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 Kimberly Ann Puhala

The problems associated with the civil legal system for women who have experienced domestic violence have been persistent over time and still exist today. The current sociopolitical context in this state frames access to civil legal services either through a means-tested (and underfunded) program (Civil Legal Assistance) or as a privately purchased market service. This leaves a limited amount of low- or no-cost alternatives, which creates a gap in services for those women whose income is too high to qualify for Civil Legal Assistance programs, yet too low to afford to hire a private attorney. This study examines this two-tiered system, and reveals that the alternative to full Civil Legal Assistance or individually purchased full-scale legal representation for iv women who fall into the services gap is a system that is confusing, faces a lack of coordination, and may lead to less than optimal outcomes in civil legal cases related to domestic violence. This study explores the workings of this system from the perspective of the women using it and the service providers within it. Through surveys of 18 women seeking civil legal assistance and 11 interviews with legal services advocates and providers, this research identifies the areas that remain problematic for women who experience domestic violence and turn to the civil legal services for help.

Puhala, Kimberly Ann, "Legal Experiences of Women Survivors of Domestic Violence: A Need for Policies that Address the Justice Gap" (2011). Graduate Doctoral Dissertations. Paper 37.

By Gemma Buckland

In recent decades, policymakers have become increasingly aware that our legal definition, which treats all people aged 18 years or older as adults, does not reflect the neurological process of maturation. Policymakers across all parts of the criminal justice system have recognised this although changes in practice are variable at best. There is now a considerable body of evidence on the maturation process and best practice in working with young adults (typically defined as those aged between 18 and 25 years old) in contact with the criminal justice system. This review looks at: What we understand about the development of the brain in young adulthood The implications for young adults involved in criminal behaviour The impact of trauma and Adverse Childhood Experiences on the maturation process The “age-crime curve” and the evidence about growing out of crime Implications for best practice working with young adults

London: CLINKS, 2025. 16p.

By Andrew Galley,  Frank Sirotich, and Sara Rodrigues  

This report is based on a scoping review by a team of researchers at the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA), who analyzed existing research and policy documents on the mental health care needs of justice-involved persons in Canada’s criminal justice system and in peer jurisdictions. It aims to guide future research and policy development by highlighting what is currently known about this topic and what knowledge gaps may exist in the literature on mental health in the criminal justice system. While it highlights research on the prevalence of mental health problems and mental illness in the criminal justice system, experiences of justice-involved persons with mental health problems and mental illness, and promising practices and principles for mental health care, it is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the literature.   

Ottawa: Mental Health Commission of Canada , 2020. 124p.

By Rafael A. Mangual 

After enacting a sweeping bail reform, New York lawmakers have drawn the ire of constituents who are troubled by the many stories of repeat and serious offenders—some with violent criminal histories—being returned to the street following their arrests. In the state’s biggest city, the public’s growing concerns are buttressed by brow-raising, if preliminary, crime data, amplifying calls for amending or repealing the bail reform. The operative provisions of New York’s bail reform severely limit judicial discretion in pretrial release decisions, increasing the number of pretrial defendants who are being released, often without conditions and without allowing judges to consider the risk that a defendant poses to the public. New York is now the only state that does not allow judges to consider public safety in any pretrial release decisions. This brief begins with an overview of New York’s pre-2020 bail law and the reforms that took effect on January 1. It then highlights the reform’s shortfalls and ends by proposing three changes intended to address the public’s legitimate safety concerns while preserving the spirit of the reform effort and addressing some of the inequities and inefficiencies inherent in a system that is heavily reliant on the use of monetary pretrial release conditions. The proposed changes include: • Empowering judges to assess the public safety risk posed by pretrial defendants, and setting out a process that allows them to detain dangerous or chronic offenders; • Allowing judges to revoke or amend release decisions in response to a pretrial defendant’s rearrest; and • In the intermediate term, setting aside additional funds or diverting existing funds to reduce the time a defendant stands to spend in jail if remanded to pretrial detention.  

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2020. 14p.