 71Collection type CoronialHospital and emergency admissionsInjuryChild protectionExamples of topics coveredHomicide victims; allegedPerpetrators; circumstances of deathInjuries and poisonings with external causeAttendances; injury; overdoseCharacteristics; notifications; substantiationsAustralian NZexamples examples National coronial information system\u2022 Causes of death (ABS cat. no. 3303.0)\u2022 National homicide monitoring program (AIC)National hospital morbidity database (AIHW)State and territory data sourcesChild protection national minimum dataset (AIHW)\u2022 Mortality data (Ministry of Health)\u2022 deaths (Statistic NZ)Various Ministry of Health dataSerious injury outcome indicators (Statistics NZ)\u2022 Integrated data infrastructure (Statistics NZ)\u2022 Substantiated abuse findings (Child, Youth and Family)Coronial court data and causes of death data collections are vital sources for homicide researchers and include rich details of individuals and events. Non-criminal justice datasets of interest include those generated by emer- gency services and health institutions. These datasets can support exploration of injury arising from violence, which may be unreported to criminal justice authorities or drug-related harm information. Table 5.1 summarises key contemporary administrative crime and justice datasets.Survey Data SourcesSurvey data collected by institutions, commercial research companies, or researchers directly from respondents can provide insights into experiences with crime and into attitudes of the general community or specific sub-populations to safety, crime, and justice. There are several key advantages of survey data. It can produce estimates of crime prevalence in the community and the proportion of crime reported to justice authorities. Respondents can disclose experiences in a confidential survey setting without fear of72 F. Dowsley and T.C. Hartconsequences. Surveys can collect more detailed information about experiences with and perceptions of crime, impacts on victims, and responses to crime by authorities. Interactions between feelings of safety, trust in institutions, and experiences with crime and other factors in a person\u2019s life can be explored. Surveys can reach those who are less likely to access the justice system, and surveys of offenders, in particular, can provide unique understandings of their experience of the justice system and factors contributing to offending.Key limitations in survey data include issues around recall, fatigue, honesty, and the simplification of complex concepts to enable data collection. Moreover, surveys are limited to offences that an individual or entity has knowingly experienced. It can be challenging to obtain sufficiently large samples through survey methodologies to provide reliable estimates for small groups or sub-populations and for rare crimes. Finally, surveys can be expensive to conduct, and response rates are in decline.Household victimisation surveys collect respondents\u2019 experiences of selected crimes against the persons and households. They are crucial for determining the reporting rate for key offences\u2014the proportion of crime that becomes known to police\u2014and for validating police-recorded crime statistics (ABS 2011b). Such surveys can produce attitudinal measures such as feelings of safety, per- ceptions of social disorder, trust in the justice system, as well as self-protection and security measures. Similar surveys can also be conducted with businesses and other entities as respondents. Self-report surveys ask respondents to disclose antisocial or criminal behaviours. They have a long history in criminology, particularly to explore more low-level delinquent offending and to gather information about patterns of respondents\u2019 illicit drug usage.In recent decades, Australia has run a higher number of national victimi- sation surveys than other comparable countries (UN Office on Drugs and Crime 2010). This is, arguably, a sensible course of action given the ongoing lack of comparability in administrative crime data. Table 5.2 summarises key crime and justice surveys.Australia has been a world leader in the collection of high-quality data about the sensitive topics of intimate partner and family violence and sexual violence through the development of the Personal Safety Survey (PSS). The precursor survey, the Women\u2019s Safety Survey (WSS), was run by the ABS in 1996, followed by the 2005, 2012, and 2016 PSS, which added men to the survey sample. The PSS surveys maintained significant continuity, allowing exploration of an underreported and often overlooked area of victimisation over time. The strength of this survey comes from the methodology employed. Face-to-face interviews are conducted in a private setting by experienced interviewers. The International Violence against Women Survey5 Crime and Justice Data 73 Table 5.2 Key surveys relating to crime and justice in Australia and New ZealandType of surveyVictimisation (household)Examples of topics covered\u2022 prevalence ofcrimes within thecommunity\u2022 Crimes reported topolice\u2022 Number ofvictimisations\u2022 Actions taken byvictim\u2022 Socio-demographiccharacteristics ofvictims of crime \u2022 Prevalence of crimes withinindustry\u2022 Crimes reported topolice or regulators \u2022 Number ofvictimisationsexperienced\u2022 Actions taken byorganisation inresponse\u2022 Industry andorganisationcharacteristics\u2022 Delinquent andantisocialbehaviours\u2022 Illicit drug use\u2022 Feelings of safety in specific locations and at specific times\u2022 Perceptions of social disorder\u2022 Perceptions of and trust in institutions of the criminal justice system\u2022 Personal, household, or business security measures taken\u2022 Costs incurredAustralian examples\u2022 Crime victimisation (ABS cat. no. 4530.0)\u2022 General social survey (ABS cat. no. 4159.0)\u2022 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social survey (ABS cat. no. 4714.0)\u2022 Personal safety survey (ABS cat. no. 4906.0) \u2022 Personal fraud survey(ABS cat. no 4528.0)\u2022 Crimes against businesssurvey (Walker 1994)\u2022 Retail crime and safetysurvey (CrimePrevention Unit 1998) \u2022 Crimes against smallbusiness survey (PerroneNZ examplesNZ crime and safety survey (NZCASS) (Ministry of Justice 2014)Retail theft and security survey (Guthrie 1999)Victimisation (business)Self-reportAttitudes and perceptionsSelf-protection\u2022 Drug use monitoring(AIC) survey2000)Various private sector surveys whoseavailability is unknown\u2022 Illicit drug reporting system (IDRS) (NDARC) \u2022 National drug strategyhousehold survey(AIHW)\u2022 Crime victimisation (ABScat. no. 4530.0)\u2022 General social survey(ABS cat. no. 4159.0) \u2022 Personal safety survey (ABS cat. no. 4906.0)\u2022 National community attitudes to violence against women survey (NCAS) (VicHealth)Home safety and security survey, WA (ABS cat. no. 4526.5.55.001)Cannabis use (Ministry ofHealth 2015)NZ crime and safety survey (NZCASS) (Ministry of Justice 2014)74 F. Dowsley and T.C. Hartconducted by AIC in 2002\/2003 allowed some international comparisons on this topic, albeit through a different telephone-based interview methodology. Other regular victimisation surveys have included the ABS Crime and Safety Survey, which ran irregularly from the 1970s and evolved into the annual Crime Victimisation Survey, which has been conducted since 2008\/2009. The Crime Victimisation Survey format has allowed exploration of additional modules exploring social disorder and feelings of safety, for example. Regular national survey data in New Zealand are available from the Crime and Safety Survey conducted by Statistics New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand both participated in several waves of the International Crime Victimisation Survey in the past, allowing some international comparisons: Australia in 1989, 1992,2000\/2001, and 2004\/2005 and New Zealand in 1992 and 2004\/2005. Surveys of crime against businesses are more often conducted by private companies and professional services firms, and an exception was an AIC smallbusiness criminal victimisation survey in the 1990s.Major self-report studies include the AIC\u2019s Drug Use Monitoring inAustralia (DUMA) survey, querying respondents in police custody about illicit drug use and its relationship to criminal activities combined with uri- nalysis components since 1999 (Coghlan et al. 2015). The AIHW National Drug Strategy Household Survey is another example (AIHW 2014), pro- ducing crucial estimates of illicit drug usage and harms across the community. In New Zealand, similar data are collected through the NZ Ministry of Health (2010, 2015).Gaps in Core Crime and Justice Data CollectionsABS and Statistics New Zealand undertook consultations in the 2000s to identify the key data development requirements in the national crime and justice collections. The ABS published its findings and future directions in the National Information Development Plan for Crime and Justice Statistics (2005). Statistics New Zealand published its findings in the Review of Crime and Justice Statistics (2009). Key gaps and areas of deficiency require data development activity and investment to meet the needs of researchers and policy makers. This includes: (1) more comprehensive and complete crime and justice data relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, particu- larly given the historical lack of inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in justice statistics until the latter part of the twentieth century (Graycar and Grabosky 2002), and growing overrepresentation as both victims and offenders; (2) data relating to the experience of specific groups, such asculturally and linguistically diverse communities or people with disability as offenders and victims; (3) data relating to stages of the justice system not currently included in the national statistical collections, such as prosecution processes and post-corrective services release activities; (4) measures of family violence\u2014beyond surveys providing community prevalence and incidence estimates\u2014which effectively demonstrate engagement with justice institu- tions, government social service systems, and third sector service providers; (5) technologically enabled cybercrime or electronic crime as well as many related variants of transnational crime; (6) terrorism-related offences and other Commonwealth offences that are only visible from courts system onwards in many cases; (7) any crime groupings which are based not upon offence type, but upon the context in which the crime occurs, for example, crimes related to organised crime which can only be determined sometimes after the fact, or gang-related activity; and (8) drug-related crime and the involvement of drugs and alcohol in criminal offending and victimisation. It should be noted that many of these shortcomings in existing national data collections remain exceptionally difficult to overcome, due to conceptual difficulties and limita- tions inherent in the jurisdiction of different justice institutions.Challenges for ResearchersThis chapter has outlined a number of data challenges for criminologists, such as gaps and limitations in quality, quantity, breadth, depth, and coverage on specific topics of interest. Further challenges for researchers working in Australasia may include the cost of accessing information; the cost of data production; gaining approval to access data sources, particularly for researchers who seek to negotiate with institutions whose main remit is not the release of data; and issues around ethics, confidentiality and privacy (Israel 2004). The latter may prove particularly challenging for researchers who look to work across different institutions and jurisdictions, where procedures, policies, and practices may vary.Future OpportunitiesWhile limitations exist, there are emerging opportunities for data-driven criminologists to explore which will lead to new perspectives on observable crime and justice issues. The increasingly affordable range of analytical tools5 Crime and Justice Data 7576 F. Dowsley and T.C. Hartavailable\u2014combined with pushes towards open data releases by governments \u2014will transform quantitative research opportunities.Location-related data are playing an increasingly important role in crimi- nology. A growing number of spatially referenced datasets are becoming available and at no cost. Street network and address point data, administrative boundary files, and location-based socio-demographic information are now easily accessible. The backbone of this work finds itself in initiatives such as the Geo-Coded National Address File (G-NAF) that provides accessible and comprehensive address and boundary data on state, suburb, street, number, and geographic coordinates for street addresses. Similarly, the Administrative Boundaries dataset\u2014which the government released via PSMA Limited in 2015\u2014contains ABS boundaries, electoral boundaries, state and territory boundaries, local government areas, suburbs, wards, and town points. Every year, Statistics New Zealand releases geographic data that can be linked to boundaries files; that can be used to define mesh-blocks, area units, wards, or regional council areas; and that can be joined with other spatial or non-spatial data. These regularly updated resources, combined with crime data, support place-based criminological studies.Data linkage techniques have been used in the social sciences for some time. Crime and justice research in Australia and New Zealand has been slow to take advantage of emerging techniques, which have, for example, flour- ished more readily in the health fields (Ferrante 2009). Given the discon- nected information systems proliferating across criminal justice in Australia and New Zealand, data linkage provides the only readily available method for conducting research about the pathways individuals take through the criminal justice system, enabling sophisticated studies of recidivism, criminal careers, and trajectory studies. Due to the granular level of data required for linkage, agencies located within or adjacent to criminal justice agencies have a par- ticular advantage in developing data linkage studies. Collaborative arrange- ments between the academy and government entities will open up greater opportunities to produce knowledge.Developments in big data analysis are yet to fully impact upon criminology. Crime and justice data have traditionally been contained to datasets generated through set research activities such as surveys or has been created as citizens interact with the criminal justice system. As we are unquestionably moving into the so-called big data information age, opportunities will emerge for criminologists and data scientists\u2014or indeed, quantitative criminologists\u2014to reimagine the current methods and uses of criminal justice data. These new approaches may assist us to overcome some inherent limitations in current data, and create new ways of studying crime, perceptions of crime, and impactson individuals and the community. As the increasingly digital interactions that individuals have with the world create new data sources, such as social media data or sensor information, new prospects for analysis emerge. Many of the techniques that were historically the purview of intelligence analysts may now increasingly be useful to researchers. Through the application of big data tools and techniques, researchers are able to identify patterns, trends, and rela- tionships in large, unstructured datasets. As new digital landscapes open up to both criminality and the practice of justice and regulation, so criminologists must follow, taking advantage of new tools and techniques.ConclusionToday, Australian and New Zealand researchers and policy makers have access to more administrative crime and justice data than ever before. Detailed information about crime victims, offenders, and offences can be gleaned from crimes recorded by police. Similarly, criminal court data provide insight into the adjudication of criminal cases and the sentencing of those convicted. Finally, corrective services data contain details of prisoners and those under correctional supervision. Other administrative data such as hospital and emergency admissions are also available and can be used to develop a more comprehensive picture of crime and justice in Australia and New Zealand.A growing number of survey datasets have also emerged over the years. For example, victimisation data, as well as data on attitudes and perceptions of crime, are available from national surveys such as Australia\u2019s General Social Survey and New Zealand\u2019s Crime and Safety Survey. Other self-reported survey data are available from the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) Survey and the National Drug Strategy Household Survey.Despite existing administrative and survey datasets in Australia and New Zealand, there are clear deficiencies in some areas. For example, more information about cybercrime and terrorism-related offences is needed, and the interconnectivity of extant datasets also needs to increase. Whether these needs will be met in the future is uncertain, but what is clear is that as new sources of data emerge in Australia and New Zealand, so does the opportunity to discover and develop new ideas and ways of thinking about crime and crime-related issues.5 Crime and Justice Data 7778 F. Dowsley and T.C. Hart Notes1. SeehistoricalYearBookspublishedbyABSandStatisticsNewZealandforcrime, criminal courts, and prison statistics dating back to the nineteenth century.2. For<\/p>\n \n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/nursingwritersbureau.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/order_now.png\")
<\/a>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"