By Kisha Bird, Caitlin Dawkins, and Lisa Johnson

Too many young people cycle in and out of prison, jails, and detention centers and face probation and parole conditions that keep them locked out of opportunity. These interactions with the criminal justice system demand the need for both equitable practices and programs that support second chances and large-scale investments in decarceration. They also require critical analysis and undoing of historical policies that manifest in an unequal and unjust criminal justice system. From Surviving to Thriving: Supporting Transformation, Reentry and Connections to Employment for Young Adults, from FHI 360 and CLASP, offers practical programmatic solutions that support second chances for young people and raise policy and systems considerations to address equity, collateral consequences, and opportunity. The report features insights of best practices from nine communities that are part of the Compass Rose Collaborative (CRC). Launched in 2017, the CRC began as a three-year program funded by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The CRC connects young adults ages 18-24 who have had contact with the juvenile justice or criminal justice system to employment, education pathways, and supportive services across nine communities. Policymakers and practitioners can use this analysis to increase equity and access to jobs and education for young people in need of another chance and in navigating the converging fields of workforce development, education, and criminal justice. Ultimately, the lessons shared here can offer a variety of stakeholders, including public agencies and employers, a roadmap to better understand strategies to support dismantling structural barriers and implementing strategies that support young adults on a journey of transformation and connectedness.

Washington, DC: CLASP, 2020. 28p.

By Ireland. Department of Health, Ireland. Department of Justice

It is increasingly recognised that the criminal justice system and in particular prison are not suitable to address the specific needs and challenges of those with mental health and drug addictions. The two reports of the Interdepartmental Group (IDG) to examine issues relating to people with mental illness who come in contact with the Criminal Justice System (dating from 2012 and 2018) contain recommendations on addressing the issues around this complex challenge. The Programme for Government: Our Shared Future is committed to the establishment of a Task Force to consider the mental health and addiction issues of persons in prison and primary care support on release. It also acknowledged the recent Mental Health Policy Sharing the Vision (StV) and committed to establishing the National Implementation and Monitoring Committee to oversee this work. The task force had three subgroups focused on three key elements to holistically meet these needs going forward; One subgroup, on Diversion, chaired by a member of An Garda Síochána, focused on diverting individuals with mental illness who have committed minor offences from progressing into the criminal justice system, in the best interests of both the public and the individual concerned. A second subgroup, on Irish Prison Service/Central Mental Hospital Capacity, which was chaired by an Irish Prison Service Director, examined the existing and future needs of individuals within the custodial criminal justice system. The objective of this group was to ensure that there is adequate provision of services to meet the mental health and dual diagnosis needs of those in prison. A third subgroup  examined community issues and through-care upon release from custody, and was chaired by the Director of the Probation Service. The objective of this group was to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place and adequate provision of services to prevent individuals from relapsing into damaging behaviours undermining the rehabilitative efforts made by the individual and the State. Overall, the Taskforce has put forward 61 recommendations which emphasise the shared responsibility of a number of Government Departments and agencies to deliver on meeting the needs of those with mental health and addiction challenges who come into contact with the criminal justice system.

Key actions include:

• Progressive and empathetic approach by Gardaí to dealing with offenders with mental health and addiction challenges, informed by mental health and addiction awareness training for Gardaí 

• Efficient and effective means of implementing a prosecution avoidance policy when Garda members come in contact with adults with mental illness and addiction, through the adult caution scheme

• The establishment of a pilot specialist dual diagnosis service to support prisoners with a mental health condition and substance misuse in a prison, to inform roll-out across the entire prison estate

• Access to tiered mental health supports that are recovery-oriented for every person with mental health difficulties coming into contact with the forensic system

• Reducing attrition by maintaining engagement and motivation at the point of release, including through the use of community-agreed discharge plans for prisoners (identifying multi-agency supports required).

  Dublin: Department of Health; Department of Justice.2022. 231p.

By Amy Pisani, Sara Rahman, Madeleine Griffiths and Suzanne Poynton

To determine which factors of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), are influential in first-court bail decisions in NSW Local Courts, and the reasons why courts release adult defendants who have already been refused bail by police. METHOD We descriptively and thematically analysed a dataset combining observations of 252 first court bail hearings in the NSW Local Court between February and May 2023, and administrative data from the BOCSAR Re-offending Database (ROD) and the New South Wales (NSW) Police Force’s Computerised Operational Policing System. We supplemented these data with a thematic analysis of 40 interviews with criminal justice stakeholders involved in adult bail proceedings in NSW Local Courts. RESULTS Of the 252 observations where police had refused bail, 110 defendants (44%) were released on bail by the court, with six released unconditionally, 12% were finalised at first appearance or had their bail dispensed with, and 44% had their bail refused by the court. Similar to prosecutors and police, magistrates were most concerned with a defendant’s criminal history and the nature and seriousness of the offence, and to a lesser extent defendant vulnerabilities and needs, when determining bail. There was also general agreement between police/prosecutors and the courts regarding bail concerns, with both parties most frequently identifying reoffending and endangering the safety of victims/community as their primary concerns. Two main differences between police and court decisions emerged from the analysis. Firstly, while magistrates identified bail concerns in the majority of matters observed, they were often satisfied that these risks could be mitigated by bail conditions. The bail conditions most commonly imposed were accommodation (82%), reporting (60%), non-contact orders (47%), and place restrictions (34%). Secondly, police rarely grant bail to people charged with show cause offences, whereas 55% of defendants charged with a show cause offence, who were refused bail by police, were able to successfully demonstrate to the court why their detention was not justified. Stakeholders reported that this occurred because police prioritise community and victim safety, have limited access to information from defendants and legal representatives, and do not apply discretion when applying the show cause requirement. CONCLUSION Legal factors, such as criminal history and seriousness of offences, are the most influential factors in both the police and courts’ bail decisions. However, magistrates who are legally trained, less subject to time pressures, and can be informed by legal practitioners, are more able to thoroughly assess show cause requirements and the suitability of bail conditions at the first court bail hearing. In the absence of these factors, police are more risk-averse  

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2024. 42p.

By Brandon L. Garrett

In response to wrongful convictions, there has been a revolution in criminal procedure and research in law and science. This review seeks to summarize the cross-disciplinary explosion in work studying known wrongful convictions, examining their causes, and assessing policy reforms designed to help detect and prevent errors in criminal justice. Scholars have increasingly studied the characteristics of known wrongful-conviction cases, including by analyzing archival records and by creating public registries of exonerations. Scholars have conducted research in law, psychology, statistics, criminology, and other disciplines, as well as interdisciplinary research, designed to better understand the phenomenon of wrongful convictions and how to prevent errors. Scientific bodies, such as the National Academy of Sciences, have made important recommendations based on this research. Furthermore, the conversation is global, with litigation, research, and policy work across jurisdictions. A wide range of jurisdictions have adopted noteworthy changes designed to safeguard crucial types of evidence, such as confession, forensic, and eyewitness evidence, during police investigations and at trial. As a result, law and science have increasingly come together to produce tangible improvements to criminal justice.

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2020. 3:245–59

By Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler

Under current policy all persons — not just citizens — are included in the population count when apportioning seats to states in the U.S. House of Representatives and for votes in the Electoral College, which is based on House seats. Although we focus on the next census in 2020, the impact of immigration has been building for decades as the number of people settling in the country has increased dramatically. This report examines the cumulative impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on the apportionment of House seats; this is not an analysis of the impact of immigration only since the previous census. Apportionment is a zero-sum system; by adding more population to some states rather than others, immigration will continue to significantly redistribute political power in Washington.

Among the findings:

The 2020 census will show that the presence of all immigrants (naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens) and their U.S.-born minor children is responsible for a shift of 26 House seats. This is the cumulative impact of immigration, not the change from the previous census.To put this number in perspective, changing the party of 21 members of the current Congress would flip the majority in the U.S. House. The 26 seats represent the effect of all immigrants and their children 17 years of age and younger, and is not the change from one census to another.Ohio will have three fewer seats in 2020 than it otherwise would have had but for the presence of all immigrants and their minor children in other states. Michigan and Pennsylvania will have two fewer; and Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin will each have one fewer seat. California will have 11 more seats in 2020 than it otherwise would have; New York and Texas will have four more seats each; Florida will have three more seats; New Jersey will have two more seats; and Illinois and Massachusetts will each have one additional seat.Of the 26 seats that will be lost, 24 are from states that voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Of states that will gain House seats because of immigration, 19 seats will go to the solidly Democratic states of California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois. Texas is the only solidly Republican state that gains, while Florida is a swing state.Doing the same calculation, but counting only immigrants themselves (naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, guestworkers, foreign students and illegal aliens), but not their U.S.-born minor children, will redistribute 18 seats in the House in 2020. Ohio will have two fewer seats than it otherwise would have had but for the presence of immigrants in other states. Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia will each have one fewer seat. California will have seven more seats in 2020 than it otherwise would. New York and Florida will have three more each; Texas and New Jersey will have two more seats; and Illinois will have one more seat.Looking at non-citizens and their U.S.-born minor children redistributes 10 seats, with Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island each having one fewer seat. California will have four more seats than it otherwise would have; Texas will have three more seats; and New York, Florida, and New Jersey will have one additional seat each.Looking at only non-citizens (legal residents and illegal immigrants) redistributes eight seats, with Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Alabama, Idaho, West Virginia, and Rhode Island each having one fewer seat in 2020 due to the presence of non-citizens in other states. California will have three additional seats; Texas will have two more seats; and Florida, New Jersey, and New York will each have one more seat.Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born minor children will redistribute five seats in 2020, with Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, Minnesota, and West Virginia each losing one seat in 2020 that they otherwise would have had. California and Texas will each have two additional seats, and New York will have one additional seat.Illegal immigrants alone in the 2020 census will redistribute three seats, with Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota each having one fewer seat than they otherwise would have had, while California, New York, and Texas will have one additional seat.

Center for Immigration Studies, 2019. 11p.

By Tirion Havard, Sarah Bartley, Ian Mahoney,  Chris Magill,  Chris Flood

This research was funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the British Academy, as part of their Understanding Communities programme. The research involved collaboration between four higher-education institutions, namely London South Bank University, The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, Nottingham Trent University and the University of Brighton. Partnerships were also formed with local and national organisations, including Clean Break Theatre Company, Restoke and Staffordshire Women’s Aid. The research focused on two communities: women with convictions (WwC) in Staffordshire and residents of Stoke-on-Trent. It used a mixed methodological approach that involved designing and delivering an arts-based transformative justice (TJ) intervention, undertaking ethnographic observations, running focus groups and conducting interviews with TJ experts. The overarching aims of this project were to see: • if TJ can effectively facilitate social cohesion and promote equality within local communities (for the purposes of this research, ‘equality’ is appraised by exploring strengths, assets, attributes, connectedness, enhanced individual welfare and social well-being); • if TJ can effectively support WwC to reintegrate and resettle into their local communities. To achieve these aims, we set out to explore and meet the following objectives: i. Identify the needs of and barriers faced by WwC when they try to resettle/reintegrate into their local community. ii. Identify and activate the strengths, assets and attributes that local communities can bring to the reintegration and engagement of WwC. iii. Determine the suitability of an arts-based approach to TJ for improving community cohesion. iv. Establish whether TJ can support the reintegration of WwC into their local community by making them feel stronger, more equal and more connected, and assess the broader impact this has on community cohesion. v. Establish whether TJ can enhance individual welfare and social well-being for both WwC and local residents and measure the costeffectiveness of the approach. vi.Inform policy and practice about the needs of WwC and how best to meet them through community-led interventions. vii. Contribute to the literature and knowledge base about using TJ to engage and integrate communities within a UK context. viii. Promote the personal and professional development of all those involved in the project. As a conceptual framework, TJ focuses on overcoming ingrained social and structural barriers to engagement and justice issues including the social, political and economic status of communities and the individuals within them. In focusing on community accountability for crime, victimisation and subsequent support for victims and people convicted of offences, TJ recognises that patriarchal social structures can legitimise violence, particularly towards women, and that the state, in this case the criminal justice system (CJS), perpetuates cycles of abuse and (re) traumatises people. TJ is vital for understanding and exploring societal attitudes to justice, and to engage with difficult conversations around the role that communities can play in addressing the harms associated with the actions of people within them  

Lonron; Nuffield Foundation, 2024. 86p.

By Lore Joplin, Justice System Partners, Maureen McDonnell, , et al.

In January 2023, California became the first state in the nation to receive approval from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for a Medicaid Section 1115 demonstration request to amend Medicaid’s inmate exclusion. People detained in jails and prisons have high rates of chronic and acute health needs, including physical, mental health, and substance disorders and reentry is a high-risk time. A key to addressing these reentry risks is addressing people’s health needs while they are incarcerated and building continuity of care from jail to community when they are released. California’s waiver, called California’s Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM), and the specific component focused on individuals who are transitioning out of the criminal justice system, the Justice Involved (JI) initiative, will for the first time provide a targeted set of Medicaid-covered services right before someone is released from prison or jail. These services aim to smooth reentry transitions from jail and prison to the community, establish better connections to community-based providers at release, and enhance access to necessary care and support. California’s approach is designed to reduce the high risk of post- release mortality, morbidity, and other adverse outcomes, including repeat contact with the criminal justice system, by bringing Medicaid financing and coverage standards to bear. The work to implement California’s waiver and make these changes a reality is demanding, involving multiple partners at the state, county, and local level who have not previously worked together at this level of vital cross-system collaboration. Implementation of these changes is well underway, and county-level changes will roll out over the next two years, starting in October 2024. This paper highlights California’s implementation approach, focusing on the county-level impacts on jails, health care providers, and reentry processes. It also explores several implementation challenges and the steps the state and the counties have taken thus far to implement this change.

Safety and Justice Challenge. Org: 2024. 42p.

By  Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) provides additional funding to law enforcement agencies implementing programs to deter dangerous driving. As a condition, agencies must report the number of traffic stop warnings and tickets issued to the state’s STEP grant administrator. Agencies risk reduced funding if found to be not “productive” by issuing a sufficient amount of citations. Police departments in Alabama use these federal grants to drive economic sanctions by paying patrol officers overtime to be “productive” and rewarding the “most active” officers with more overtime at the end of the year; those found to be not “productive” face suspension from the program in some departments. Using municipal budgets and audits, legal records of those ticketed and arrested over court debt, and federal and state grant data, this report examines the incentives that drive policing decisions in Alabama and highlights how traffic stops–primarily regulatory and economic stops–harm low-wealth people. The report also includes personal accounts of individuals who faced court debt and provides recommendations for law enforcement, courts, and lawmakers.

Key Findings:

68 percent of law enforcement agencies statewide that received STEP funding issued more warnings to speeders than to drivers with car insurance violations —who instead received tickets.Cleburne County adds an additional $30 fee to the base of their fines for planning, designing, constructing, furnishing, equipping, and financing a county jail.Findings from two municipal budgets showed revenue from fines and fees is volatile.In 2021, the Anniston Police Department was twice as likely to issue tickets for an insurance violation than a warning when compared to those stopped for speeding.  Drivers who miss enough payments or court appearances are issued a suspended driver’s license and an order for arrest.

Recommendations:

Alabama police departments should look into how the prioritization of moving violations over equipment and regulatory stops by the Fayetteville Police Department in North Carolina has reduced traffic fatalities, injuries, and racial disparities.Courts should hold ability to pay hearings before ordering an arrest or placing a person on payment plans.Lawmakers should require publicly available reporting on all traffic stops.

Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, 2023. 36p.

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.