❓ Question regarding the percentage of unmet demand for various offender rehabilitation programs within the WA adult custodial system as of February 1, 2010. The answer provides point-in-time figures for unbooked program demand.
AnsweredQoN 56Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ADULT CUSTODIAL SYSTEM — UNMET PROGRAM DEMAND
Some notice of this question was given by the late Hon Jock Ferguson. I think it is very important and for that reason I decided to ask the same question in the same terms that were originally submitted by Hon Jock Ferguson. What is the percentage of unmet demand in the adult custodial system for the following programs — (a) violent offender treatment programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and medium intensity; (b) sex offender programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and intellectual disability; and (c) substance abuse, overall and in the categories of low, medium and high intensity? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN
Some notice of this question was given by the late Hon Jock Ferguson. I think it is very important and for that reason I decided to ask the same question in the same terms that were originally submitted by Hon Jock Ferguson. What is the percentage of unmet demand in the adult custodial system for the following programs — (a) violent offender treatment programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and medium intensity; (b) sex offender programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and intellectual disability; and (c) substance abuse, overall and in the categories of low, medium and high intensity? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
What is the percentage of unmet demand in the adult custodial system for the following programs — (a) violent offender treatment programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and medium intensity; (b) sex offender programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and intellectual disability; and (c) substance abuse, overall and in the categories of low, medium and high intensity? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(a) violent offender treatment programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and medium intensity; (b) sex offender programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and intellectual disability; and (c) substance abuse, overall and in the categories of low, medium and high intensity? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(b) sex offender programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and intellectual disability; and (c) substance abuse, overall and in the categories of low, medium and high intensity? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(c) substance abuse, overall and in the categories of low, medium and high intensity? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
What is the percentage of unmet demand in the adult custodial system for the following programs — (a) violent offender treatment programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and medium intensity; (b) sex offender programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and intellectual disability; and (c) substance abuse, overall and in the categories of low, medium and high intensity? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(a) violent offender treatment programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and medium intensity; (b) sex offender programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and intellectual disability; and (c) substance abuse, overall and in the categories of low, medium and high intensity? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(b) sex offender programs, overall and in the categories of intensive and intellectual disability; and (c) substance abuse, overall and in the categories of low, medium and high intensity? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(c) substance abuse, overall and in the categories of low, medium and high intensity? Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. The Minister for Corrective Services advises that the Department of Corrective Services does not keep a measure in raw figures or a percentage that correlates to what the question describes as unmet demand. At any given point in time there is a measure kept by DCS of the overall demand pool for programs offered in the Western Australian prison system. For summary here, that can be described as a point in time demand list. Consequently, the relevant figure is measured at a point in time rather than over a quarter. I am happy to read the figures out but the member may find them more edifying to read. The figures that I will provide are figures relevant to the point in time, being 1 February 2010. The figures that are kept at specific points in time represent prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program and who were awaiting a program at that point in time. Such figures do not indicate a number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. Prioritisation from the pool of prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program is undertaken according to a range of factors, including sentence length. Accordingly, attempts are made to take into account those prisoners assessed as suitable for a program but who have a short sentence length. They have a shorter period of time in which to complete an eligible program than those prisoners who are assessed as eligible for a program but because they are serving a longer sentence, have more time in which to complete a program for which they have been assessed as eligible. Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
Point in time figures include prisoners who were assessed as eligible for a program at the relevant point in time and who are already booked to take part in a program that has not yet commenced, as well as prisoners who will be booked and complete a program before they are released. It should be additionally noted that some offenders will be removed from the demand list as it existed at the relevant point in time and before program commencement for reasons including refusal, poor motivation, security and health considerations. It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
It should finally be noted that the figures provided represent a point in time measure only of those prisoners who at 1 February 2010 were assessed as requiring a program but at that time were not yet booked into a relevant program. Again, the figures are point in time figures that represent unbooked program demand on 1 February 2010 and do not indicate the number of prisoners who will not receive a program in due course. (a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(a) Sixty-one per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a violent offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a violent offender treatment program, 15 per cent are recommended for a building better relationships program, 26 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous family violence program, 35 per cent are recommended for an intensive violence program, and 24 per cent are recommended for a medium intensity violence program. (b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(b) Thirty-two per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a sex offender treatment program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SOTP, 20 per cent are recommended for a Deniers program, 19 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous medium program, 32 per cent are recommended for an intensive program, 22 per cent are recommended for a medium program and 20 per cent are recommended for an intellectual disability program. (c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
(c) Forty-eight per cent of prisoners assessed as requiring a substance abuse program are currently not booked for such a program. Of those prisoners not currently booked for a SAP, five per cent are recommended for an Aboriginal education program, 12 per cent are recommended for an Indigenous men managing anger and substance abuse program and 83 per cent are recommended for a pathways intensive program.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.