By The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, violence surged nationwide. Responding to the urgent need to address gun violence, the White House encouraged jurisdictions across the country to use a portion of their federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocations to fund violence intervention. President Joe Biden hosted a series of meetings at the White House with experts in the community violence intervention (CVI) field and launched the Community Violence Intervention Collaborative (CVIC), which provided technical assistance (TA) and funding to local CVI groups in 16 cities. The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) was a partner in CVIC. NICJR is also the convener of the National Offices of Violence Prevention Network (NOVPN), a firstof-its-kind learning community launched in 2021 as a space to build the expertise and capacity of OVPs and other similar agencies. The NOVPN was founded by NICJR and partners with a membership of 21 established OVPs. Since then, it has grown to more than 45 agencies (including several established with NOVPN support). NICJR also provides tailored training and technical assistance to cities, counties, and states across the US as they work to understand the nature of their local gun violence problem and enact proven, community-focused strategies to reduce that violence. In many cases, this work has been funded through ARPA dollars. As a result, NICJR is deeply aware of the impact of ARPA funding, as well as the challenges that communities face in ensuring the sustainability of violence reduction work, as these federal funds must be obligated by the end of 2024. The following report provides a snapshot of ARPA funds—including the use, impact, and potential for sustainability—in four jurisdictions: two cities, one county, and one state.   

NICJR, 2023. 11p.

By Kay Cook, Adrienne Byrt, Terese Edwards, Ashlea Coen

This report draws on the experiences of 675 single mothers who have engaged with the Australian child support system. It reveals how violence is the backdrop to women’s engagement within each stage of the child support process and the compounding impact of violence and poverty. The report makes four recommendations that would reduce the capacity of the child support system to be weaponised. Child support, despite its straightforward and important aim of transferring payments between separated households, is regarded as a complex area of policy and a ‘black box’ in which there is a lack of data on how the system operates. The system’s opacity means that parents’ experiences are largely unknown – particularly for half of the caseload who transfer payments privately. Policy and service blind spots and loopholes allow harmful behaviour perpetrated through the child support system to go undetected and unaccounted for. The lack of evidence on the harms that the system enables in turn perpetuates the myth that child support is a benign administrative process. The recommendations in this report are a direct result of the survey findings and are intended to: bring about meaningful improvements;empower women with autonomy and choice that is directed by what they want and require for their family; andcreate a system that is safe for women to engage in.

Recommendations

Delink family payments from child support by eliminating the Maintenance Income Test.Co-design family violence processes within the child support system to recognise the high rates of violence experienced by system users.Move all child support collections back into the Australian Tax Office.Make all payment debts owed to and enforced by the Commonwealth.

Hawthorn, VIC: Swinburne University of Technology, 2024. 97p.

By Olivia Chollet, Jack Thrower, Alice Grundy

Traffic fines in Australia hit low-income earners disproportionally hard. One potential solution to this problem is traffic fines that are proportional to the income of the offender. This discussion paper outlines one way of applying this model – drawn from Finland – to Australia, including a breakdown for states. With cost of living already pushing many Australians into financial difficulties, traffic fines can force low-income people into choosing between essential spending and paying fines. By contrast, traffic fines are a minor annoyance for Australia’s high-income earners. This paper outlines a more equitable model for speeding fines based on a Finnish proportional fine system.

Key points

Finland has a minimum fine amount but otherwise calculates a fine based on a driver’s income and whether they have dependentsThis is better for equality, and sometimes catches headlines when really big fines are issued to billionairesAustralian states are already moving in this direction: in NSW there is already a Centrelink discount.

Canberra: The Australia Institute, 2024. 22p.

By Lindsey Linder

For the past 30 years, the number of women incarcerated in America has grown exponentially, increasing at nearly twice the rate of men’s incarceration. With only five percent of the world’s female population, the United States accounts for nearly 30 percent of the world’s incarcerated women. Texas has contributed greatly to this surge in incarcerated women, with one of the top 10 highest female incarceration rates in the country. Regarding growth over time, female incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ, the state’ corrections system) increased 908 percent from 1980– 2016, compared to an increase in the male population of 396 percent. In other words, female incarceration in Texas has increased at more than twice the rate of male incarceration over the past 40 years. Alarmingly, a more recent spike in system-involved women has occurred as Texas has lowered its population in TDCJ, and Texas now incarcerates more women by sheer number than any other state. From 2009– 2018, Texas reduced its men’s prison population by 10,179 while backfilling its prisons with 122 women.6 As of 2018, women incarcerated in TDCJ numbered 12,076, representing 8.3 percent of the incarcerated population, up from 7.7 percent in 2009. Additionally, the number of women serving 10 years or more in Texas increased over 50 percent from 2005 to 2014. And the rise in female incarceration is not exclusive to prisons. The number of women in Texas jails awaiting trial has grown 48 percent since 2011, even as the number of female arrests in Texas has decreased 20 percent over that time period.10 The issues facing incarcerated women are complex, as are the underlying causes of their incarceration. However, because women comprise only a small portion of the overall incarcerated population, their needs are largely disregarded in larger justice reform conversations. One of the predominant obstacles to reform has been the lack of data on who these women are and how they become entangled in the system. To help bridge this gap, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition (TCJC) launched the “Justice for Women” campaign in March 2018, starting with a two-part report series on women in Texas’ justice system  These two reports, which incorporated the results of our survey of more than 430 women incarcerated in Texas prisons, explored the concerning increase in the number of justice system-involved women in Texas and examined the unique issues they face prior to and during incarceration. TCJC accompanied the reports with a webpage dedicated to women’s justice, which includes stories of women impacted by Texas’ justice system—stories that have been critical to reform  

Austin: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition 2020. 28p.

By Mike Males

Media reports, politicians, and law enforcement lobbies are manufacturing a false picture of crime as Californians prepare to vote. Backers of anti-justice reform policies are falsely blaming liberal reforms and prosecutors for a non-existent “crime wave.” The anti-reform campaign is also exploiting public anger that retail thieves are “getting away with crime,” while the media fails to hold law enforcement and conservative jurisdictions accountable for their own failed practices. California’s criminal justice statistics (BSCC 2024; CDCR 2024; DOJ 2024) clearly show: 1) California’s 23 Republican-voting counties* consistently suffer worse trends in murder, violent crime, gun violence, and drug abuse than the 25 Democratic-voting counties or the 10 counties with mixed-voting patterns. 2) California’s conservative inland and rural counties suffer the state’s worst homicide trends. 3) All counties show similar property crime trends and rates. 4) California’s liberal counties2 have gotten tougher on crime, especially in the post-2010 reform era, incarcerating a greater share of people arrested – even though conservative counties have long incarcerated a greater share of their overall populations. 5) The real reason the public has the impression that retail thieves are “getting away with crime” is not reforms, but because law enforcement in all jurisdictions, regardless of politics, are making arrests in far fewer crimes today than 30 years ago. Law enforcement’s plunging “crime clearance rate” will be detailed in an upcoming report. 

San Francisco; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2024. 7p.  

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.

By Elizabeth Moore; Suzanne Poynton; Pierrette Mizzi; Una Doyle

Aim

This study aims to assess whether, from the perspective of the judiciary, the NSW sentencing reforms, commencing in September 2018, are operating as intended and to identify any impediments to implementation.

 Background

In September 2018 significant legislative changes were introduced to expand the community-based sentencing options available to offenders in NSW. A key driver for the changes was to increase opportunities for offenders to be supervised and to engage in rehabilitation programs. To assess whether the sentencing reforms are operating as intended and identify any barriers to implementation, an online survey of 93 NSW judicial officers was undertaken In October 2019.

The survey aimed to assess:

judicial officers’ perceptions of the sentencing reforms whether judicial officers feel there is more flexibility in sentencing decisionswhether the process of obtaining a ‘Sentencing Assessment Report’ for a community-based order had improvedwhether any barriers exist to imposing the new community-based sentencing options.

 Key findings

Overall, the majority of judicial officers agreed that the sentencing reforms are operating as intended.
Table 1 shows: 71% agreed the changes have increased the opportunity for offenders to serve supervised community-based orders.57% agreed that the new community-based options provide more flexibility in sentencing decisions.47% agreed that the changes have increased the opportunity for offenders to participate in rehabilitation programs. In addition, 89% agreed that the ‘Sentencing Assessment Reports’ are provided on time and 65% agreed the reports provide sufficient information.

However, judicial officers identified a number of concerns including:

the suspension of supervision for low-medium risk offendersthe lack of information available to the court regarding ICO breachesICO exclusions for certain offenceslack of services particularly in rural locations to allow the full range of conditions to be used.

 Conclusion

While the majority of judicial officers surveyed agree that the sentencing reforms are operating as intended, a number of practical issues remain that may affect the extent to which the expanded community-based sentencing options are used.

(Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 230). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2020. 31p.

By Ilya Klauzner; Steve Yeong

Background

There are two bail authorities in New South Wales (NSW): the police and the courts. These authorities are tasked with determining whether an accused person should be held on remand prior to the finalisation of legal proceedings. Remand is associated with adverse social, economic, legal and emotional outcomes for the individual and represents a significant financial burden to the state. It is, therefore, crucial for policymakers to understand what factors drive the bail decision-making process. This bulletin seeks to understand the application of the current NSW bail laws (Bail Act 2013 (NSW)). Specifically, it examines the relative importance of defendant (e.g., age, gender and Aboriginality) and case characteristics (e.g., prior offending, the number and nature of the offences to which the defendant is accused) in bail decisions. Consistency of bail decisions across police areas and courts is also considered.

Key findings

Bail determinations in NSW between January 2015 and November 2019 are examined. The findings can be summarised as follows: Legal factors, including the number of concurrent offences, prior offences and prior prison sentences, strongly increase the likelihood of bail refusal by the police and court. Defendants accused of a Show Cause offence, which carries a presumption against bail, are far more likely to be refused bail than other defendants.Some extra-legal factors are also associated with a significant increase in the probability of being bail refused. Adult Aboriginal defendants are more likely to be bail refused by the police than non-Aboriginal defendants, while male defendants and those aged between 35 and 44 years are more likely to be bail refused by both the police and the courts.There is substantial variation in bail decisions across police jurisdictions and magistrates for matters with equivalent case characteristics. Moving between different police jurisdictions or magistrates may have a greater impact on the probability of bail refusal than many legal factors, including prior court appearances and bail breaches.The police and courts are largely influenced by the same factors in their bail decisions. However, there is evidence to suggest that police are imposing a higher risk threshold than the courts. Further, the police are more likely to refuse bail for domestic violence and/or alcohol related offences than the courts.Generally, factors influencing bail refusal are similar for adults and juveniles. However, breaches of bail have a larger influence on the probability of juveniles being refused bail compared with adults. Extra-legal factors (e.g., gender) also seem to be less important in bail decisions involving juveniles.

Conclusion

Legal factors, in particular offence type and prior offending, have the largest impact on both the police and court decision to refuse bail. The influence of certain extra-legal factors, including Aboriginality, in bail determinations and the substantial variation across police jurisdictions and magistrates warrants further research.

(Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 236). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2021. 32p

By Elaine Hennig and Jay Jenkins 

The media performs a powerful role in the policy arena, not simply because its reporting informs the public, but because its editorial decisions have the potential to influence public opinion and determine which issues capture the public’s attention. In this report series, we explore the role of local Houston media outlets in shaping the narrative of bond reform. To provide some background: Since Harris County’s misdemeanor bond system was first declared unconstitutional by a federal district court in 2017, the county has implemented several reforms as part of the resulting settlement. Before the resolution of the lawsuit, indigent defendants were detained pretrial solely based on their inability to pay bond, while their wealthier counterparts could post bond and expect prompt release. The county corrected this wealth-based discrimination by requiring the majority of misdemeanor defendants to be released on personal recognizance bonds, which do not require an upfront cash payment. By providing defendants with a new system for bonding out of jail that does not discriminate based on income, the implemented reforms ensure that defendants are not prematurely punished with jail time—upholding the principle of a ‘presumption of innocence’ for the criminally accused, and preventing taxpayers from footing the bill for unnecessary weeks or months of incarceration. Yet despite the more equitable reforms to Harris County’s misdemeanor system, opponents of bond reform frequently criticize the changes. In Part I of this report series, we analyzed the impact of six Houston-area television stations, demonstrating that these outlets consistently provided a platform for opponents of bond reform to frame pretrial release as a threat to public safety, both through the propagation of false narratives and the exploitation of race-based disparities. In Part II, we turn to newspaper media, aiming to understand the Houston Chronicle’s coverage of bond. This report draws on a content analysis of ϰϵϵ news articles published by the Chronicle between January 2015 and December 2021. Stories qualified for selection if they discussed bond reform, bond debates, and/or people who allegedly committed crimes while released on bond. In the context of Harris County bond policies, the media contributes to the local discourse on bond in two major ways: 1) through its coverage of bond reform, which informs the public about the impetus for reform and the debates surrounding bond-related policy changes, and 2) through its coverage of crime, which concretizes these policy discussions by drawing the reader’s attention to specific cases involving bond. Through our analysis, we found that the Houston Chronicle provided balanced and informative coverage of bond reform, but the newspaper sacrificed its impartiality by disseminating negative coverage of legally innocent defendants who were rearrested while released on bond. The Chronicle can be commended for its balanced coverage of bond reform itself, but the impact of its biased crime coverage on the bond reform discourse should not be underestimated. Research demonstrates that much of the general public’s understanding of crime comes from consumption of mass media. Because the media has the discretion to determine which crime stories are newsworthy, the criminal cases elevated in the media are usually the most extreme, statistically rare cases, selected to capture the public’s attention. As a consequence of this disproportionate coverage of the most sensational cases, the public gains a distorted perception of crime that leads to heightened fear of victimization. In the context of bond, this distortion is achieved through the coverage of stories about a  defendant rearrested for a violent crime while released on bond. Although such an occurrence is statistically rare, its frequency is exaggerated in crime coverage, which has the effect of generating public fear of pretrial release. Crime coverage, therefore, has just as much potential to inform the public’s perspective on bond reform as news coverage that directly addresses bond policies. Though the ChƌŽŶicůe͛Ɛ crime coverage undeniably impacts the public’s perception of bond release, our analysis demonstrates that this coverage does little to inform the public about the arrest, bond, and case dismissal process. Our review of the criminal cases covered by the Chronicle reveals that many had not reached a disposition at the time of our analysis; it also reveals a high proportion of case dismissals among the cases that did reach a disposition. The high proportion of unresolved and dismissed cases shows these stories focus on unproven criminal allegations rather than convictionsͶcalling into question the utility of reporting on criminal cases prematurely. Criminal allegations are necessarily speculative and uncertain, and covering them requires reliance on the narratives of law enforcement and prosecutors, sources incentivized to insinuate guilt. Further, the strict coverage of arrests (versus actual case outcomes) results in a distorted and therefore misleading portrayal of crime and the criminal legal system. 

Austin: TEXAS CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUITY, 2022. 29p.

By Irene Oritseweyinmi Joe

While the public defender is critical to protecting individual rights in the U.S. criminal process, state governments take remarkably different approaches to distributing public defense services. Some states organize indigent defense as a function of the executive branch of state governance; others administer indigent defense through the judicial branch. The remaining state governments do not place the public defender within any branch of state government, instead delegating its management to local counties. This administrative choice has important implications for the public defender’s efficiency and effectiveness. It influences how the service will be funded and the extent to which the public defender, as an institution, will respond to the particular interests of its local community. So, which branch of government should oversee the public defender? Should the public defender exist under the same branch of government overseeing both the prosecutor and police—two entities the public defender seeks to hold accountable in the criminal process? Should the provision of services be housed under the judicial branch—although this branch is ordinarily tasked with being a neutral arbiter in criminal proceedings? Perhaps a public defender that is independent of statewide governance is ideal, even if that might render it a lesser player among the many government agencies battling at the state level for limited financial resources. This Article answers the question of state assignment by engaging in an original examination of each state’s architectural choices for the public defender. Its primary contribution is to enrich our current understanding of how each state manages the public defender and how that decision influences the institution’s funding and ability to adhere to ethical and professional mandates. It concludes the public defender should be an important executive function in this modern era of mass criminalization and articulates modifications that would improve such a state design by insulating it from pressure by other system actors.

106 Iowa L. Rev. 113 (2020)

By Irene Oritseweyinmi Joe and  Ben Miller 

Public defenders are tasked with the unenviable job of representing some of the most vulnerable people in society when they are accused of crimes. At the same time, public defenders receive little thanks for protecting the marginalized and instead face insurmountable odds with insufficient resources and limited public support. Premal Dharia, founder and director of the Defender Impact Initiative, said, “Public defenders are on the front lines of the devastation wrought by our system of mass criminalization and they are guided by an unwavering dedication to the very people being devastated.” As the coronavirus ravages communities, courtrooms, jails, and prisons, public defenders are now indispensable to confronting the epidemic. While not medical professionals, public defenders are the front line, often the only line, between their clients and incarceration. Since jails and prisons have become hotbeds of COVID-19, with infection rates exponentially larger than the general population, public defenders have the added task of not just protecting their clients’ rights, but also, in many cases, their lives. Dan Engelberg, the chief of the trial division for the Orleans Parish Public Defender in Louisiana, aptly characterized the efforts of public defenders nationwide over the last few weeks as “heroic and tireless” as they strive to protect the health, humanity, and lives of their clients. The Justice Collaborative Institute asked nearly 200 public defenders from across the country how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted their work and personal lives. The responses are revealing. Nearly half, as of April 2, 2020, reported clients incarcerated in correctional facilities with at least one confirmed case of COVID-19. Over 80%  did not think their local court systems were doing enough to protect the health and safety of their clients. (See Appendix for results from the questionnaire). Their concerns went beyond the spread of disease. Public defenders expressed anger over the perceived lack of empathy for their clients’ health, frustration with the many officials who treat their clients’ rights as disposable, and mental distress over the impact the virus is having on their clients, their loved ones, and themselves. Taken together, their responses form a powerful argument in support of policies, also popular among voters, to dramatically and urgently reduce jail and prison populations in response to COVID-19. The frontline accounts of public defenders reveal that far too many people in positions of authority continue to undermine public health and safety by processing far too many people daily into the criminal legal system, while at the same time failing to protect the millions of people behind bars. By doing so, they continue to place the lives of millions—people incarcerated at correctional facilities, people who go to work there, and people who live in surrounding communities—at grave risk. Law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and politicians should work with public defenders and urgently adopt policies to limit arrests, expand the use of cite and release, end cash bail, dismiss cases instead of needlessly dragging them out, and release as many people as possible from incarceration who do not reasonably pose a risk to public safety. Such steps can all be taken right now and are options public defenders across the country are advocating for, placing their personal health at risk in many cases, to do so.  

Davis, CA: UC Davis School of Law, 2020. 48p. 

By The Criminal Justice Alliance

A new report from the Criminal Justice Alliance (CJA) highlights the pressing need for greater racial diversity and inclusion within the criminal justice workforce and offers pragmatic solutions to address long-standing, systemic issues. Launched on 5 June, Beyond a numbers game is the result of a three-year examination of racial diversity and inclusion across the criminal justice system including the 2020 launch event featuring David Lammy MP and Rt Hon Robert Buckland KC MP. Beyond a numbers game comes in the wake of significant reports and reviews including the Macpherson Report, the Lammy Review, and the Casey Review, highlighting the presence of racism and its harmful impact on racially minoritised staff and those directly impacted by the system. The CJA acknowledges incremental progress has been made regarding recruitment of racially minoritised people in the criminal justice workforce but highlights the need for sector employers to go further and faster to promote retention and progression, as well as to address toxic workplace cultures. The report includes examples of good practice and checklists containing pragmatic solutions for criminal justice sector employers to consider creating a more inclusive, safe and positive work environment for all. It also provides recommendations for government to take a more joined-up and holistic approach to this issue across the CJS. ‘The launch of this report marks a crucial milestone in addressing the pressing need for greater diversity and inclusion within the criminal justice workforce. The CJA’s comprehensive analysis and recommendations provide a roadmap for positive change and offer hope for a more equitable and just system.’ Mark Blake, Policy Manager at the CJA commented. ‘We call upon stakeholders within the CJS to share the report and its recommendations, engaging in open conversations about implementing pragmatic steps. By working together, the criminal justice community can create environments that reflect the diverse populations they serve.’

Key findings:

Recruitment:

Criminal justice agencies’ poor reputation among underrepresented communities hinders diverse candidate recruitment.Targeted outreach, engagement, and addressing systemic issues are crucial to attract a wider range of candidates.Despite lots of activity to improve recruitment, it is inconsistent and positive action is underused.

Retention and Inclusion:

Racial discrimination and toxic workplace cultures are pervasive issues impacting staff safety, satisfaction and retention.Leadership commitment is often lacking and race equality initiatives are often inadequately resourced.Racially minoritised staff often take on the work of improving diversity and inclusion in addition to their day jobs and feel undervalued.

Progression:

Racially minoritised staff are often looked over for career development opportunities and promotions due to structural barriers, biased assessment processes, and lack of diversity in senior management positions.

High-level policy recommendations:

Tackling racial disparities:

Implement recommendations from race reports and improve adherence to the Public Sector Equality Duty.Publish progress updates, establish a database of policies and Equality Impact Assessments, and analyse cumulative impacts on racial groups.

Multi-agency approach:

Form a working group of government officials, criminal justice agency representatives, and race equality organizations.Develop consistent data collection, establish accountability mechanisms, and facilitate sharing of good practice examples.

Voluntary sector engagement:

The criminal justice voluntary sector should enhance recording and sharing of workforce data to measure progress effectively.

Resource allocation:

Allocate adequate resources, including investment in organizations promoting racial diversity and inclusion, as reparations for past harms. Key speakers at the launch event included Abimbola Johnson, prominent barrister and Chair of the Independent Scrutiny and Oversight Board for the Police Race Action Plan. Abimbola noted the devolved nature of decision-making and the lack of transparency, which hinder community scrutiny and make comparison between units and forces challenging. “Workforce reform requires ownership by all, not just the enthusiastic volunteers who frequently come from recially minoritised backgrounds.” Avtar Singh, HM Inspector of Probation, shared insights from the forthcoming two-year follow-up report on race in the criminal justice system. While acknowledging some progress, Avtar stressed that more work remains to be done. “What is important for probation as a whole, is to reflect the population in the local communities from which staff and service users are drawn.” Sarah Coccia, Executive Director of South Public Sector Prisons – HMPPS, underscored the need for collaboration across the entire criminal justice system. Sarah expressed the urgency to think differently and take long-term ambitions into account to avoid repeating the same challenges in the future “None of us works in isolation, system is fundamentally joined up – we need to not just look at our own bit but look across the system.”

Criminal Justice Alliance (UK), 2023.56p.

By Christopher Dowling, Anthony Morgan and Kamarah Pooley

This study examines reoffending among 1,092 male offenders proceeded against for a child sexual offence in New South Wales between 2004 and 2013, including 863 child sexual assault offenders, 196 child abuse material offenders and 33 procurement/ grooming offenders. Seven percent of child sexual offenders sexually reoffended within 10 years of their first police proceeding for a child sexual offence, while 42 percent non-sexually reoffended. Risk of sexual and non-sexual reoffending was highest in the first two years. Child sexual assault offenders were the most likely to reoffend non-sexually, while procurement/grooming offenders were the most likely to reoffend sexually. There was evidence of transition to other sexual offence types, but this varied between groups. Indigenous status, history of offending and the number of child sexual offences emerged as important predictors of reoffending, although risk profiles varied between offender types

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 628. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2021. 16p.

By Max Travers, Emma Colvin, Isabelle Bartkowiak Théron, Rick Sarre, Andrew Day, Christine Bond

In this paper we seek to review the rapid rise in remand in custody rates in Australia. In particular, and in response, we ask and discuss three specific questions:

1. To what extent do defendants applying for bail have vulnerabilities?

2. To what extent can risk analysis tools that seek to predict breach of bail terms be relied upon?

3. To what extent can the emerging pre-trial services programs in Australia reduce remand in custody populations?

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 610. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2020. 13p.

By Troy Allard,  Molly McCarthy and Anna Stewart

Reducing Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is justified on both social justice and economic grounds. We developed an innovative costing framework and estimated direct criminal justice system unit costs based on critical cost drivers. These estimates were applied to offender trajectories, modelling offences of all individuals registered as being born in Queensland during 1983–1984 (from ages 10 to 31). Separate trajectory models were developed for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Queenslanders in the birth cohort to enable separate cost estimations for these groups. Findings identified over one-half (53%) of the identified Indigenous cohort and 16 percent of the non-Indigenous cohort had moderate to chronic offender trajectories. Because of the high levels of recontact and sanction seriousness and length, Indigenous offenders were on average more costly. These findings emphasise the high cost of current criminal justice system responses to Indigenous and chronic offenders in particular and the need to consider innovative and more cost-effective approaches to reduce offending by individuals in these groups.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 594. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2020. 17p.

By Jim Quinn  

Since New York State’s 2019 bail reform went into effect, controversy has swirled around the question of its impact on public safety—as well as its broader success in creating a more just and equitable system. The COVID-19 pandemic (which hit three months after the bail reform’s effective date), the upheaval following the killing of George Floyd, and the subsequent enactment of various police and criminal justice reforms are confounding factors that make assessing the specific effects of the 2019 bail reform particularly complex. This paper attempts to give the public a better sense of the risks of this policy shift and the detrimental effect that the changes have had on public safety. First, I will lay out the content of the bail reform and will measure pertinent impacts on crime and re-offending rates. Then I will review changes made in the 2020 and 2022 amendments. I will look at the push for supervised release and closing Rikers Island and how those initiatives fed into the momentum behind these laws. Finally, I will propose recommendations to improve bail reform’s impact on public safety, which include: 1. Allow judges to set bail, remand, release on recognizance (ROR), or conditions of release for any crime and any defendant. There should be a presumption of release for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, which could be rebutted by the defendant’s prior record or other factors that indicate that the defendant is a flight risk. There should be a presumption of bail, remand, or nonmonetary conditions for defendants charged with violent felonies or weapons offenses. This presumption could also be rebutted by evidence of the defendant’s roots in the community, lack of criminal record, and similar factors

New York: The Manhattan Institute, 2022. 29p.

By Fionnuala Ratcliffe

Our criminal justice system in its current form is unsustainable. Long court backlogs, few crimes resolved, probation staff shortages. An ever-rising prison population despite prisons costing a disproportionate amount of taxpayer money and not working to reduce reoffending. One problem is that our criminal justice services - prisons, probation, courts, prosecution, and to some extent policing - are incredibly centralized. There is a lack of local ownership for crime prevention and reducing reoffending. Local agencies go cap in hand with the central government for funding, rather than fostering and supporting innovative solutions locally. Another issue is that many of the levers to prevent crime and reoffending - including health, employment, education, and housing - lie outside the criminal justice system. Local actors are not financially incentivized to tackle these drivers and invest to solve problems upstream. Public services work in silos rather than together toward common goals. We can reduce crime and make our communities safer by giving local leaders the right levers and incentives to tackle crime at a local level – by localizing justice services and budgets. What would localized justice services look like? — Delegation of justice budgets for prison places, magistrates’ courts’ administration, policing, prosecution, and probation to police and crime commissioners or mayors — Pooling of criminal justice resources so that local services work together towards a shared aim and share any savings made — Financially incentivizing local services to shift investment upstream from enforcement to prevention, by allowing them to benefit from the savings from investment — Local management of probation and of the administration of magistrates’ courts and the CPS. Prisons and Crown Courts continue to be managed nationally  Prosecutorial and judicial independence are maintained through the continued use of nationally agreed prosecution and sentencing guidelines. — Standards monitored through inspectorate, effective community scrutiny, and a newly created interdepartmental board This paper sets out how localizing criminal justice services will: — Reduce crime — Reduce waste in criminal justice system spending — Increase trust and confidence in the criminal justice system — Improve the experience of victims

2023. 13p.

By Fionnuala Ratcliffe and Penelope Gibbs

How easy are the magistrates’ courts to access, navigate and understand? This report seeks to answer that question, drawing on the experiences of 82 volunteer members of the public observing their local magistrates’ courts over six months in 2023. CourtWatch London was a mass court observation project where citizen volunteers observed magistrates’ court hearings and reported what they saw. From July to December 2023, a diverse group of 82 volunteer members of the public (court watchers) visited their local London magistrates’ courts armed with a booklet of observation forms and a small amount of training. Between them they observed over 1,100 hearings and reported on the treatment of defendants, the decision-making of magistrates and district judges, and their experiences of attending the magistrates’ court as a public observer. This report summarises courtwatchers’ experiences of trying to observe magistrates’ court hearings and the barriers they faced. Their reflections on the justice they saw delivered there and specifically how young adult defendants were treated, are reported on separately. The courts are in principle open to any who want to observe, for whatever reason. Despite this, volunteers were sometimes severely constrained by a court system that has deprioritized public access. For example, court watchers could not hear court proceedings from many of the public galleries. The response from court staff towards volunteers bringing this to their attention ranged from assistance to puzzlement to hostility. Our efforts to alert senior London court representatives to the issue seemed to go unnoticed. Courtwatchers should not have needed to justify their presence but were asked to do so all too frequently. Staff questioning of public observers may be well-intentioned, but had potential to intimidate an unconfident observer. Inaccurate court lists, poor sightlines and courtroom jargon also made it difficult for courtwatchers to work out what was happening. All this sends a message to public observers that you can be there, but it is not the court’s problem if you do not understand what is going on. This report includes recommendations for how the courts can become more open, including: sending ‘secret shoppers’ into courts to check accessibility for members of the public; auditing audibility in courtroom public galleries and fixing any problems this reveals; better and fuller court listings online and in paper; and training for court staff and judges to re-prioritise the principles of open justice.

London: Transform Justice, 2024. 23p.  

By Ionnuala Ratcliffe and Penelope Gibbs

How are young adults treated in the magistrates’ courts? How, if at all, is their maturity considered and taken into account by the court? This report seeks to answer these questions, based on testimony from 82 courtwatchers, volunteer members of the public who observed London magistrates’ courts for six months in the second half of 2023. Sentencing Council guidelines recognise the potential impact of young adults’ developing maturity on their responsibility for an offence, their ability to cope with a prison or community sentence, and their capacity to participate effectively in court proceedings. Courtwatchers observed almost 200 hearings involving a young adult defendant. They reported that maturity was mentioned in less than a third of hearings observed. When maturity was raised, it usually wasn’t covered in depth, rather “mentioned as an aside, no specific arguments made.” Some maturity arguments applied specifically to the offence or defendant: on the young adult’s susceptibility to peer pressure, their difficulties assessing risk, the potential impact of a court sanction on their education or employment, and their potential for rehabilitation. But these were few and far between. When mentioned, arguments about maturity did sometimes prompt the court to reduce the severity of the sentence given, or at least to postpone sentencing until they had more information about the defendant. But most of the time, comments about maturity were dismissed by court decision makers or deprioritised compared to other factors. Courtwatchers observed young adults being treated much the same as older defendants, with little direct engagement with young adult defendants, frequent use of the secure dock and challenges arranging interpreters. This report sets out recommendations for how the courts can deal with young adult defendants more effectively by considering maturity more thoroughly. 

London: Transform Justice, 2024. 31p.

By Fionnuala Ratcliffe and Penelope Gibbs

This report summarises findings from CourtWatch London, a mass court observation project where citizen volunteers observed magistrates’ court hearings and reported what they saw. From July to December 2023, a diverse group of 82 volunteer members of the public (courtwatchers) visited their local London magistrates’ courts armed with a booklet of observation forms and a small amount of training. Between them they observed over 1,100 hearings, reporting on the treatment of defendants, the decision-making of magistrates and district judges, and their experiences of attending magistrates’ court as a public observer. This report focuses on courtwatchers’ observations of the court process and the court’s decision-making. We have written separate reports on their experiences of being a public observer trying to access and understand the courts, and their reflections on how young adult defendants are treated. Our first report - “Why are you here?” Open justice in London magistrates’ courts - highlights how court watchers found it hard to comprehend the court system. Their observations suggested defendants were struggling too. People cannot have a fair trial without a clear understanding of what they are accused of, what is happening in court, and the implications of the court process. Our court watchers observed magistrates’ courts often falling short. Defendants were usually physically isolated from the rest of the courtroom in the secure dock, where it was all too easy to ignore them for the majority of the hearing. A significant minority of defendants appeared without a lawyer. Courtwatchers felt that unrepresented defendants were severely disadvantaged by their lack of legal advice, even though court staff and judges made efforts to explain things. Defendants who needed interpreters were some of the worst served by the court. And court watchers were alarmed to see hearings going ahead despite some defendants being unwell. Despite these concerns, courtwatchers felt judgments made were overall fair, reasoned and practical. They appreciated magistrates and judges who took the time to get to the bottom of things and to find the most productive solution for the individual in front of them. Court watchers were most frustrated by what seemed to them ineffective or counterproductive sanctions. This included fines and other court costs which had to be paid by people of severely limited means, or punitive sentences given to people with serious drug addiction or mental health problems which did nothing to address those issues. Our court watchers also felt some time was wasted on cases that should not have been in court at all. Court watchers usually agreed with the court’s decision to remand people, although their reports highlighted some examples where bail might have been more appropriate. A few court watchers picked up on inconsistencies in how defendants were dealt with which they saw as evidence of racial bias.  Court watchers were shocked by what they perceived to be the inefficiency of courts. They expected hearings to start on time and to run continuously throughout the day. They were concerned that the valuable time of the many professionals in the room was being wasted. It was hard for courtwatchers to work out why so little was happening since court staff and judges seldom explained the delays. As court watchers gained experience, they gradually discerned the reasons - prosecution and defense advocates who didn’t have the right information in advance, nor the time to prepare for hearings, defendants not turning up for their hearing (often through no fault of their own) and technology which didn’t work well. The fundamental flaw in our court system highlighted by court watchers - that many defendants don’t know what’s happening in the court and so can’t meaningfully participate in the process - needs urgent action. We need simpler court proceedings so the process is intelligible to a layperson, and legal aid is available for a wider range of circumstances. At the very least, we recommend introducing a support service for defendants, available in every magistrates’ court. The use of court fines should be reduced, particularly for people whose poverty was a contributing factor to their offence. Fines should be replaced with sentences which instead address the drivers of crime. To improve court efficiency, research should be commissioned to understand the main causes of court delays and how they might be addressed. Meanwhile, the number of cases listed could be reduced by discontinuing some very old ones and encouraging the police to offer more out of court resolutions for lower-level crimes. This project shows the power and potential of court watching in England and Wales. The commitment from our volunteers to observe and report on over 1,100 hearings shows that ordinary people are willing to give their time and energy to hold our courts accountable. Their reflections, which focused on access, fairness and effectiveness, bring a unique perspective to the scrutiny of our courts. The act of courtwatching itself changed how many of our volunteers viewed the justice system and those who get into trouble with the law. And it’s possible that courtwatcher presence played a small role in encouraging the courts they observed to be fairer and more compassionate towards those who are swept up in our justice system

London: Transform Justice, 2024.   55p.