{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023035230352303523, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0040650406504065045, 'mean_word_length': 5.179916317991632, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Relationship between Police and Other Government Agencies: Recent Changes in Perspective in Queensland

POLICING ORGANISATIONS IN AUSTRALIA HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN given a range of functions to undertake on behalf of other government agencies. While the historical reason for this is understood as police are often the only twenty-four hour service, and sometimes the only government service in rural and remote areas, it has detracted from the capacity of the police to deploy resources to core policing functions such as the protection of life and property across the state. In recent years we have seen increasing rates of crime, both violent crime and property crime, and the emergence of new forms of crime mainly in the areas of organised crime, the environment, fraud, computer and other "white collar" related crime (Federal Justice Office 1992, pp. 5-7). At the same time there have been increasing demands on the public purse from a myriad of directions, coupled with the increased social costs of changing economic and demographic patterns, for example increased costs of supporting higher levels of unemployed and an aging population. These competing demands lead to greater expectations that all government agencies must be "leaner", more accountable for their use of public funds and, in line with broader community trends, make productivity gains. That is "do more with less". The current pressures on police therefore include expectations that they will: