By Fiona Allison

Over the last decade, Aboriginal communities in New South Wales have been implementing justice reinvestment (JR) to address Aboriginal over-representation in the justice system. They have returned to its early conceptualization in the US as a place-based approach that addresses drivers of offending, whilst also emphasizing self-determination. They define reinvestment, a key element of JR, as a redirection of funds away from more punitive justice responses into localized prevention approaches, but also as a much broader shift in resources and decision-making.

This report presents an urgent call to action for the NSW Government to invest in JR, framed by Aboriginal definitions of reinvestment. Aboriginal over-representation in NSW continues to rise, alongside increases in NSW Government expenditure on incarceration. Aboriginal communities have been leading JR in NSW for close to a decade now. And while in some areas NSW Government policy aligns with and/or is facilitating reinvestment in NSW, including through the Closing the Gap strategy, additional action is required of government.

Just Reinvest NSW, 2022, 28p.

By Evarn J. Ooi

Aim

To investigate the impact of the Practice Guide for Intervention (PGI) on re-offending and imprisonment among supervised offenders serving a community-based order in New South Wales (NSW), specifically, either a good behaviour bond or a suspended sentence.

Method

Introduced in June 2016, PGI led to a substantial overhaul in the delivery of supervision services by NSW Community Corrections Officers (CCOs). Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) strategy, we compare re-offending (imprisonment) between supervised and unsupervised offenders serving a good behaviour bond (suspended sentence) before and after the introduction of PGI. Re-offending (imprisonment) is measured as the probability of committing a new and proven offence (being imprisoned) within 12 months of index court finalisation. The pre-PGI period includes offenders with a finalised court appearance between June and December 2014. There are two post-PGI periods. The first post-PGI period includes offenders with a finalised court appearance between June and December 2016 (the first six months after PGI was introduced). The second post-PGI period includes offenders with a finalised court appearance between June and December 2017, when the use of PGI across NSW was approaching its peak.

Results

Among supervised offenders serving a good behaviour bond, the DiD estimates indicate a small 1 to 2 percentage point increase in re-offending after the introduction of PGI compared with unsupervised offenders. However, the difference is not statistically significant. For supervised offenders sentenced to a suspended sentence, we also find a slight increase in the probability of imprisonment, but the increase is not statistically significant.

 Conclusion

Overall, we do not find evidence that the introduction of PGI led to a reduction in re-offending among supervised offenders sentenced to a good behaviour bond, nor do we find a reduction in the probability of imprisonment among supervised offenders serving a suspended sentence.

(Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 229). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2020. 27p.